National security, foreign interference and naming ‘traitors’

Speaker 1: Frequency Podcast Network, stories that matter, podcasts that resonate.

Jordan: Over the past year, Canadians have become accustomed to learning of attempts by foreign countries to interfere in our democracy. Even so, however, very few would’ve expected this.

Clip 1: We’re learning more tonight about the bombshell report released last week by an intelligence watchdog that suggested some elected officials in Canada colluded with foreign powers.

Clip 2: The National Security Committee indicates there are members of this house that have knowingly worked for foreign hostile governments. Canadians have a right to know who and what is the information, who are they? Honorable Minister of Public Safety.

Clip 3: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition knows very well that no government, including the government of which he was a member, is going to discuss particularities of intelligence information publicly. So he knows better than that.

Jordan: The report released last week goes further than any agency has in detailing exactly what has been passing between those foreign governments and Canadian candidates and MPs. It is a huge national security problem. That much is very clear, but it stops short of naming any names for the past week. Discussion around those names has taken over. Is there a good reason to keep those names private? What has the past week of fallout taught us about how our elected officials handle these kinds of concerns? What is real and urgent and what’s political noise and what now? I’m Jordan Heath-Rawlings. This is The Big Story. Stephanie Carvin is a former national security analyst. She is an associate professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. She is the author of Stand On Guard: Reassessing Threats to Canada’s National Security, and she is our first call to unpack something like this. Hey Stephanie.

Stephanie Carvin: Hey, thanks for having me on again.

Jordan: You are most welcome. I’m going to need you to walk us through this because this gets really complex. Why don’t you start by telling us about the report last week that started the latest firestorm around foreign interference. What was it? Where did it come from?

Stephanie Carvin: So as you suggest, the report was pretty much a barn burner. It was really an astonishingly strong report that was kind of a three alarm fire in terms of talking about the issue of foreign interference. It was a little different from some of the reports that have come out earlier. I mean, there’s been no shortage of reports on foreign interference now, but this one was different because it wasn’t just looking at the 2019 and 2021 elections. This one had a much broader mandate to look at the issue generally. So this report was put out by a group of parliamentarians or committee of parliamentarians called the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It’s a little bit different from a parliamentary committee, so it doesn’t answer to parliament, it actually answers to the executive, and that gets a little bit nerdy in the details. But all of this to say, the bottom line is this was a group of parliamentarians with high level security clearance who’ve looked at the intelligence and are trying to tell their colleagues the other parliamentarians that we have a problem, that there are attempts by foreign governments to interfere in our elections, and this is the most disturbing part, unwitting, semi witting, and again, wit fully witting collaborators with foreign governments and intelligence agencies that are sitting in parliament.

Jordan: As somebody who’s made a career out of this stuff, who I know has been following the entire foreign interference scandal closely, what was your reaction, your initial reaction to this report?

Stephanie Carvin: Honestly, when I first saw some of the conclusions of the report, and I would direct people to look at Paragraph 164, I’ll be very specific, where it basically outlines the kinds of activities that are being done. It was truly shocking to see that in print. In some ways, it almost went beyond what I expected. I didn’t quite think the situation was as dire as that, that MPs were knowingly assisting foreign governments, foreign intelligence agencies in ways that could undermine Canadian security. That was pretty traumatic. I think I expected some of the other issues that are discussed such as MPs perhaps turning a blind eye when wind donations are being made because they want money to run their campaigns. Or alternatively that there are community groups that may be under the control or influenced by foreign governments that are actively participating in some of our electoral activities, particularly in the nomination races, which have been very controversial in the last year or so that I fully expected. And we’ve heard a lot about that. But this report went a lot further and they talked about all different kinds of threats. The other thing they did is they were a lot more specific than any of the reports that have come out before. Yes, they talked about China. Yes, they talked about India. India to a large extent. I think it’s mentioned something like 40 times in this report. So that’s quite interesting. But there’s also discussion of Pakistan and some other countries that are redacted. So again, this went further than I think any of the other reports have gone, and I was in some ways glad to see it. I think this is in some ways a very honest, very difficult, very disturbing report, but for those reasons, it is raising a lot of concern that there may be MPs who are being disloyal to Canada. Maybe not in a way that’s illegal, but certainly in a way that is not in our interests.

Jordan: Let’s actually literally take it back to paragraph 164 that you mentioned, because I want to know what exactly this specifics are around working with foreign governments because that’s a really broad term, but the word traitor has been thrown around a lot in the past week.

Stephanie Carvin: Yeah, I mean, we have a whole conversation about the word traitor and whether or not it’s appropriate. I mean, treason has a very specific definition in the criminal code, but either way, what’s happening here is clearly deeply problematic. And what the report highlights in paragraph 164 is really five activities that they highlight that are taking place, and that includes communicating frequently with four admissions before or after a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses. I mean, yes, of course that’s something that politicians would do. They’re going to want support from different groups, but actually going to afford mission to do that. That’s pretty bad. Secondly, accepting knowingly or through willful blindness funds that benefit from foreign missions, their proxies, which have been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source. So again, these funds where they may have been from foreign governments or people who should not be funneling money into our electoral system, that would incidentally be a violation of the Canadian Elections Act. So there is a criminal charge there that could be applied. Thirdly, this idea of providing foreign officials information or privileged information on the work of their fellow parliamentarians, knowing that that information is going to be used in such ways that will inform those foreign governments and then also that the foreign officials can then use that information about some of these privileged discussions to pressure parliamentarians to change their positions. Okay, that’s spot on. Fourth interference, that’s textbook fourth. This idea of responding to the request or direction of foreign officials to improperly influence colleagues or parliamentary business to the advantage of a foreign state, and finally providing information learned in confidence from the governments to a known intelligent officer of a foreign state just straight up talking to a spy. Again, it doesn’t say knowingly that the MP is doing that, but the fact is that they’re talking about very sensitive information to people, to foreign officials and either not knowing their spies or perhaps in a worst case scenario, knowing that they are spies, but their report is not clear on that point.

Jordan: What do we know about how witting or unwitting people were in some of these things? I’m trying to understand, is it possible that this could all be done by everyone unwittingly, or does the report specify that? Yes, some people did know and did this on purpose.

Stephanie Carvin: The report itself doesn’t actually provide numbers, right, but the fact is that they are quoting the intelligence services in saying semi witting or witting. So in other words, there are at the very least one individual who was doing so in a way that they knew that these activities were probably wrong, we’re at the very minimum, unethical, and not in Canada’s interest. I mean, I’m going to say it’s we’re recording this on a Wednesday afternoon if I can say that, and this is a rapidly changing situation. Elizabeth May spoke yesterday and said she feels relieved. She says the only really witting participant is no longer an MP and is not in parliament, and she has a lot of confidence now in her colleagues, which is a huge relief. But the fact is that we also know other party leaders are going to read this report as well. Do they agree with May’s interpretation of the report? Will they say as much? And I expect that we’re going to be hearing at least from NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh in the next couple of days, and potentially also Yves Blanchet who has apparently started the process of obtaining a security clearance for the purpose of reading this report.

Jordan: We could spend all day talking about who’s getting security clearances and who’s not, because I guess that’s become a bit of a political issue. But you mentioned Elizabeth May, she knows who these people are. There have been many calls over the past week plus for somebody, for some politicians who have seen these names to tell the Canadian people who they are. You and a colleague made the argument in the globe and mail that we should not do that. Why not?

Stephanie Carvin: So I have some concerns. There’s some very obvious ones, which is that intelligence isn’t evidence. We’ve been hearing this ever since the foreign interference scandal really kind of blew up almost two years ago. We’ve been hearing this that just because something’s written down in an intelligence report doesn’t mean you could criminally convict someone. It’s just some reporting that’s out there that they got from a source. We don’t know the strength of the source. We don’t know if it was say, an intercept of a phone conversation or if it was a rumour from someone in the community that was just passed on to the service, for example. So I think we have to be a little bit careful there because an allegation that you have knowingly passed on information to a foreign government in such a way that undermines Canadian interest or even something slightly less like accepting donations where you may not have known the source and the source may have been a foreign government. In the end, these are career destroying allegations, right? So without having seen the report, I think we need to be really careful on how we throw about these allegations. Secondly, however, is that I think that the allegations are coming from ongoing investigations into foreign interference in Canada right now. We do know that CSIS, the RCMP, are investigating threats to national security with regards to foreign interference. The RCMP issued a statement last week saying as much, although not talking about any specific allegations in this particular report. And what I worry about is that if a lot of the information in the report actually comes out, it will become clear to the hostile actors, which may be under investigation, that they are being caught, that they’re being monitored, and that could actually disrupt the investigation. Or alternatively, many foreign actors could learn about the kinds of sources and methods that thesis and the RCMP are then using, and it could eventually disrupt future investigations as well. We really want to be careful around the sources and methods in question.

Jordan: How do we know though that while this is remaining classified and we are not actively doing anything that these people wittingly or unwittingly aren’t doing damage right now by sharing Canadian intelligence with foreign agents, while we are all waiting to find out more or finish whatever intelligence services are doing?

Stephanie Carvin: Well, this is just it. And this is why I do think it’s important for all the party leaders to be reading this report just because of how cheerly damning it is and not just the worst allegations. I want to be clear on this, even if, as Elizabeth May says, there’s no list of MPs that are traitors to Canada or there’s no one currently sitting in the house that she wouldn’t be happy to sit with, even if that’s the case, and honestly that would be great news, there are a number of other extremely disturbing allegations in this report that you can read. And when she read the underactive report, she agreed. She said, look, just because there are people, MPs who are actively giving this information over doesn’t mean that we should just sit here and pat ourselves on the back. There’s a number of extremely disturbing things that Parliament has to act now and again. So where I think what we really need to see is parliamentary leaders step up and protects their parties. At the end of the day, political leaders are responsible for their candidates, right? They get to say, who is a candidate and who isn’t a candidate, even if there are these nomination races, they have to be approved by the party and the party leader, they have their responsibility to protect their parties. They have a responsibility to protect their candidates. And so if there’s information in these reports being like, by the way, if your candidate is getting money from this organization, it’s not a good thing. Or if this candidate is in contact with this particular business group, this is inadvisable, parliaments and party leaders have to protect themselves. And this is why I think it is so important that they do read this report and act accordingly, because as you say, there could be ongoing harms, and Parliament actually has the power now to stop this from happening. And so it’s frustrating to see the decision this week by the political parties not to really take some of these steps, but instead kind of kick this down the road to the actual foreign commission, the O Commission, because I don’t really see how that benefits our democracy in any way.

Jordan: You mentioned that obviously Elizabeth May receive security clearance, read the report, Jagmeet Singh, and perhaps Yves Blanchet. What about Pierre, Poilievre, and what is that process anyway that they need to go through in order to see this stuff?

Stephanie Carvin: A clearance process is just quite simply, are you loyal to Canada? Is there anyone in your orbit that could convince you to give up information? Could you be blackmailed? Are you in a personal situation where you are addicted to drugs or you have terrible financial problems where that could be used against you? And as a result of that, you would then give up information potentially to someone who would want it? So that’s really what a security check is at the end of the day. And depending where you are in government at which access, what level of access you have, it’s going to be a little bit more intrusive or non-intrusive. Right? I’ve been through the process. It is unfun, to put it mildly, but it is important because we do want to make sure the people who have access to the crown jewels of Canadian intelligence are just going to hand those over to two foreign governments. So that’s what the process effectively is. And so it’s a lot of checks and stuff. And so I don’t know why Pierre Poilievre does not want to get this report. I mean, he has said himself, and I don’t want to speak for him or the conservative party, but what I’ve read in the press is that he’s basically saying, look, this is a highly classified report. I don’t want to read it and then have the burden of not being able to speak about it. But it’s also true that Pierre Poilievre does not like talking about foreign interference. He has very seldom said anything in the house. He never really mentions it in his press conferences. He mostly leaves that to other members of the conservative party like Michael Chong or Garnett Genuis who speak very passionately about these issues in the house. It’s just not seemingly where he wants to be, and I don’t know why that is. I don’t know if it’s just simply because he wants to talk about capital gains taxes and wants to talk about the housing issues and the cost of living because let’s be honest, this is an issue that goes to the fundamentals of our democracy, but the cost of living goes to the fundamentals of our wallets, and we know what Canadians are more obsessed with. So I think that this is something that he doesn’t necessarily want, but whether or not this is a campaign issue or not, or something he wants to do, at the end of the day, she has the responsibility to look after his own party. And I really do believe that he should start the process, get the clearance. He’s a good member of the Privy Council, so that may actually speed things up. Quite frankly, privy Council, by which I mean he’s a former cabinet minister and had access to intelligence before in his role as a minister. So I think there are possibilities for him to do this and do this fairly quickly. And if anything, I do think what Elizabeth May did when she gave her talk, showed the to which it’s valuable for leaders to get this information and then communicate their thoughts to the Canadian public, that it can both reassure Canadians as well as other parliamentarians, but also direct parliamentarians to some of the urgent matters. I think it’s interesting that she’s read the report, but that she’s also now suggesting that sending this to the O commission was a bad idea and in fact voted against it yesterday.

Jordan: I asked you about the party leaders in Polievre, I have to ask you about the guys in charge. Ostensibly, what is the liberal government’s role in this and how does it differ from what we are expecting from Poilievre and Singh and et cetera? Where do they stand here?

Stephanie Carvin: So it’s interesting, when the report first came out, minister of Public Safety, Dominic LeBlanc said, okay, he thanks the committee for its report and indicated it did raise a number of important issues, but then said he disagreed with some of the assessments in the report, but was not very specific about that. And I think at the time everyone’s hair was on fire because of the allegations in this report and maybe didn’t pay attention. But it is interesting that there may be some agreement here with what Elizabeth May said, but we can’t say that for sure. So I think we have to look at the Liberals. They have responsibilities as a party. They have responsibilities to ensure, again, that they are reading the report, that they are working towards strengthening their own party and perhaps taking steps to make sure that their candidates are protected from some of these organizations that may be targeting their candidates. So I think that’s really the first thing. But as a government, it’s interesting. I think that there’s a couple of things that they should be looking at doing in the first instance. They are right now passing a bill that’s aimed at countering foreign interference. It’s called Bill C 70, and it does some things like it creates a foreign interference registry, which would require Canadians who were taking money from foreign governments and then engaging in lobbying activities to register those activities with some kind of commissioner. But there is a giant gap here in this legislation, and it’s one that’s mentioned in the report. And I want to be kind to your listeners. I don’t want to get too much into the nerdy weedy legal details, but sice to say what’s interesting, if you read the report, it says, look, these are very serious allegations, but there’s very little chance that these will ever be brought to court because we struggle in criminal trials where there may be some intelligence being used as the basis for the investigation. And we call this in our nerdy little national security world, the intelligence to evidence problem that we struggled to bring evidence, which is gathered under a CSIS warrant to court under an RCMP warrant. And this is a very fixable problem. Again, without going into the nerdy details, there are some steps that the liberal government could take. It was highlighted in their consultation about the legislation earlier this year that this was something that should be fixed, but they decided not to go ahead with it when they introduced the legislation. It is a big gap, and I think when it comes to people who may be involved in these kinds of activities or organizations which are targeting mps, if we’re not able to bring criminal charges forward, it doesn’t matter. You can pass all the laws that you want, but if we don’t have the capacity to actually enforce this legislation because of huge gaps in our court system or because the RCMP frankly just isn’t that great at National Security Investigations, these are real things that the government should be looking at addressing now. And it’s something that is very frustrating because I think the sense I get in passing it on to the O Commission is that everyone just kind of wants this to go away, but it’s not. We’re just kicking the can down the road.

Jordan: So what do we know, and this is my last question about what happens in the near term. You mentioned Elizabeth May voted against sending this report somewhere, like what should Canadians be watching for in the next few weeks regardless of how we change or don’t change long-term to address this?

Stephanie Carvin: So a couple of things I think we should keep an eye on. One will be interesting to see if Pierre Poilievre does decide to get clearance, does decide to read the report. Again, I hope he does try to be as nonpartisan here as I potentially can be, just because I do think it is in the interest of this party and protecting MPs. The second thing is that, yeah, this report has been kicked to the Foreign interference inquiry. This was the commission that held hearings earlier this year, issued a report, oh, I say about a month ago, and that looked at the problem of foreign interference, specifically in the 2019 2021 election. And so they’re going to have to start work now on really kind of redoing the NSI COP report, the NC COP report that came out last week. And so again, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. And the challenge for that inquiry is that they’re already overburdened, right? I mean, the timelines they’re working on are shockingly small. The fact is that they don’t have a ton of resources, and they’ve been asked to come up with a list of recommendations as to how to fix this, and now they have this whole new burden on them as well. So that’s something to look out for to see how the actual inquiry itself feels about this and how it’s able to handle this. If it goes according to the motion that was passed in parliament yesterday, they will be reporting, I believe in early October, and then until then, we should be seeing this piece of legislation, Bill C 70. It is working its way very, very quickly through Parliament because I do think that the parties want to get as much into place as possible before the next election. It’s going to take a few months to get some of the institutions like a foreign agent registry set up, of course. But at the same time, like I said, are we going to see movements to address some of the gaps that exist in our system, like our ability to prosecute these offences? Are we going to see more resources going to community organizations have been traditionally suffering from foreign interference, and are we going to see the NPS and candidates themselves better briefed by our national security agencies in order to combat this during a foreign interference? Quite frankly, there’s a lot more work that Parliament could be doing. I hope that they do undertake it before they undertake their summer recess. In the coming weeks,

Jordan: We will watch and see and then watch the partisan bickering over it. Stephanie, thank you so much for this.

Stephanie Carvin: The more things change. Thank you so much.

Jordan: Stephanie Carvin, author of Stand On Guard, reassessing threats to Canada’s National Security, a book that gets more relevant every time we talk to her. That was The Big Story for more from us, including of course, all our previous conversations with Stephanie. You can head to TheBigStorypodcast.ca and just type her name in the search bar at the bottom. If you’ve got feedback on this episode or any other, we would truly love to hear it. The way to do it is to email us hello at The Big Story podcast.ca or to call us and leave a voicemail. That number is 416-935-5935. If you want to let us or everyone know what you think about this show, you can do that by rating and reviewing us on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify. Be honest, we take ’em seriously. Thanks for listening. I’m Jordan Heath-Rawlings. We’ll talk tomorrow. Back to top of page