Witting. That’s the word in the latest report on foreign interference that changes things.
In the latest review, we don’t just see cases of messing with political messages in a local election or allegations of interference in a nomination race, such as that of then-Liberal, now-independent MP Han Dong.
Now, a committee of MPs has reported that some of their colleagues in politics have known they were helping a foreign state or being helped by one. It suggests that foreign interference sometimes takes two to tango, through a co-opting of Canadian parliamentarians who might get a political benefit from it.
There are a number of things, according to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, that elected MPs did that crossed the line into “witting” involvement.
Some “wittingly began to assist foreign state actors soon after their election,” the committee’s report, released Monday, tells us. In one case, they worked to influence colleagues on behalf of India, or provided confidential information to Indian officials. There’s the case of a “textbook example of foreign interference that saw a foreign state support a witting politician.”
The committee reported it saw intelligence that indicated some parliamentarians were “semi-wittingly or wittingly” participating in foreign interference – communicating during campaigns with foreign diplomats who promised to mobilize community groups, accepting funds or benefits from foreign missions or proxies, providing privileged information to foreign diplomats, or influencing colleagues at the request of the foreign state.
That list of co-operation isn’t something we’d seen in previous reports, even though this is the fourth set of public findings on foreign interference in just over a year.
This committee, known in Ottawa by its acronym, NSICOP, is made up of MPs sworn to secrecy. And it was the first to really report that MPs and senators, if only a few, had been co-opted.
Like the others, this report skimps on details and is in some places heavily redacted, but it says enough to change some of the things we understand about foreign interference in Canada.
What’s described doesn’t sound like it fits into an attempt by China, or another foreign power such as India, trying to manipulate who will win a general election, to dictate who governs Canada. We read much more about the tools of co-opting, of building influence through individuals who have or are co-operating or acquiescing, to influence the approach to that foreign country.
Think of this: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service believes that the People’s Republic of China “believes that its relationship with some members of Parliament rests on a quid pro quo that any member’s engagement with the PRC will result in the PRC mobilizing its network in the member’s favour.”
In other words, there’s something in it for the MPs, such as relationships with community organizations, and community leaders, and businesspeople, in ridings with large numbers of ethnic Chinese voters.
Campbell Clark: The Liberals’ delays on foreign interference carry profound costs
Five takeaways from the foreign-interference commission’s report
Political staffers are, according to the report, “a sought-after proxy for foreign actors,” because they can influence the elected officials.
The witting participants in elected office, the report suggests, are only a few. But it also tells us that some might have committed crimes, though they aren’t likely to be prosecuted “owing to Canada’s long-standing failure” to find ways to protect classified intelligence in court cases.
Those aren’t the only elements in NSICOP’s report, but they are enough to change what we know about foreign interference in Canada in an important way. This isn’t just the constant and continuing attempts of foreign countries who attempt to influence Canada’s elections. It’s a current issue that includes parliamentarians co-operating with foreign states – and there is a political benefit to be had.
It doesn’t seem like the questions about that can stop there. NSICOP doesn’t name the parliamentarians who are witting participants in foreign interference. It raises a question about parliamentarians. It calls on the government to brief MPs about interference – and warns MPs to “reduce their vulnerabilities.”
And once again, it is another report telling the public that the Canadian government has not done enough to counter the threat of foreign interference. If anything, those warnings have grown louder.
This time, what a committee of parliamentarians has told us in clearer terms than ever is that the threat of interference from abroad includes participants here in Canada, inside Parliament, who have something to gain from dealing with foreign actors.