Colonel Mustard with the knife in the Constituency? Maybe not

CHELSEA, QUE.—It has been like a long-playing Netflix series—alternately alarming, puzzling and ludicrous—but the great Foreign Intervention Scandal skidded to a shuddering pause last week, thanks partly to Green Party Leader Elizabeth May’s adult intervention. With the entire capital city hunting down unnamed federal MPs who were “witting” or “unwitting” pawns of Chinese and Indian intelligence agents—according to the latest of many reports on the issue—May, who, as a party leader, had access to the un-redacted version of the report, declared, with relief, that none of her current colleagues in Parliament have been fingered as double agents. “There is no list of MPs who have shown disloyalty to Canada,” she said. Later in the week, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh sharply disagreed with May’s reading, saying he was even more concerned after reading the secret document himself, since a number of MPs were seemingly guilty of unethical, if not criminal, behaviour. However, he dodged the question of whether there exists a list of culpable MPs in the current Parliament. His main arguments were partisan—why did it take Prime Minister Justin Trudeau so long to act on this issue (fair question) and why does Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre continue to refuse to get the security clearance necessary to read the report (also fair.) However, reading between the lines, Singh appeared to suggest other party leaders are sheltering unethical MPs, while the NDP caucus is clean as the fallen snow. His refusal, or inability, to name names and specific incidents, only deepens the mystery and bolsters the convenient argument that if they tell us what they know, they security forces have to shoot us. It's ridiculous—and a convenient dodge for a sector desperate to prove its importance. No one denies that foreign actors—mostly agents of the Chinese and Indian governments, with Pakistan, Iran and Russia occasionally weighing in—have tried to interfere with the Canadian political process, by seducing, or intimidating, diaspora community leaders into pushing the home countries’ agendas, getting their mouthpieces elected to Parliament, and trying to influence Canadian legislation or public policy on issues like the Uyghur “genocide” within China. As past reports suggest, these “hostile foreign actors” offer parliamentarians free trips to their home countries, cushy post-politics jobs, or, as in the well-publicized case of Conservative MP Michael Chong, gather information on MPs’ relatives abroad. They also direct some local foreign-language media outlets. There have been credible reports of foreign meddling in mostly unregulated party nomination meetings, in previous Conservative leadership campaigns and in other legislatures, including Ontario and British Columbia. But it doesn't work! No evidence suggests that Canadian election outcomes in the recent past were affected by shadowy skullduggery in a handful of ridings. Which doesn’t mean the skullduggery has stopped; just that is has been ineffective. Still, suspicion flourished anew in the wake of the recent National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) report, with MPs nervously eyeing colleagues, and media trying to find out which MPs were “witting” and which “unwitting” pawns of malevolent foreigners. May said one former MP, unnamed, was a willing tool of the People's Republic of China, according to what she read, but they are gone. As to the “unwitting”, she could count them on the fingers of one hand, she said—careful not divulge exact numbers and violate her oath of secrecy. Of possibly complicit Senators, she recalled no names. This unexpected denouement left media, opposition parties, and Canada’s almost hilariously dysfunctional security apparatus looking like bit players in an Inspector Clouseau farce. Worse, the whole fiasco will only confirm Canada’s reputation as a weak link, or soft target, for foreign meddlers. The many investigations into this issue—spurred not by any government alert, but by reporting, based on leaked intelligence sources, from the Globe and Mail—set off a flurry of speculation, a full alphabet of new bureaucratic committees, and mischievous cries of “treason." They included former governor-general David Johnston’s controversial decision in 2023 not to recommend a public inquiry. He reasoned that none of the covertly-gathered evidence could be revealed anyway, for fear of imperilling our operatives in the field and unnerving allied intelligence services. This has been the central conundrum in the whole, overwrought affair: CSIS can dig up dirt on various malefactors, but can’t communicate specific findings, names—to other police forces, usually even to targets—for fear of exposing its own agents and methods. This, at least, has provided a fig leaf for cabinet ministers, and others, who claimed if they revealed details of the intelligence they received, they could be liable to criminal prosecution for violating secrecy. As for Poilievre, he continues to refuse to get the necessary security clearance to access the intelligence, for fear of being barred from commenting—or, precisely, from commenting from a position of knowledge. He wants to be free to cast wild aspersions, suggest sinister motives and blame the whole thing on Trudeau—as usual. Then along came May, with an elegant workaround that answered crucial questions for curious Canadians—yes, there are ongoing efforts to subvert our democratic processes, but no knowing collaborators on the Hill at present. As to “unwitting” pawns of foreign actors, May said she could count them on the fingers of one hand—taking care no to violate her oath to secrecy with specific numbers. Overall, based on what she knows, she opposed the other parties’ decision to send this latest report to yet another ongoing investigation, this one led by Quebec Justice Marie-Josée Hogue. It is expected to produce a final report later this year. May argues this will just kick the issue down the road and absolve party leaders and caucuses of taking more responsibility themselves. Party leaders privy to secret intelligence—and that includes everyone but Poilievre, so far—could throw treacherous MPs out of their caucuses, on whatever pretext they choose. They have always done so, often for less serious charges than disloyalty to Canada—for dodgy business dealings, say, or hateful comments, or unethical personal behaviour. They can also tighten scrutiny of their free-for-all nomination processes, insisting, at least, that party members provide proof of age and residency before closing a candidate—and be Canadian citizens. These nominations, especially in “safe” ridings, have been manipulated by organized groups since before Brian Mulroney’s 1983 leadership campaign, when a number of Old Brewery Mission residents became newly-minted Progressive Conservatives. Former Liberal MP Han Dong, now sitting as an Independent, was suspected of bringing a busload of mainland Chinese students to his successful Don Valley West, Ont., nomination in 2019, an allegation he denies. Any bets there will be no significant reforms of any party processes before October 2025? Political parties are private clubs—they like to run things their way, and always to their strategic advantage. Other remedies—a foreign agent registry, changes in laws to allow more information-sharing among intelligence and police agencies, criminalizing foreign interference—have been slow in coming, as the Trudeau government, presumably unpersuaded by the seriousness of the threat, ignored repeated warnings from its own intelligence services. No harm done, perhaps—except all the media attention, and partisan hysteria, overshadows a far less clandestine, and more effective, attempt to undermine Canadian democracy—right under our noses. That is the mostly—but not exclusively—domestic effort to drive progressive women, especially, out of public office. In this case, it is easy to name names. Last week, prominent Alberta NDP member Shannon Phillips, a well-regarded minister in Rachel Notley’s government, announced she would not be running again. She was, she said, exhausted and worn by online hate and a politically-motivated surveillance campaign by the Lethbridge police service. In her words: “ The right is only getting more crazy and more bonkers and the disinformation is just getting worse.” Last month, a popular federal Liberal backbencher, Pam Damoff, representing the Oakville, Ont., area, also decided to leave the arena. As she said: “the threats and misogyny I have experienced … are such that I often fear going out in public and that is not a sustainable or healthy way to live.” A month before that, Gatineau Mayor France Belisle made headlines across Quebec when she announced her departure not long after being elected the municipality’s first woman mayor. In her words, “I wondered about the price to pay to accomplish this demanding work in an atmosphere that is often hostile.” It is an inexact comparison, granted, because the bullying and intimidation of progressive-minded women (and some men) isn’t emanating exclusively from a foreign capital, or a hostile state. A lot of the hate is home-grown. But the harassment shares common accusations, tactics and targets. It didn’t start with Hillary Clinton, but has grown exponentially since. It is arguably a graver threat to our political system than the low-level spycraft that has so consumed our politics and media of late. Time, maybe, to train the magnifying glass on a new and more dangerous threat. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times