Stephanie Carvin and Philippe Lagassé are associate professors of international affairs at Carleton University.
The shocking report released by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) last week is the stuff of democratic nightmares. In brief, the committee reported that when it comes to foreign interference, the call is coming from inside the houses: several parliamentarians may be working with foreign governments in ways that undermine Canada’s national security and democratic institutions. Notably, these parliamentarians may have unknowingly received donations from foreign governments, while at least one is alleged to have passed confidential information to foreign agents.
NSICOP’s report has been met with outrage and demands that the government name the parliamentarians in question. We agree that the situation is serious and presents a clear danger to Canadian democracy. Yet, calls for the government to openly name names ignore the risks involved.
The most obvious risk is that disclosing too much, too soon, would disrupt both criminal and intelligence investigations. Foreign agents and proxies, possibly under surveillance as a part of much wider national security investigation, would learn that their activities are being monitored. These individuals could then go dark or flee the country, eliminating the chance for prosecution. Worse, having learned they are under investigation, these foreign agents and proxies might be able to identify sensitive sources and methods used to gather information.
Second, simply naming the parliamentarians would not be enough – there would be demands to know what they’ve each done to warrant being named and calls to see evidence against them. This, too, would expose the tools used by the intelligence agencies, undermining not only current investigations, but their use in future ones as well.
Third, although it is doubtful NSICOP would be so bold in their assessments if they did not trust in the assessments they have read, intelligence is not evidence. Such a public denunciation without clear evidence to back it up could ruin lives and reputations.
So what can be done? The answer lies with party leaders, who have the ability to address these allegations in a way that balances action, accountability, and the security of information.
Leaders from all parties should agree to be briefed on the intelligence about parliamentarians who may have been compromised. They could do so by being made privy councillors if they are not already, and then being granted a security clearance for the purpose of reviewing the intelligence in question. Once they have reviewed the intelligence, they should judge what actions should be taken regarding the parliamentarians who belong to their parties.
Campbell Clark: Even the spies think the rush to name foreign interference collaborators is rash
The actions available to party leaders could range from giving those who acted unwittingly with a warning and resources to avoid getting embroiled with foreign powers in the future, to removing them from committees, to expelling them from the party caucus, thereby forcing them to sit as independents and preventing them from running under their party’s banner during the next election.
If a leader judges that a parliamentarian should be expelled from caucus, a high-level explanation would be that the intelligence warranted this outcome. The expelled parliamentarian would still be free to deny that they have been compromised in any way, and they may never face any criminal charges.
This would, of course, still damage their reputation and likely end their parliamentary career. But parliamentarians have been expelled from caucus for far less. If allegations of fraud warrant expulsion from caucus, as they have in the past, then surely concerns about colluding with foreign powers do, too.
To put it bluntly, nobody is owed a seat in caucus or in Parliament, and party leaders have a duty to ensure that their members are not undermining national security or our democratic institutions for personal gain. If nothing is done, furthermore, compromised parliamentarians may be emboldened, and future politicians could fail to appreciate the consequences of cozying up to foreign governments.
Dealing with senators who may have been compromised will be more difficult, as only one party sits in the same caucus as members of Parliament. Still, allegations of foreign interference should force the Senate to find ways to keep its house in order.
Relying on party leaders to deal with potentially compromised parliamentarians is not ideal. This approach will not satisfy those calling for all the intelligence and allegations to be made public, nor will it afford the suspected parliamentarians with due process or a fair hearing. But if the choice is between some accountability and safeguards within Parliament or none at all, we should demand that our party leaders act, while protecting our national security investigations.