Poilievre’s briefing refusal is a sign of the end of collegiality on the Hill

KAMOURASKA, QUE—In early September 1983, my then-minister, solicitor- general of Canada Bob Kaplan, reached out to new opposition leader Brian Mulroney. Mulroney had been elected in a byelection a few weeks before in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova, and now had a seat in Parliament. As the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, which was second to Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals, he automatically became Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Kaplan—with Trudeau’s blessing—called Mulroney and asked him if he would like a briefing on Canadian security files. As the minister responsible for the RCMP, and—a year later—the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Kaplan had access to significant secret files. It was felt that Mulroney, as the leader of the official opposition, should be aware of the sensitive issues engaging the government, and Mulroney agreed. It was not an unusual courtesy: previous leaders of the opposition had received similar briefings from previous solicitors general. There were two conditions: an oath of secrecy, and the promise to not divulge any of the briefing. Mulroney readily agreed, and although I was not present, I was told afterwards the briefing lasted several hours, and Mulroney grasped the seriousness and the secrecy of the information he was given. This was a sign of the respect and collegiality that was a feature of politics on Parliament Hill at the time. In subsequent years, this tradition continued until the Harper government was in power, and the NDP was the official opposition. It has now become a political football, with the current leader of the opposition, Pierre Poilievre, refusing the briefing and the necessary security clearance. It allows him to complain about the issue of foreign interference with impunity. My first reaction to Poilievre’s decision was that it is a sign of the degradation of collegiality between Members of Parliament. While I am no longer a denizen of the Hill, there is a visceral meanness to the public pronouncements I see in the media that didn’t exist before. In the 1980s, it was not unusual for members on opposite sides of the House to socialize together. Today, all that has been lost, and there appears to be a climate of mistrust reigning over the Hill. This has become pertinent in the last few weeks in the wake of various reports, most notably that of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP). The issue of foreign interference—or more appropriately, the willing collaboration of MPs with foreign powers, both overtly hostile (China, Russia, Iran) and traditionally friendly (India)—is now making headlines. Most journalists are indulging in what I call “soap-opera analysis” on the issue of foreign interference, with the “Who will take the briefing?” speculation, and in Poilievre’s case, “Will he or won’t he?” This reporting makes it sound as if foreign interference is new. Serious journalists have written extensively about the subject in the past. In 2021, I devoted a column to the issue when CSIS had released a study called Foreign Interference Threats to Canada's Democratic Process. It reads: “Foreign interference directed at our democratic institutions … can pose serious threats to Canadians both inside and outside Canada, and threaten Canada’s prosperity, strategic interests, social fabric, and national security.” I also mentioned that in 2010 then-CSIS director Richard Fadden warned parliamentarians of active Chinese efforts to recruit Canadian MPs. And yet, the current controversy over the NSICOP report in the media makes it sound as if this is a recent phenomenon. When CSIS was established almost 40 years ago, I remember many Canadians asking why it was necessary—after all, what secrets could Canada possibly have? As most historians know, we have plenty as a member of the Five Eyes intelligence group, and a member of NATO and NORAD. So, those in government face the challenge of convincing Canadians—and even their elected officials—of the importance of protecting our interests. In writing this column, I am careful not to stray into areas of material I saw when I worked on the Hill, and as a public servant. That is because I took an oath to be loyal to Canada. And also, because I love my country. I wish more elected officials felt that way. Andrew Caddell is retired from Global Affairs Canada, where he was a senior policy adviser. He previously worked as an adviser to Liberal governments. He is a town councillor in Kamouraska, Que. He can be reached at pipson52@hotmail.com. The Hill Times

Poilievre’s briefing refusal is a sign of the end of collegiality on the Hill

Unlike days of yore, there now appears to be a climate of mistrust reigning over Parliament Hill.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Canada faces a cybersecurity crisis with critical infrastructure at risk

Let Ukraine strike back

Who’s standing up to the danger of World War III?

The sad saga of Afghan-Canadian military advisers

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

Hogue inquiry to return after summer’s ‘disturbing’ lack of focus on foreign interference, says Stephanie Carvin

Forty years on, CSIS deserves more respect

‘We’re in the dark’: CSG pushes for security clearance for Senate leaders to parse NSICOP report

Political leaders should not put interests of parties over interests of the country

The buck stops where? Experts urge party leaders to be accountable for NSICOP report findings

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Poilievre’s briefing refusal is a sign of the end of collegiality on the Hill

Unlike days of yore, there now appears to be a climate of mistrust reigning over Parliament Hill.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter