David McLaughlin is a former chief of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney.
Politicians love to demand openness and accountability – until their own parties are the targets.
Only this logic can explain the persistent unwillingness of Parliament to confront the public outrage over revelations that some parliamentarians wittingly or semi-wittingly colluded with foreign governments such as China and India to interfere in our democratic processes. This information was set out last June in a Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
Canadians were shocked, perhaps naively, that this was so. But with the actual names and corroborating intelligence redacted from the report, all one can do is speculate. Who are these parliamentarians and just how serious were their actions?
Since then, Canadians have been treated to a type of playground politics, with one side chanting “I know something you don’t know,” while the other sings “nah, nah, nah,” with their fingers firmly planted in their ears.
The name game is the new blame game on Parliament Hill.
Edifying, this is not. Neither has been the tortuous process of finally establishing a public inquiry led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue. But her inquiry won’t name names either. She has cited individual rights before the law and procedural fairness to avoid publicly accusing anyone of collaborating with foreign powers in her final report.
There are two issues at play, both revolving around public confidence in our democratic institutions. First is public confidence that Canada’s electoral and democratic processes remain free from foreign interference. Second, is public confidence in Parliament and the representatives who sit in it.
The Hogue inquiry is addressing the first. Only Parliament itself can address the second.
Complicating all this is the concern expressed by government officials that naming names would actually compromise national security since it could reveal secret intelligence gathering sources, something no security agency wants.
It is a classic Catch-22. We are literally being told that the circumstances of knowing prevent that knowledge from being known.
Squaring this circle appears impossible. But there is a way.
That way, ironically, is through secrecy that Parliament itself guarantees. It’s called a secret sitting and is set out in House of Commons guidelines for “special or unusual sittings of the House.” They state that “the House has the privilege, the historical right, and the authority to conduct its proceedings in private.” It can do so at any time. No published record of proceedings occurs so the information shared in the secret sitting is not then disseminated. This same mechanism exists in the British and Australian parliaments. A simple approved motion in the House activates it.
Precedent exists for using this special mechanism. Four times in the past, Canada did so, all during wartime when governments wanted to share crucial military information with MPs without revealing it to the enemy. Australia and Britain also did so during the Second World War. The last time Britain’s House of Commons held a secret session was in 2001, when it considered the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in the wake of 9/11.
During such a secret session, the Prime Minister could provide the names of implicated MPs of all parties without publicly compromising their individual rights. The leader of the Opposition would now know the names without needing advance special security status or briefings. And since all names from all parties would be revealed, it would be non-partisan in nature.
Since the House is its own master, it can adjust its rules of procedure to take all the proper security safeguards for such a session. This includes clearing the galleries of visitors (“strangers” in traditional parliamentary parlance) along with any unnecessary staff and officials. All electronic devices carried by MPs would be prohibited. House leaders would agree in advance on these and other temporary rules such as the method for briefing MPs, the type of information provided, and setting the parameters for questions and debate.
Unusual times call for unusual measures. This would be a way for Parliament to act responsibly. If this is the serious issue our politicians say it is, then they need to act seriously in dealing with it. While this will obviously not satisfy calls for the public to know, it does place the onus on addressing issues with our parliamentarians squarely where it belongs – with our political representatives.
These revelations and Parliament’s response to them are now a matter of public disrepute.
When there are questions about MP and senator behaviour tarnishing the reputation of Parliament, then Parliament has a duty to address it for its own sake. It cannot say it does not have the means to do so.