Wesley Wark, a national security expert with the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said Trudeau’s testimony wasn’t terribly revealing.

Wark pointed to the report the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) released in June, which suggested some parliamentarians had been “'semi-witting or witting participants” in foreign interference activities.

Wark also said it’s not clear to what extent the unnamed parliamentarians could be compromised — and suggested many may not even be aware that they are.

In the past, Poilievre has defended his decision not to receive a national security clearance and get briefed by intelligence agencies by arguing that it would prevent him from speaking freely and criticizing the government on foreign interference issues.

(Richard) Fadden said that wouldn’t be the case.

“Just because you have a security clearance doesn’t mean you have to become a Carthusian monk and never speak,” he said. He also said that Poilievre could choose to be briefed only on issues affecting his own party if he wanted to create a buffer ensuring he could criticize the government on foreign interference.

  • Funderpants
    9·
    3 hours ago

    Pierre asking Trudeau to do a crime should be a bigger story than it is, Pierre asking Trudeau to put our information gathering operations at risk should be a bigger story than it is. Makes me sick to think that weasel could get elected on not much more than Liberal fatigue, and we will pay the cost as a society for it when the childcare funds dry up, green money heads to the oil fields, we adopt punishment based healthcare for those addicted or women, and he reintroduces Harpers sneaky style of voter suppression and court stacking.