Conservative Leader Pierre Poirierbre has every political reason to resist calls for Canadian MPs to read out the watchdog's confidential report on allegations of foreign interference and collusion. His party's approval ratings are sky-high in the opinion polls; the Liberal party's approval ratings are at their lowest since 2015. The party has a clear and firm line of attack: calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “make public the names” implicated in the National Security Intelligence Parliamentary Committee (NSICOP) report, a redacted version of which was released earlier this month.
And most importantly, willful ignorance means that Poirievre doesn't actually have to do anything about foreign interference in his party. Indeed, if he knew details of, say, the alleged meddling by India and China in Canada's leadership race, which is mentioned but not detailed in a redacted version of the NSICOP report, it might call for a party purge, tweaks to party policy, or even the invocation of parliamentary privilege.
Doing anything carries the risk of being controversial, and why would Mr. Poirievre do such a thing?
A spokesperson for the Opposition Leader's office said last week that he would be happy to receive a report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) if they thought it needed to know about the party. This is both a convenient way for Poirierbvre to shift the blame and a bit presumptuous, considering that just two months ago he criticized Trudeau for not reading the briefing notes he was provided on foreign interference. (Yes, Poirierbvre is not the Prime Minister, but surely anyone aspiring to be Prime Minister would want to know about the threats facing their country as they occur, not after the fact.) The Conservative Leader's reluctance and apparent indifference to what is happening in this country is not seen in any other party leader; they all want the necessary clearance to be informed about the threats facing our democracy.
During a CTV News panel earlier this month, Conservative MP Michael Chong, who is also shadow foreign affairs minister, defended Poiriervre's decision not to read the uncensored report. He argued that the information would effectively “tie his hands” because Poiriervre was sworn to secrecy and the reform act requires a secret vote by caucus to remove an MP from caucus. “There's no way they're going to vote without the information,” Chong said.
If the allegations in the NSICOP confidential report were compelling enough to require the removal of MPs from office, Poirièvre could find a way to give his party the information it needs (perhaps by releasing their names under parliamentary privilege). But doing so would be risky both personally and politically, since it would technically violate the Privacy Act, even if not punishable by parliamentary privilege. It would also undermine his party's “hold the government to account” cause, since he would be saddled with the same information that the Opposition Leader demands the Prime Minister disclose. It would be much easier and safer for Poirièvre to stumble through Parliament blindfolded, lamenting Trudeau's lack of disclosure.
There are now two conflicting interpretations of the NSICOP report from party leaders: Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who said she was “greatly relieved” to read the uncensored version, and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who said he was “more concerned.” There are also premiers who are casting doubt on the conclusions reached by the committee members, and citizens who are more confused than ever about the integrity of our democracy and the trust that should be placed in sitting MPs.
Conservatives might argue that Poirievre could oppose this government more effectively if he wasn’t tied down by the details contained in the classified NSICOP report, but so far his tactic of repeatedly crying out “put their names out there” before returning to a carbon tax has yet to bear fruit.
What he might actually do to help would be to read the report and offer a clear explanation. Indeed, Mr. Poirievre has an opportunity to prove that he is the adult in the room; that is, where this government is letting down Canadians with foreign interference and public disclosure, he will stand up and, although it may cost him some political capital, at least offer a different interpretation. This is a chance for Mr. Poirievre to show that he is not just a combative attack dog, and also to get the information himself, as any serious opposition leader would. But why would he do that, given his position in the polls?
