Poilievre would accept CSIS briefing if spy agency has any concerns about his caucus or party

Open this photo in gallery:

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s office says Canadian Security Intelligence Service officials can brief him if federal officials feel there are foreign-interference concerns about his party or caucus that should be brought to his attention.

Mr. Poilievre is still resisting calls by political rivals to read a classified copy of last week’s intelligence watchdog report that said some federal politicians are collaborating with foreign powers. He would also need to obtain a security clearance to read the unredacted version of this report.

The report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) also mentions alleged interference by China and India in Conservative leadership races. The public version of the report does not offer any details on this.

The Official Opposition Leader’s office said it would welcome a briefing by CSIS on any outstanding security concerns.

“The government, through CSIS, as authorized by section 12.1 of the CSIS Act, could at any time utilize threat reduction measures to notify the leader of a political party of issues concerning national security that are relevant to them and may necessitate action,” Sam Lilly, press secretary to the opposition leader, said in a statement.

“This tool has been available to the government since 2015,” he said. “The government could use it to inform Mr. Poilievre of information they believe he needs to know.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May have already read the unredacted version of the NSICOP report and its findings on how some parliamentarians are “semi-witting or witting” participants in foreign-interference efforts.

Their reactions differed substantially. Mr. Singh told reporters he was more alarmed after reading it, adding that the report describes what he called criminal behaviour by some politicians – people he said he would consider “traitors to the country.” Ms. May, on the other hand, said perusing the report left her “vastly relieved.”

The Conservatives argue that the conditions of access to the classified version of the report are not worth it, saying they feel this would come with restrictions that would muzzle Mr. Poilievre from subsequently talking freely on the matter. “If a member of Parliament received such a briefing, they would then be sworn to secrecy on what they learned,” Mr. Lilly said.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc on Friday again urged Mr. Poilievre to reconsider. “I think it’s useful for party leaders to take advantage of the government offer to review the unredacted report and I think it’s a shame that Mr. Poilievre is not interested in that.”

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said he is undergoing the process necessary to read the unredacted NSICOP report.

In a statement Thursday, he remarked on the Singh and May interpretations of the report and their subsequent comments to media. “They read the same report, and while one says she is reassured, the other seems alarmed by what they read,” Mr. Blanchet said.

Speaking to a radio show in Kitchener, Ont., Friday, Ms. May said the only difference between Mr. Singh’s and her reaction was one of tone. “The words traitor and treason are, I would say, too hot – not justified in law at this point.” After reading the report, “I was relieved because there weren’t a bunch of names of parliamentarians who had been disloyal to Canada,” she told the Mike Farwell Show.

Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said earlier this week that he agreed with Mr. Poilievre on declining to read the unredacted report because of the conditions of access. “I don’t want to be hamstrung as the leader of a party. I don’t want to be told that now that I’ve seen this, I can’t say that,” he told CTV.

Last week’s report from NSICOP did not always distinguish between senators and MPs and instead often referred to parliamentarians.

It said examples of the “semi-witting or witting” participation in foreign interference include: relying on foreign missions to get campaign support from affiliated entities; accepting funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies; providing diplomats privileged information to then inappropriately put pressure on other parliamentarians; responding to the requests or direction of foreign officials to improperly influence parliamentary work; and sharing confidential government information with a known foreign intelligence officer.

The report said the behaviour of the unnamed parliamentarians was in some cases likely criminal and that all “are deeply unethical” and “contrary to the oaths and affirmations parliamentarians take to conduct themselves in the best interest of Canada.”