Front Burner - Are there ‘traitors’ in Canada’s parliament?

Episode Date: June 10, 2024

A new report accuses parliamentarians of aiding foreign governments to interfere in Canadian politics, which some national security experts say would amount to ‘traitors’ at the heart of our democracy.  Will we ever get the names of the MPs in question?How has it already created a chill between parliamentarians and their colleagues?And if the primary goal of interference is to destabilize Canada, is this report just another success for foreign actors?CBC’s chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton returns to explain.Help us make Front Burner even better by filling out this audience survey.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. 33,000 pages, 4,000 documents, briefings from the RCMP, CSIS, an interview with the Prime Minister. They've now led to one bombshell allegation, that some federal politicians are collaborating with foreign governments to advance their own interests. Who? Sorry, can't tell you that. How many? Can't say that either. If money really did change hands, how much? How many parties? Does this include

cabinet ministers? Next question, please. That's because the report that made these accusations last week was heavily redacted. The MPs in the National Security and Intelligence Committee that wrote it are sworn to secrecy. And the Liberal government has been batting away calls to release the names, leading to a lot of outrage outside and inside of Parliament. Isn't for real reason the Prime Minister won't release the names because some or all of these compromised MPs happen to be liberals? Mr. Chair, through you, I congratulate Mr. Cooper on the clip you probably just tried to get for social media.

The simple answer is no. So I'm talking once again to the CBC's chief political correspondent, Rosemary Barton, about how we can get answers and what the consequences could be for parties and our democracy. Rosie, hey, it's so great to have you. Hi, Jamie. So I don't think we can fault people who may have completely lost the plot about this foreign interference story. It's been dragging on.

There was the public inquiry. But last week's report isn't about that process. Right. And so real quick, what is it? Yeah. So this is a report that was done by a committee of parliamentarians from all parties and a few senators. The committee chair is appointed by the prime minister. So in this case, the chair is a Liberal MP, David McGinty. But I just want to stress a couple of

important things about what the committee is able to do. They get this top security clearance that allows them to review any intelligence unredacted. But, and this is important, they have to, first of all, keep it confidential for their whole lives. Otherwise, they'll be prosecuted. And, and this is going to be important as we continue to talk, they've given up parliamentary privilege. So that means that even inside the House of Commons or the Senate, where privilege would protect anything you say and prevent you from being prosecuted, they have given that up. So they also can't talk about it in any way inside the House of Commons the way maybe other parliamentarians could. Okay. And just give me some examples of like what kind of information they would have been hearing and then essentially then what they've based this report on. So they talked to a lot of people and they looked at a lot of information to try and get a sense of what is going on here. And the key difference between this report and things that people may have already heard about is, unlike previous reports where we were hearing about other countries trying to interfere with our democratic processes.

This report really highlights the way parliamentarians, our own parliamentarians, have been helping those foreign states and actors influence our democracy, public policy, and conversations. And they would have seen all sorts of intelligence reports that allege that that took place. And they would have seen all the details in those reports as well. In the report that was released publicly, there are a lot of redactions, but let's talk about what they did release to the public. And so the report said that, quote, there is troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, semi-witting or witting participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics, end quote. So let's try and wring as many specifics out of that as we can. First, what do they mean by semi-witting or witting? So these are people who either actively knew that they were being used

by a foreign actor, another country, or maybe had a sense that they were doing something that was at very least unethical. That's sort of our best understanding of what was happening. And there are all sorts of different ways that that was happening. Transmitting information, sharing information, sharing confidential information, helping pressure their colleagues or influence their colleagues in a way that would be advantageous for the country, but also other things too, getting money, perhaps, and even in one instance, as suggested in this report, perhaps having a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. Right, right. I'll just quote from that one section where it referenced

the relationship. According to CSIS, this person proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence. Was this just about getting elected or are we talking about other stuff too? I mean, it seems like in some cases it was about getting them elected. And certainly this report, as have other reports, brings up this whole issue around the nomination process of candidates as being particularly vulnerable to this. So certainly it would be at least partially political helping these people get elected or nominated just to be candidates. Sometimes it could have been financial, according to these allegations. And then frankly, sometimes it may just have been about making the person feel

important as though they had the ability to get confidential information or to influence people. That seems to be sort of the motivation behind most of these instances that they only partially describe, as you point out. Yeah. And do we have a sense of who at all? Like, I know there are no names, but is it senators? Is it MPs? Is it both? Is it cabinet ministers? Are these still sitting politicians? We don't know very much. And that is indeed part of the problem with this story and will be part of the problem going forward. It's parliamentarians, certainly, elected or appointed. The report is limited in terms of a time frame.

So September 2018 to March 2024. So I'm going to extrapolate from that that it's people that fall within that time frame, that were in those positions within that time frame. But I can't be sure of that. And they also mentioned political staffers. So perhaps they, too, were part of this. But again, it's heavily redacted to your point. So those are the bits that I can extract in terms of who we think we're talking about here. And is it fair for me to say we don't know how many people we're talking

about here and we don't know which parties they're affiliated with? We don't know either of those things. No. You know, if we look at people who have been targets of foreign interference, so the opposite of what we're talking about now, that affected all political parties. So I would assume that it's safe to say that we're talking about all sides here. But no, we don't know. And does the report get into which countries are kind of involved in trying to court these parliamentarians? Yeah, and I think that's the part that is similar to perhaps what people have heard before. China, Russia, India, Iran, Pakistan. There are some unnamed countries that they don't put in there.

Pakistan there are some unnamed countries that they don't put in there but they do make clear in the report that China is still the biggest offender of trying to not only just do foreign interference but in this case influence parliamentarians try to get them to work for them or with them and then the second biggest offender is India which is interesting I think again trying to get parliamentarians to reveal things to them and work knowingly or unknowingly for them. pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income?

That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cops. One part of the report that, you know, I found interesting, probably in part just because I'm a journalist, but I actually think it's really significant, is that the report also talks about the ways that countries, like China in particular, have attempted to influence

traditional Canadian news media. And just tell me a little bit more about what it says about that. So, yeah, I mean, this should be of concern to people that there's this idea here that somehow China, in this case, is able to interfere with content directly with Canadian media. It says executives and journalists. So somehow, I guess, influencing what appears in Canadian media, that they're able to publish articles without attribution. So they've somehow influenced what appears in a story, but it is not forthcoming that China's behind it, that they sponsor media travel to China, and that they pressure journalists either to withdraw information or report information. And that kind of pressure can even manifest itself on social media.

Okay. And again, we have no idea, you know, what these media outlets are, when it happened. Same kind of thing. People must be really happy that they've come to listen to this podcast where we just talk about how we don't know the answers to anything. I mean, it's easy for me to prepare when there's a whole bunch of things where I can say, maybe, no, we don't know. No. So with that, again, we don't know the allegation. I think good to remember the timeframe again, 2018 to 2024. So perhaps within that timeframe, but otherwise I got nothing there for you. Yeah. You mentioned before that this is new from some of what we've heard around the foreign interference stuff in the past, namely because it targets parliamentarians. But is there anything else that you might want to point out here that is new from what's come before it? Yeah, I mean, I think that the central difference is what I said off the top there, that we have had many, many, many examples since the public conversation around this issue started in this country of some intelligence or evidence or stories of countries interfering directly or trying to interfere directly with the democratic process. I mean, the one that people are probably most familiar with is the intelligence around what happened to Han Dong, the Toronto Liberal MP, no longer in caucus. What has been reported is false.

And I will defend myself against these absolutely untrue claims. In his seat in the nomination writing, there are allegations that Chinese international students were bussed in to the nomination process to sway it so that he would become the candidate and eventually elected. That's sort of like the most, I think, famous example in people's minds right now. Why did you solicit support for your nomination campaign from international students? Well, it was a short period of time for the campaign, and I was reaching out to as many groups as I can. Senior groups, student groups, looking for volunteers.

And if they live in the riding, eligible to vote. And I encouraged them to sign up as Liberal members. I encourage them to sign up as Liberal members. But certainly we know that China has tried to threaten people, tried to leverage their families in other countries. Michael Chong, the Conservative MP, has been victim of that, very concerned for some of his family members still in the region. There are Canadians across the country who deliberately have cut off contact and communication with families

in authoritarian states out of an abundance of caution to protect those families. So those are the things that I think we've heard about a lot. I think what is new in here that was surprising to me was that now we are talking about people already inside our democratic institutions working for these countries. So this is sort of the post all these efforts to influence democracy. This would be evidence that there's some success if they've got anyone inside these institutions working on their behalf. As we said, in a range of different ways and with a range of different information. That's the part that's shocking. It's that now we're not talking about someone coming in from outside trying to influence. We're talking about these same people having

people on the inside. That's the part that's disturbing. Like the idea that it's coming from inside the house. That's the part that's disturbing. Like the idea that it's coming from inside the house. Exactly. As a result of this, the rhetoric since this report dropped last week has been hot. People are openly talking about traitors as sitting politicians. There are demands for more information. And just, you know, explain to me a little bit about why the report is so heavily redacted, why we can't see these names, why won't they release the names? So first of all, just on the issue of traitors, because I do want to make it clear that that word isn't used in the report. But a lot of national security experts have looked at what's there and have said this suggests to us that it could meet that threshold. So you're right.

Lots of people are using that very alarming term. The reason that we are being told that we can't see anything for now is that this is, first of all, highly classified information. Secondly, that it is intelligence. And I think the thing that we've all learned through talking about this issue for many months is that intelligence is not always solid, right? It's the beginning of telling a story. It's not always the whole story. beginning of telling a story. It's not always the whole story. So there are concerns that what this committee of parliamentarians saw gave them a picture, but not necessarily a complete picture of what happened. And I think there's a lot of reticence to release the names because it maybe wouldn't give you a full sense. The other real concern that intelligence agencies and the

Minister of Public Safety has is revealing methods of gathering intelligence or compromising human sources who may be working for CSIS and passing on this kind of information. That too would be dangerous and perhaps also damaging. So those are sort of the big ideas that people are using in order to prevent this from happening. And then there's the obvious one, Jamie, there's defamation, right? Like if you go out and say so-and-so has been doing this and we can't really see the intelligence behind the allegation, you run the risk of potentially ruining someone's, certainly ruining someone's reputation and potentially their life too right it would create quite a vacuum if yeah you didn't

have the details to fill it out people just you know speculating for sure which you know to be to be fair is people are doing a lot of speculating right now yes but i guess once you add those names it's like very specific so so on the issue of um you know intelligence briefings and andings and this idea that you're talking about that it's sometimes wrong or incomplete, like this was certainly an argument that we heard Dominic LeBlanc, the liberal public safety minister, put forward last week when he was arguing or making the case for not releasing the names right now. The idea that there's a perfect list of names that is entirely reliable that should be released to the public is simply irresponsible. Do you get the sense that the public is feeling like, oh, OK, fair point. You don't have to tell us who's collaborating with hostile governments. Listen, I think the problem is, is either we put the names out without the full picture, to your point, and we're left with a vacuum, or we do nothing and we're left with the same vacuum, or maybe one that's worse.

Because if foreign interference is fundamentally about destabilizing people's trust in democratic institutions, well, boy, this report has sure helped that. And the fact that we have to keep some of this secret has also helped that. You know, I've talked to parliamentarians who this week have felt a chill, like a chill about their own colleagues. Not that they're pointing fingers or that they're looking at someone and wondering, but they have real concerns about standing up in a caucus room, for instance, which is supposed to be confidential and saying whatever they want, thinking now that maybe there's someone behind me or over my shoulder who's taking what I'm saying and using it in some way. I mean, that's the problem with not saying anything. And that's where we are right now. The government says it will not release the names. Certainly, intelligence agencies cannot release the names. The only thing that they've put on the table to try and mitigate some of this is to allow leaders of parties to get the top secret security clearance, go in and look through the papers and reports to see the names and to see the examples. And the only follow-through that could come from that, there's nothing that would prevent the leader from then

either stopping the nomination of a candidate who seems to have been involved in this or throwing, expelling the MP from their caucus, which would then not be, from what we understand, illegal because they wouldn't get into any details about what happened. 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? The good news, Mr. Speaker, is if he wanted to get the appropriate security clearance

and be able to see the confidential report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, he would be much more informed than he is now. And we would invite him to do so, so he wouldn't stand up and cast a screen. The other thing that could happen, and this is why I mentioned it off the top in terms of the parliamentary committee, someone could stand up inside the House of Commons and just say it. committee someone could stand up inside the house of commons and just say it because it is a house with its own laws right and there would be parliamentary privilege and there's some questions as to whether there would be any consequences at all or whether they could just do that but that's a highly highly risky move for someone to make with all sorts of consequences

but how would that person let's say that did happen how would that person, let's say that did happen, how would that person get the information in the first place? Because I thought the people on this committee had to like swear to secrecy for the rest of their lives. Yeah, but that's just the people on the committee. If a leader wanted to go in and look at the names for their own information to protect their own party, yes, they would have to say, yes, I swear I'm not going to reveal this information. But once you're inside the House of Commons and you have that parliamentary privilege, you are protected against the courts in terms of what you say. So it's kind of unclear whether

you would still be violating the law inside the House of Commons if you actually said it. Uh-uh. Yeah, that is a twist. I hadn't heard. It's a twist. And listen, like maybe no one would do it and maybe there would be consequences. But the thing about the House of Commons is it is its own little bubble and its own little world. And that's why you're allowed to say crazy things about other MPs inside the House of Commons and they can't sue you because what you say there doesn't apply in the real world. So presumably the same thing would happen with this list of people. So right now, Jagmeet Singh has agreed to the secret briefing, hasn't had it yet, but will have it. The Bloc Québécois leader is considering it. And Pierre Poiliev could see it, but refuses so far to see it because he says, well, what would I do with that information that I can't then do anything about? Because I guess there's an understanding that revealing it would not be a cool thing to do. But what he could do, what Pierre Poiliev could do or anyone could do is at very least know, am I dealing with someone?

Is there someone on my team who's done this? And how can I better protect our team? Okay, what about, since people are talking about treason, that sounds illegal to me too, right? What about like the RCMP? Could they come in here? Is that a potential avenue? Yeah. So that's where the problem that we've talked about before between intelligence and evidence gets real.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily get handed over to the RCMP. And if intelligence does get handed over to them, it's not necessarily something that they can use to build evidence in a courtroom because they can't expose it. So either the RCMP doesn't have it, which is a real thing, or it's the beginning of a process and they don't have enough evidence yet. When the RCMP Deputy Commissioner Flynn was asked about this outside of the parliamentary committee last week, you know, just are you investigating anyone? outside of the parliamentary committee last week, you know, just are you investigating anyone? He wouldn't confirm or deny anything. He said, we have to be really cautious about this because it could be used negatively

to affect our democratic process as well. So you can see the kind of like catch-22 we are in here with much of this, either with naming, not naming, evidence or intelligence. It's a real pickle that we're in, in terms of having to protect information versus being transparent. Rosie, I'm just wondering, to end this conversation, what you might say to somebody that's just trying to wrap their head around

all of this right now. And on the one hand, there is a lot to be frustrated about here. I mean, first off, we're hearing that there is evidence that there are elected officials in our government that have been or perhaps currently are being influenced by foreign powers. We're also hearing that there's like a lot of question marks about what we can even do about it at this point. And then on the other side of this, we struck this committee and it did produce this report. And I guess in some way it is shining some sunlight on this issue. So, I mean, I just wonder, you know, if you could try to parse through that for me a little bit. I'm very sorry for not giving you like a clear question, but. I mean, you, I guess you're asking what everyone's asking. Like, what are we supposed to do with this, right?

What are we supposed to do with this information? And I think there's a real struggle to know what's going to come of this particular report. And a real, as I said, a real struggle to balance what is needed here. It's not going to surprise anyone that as a journalist, I think more information is better. I think it's better for us to know that these things are happening, that there are attempts, that it is better for our democratic process to try and understand what's happening so we can protect each other and the country. The government has done some things and is in the midst of doing something right now with Bill C-70, which is a foreign agent registry. It would create new criminal provisions so you could actually go after someone. And I think that that would strengthen the criminal code and all political parties are trying to fast track that. So it will be through the House before the end of sitting and in place before the next election really critically. So that's an important sort of enforcement tool that is happening behind the scenes. But I do think that as much as it can be frustrating to hear these things and as frustrating to be listening to us say, well, I don't know and I don't know and I don't know, I think it's super important because these are really serious things that we're talking about here. And if there's one thing we all agree on, I think it's that we want our democratic process to be safe. We know that the elections have not been affected.

There have been some issues in some ridings, but that the outcome of the elections have not been affected. But I would imagine that we want to make sure it stays that way. So talking about these things and demanding more answers and maybe eventually finding out what we're dealing with here, I think that that's where we're going to keep going with this. So we're going to hear more about it. Whether we'll know the full picture or not, I'm not sure, but I think it's awfully important to talk about it. All right. Rosie, thank you for this. It was really great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.