Serious allegations, but no apparent desire for solutions

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 06/07/2024 (636 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Over the past several weeks, there have been numerous reports in the media regarding the recently released “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Process and Institutions” by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

As the title of the document suggests, the report discusses efforts by foreign governments to impact the results of recent elections and other democratic processes in Canada. The document has a largely federal focus, but emphasizes that foreign interference is also happening at the provincial and even local levels.

Since the release of the report, the bulk of news coverage has focused on a single paragraph in the document that says that “The Committee notes a particularly concerning case of a then-member of Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. According to CSIS, the member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence.”

Based on those two sentences, there have been calls for the committee and/or the Trudeau government to release the name of the former MP. Some have even called for him to be charged with treason.

It’s a serious charge, but the allegation within that paragraph is just a fraction of the troubling information within the report — information that has been largely ignored in media reports up to now.

For example, paragraph 72 of the report says that “Foreign actors also targeted party leadership campaigns.” Though the remaining three sentences of the paragraph are redacted in order “to remove injurious or privileged information,” the report’s description of those deleted sentences says that “The sentences described two specific instances where PRC officials allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada.” (“PRC” is an acronym for the People’s Republic of China.)

Paragraph 73 of the report is redacted in its entirety in order to once again “remove injurious or privileged information,” but the report describes the deleted paragraph as follows: “The paragraph described India’s alleged interference in a Conservative Party of Canada leadership race.”

Take a moment to think about that. The report says that China interfered in multiple Conservative Party leadership contests and that India also interfered in a Tory leadership contest. Those are explosive accusations, apparently based on intelligence received from CSIS, yet the claims have been almost entirely ignored by the media.

Why is that? Why wouldn’t national media reporters and columnists want to know which Conservative leadership races the report is referring to, and for which candidate’s (or candidates’) benefit? Why aren’t they pressing for specific details of the conduct China and India are alleged to have engaged in, and the extent to which those actions may have been successful?

Since the big news organizations are curiously incurious about this issue, and not asking the many questions they should be asking, I will ask some of my own questions.

For starters, is the committee alleging that China and/or India interfered in the 2022 Conservative Party leadership race that resulted in Pierre Poilievre becoming CPC leader? If so, what specific conduct are they alleged to have engaged in, and is there a possibility that it impacted the outcome of that contest?

Beyond that, do the allegations in the two redacted paragraphs potentially explain why Poilievre refuses to obtain the security clearance required in order to read the unredacted report and the intelligence information it is based upon?

Is it possible he’s avoiding the unredacted report because he either knows or suspects it contains information that undermines the validity and legitimacy of his position as CPC leader?

From a broader perspective, how you explain a Conservative Party leader having zero interest in learning the specifics of actions allegedly taken by a foreign government to help or harm his party and its candidates? Doesn’t he owe a duty to his party and its members to protect the integrity of the party’s candidate nomination and leadership contests?

The report also devotes considerable attention toward efforts by foreign governments to impact the results of candidate nomination contests. It states that “many ridings are considered ‘safe seats,’ so winning the nomination is akin to winning the subsequent election without having to interfere in the election itself.”

It adds that “nomination processes are not directly regulated or safeguarded by federal, provincial, or territorial legislation or enforcement bodies, such as the Commissioner of Canada Elections. As a result, the likelihood and consequences of the detection of such activities are low.”

It warns that “nomination processes are governed by the different rules of each political party: breaking these rules is not illegal.”

The report contains the shocking revelation that some political parties “allow non-citizens to register as party members and vote in a nomination, as long as they live in the riding.”

That’s ridiculous. They can’t legally vote in the election, but they can legally have a direct hand in choosing a candidate to run in that election — perhaps in a safe seat that all but guarantees the nominated candidate will be elected in the election.

Later in the report, the committee recommends that “the government engage political parties to determine whether party nomination processes and leadership conventions be included within the framework of the Canada Elections Act.”

Surprisingly, none of the major parties are willing to permit Elections Canada to play a supervisory role over nomination and leadership contests, despite the fact those are the two most-vulnerable pathways for foreign governments to disrupt our democracy.

That leads to another question our national media should be asking: Are the major federal parties genuinely serious about protecting our democratic process from foreign interference, or do they just see this as an opportunity to engage in histrionics and score political points?

I think we all know the answer.