It is a solemn moment when a member of Parliament or a senator takes their seat. Each parliamentarian must first pledge to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the sovereign, a literal oath of loyalty.
That is the heart of the matter over the actions of the unnamed MPs or senators who colluded with foreign powers for their own benefit, according to this week’s report on foreign interference from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
Perhaps those parliamentarians broke the law. But they most assuredly violated their pledge to bear “true allegiance” – to put the interests of Canada before their own. That is an affront to the trust of Canadians, and an affront to the honour of Parliament.
The remedy to that affront must start with the disclosure, in the House of Commons, of those named in the unredacted version of the NSICOP report. The Liberals are brusquely refusing to release those names, with Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc claiming that doing so would violate the due process of any criminal proceeding, and that no country would ever disclose such sensitive intelligence. At the same time, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland promises that the Liberals will conduct an internal review.
None of those lines of defence hold up. Ms. Freeland will not even commit to the expulsion of Liberal caucus members who colluded with a foreign power. That fact alone exposes the measure as a transparent attempt at damage control.
There is a more fundamental question, however: why is that review only now beginning? Was the government not aware of the matters articulated in the NSICOP report? If not, then a housecleaning is in order. It is much more likely that the government was aware but did nothing (once again) until the spotlight of public scrutiny forced it to scramble.
Mr. LeBlanc’s claims are similarly thin. The minister contends that no country would ever publicly air such sensitive intelligence. There is one very pertinent, and recent, example: Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood in the House in September to disclose allegations that agents of the Indian government were implicated in the shooting death of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
It is Mr. Trudeau who exercised the power to redact the names; he can also choose to unredact them. (Indeed, the deletions in the report go to ridiculous lengths, even erasing in several instances the names of countries alleged to have engaged in malicious activities in Canada.)
Just as disingenuous are Mr. LeBlanc’s statements that it is up to the criminal justice system to deal with such misbehaviour. That ignores the legal quandary that the NSICOP report pinpoints: Intelligence agencies are often unwilling to share sensitive information if it would be disclosed in open court. The Liberals can proclaim their faith in the RCMP taking action while knowing that the Mounties are hamstrung.
David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, took note of that “extremely complex” reality in testimony Thursday before the Commons standing committee on public safety and national security, pointing out that there are other ways to impose sanctions on parliamentarians. They could be ejected from a party caucus or barred from running under a party’s banner, he said.
Mr. Vigneault made a critical point in his testimony: Without consequences for collusion, foreign powers will be emboldened to act even more aggressively. That underscores the stakes in the Liberals’ refusal to disclose the names of complicit parliamentarians. Mr. LeBlanc’s statement that such a step imperils national security is precisely wrong: failing to do so sharpens the threat of foreign interference.
Then there is the matter of the trust of Canadians, and the honour of Parliament. No Canadian should be expected to cast a vote unsure whether a candidate on the ballot is in cahoots with a foreign power to distort the electoral system.
And Parliament cannot allow collaborators within its ranks. It is not enough that party leaders merely take note of those who have violated their oath, and quietly refuse to sign their nomination papers in next year’s election.
The government must name those parliamentarians. Those so accused can present their defence in the House and the Senate. And for those parliamentarians who failed to bear true allegiance – they should be expelled forthwith by a vote of their (truly loyal) peers.