Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s office has explained in a detailed statement to the Western Standard his reasons for not obtaining top secret security clearance.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who baselessly accused the Conservatives of being named in the top secret National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) while under oath testifying at the Commission on Foreign Interference in October, has continuously ribbed Poilievre for not undergoing the clearance necessary to read the document himself.
And it hasn’t just been Trudeau. His former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is now a top contender in the Liberal leadership race and if she wins, would be the next prime minister until an election is called, has also repeatedly slammed Poilievre for not getting the clearance.
Poilievre’s longstanding explanation for not taking the clearance is to avoid the inevitable gag order that comes with access to top security documents. If he were to read the NSICOP report, he has said multiple times, he wouldn’t be allowed to call out any parliamentarians mentioned and hold the government to account.
Yet, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, Green party leader Elizabeth May and a litany of Liberal MPs have also joined the chorus, parotting the same rebuttal back at Poilievre whenever he raised any concerns over foreign interference —- or anything else — during Question Period in the House of Commons.
Poilievre’s office has sent the Western Standard Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) policies that allow Poilievre to be briefed on information he needs to know through “Threat Reduction Measures (TRMs), which is found under section 12.1 of the CSIS Act — and do not restrict his ability to speak on the matter.
“Unlike others who are willing to limit their ability to hold the government accountable on important issues of national security, Mr. Poilievre will not be gagged and unable to speak or act on information he may receive,” Sebastian Skamski, of Poilievre’s office, wrote.
“We consistently maintained that if the government believes that there is further information that Mr. Poilievre needs to know, they can utilize TRMs.”
Skamski pointed out TRMs are a “tool that has been available to the Government since 2015… to make further information available in a manner that would not limit the ability to speak to Canadians.”
“The government could use it to inform a parliamentarian of any critical national security information they believe he or she needs to know,” he said.
The Privy Council Office (PCO) on December 5 confirmed to the Tories the Trudeau Liberals are “in a position to disclose the classified information pursuant to legislated authorities TRMs).”
CSIS guidance says TRMs may be given to enable the parliamentarian briefed to take discretionary action against the identified threat.
“In subsequent discussions with the government regarding the offered TRM briefing, officials indicated that should Mr. Poilievre receive the TRM briefing, he would be legally prevented from speaking with anyone other than legal counsel about the briefing and would be able to take action only as expressly authorized by the government, rendering him unable to effectively use any relevant information he received,” wrote Skamski
“This is clearly unacceptable, and entirely contrary to the government’s supposed objective of enabling the person briefed to reduce risk.”
“In exchanges between representatives of the leader of the opposition and the government, the government advised that the intended briefing did not implicate the suitability of any current parliamentarian to remain in caucus, nor did the intended briefing touch on any individual nominated as a candidate for the party or seeking to be nominated.”
“Government officials advised that their proposed briefing concerns foreign interference ‘directed at’ parliamentarians,” wrote Skamski.
“Under the terms of the briefing proposed, Mr. Poilievre would obtain information about foreign interference directed at a parliamentarian. But he would then be unable to speak with the parliamentarian about the briefing received unless the government provided consent to do so.”
“Should any parliamentarian have foreign interference directed at them, the government could and should use TRMs to notify that parliamentarian directly of the specific threat. This has been done in the past such as in the cases of MPs Michael Chong and Jenny Kwan.”
Skamski noted even Justice Marie-Josée Hogue agreed such briefings are problematic.
“Merely giving opposition parties access to intelligence is not as simple as it sounds,” wrote Hogue on page 94 of the first volume of the final report, released Tuesday.
“There are also challenges for party leaders who receive intelligence, particularly if they are told that, due to secrecy concerns, there are limits to how they can use it,” she wrote on page 95.
“As we have repeatedly said, the prime minister should release the names of any parliamentarians who have knowingly participated in foreign interference,” wrote Skamski.