The chairman of the parliamentary national security and intelligence committee, which released an explosive report earlier this week claiming that some Canadian parliamentarians are "deliberately" assisting foreign state actors, said it is now up to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to decide whether they can pursue the allegations.

On Monday, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), a group of Members of Parliament and Senators from various parties with high-level security clearances, released a long-awaited report examining foreign interference in Canada.

The heavily redacted document alleged that some parliamentarians are actively assisting foreign governments like China and India in interfering with Canadian politics.

The report has sparked a debate over the accuracy of the intelligence and whether Canadian voters have the right to know if their representative is working for another country.

Faced with a barrage of questions this Wednesday morning before a Liberal caucus meeting, committee chair David McGuinty repeatedly told reporters that he and other committee members are bound by confidentiality and cannot disclose names or any materials behind the redactions of the report.

He said, "Look, the committee's hands are tied. We can only release what we release."

"Members have always wanted to be more transparent, not less. We have gone as far as we can in this review to disclose what we can; it is now up to the RCMP to determine what happens next and what can be done without violating the Security of Information Act."

McGuinty stated, "The issue of whether this case will be pursued or not is rightly a matter for the RCMP."

"It's up to the RCMP to decide based on any intelligence or evidence they may have whether to take action or not."

McGuinty: It's hard to prosecute intelligence

Monday's report indicated that members of the NSICOP were briefed on intelligence suggesting that parliamentarians worked to influence their colleagues on behalf of India and proactively provided sensitive information to Indian officials.

In another case mentioned in the report—based on information from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) shared with the NSICOP—a sitting member of Parliament maintained a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, and the country of origin of the officer was not included in the public report.

The NSICOP stated that some cases of foreign interference it examined may have involved illegal activity but are unlikely to result in criminal charges "due to Canada's longstanding failure to address the issue of protecting sensitive information and methods in judicial proceedings."

McGuinty acknowledged that securing charges based on intelligence was a difficult task for police.

He said, "It's hard to get intelligence information in broad daylight from a courtroom because it involves protecting sources and methods."

"Look, this is a big problem for law enforcement officials in the intelligence area who have been calling for some improvements in this area."

The use of intelligence as evidence is a longstanding issue. The "intelligence to evidence" quandary is the delicate dance between the need to protect sensitive information from disclosure and the need to rely on that information to support law enforcement and uphold the accused's right to a fair trial.

A 2021 report by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA), which is the country's civil intelligence oversight body, stated that flaws in the way the Canadian spy agency and the national police force exchange information have hampered investigations.

The report stated that the CSIS is under pressure to protect operational information - its tactics, techniques, and the whereabouts of its spies. The report noted that the RCMP is also hesitant to use information from CSIS, fearing that service interference could jeopardize the chances of a successful prosecution.

As a result, NSIRA stated that investigations by the RCMP are progressing slowly while the CSIS is relying on "a range of intelligence information."