Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre asks a question during Question Period in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Wednesday, Dec. 4.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s office says he will receive a briefing on national security matters from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, though without being required to obtain special clearance that he has said would constrain his ability to publicly hold the government to account.
The move follows a month after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has repeatedly criticized Mr. Poilievre for refusing top-level security clearance, announced he would ask security services to find another way to brief his rival on foreign interference targeting the Conservatives.
The Official Opposition Leader’s office said Saturday the briefing will take place this coming week.
“We are interested in what CSIS has to say,” said Sebastian Skamski, director of media relations for Mr. Poilievre’s office, in a statement.
He said the Privy Council Office (PCO), a central agency of the federal government, confirmed to the Conservative Leader’s office that the briefing would be offered under rules that allow CSIS to brief people regardless of that person’s security classification.
“On Dec. 5, 2024, PCO confirmed our position,” Mr. Skamski said, adding the agency told the Conservatives in an e-mail that “the government is in a position to disclose the classified information pursuant to legislated authorities (Threat Reduction Measures (TRM).”
In October, the Prime Minister appeared before a public inquiry to answer questions about his record in fighting foreign interference. During testimony, Mr. Trudeau redirected the focus to the Official Opposition, and announced he had been given the names of past and present Conservative parliamentarians and candidates who are linked to foreign interference. He criticized Mr. Poilievre for not applying for clearance.
Near the end of that month, Mr. Trudeau alleged that Mr. Poilievre’s refusal to obtain a security clearance was a dereliction of his duty.
“The leader of the Opposition has failed at his responsibility to keep his own MPs safe from foreign interference,” Mr. Trudeau said on Oct. 30.
“So, I have asked the security services to figure out a way to give some information to the leader of the Opposition so that he can actually fulfill his responsibility of protecting Canadians, including those within his own caucus.”
This spat between Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre began in June after the release of a report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which said some parliamentarians are collaborating with foreign governments such as China and India to advance their own interests. NSICOP also said Beijing and New Delhi allegedly interfered in Conservative leadership races.
Mr. Poilievre has refused to apply for the security clearance necessary to read the unredacted report. He said the obligations of this clearance would restrict his ability to discuss and hold the government to account on what he had learned.
He has maintained since June that CSIS officials can brief him under the agency’s threat-reduction-measure mandate if federal officials feel there are foreign interference concerns about his party or caucus that should be brought to his attention.
“Should the Government have relevant information, they are empowered by Section 12.1 of the CSIS Act to brief an individual using Threat Reduction Measures (TRM), regardless of security clearance status,” Mr. Skamski said Saturday.
CSIS spokesperson Lindsay Sloane said the service has several mechanisms available through the CSIS Act to share information.
“In typical circumstances, classified information is shared only with those who hold an appropriate security clearance and a relevant need to know,” she said in an e-mailed statement Saturday.
“Under a threat reduction measure, certain information can be disclosed to reduce a threat. CSIS has considered the available mechanisms for sharing information with the Leader of the Official Opposition, as they related to the specific facts of this situation and the related national security threats,” Ms. Sloane said.
“In this instance, CSIS has determined that the disclosure of some information to the Leader of the Official Opposition through a threat reduction measure is appropriate. Plans for the briefing are now being finalized to ensure this information is conveyed to the Leader of the Official Opposition.”
Stephanie Carvin, a former national-security analyst and a professor at Carleton University, said she’s concerned in this tussle between the Liberals and Conservatives that security is becoming politicized.
“Canada has largely avoided the politicization of intelligence that we’ve seen in other democracies, such as our closest allies, U.S. and the U.K.,” she said.
“A every opportunity, I feel like Parliament has shirked its responsibility to treat this seriously. It bothers me that political parties would use this as a chance to score points.”
On Thursday, 2022 Conservative leadership contender Patrick Brown outlined interventions by India in testimony before MPs. Mr. Brown, the Mayor of Brampton, said an Indian consul-general meddled in his leadership bid, though he does not believe foreign interference by New Delhi influenced the outcome of the race that elected Mr. Poilievre.
Mr. Brown, who was ultimately disqualified from that race after allegations he violated financing rules, told the parliamentary committee that his campaign co-chair, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, received an angry phone call from the consul-general to demand that he stop using the term of “Sikh nation.”
Ms. Rempel Garner resigned from his campaign in mid-June that year, saying she was considering entering Alberta politics, and the concern over “Sikh nation” was later raised at a conference call with top campaign aides.
“The concern that was raised was that I had used the term on a number of occasions, ‘Sikh nation,’ and the consul-general had expressed directly to MP Rempel Garner that this was something they obviously didn’t agree with; that it could be used in nationalistic terms toward the Sikh community,” Mr. Brown told the committee. “What was agreed upon was that I wouldn’t use the word ‘Sikh nation.’”