Former national security officials are expressing skepticism over Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s refusal to receive classified briefings on foreign interference.
For months Poilievre has refused to obtain top-secret clearance so officials with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) could share intelligence on foreign interference with him.
On Tuesday, just after Justice Marie-Josée Hogue released her report on foreign interference, Poilievre’s office revealed he is also refusing to take briefings under CSIS’s “threat reductions measures” (TRM) mandate — which would allow the agency to share some information with the Conservative leader without him first obtaining security clearance.
Poilievre has long argued that receiving classified intelligence would prevent him from holding the government to account on foreign interference. But ex-national security officials who spoke to Global News are skeptical of that position.
In a statement, Poilievre’s office maintained accepting the briefings would effectively “gag” the Conservative leader.
“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,” Poilievre’s spokesperson, Sebastian Skamski, wrote in a statement.
“This is clearly unacceptable, and entirely contrary to the government’s supposed objective of enabling the person briefed to reduce risk.”
Skamski added that government officials indicated the briefings concerned foreign interference being “directed at” parliamentarians, not about the “suitability” of sitting parliamentarians or candidates.
Global News reached five ex-national security officials, including two former CSIS directors, for their perspective on Poilievre’s argument.
Get daily National news
Richard Fadden, former CSIS director and national security and intelligence advisor to Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau
“One, I think he has a responsibility to the public to ensure that people in his party are worthy of being members of the party and members of the House of Commons, and if there’s a suspicion that they’re not, I’d argue it’s his duty to find out and to do something about it. And I guess secondly, he argues that if he has a clearance and he’s been given a briefing, he can’t argue about it. Well, if he never has a briefing, he’s arguing in a vacuum, so I’m not sure how that helps him in a practical sense.”
“But fundamentally, I think any number of people over the years have received this kind of briefing. Other countries do it, other Commonwealth countries provide these kind of briefings to opposition members, and they seem to be able to function.”
Leah West, former Department of Justice counsel in National Security Litigation and Advisory Group
“It’s accurate in the sense that if he wants to be able to disclose anything not in the House of Commons, then he would still be subject to the (Security of Information Act) … He still has the opportunity, if he so chooses, to hold the government to account based on what he knows on the floor of the House of Commons because of his (legal) immunity from anything he says on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“I find his choice interesting because it’s my understanding, for the most part, is that briefings that would be going to him … the information is something that he, because of the threat reduction measure, has to reasonably be believed to take measures to reduce the threat. You can’t just share something as a threat reduction measure because it’s nice to know. The definition of a threat reduction measure is, by sharing this information, we can do something to reduce the threat. So conceivably there is something in his power that he could do to reduce the threat once he has this information.”
Ward Elcock, former CSIS director
“The whole thing would be a lot simpler if he would just get clearance … What it frankly says to me, listening to Mr. Poilievre’s normal criticism of the government, he likes to make criticisms that are pretty far-reaching without any visible support. I guess I assume he’s afraid that if he gets a briefing, then he will actually know some facts that he can’t criticize on the basis of those facts. It’s hard to criticize when you actually know something. “
Stephanie Carvin, an international relations professor at Carleton University and former CSIS analyst
“There’s a clear moving of the goal posts. It went from ‘I should be able to get through this a threat reduction measure,’ finally the government agrees, ‘Okay we’re going to give you a threat reduction measure.’ ‘Oh, okay, now I don’t want to because I can’t talk about the intelligence.’ I don’t know what he would say that hasn’t already been said in the (Hogue) report … I guess my concern is that not taking an intelligence briefing because you can’t turn it into a meme is not the seriousness with which we should be approaching this issue.”
Jessica Davis, president of Insight Threat Intelligence and former official at the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) and CSIS
“It’s confusing to me that someone who wants to be the prime minister of Canada would turn down information about the country’s security, particularly at a time when the country is facing significant terrorism, foreign interference, and other threats. Surely, greater knowledge of the threats facing Canada would be an asset in crafting policy and running a successful campaign. Turning down this information is a disservice to himself, his party, and, ultimately, Canadian voters.”