Investigations into foreign interference activities are multiplying, the reports are adding up, but, far from allaying concerns about their sprawling reach, the fragmented information revealed by these alarming conclusions ultimately leaves voters even more disconcerted. And in no way reassured. A doubt that political parties perniciously persist in cultivating, without worrying about thereby sowing insidious democratic consequences.
The parliamentary session ended this week in the shadow of this resounding report from a committee of elected officials and senators who inferred that some of their colleagues had collaborated in the interference efforts of foreign states. As soon as this observation was made, the political co-opting surrounding this issue ignited again. And in its wake spread an even more opaque cloud of confusion.
Indeed, following their reading of an unredacted version of the document, the leaders of the Green Party and the New Democratic Party, Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh, did not clarify anything. Quite the contrary.
The first said she was relieved, having “no concern” about the fact that an elected official currently sitting in the Commons had “knowingly” sabotaged the interests of Canada. The second said he was resolutely “alarmed”, convinced that colleagues would indeed have been “half-consenting or voluntary participants”. It seems like they didn’t read the same document. Or above all that they do not share the same definition of foreign interference or the notion of collaboration. So what was the point of further undermining citizen trust?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau added his two cents, asking Mr. Singh — as well as any other party leader — to avoid concluding, as he did, that no member of his team is not targeted by these surreptitious maneuvers.
Faced with a whole palette of shades of gray, specific to the deviousness of clandestine influence, which is not always corroborated beyond all doubt, no one knows how to see clearly. The public, stunned, even less so.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, for his part, prefers willful blindness. That he declines the possibility of inquiring about suspicions possibly targeting members of his own caucus and certainly the leadership races of his party is not only inexplicable, but irresponsible. One day, as a possible next prime minister, he will have to explain this refusal to obtain a top secret security clearance.
However, his opponents are not exempt from excessive partisanship. Although he is right to denounce this stubbornness of the Conservative leader, Justin Trudeau is not exempt from finding a way to finally reassure citizens. Jagmeet Singh’s fears, following his reading of the full report, would have seemed more sincere if he had refrained from attacking his rivals at the same time.
The Bloc Québécois did useful work by submitting the idea, accepted by everyone except the Greens, of entrusting these new suspicions to the public commission of inquiry led by Judge Marie-Josée Hogue. Political parties have now too often demonstrated that they are incapable of rising above the partisan fray for the sake of democracy.
The commissioner, however, regretted, in her interim report, the “tight deadlines” imposed on her already vast mandate. She must be all the more sorry today.
Judge Hogue also warned that she would no more than the government reveal the names of the suspected parliamentarians, to the great dismay of the opposition parties. The commissioner cites everyone’s right to a fair and equitable trial. Let us remember that the protection of espionage methods and sources is also at stake, since revealing any suspicion at the same time discloses the technique used or the agent monitored to detect it. Even the simple fact of admitting to being concerned or not can influence a foreign state, warned the intelligence commissioner, Simon Noël. This shows the complexity of publicly unraveling all these allegations, to which is now added Algeria, which would target its Kabyle nationals here, according to Radio-Canada.
The citizens will therefore unfortunately perhaps never be clear about it, either. It is to be hoped that their confidence in our institutions and our democratic processes can nevertheless be restored.
To do this, political parties must have the wisdom to come together to agree to assure them that wrongdoers within their team will not be candidates in the next elections. And rely on Commissioner Hogue to recommend the necessary firewalls for the future.
For political opportunism, elected officials rushed the adoption of Bill C-70, both incomplete and potentially excessive, which would have required a much more exhaustive study. With the parliamentary contest now suspended for the summer, it is time to depoliticize the health of our democracy.