Parliament’s national security committee dodges questions on foreign interference report

In an article I posted last week, I argued that an “explosive” report on foreign interference in Canada was a big, fat nothing-burger.

The report was issued by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Canada’s Parliament (NSICOP). Its release instantly generated a media frenzy about alleged foreign interference in Canada, particularly by the Chinese government.

NSICOP’s report also claimed that at least six foreign states were the “primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada”, but the authors of the report decided to disclose the identities of only three of those states (China, India and Iran).

What other states are the “primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada”?

Why has NSICOP concealed their identities?

And are any of those states allies of Canada?

To explore those questions, I sent an email to NSICOP’s Media Secretariat on June 30. In my article of last week, I wrote that, if I received a response to my inquiry from the Secretariat, I would publish its response in full.

I have now heard from NSICOP’s Secretariat. I have posted below my full email exchange with NSICOP’s Secretariat. As can be seen from that exchange, NSICOP is dodging my questions. It refuses to disclose any information about the unidentified “primary perpetrators”.

 

Email from Dimitri Lascaris to NSICOP Secretariat on June 30, 2024:

Good evening, I am a freelance reporter based in Montreal.

I have reviewed NSICOP’s 84-page special report on alleged foreign interference in Canada’s democratic processes and institutions, and I have several questions about the report which I request that you answer at your earliest convenience.

On page 13 of its report, NSICOP states:

During the period under review, the primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada were the PRC, India, ***, Iran, *** and ***. Observed transnational repression focused on fundamental rights and freedoms (e.g., freedom of expression), but did not directly target democratic institutions and processes.

As I read this paragraph, NSICOP has identified six states as the “primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada”, but has decided not to identify three of those states.

Is my reading correct? If not, how many states has NSICOP identified as “primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada”?

Further, why has NSICOP decided to withhold from the public the identities of some of the states it deems to be the “primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada”? Are any of those states considered by NSICOP to be allies of Canada?

On page 26 of its report, NSICOP alleges that:

Member of Parliament wittingly provided information *** to a foreign state [*** This paragraph was revised to remove injurious or privileged information. ***] The Committee notes a particularly concerning case of a then-member of Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. According to CSIS, the member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence.

Why has NSICOP withheld the identify of the foreign state referred to in this paragraph?

Does NSICOP consider that the foreign state referred to in the above paragraph is an ally of Canada?

Finally, is the foreign state referred to on page 26 of the report one of the “primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada” which NSICOP refers to on page 13 of its report?

I would appreciate your responses to the above questions at your earliest convenience.

Yours truly,

Dimitri Lascaris

 

Email from NSICOP Secretariat to Dimitri Lascaris on July 3, 2024

Good morning,

Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the Revisions Section at the outset of the report for the detailed rationale behind the redaction of information and the use of the three asterisks (***).

Thank you,

NSICOP Secretariat

 

Email from Dimitri Lascaris to NSICOP Secretariat on July 3, 2024:

Good morning, I was already aware of the revisions section at the outset of the report.

With all due respect, it does not provide a “detailed” explanation for the redactions to which my questions relate.

Before I publish your response, please confirm that your committee will provide no further response to the questions I asked you in my email of June 30, 2024.

Dimitri Lascaris

 

Further email from NSICOP Secretariat to Dimitri Lascaris on July 3, 2024

Good morning,

Thank you for your follow-up inquiry. In regards to your question, the Revisions section at the outset of the report provides a summary of legislation that establishes the Committee and governs its reports, specifically section 21(5) of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act.  The Committee is unable, by statute, to provide further information regarding injurious information which has been redacted from the report.

NSICOP Secretariat