Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both witnesses for being here today.
Professor Wark, I'll start with you.
I read the iPolitics article of October 18. You were interviewed extensively about your feelings on political party leaders at the federal level getting the necessary security clearance so that they could be properly briefed. You've made it very clear what your position is on that. I will note that in other articles in The Hill Times, that position is supported by former CSIS executives. It is supported by a former CSIS director, Ward Elcock. In private conversations that I've had with current CSIS executives, that is their position as well.
At Tuesday's meeting, we had the new CSIS director, Mr. Daniel Rogers. I'll quote from his testimony: “From our perspective, the more knowledgeable party leaders are about the threat of foreign interference and some of the specifics that we've seen through our intelligence, the more they can be aware and the more they may be able to take appropriate actions within their own parties.” I think the conversation about whether or not party leaders can speak freely is a red herring, because the part I really zeroed in on from the current CSIS director is “appropriate actions” that a party leader can take. I think that's very important for Canadians to understand.
Professor Wark, could you inform the committee what actions you believe a federal party leader who has gotten the clearance and received the necessary briefings can take, in partnership with an organization like CSIS, that can lend themselves to protecting our democratic processes and giving Canadians a little bit more confidence that in the next election we're taking our choice of candidates very seriously?