Mitch Heimpel: Parliament can fix this mess. In fact, it is obligated to.

NSICOP is composed of five lawyers, RCMP and navy veterans and one of the most decorated combat officers to have served in the House of Commons in decades. They are serious.

Photo credit: Chelsey Faucher/Unsplash

By: Mitch Heimpel

I've pretty much had it with the debate about whether we should disclose the names of those parliamentarians who are alleged to have "wittingly, or semi-wittingly" collaborated with agents of foreign powers. 

Of course we should. 

Those hiding behind arguments that those parliamentarians are entitled to some kind of due process are flatly bloody ludicrous. There are any number of things it is possible for an MP or a senator to do that does not cross a criminal evidentiary threshold, but very obviously crosses an ethical one. If we're a democracy that is willing to argue that it is a matter of the most immediate democratic importance that we know where the prime minister went on vacation, or how much room service orange juice costs, then we absolutely have to be willing to state that a parliamentarian's cooperation with agents of a foreign power is a matter of public interest. 

There are a lot of reasons for that, but before I get to those, I want to deal with one specific issue. Which is the degree to which the coverage on this matter has taken a tone of essentially infantilizing the MPs on NSICOP. There's been a lot of "well, we don't know how good the intelligence was," or "it could just be rumours," and other lines to that effect. NSICOP is composed of five lawyers, a former RCMP officer, a former naval officer and one of the most decorated combat officers to have served in the House of Commons in decades. We did not hand raw intelligence to utter rubes to produce a report. Eight people with experience evaluating evidence, examining the credibility of witnesses, and — in a couple cases — experience assessing security threats, decided the Canadian public had a right to know what the heck was going on. Treating our MPs like they're Muppets, even if their behaviour sometimes leads to that conclusion, is a habit our political and journalistic classes need to kick.

That’s my defence of NSICOP, but I agree there have to be limits on what itself can disclose. Some, if not most, of the intelligence used to make the allegations probably isn't Canadian. The government has to manage our foreign affairs. NSICOP shouldn't release the names because doing so would have made a decision for the government on its intelligence-sharing relationships that the committee isn't empowered to make. 

But, ahem, the government itself sure as hell can make those kinds of decisions.

Now, there are three issues here. The first, if you'll indulge a former Parliamentary Affairs Director for a moment, is that MPs have an obligation to protect the institution that is the House of Commons. Every MP is required as a condition of taking their seats, to swear the following oath: "I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, his heirs and successors. So help me God."

The violation of that oath, or the suspected violation of that oath, is absolutely arguably contempt against the House of Commons. We don't have a ton of precedent for that, because MPs who have been alleged to have collaborated, even unwittingly, with a foreign power in the past usually have the good sense to resign. But MPs should absolutely be allowed to pass judgment on the actions of their colleagues, with the express intent of expelling from the House any members who have transgressed against their oath to King and Country. This isn’t just their duty, it is a duty that they are uniquely positioned and obligated to perform. Until we know exactly which parliamentarians we're talking about, a spectre hangs over all 400-plus of them. That very much compromises the public's opinion of Parliament and has a demonstrable impact on their ability to do their jobs as parliamentarians.

Second, we are a large and multicultural country. MPs are expected to represent members of any diaspora community which may exist in their constituency. If you're a Tibetan or Uyghur activist, how can you be represented by an MP who's demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with the government of the People's Republic of China? If you're an Iranian democracy and reform activist, how can you be represented by an MP who has close ties to Iran's diplomatic and intelligence operation? 

The answer, of course, is that you can't be. The government has a greater responsibility to the democratic rights of those Canadians than it does to protecting the identity of any single unscrupulous or otherwise compromised parliamentarian. With every day that passes, Ottawa looks more like it has an interest in partisan butt-covering than it does in maintaining the long-term faith that democracy requires for our institutions to survive. 

Finally, I accept that intelligence is not evidence. I also accept, as noted in the Globe by Philippse Lagassé and Stephanie Carvin, that we must be cautious to not compromise intelligence sources and methods, or compromise ongoing investigations. Parliamentarians should not replace the criminal justice system or undercut our defence, but they what they are capable of doing, and indeed are required to do because no one else can do it for them, is broadly defining what the acceptable behaviour for parliamentarians should be. If an MP or a senator has engaged with a foreign power's diplomatic or security services and they do not believe they have crossed the line for what we deem to be acceptable behaviour, they will be more than welcome to go on Power and Politics, or take to social media, or show up at what I'm sure will be many committee hearings, and make their case.

It is not a hardship to ask them do so. They are not being hard done by. The question here is not whether what they've done is criminal. It wasn't criminal when Bev Oda billed the taxpayers for her juice. It wasn't criminal when Bill Morneau forgot to leave a cabinet meeting where a decision was made that was a perceived conflict of interest. But both of those parliamentarians were forced to accept that their behaviour had failed the people they were sworn to represent. They resigned.

And the idea that orange juice crosses the line, but aiding a foreign intelligence service — even “semi-wittingly” — does not, will fail to pass the smell test with a very large number of Canadians. And that is entirely correct. The public is well ahead of the politicians on understanding this.

To this point, no one has questioned NSICOP's conclusions. Or suggested that anything alleged in their report didn't happen. These names are going to leak. Dozens of people in Ottawa already know who they are. Some of them — at least theoretically — could become pension eligible next year. Which means Canadian taxpayers could be paying for someone who undermined Canadian democracy for the rest of their natural life. 

But yeah, let's keep repeating "intelligence isn't evidence" until we're blue in the face. I’m sure the public will go for that if the politicians keep it up long enough.

Mitch Heimpel has served Conservative cabinet ministers and party leaders at the provincial and federal levels, and is currently the director of campaigns and government relations at Enterprise Canada.

---

The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.

---

The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something:  lineeditor@protonmail.com