ANALYSIS: What Happens Next on the Collusion of Parliamentarians With Foreign Actors

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue speaks about the interim report following its release at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, in Ottawa on May 3, 2024. (The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)

With the public inquiry delving into parliamentarians’ foreign collusion, Canadians may have to wait months before getting more details and clarity.

The Foreign Interference Commission announced on June 17 that it would examine the issue following a vote held in the House of Commons a week prior asking the commission to expand its mandate.

“The Commission takes note of the government’s decision to resort to the process of an independent commission of inquiry to shed light on the facts and events discussed in the NSICOP report that refer to the role that certain parliamentarians may have played, wittingly or unwittingly, in foreign interference activities,” wrote Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue in a notice to the public.

Ms. Hogue said the commission would examine the issue while respecting the principles of procedural fairness and the “fundamental rights of any person affected by its work, in compliance with the rule of law.”

In other words, it’s unlikely the commission will release the names of individuals found in intelligence files, as the allegations could be uncorroborated or tied to operational or foreign interests. Doing so could also irreparably damage the reputation of those implicated, without access to due process.

This has been the Liberal government’s main argument in refusing to provide the names of parliamentarians mentioned in the report released by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

Conservatives have argued that the names of colluding MPs should be made public before the next election.

‘Wittingly Assisting’

NSICOP’s “Special Report“ on foreign interference, released on June 3, sent shockwaves across the country. It says some MPs “began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election.” China and India are identified as the foreign states.

NSICOP published its report one month after Ms. Hogue released her interim report. She concluded that foreign interference did occur in the last two elections but that it didn’t impact the overall results.

“These acts of interference had no impact on which party formed the government but may have impacted the results of nomination contests or the election in a handful of ridings,” Ms. Hogue wrote in her June 17 notice.

While the commissioner did pass judgment on the broader issue of foreign interference, she refrained from making a definitive statement on a particular and prominent interference case.

Ms. Hogue went over every public detail in her May 3 report about the 2019 Liberal nomination race in Toronto’s Don Valley North (DVN) riding, which was won by now-Independent MP Han Dong.

The report says “Canada has intelligence holdings indicating irregularities in the DVN nomination contest that may have included activities undertaken by individuals close to PRC [People’s Republic of China] officials.” Mr. Dong told the public inquiry he was unaware such activities were taking place.

In her findings about the case, Ms. Hogue said “it is not the mandate of this Commission to determine what actually took place at the Don Valley North nomination meeting in 2019, and I would not be able to do so on the record before me in any event.”

Despite having access to all intelligence files and stakeholders involved in the case, Ms. Hogue refrained from providing her assessment of the matter.

Meanwhile the NSICOP report says that according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Beijing “had a significant impact in getting Han Dong nominated.”

Party Leaders’ Views

Regarding the colluding parliamentarians mentioned in the NSICOP report, their not being named could make it easier for the commission to come to some conclusion about the severity of the matter. While this would not solve fundamental questions, it could offer the public an authoritative perspective.

Canadians currently have to rely on the unredacted NSICOP report and its damning content, and the diverging views of three party leaders on its findings.

After Green Party Co-Leader Elizabeth May and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh saw the redacted report and offered entirely different opinions on it, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used the discrepancy to justify his government’s stance.

On the day NSICOP tabled its report, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc said the government disagreed with “elements of the report.” The main concerns centred on “the interpretation of intelligence reports,” he said.

“That actually is demonstrated by the fact that two party leaders, both Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh, who read the report in its entirety, come to differing conclusions on the interpretation of what it means,” Mr. Trudeau said on June 16.

Ms. May spoke publicly first, saying she was “relieved” after seeing the classified NSICOP report and called the issue “overblown.”

“I have no worries about anyone in the House of Commons,” Ms. May told reporters on June 11.

Mr. Singh had a different take on the report, saying on June 13 that he was “more alarmed” after reading it and that some politicians are “indeed traitors to the country.”

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet told reporters last week he has started looking into the process to obtain a security clearance to be able to read the classified material.

But a public statement like those given by Ms. May and Mr. Singh seems unlikely for Mr. Blanchet given the stance taken by Bloc House Leader Alain Therrien in the Commons on June 17. “The whole thing was pointless,” he said, referring to the comments made by Ms. May and Mr. Singh.

“We are back to square one in the foreign interference saga,” Mr. Therrien said. “One leader is telling us that everything is fine and dandy. Another leader is telling us that things could not be worse and that the house is on fire.”

Mr. Therrien said this could now cast doubts on the findings of the Hogue commission if it doesn’t come to the same conclusion as the “two chatterboxes.”

“Is it asking too much to allow justice to run its course?” he asked the government.

Mr. LeBlanc responded that he was “heartened” by the decision of the commission to examine the issues covered by the NSICOP. “We very much look forward to collaborating with the commission in this regard.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has not signalled his intention to obtain a clearance to view the full NSICOP report. His office said in a statement to The Epoch Times that doing so would prevent him from speaking or acting on the information.

A spokesperson for Mr. Poilievre said the government, through CSIS, “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.”

The Conservatives will continue to press the government to release the names of parliamentarians who wittingly worked for foreign states and allow Commissioner Hogue to “make the names and key facts available to Parliament and the public,” said the spokesperson.

Despite taking on the additional task, Ms. Hogue said the commission will “make every effort” to stay on schedule and that she will file her final report by the Dec. 31, 2024, deadline.

She said the commission understands that this deadline has been set to allow the government to put in place any measures required to protect election integrity before the next federal election, which must be held no later than Oct. 20, 2025.