Wesley Wark, a national security expert with the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said Trudeau’s testimony wasn’t terribly revealing.

Wark pointed to the report the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) released in June, which suggested some parliamentarians had been “'semi-witting or witting participants” in foreign interference activities.

Wark also said it’s not clear to what extent the unnamed parliamentarians could be compromised — and suggested many may not even be aware that they are.

In the past, Poilievre has defended his decision not to receive a national security clearance and get briefed by intelligence agencies by arguing that it would prevent him from speaking freely and criticizing the government on foreign interference issues.

(Richard) Fadden said that wouldn’t be the case.

“Just because you have a security clearance doesn’t mean you have to become a Carthusian monk and never speak,” he said. He also said that Poilievre could choose to be briefed only on issues affecting his own party if he wanted to create a buffer ensuring he could criticize the government on foreign interference.

  • Value Subtracted@startrek.website
    0·
    1 month ago

    Poilievre and the Conservatives have been calling on Trudeau to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.

    But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime.

    “Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June.

    When CBC News later asked Flynn whether the names could be released in the House of Commons, where MPs enjoy certain legal protections, he suggested that could be a legal grey area.

    “That’s a question that should be asked, due to the complexities of parliamentary privilege, of a legal expert,” Flynn said.

    Stephanie Carvin, a former CSIS national security analyst, said there are several reasons why national security agencies wouldn’t want the names made public — starting with the fact that it could compromise ongoing investigations.

    “We don’t want foreign governments knowing how we are collecting information. That’s why we protect our sources and methods,” she said.