Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Jody Thomas]

Absolutely. That is why the direction from Minister Mendicino is quite clear that MPs are to be briefed.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Don't you think an inquiry should be held to determine who exactly did not do their job?

[Jody Thomas]

I think you will be hearing from my predecessors. You need to ask them what their logic was in the moment and at the time that these reports came forward.

I think it is critical—before we leap to conclusions that there was negligence—that you hear from them on why they made the decisions they did in that moment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I heard the same thing regarding the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy, so that's why I'm worried, Ms. Thomas.

I want to pick up the discussion on Beijing's secret police stations. You acknowledged earlier that two secret police stations were operating in Montreal. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why the Minister of Public Safety stated on April 27 that the police stations had been shut down when they were still active. The member tried to find out how many secret police stations were operating or had been operating in the country, and you said two, but the discussion ended with Montreal.

Are there others operating elsewhere in the country?

The Journal de Montréal painted a clear picture showing that police stations were operating in Toronto and Vancouver. Are those police stations still active?

[Jody Thomas]

My understanding, as of today, is that the ones that had been operating in Toronto and Vancouver are no longer operating.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do you know whether members of the Chinese diaspora are still being monitored by police officers, diplomats or people with diplomatic protection who are still on the job? Yes or no?

[Jody Thomas]

I do not have any further information about police stations. New information could come to light as soon as I leave this room, but as of today I do not know of any others.

There are, yes, proxies of diplomats who are working contrary to the interests of the diaspora community. That is a significant element of—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

How many?

[Jody Thomas]

I could not give a number.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Is it because you can't or because you don't know?

[Jody Thomas]

Do I know a precise number? No.

Proxies work in a range of ways, so I can't give you a number.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mrs. Romanado is next.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Through you, again, to the witness, focusing on the question of privilege, I want to pick up a bit on where my colleague MP Blaney was focused in terms of educating members of Parliament. We heard testimony, very clearly, that the intelligence community doesn't understand the business of politics, and politicians don't understand the business of intelligence.

When Mr. Chong came to testify before our committee, he mentioned that he had four briefings with CSIS, the first one initiated by CSIS on June 24, 2021, and three subsequent meetings that he initiated with CSIS.

Now, having been a parliamentary secretary in the defence portfolio, and having sat on the defence committee, I have had various intelligence briefings, so I understand what they are. Would you not agree to perhaps having all members of Parliament, senators and their staff be briefed on what to look for, on what foreign interference looks like, on whether it's to be on the lookout for someone who is trying to be involved very much in your campaign, or putting up information that's a bit erroneous so that you will correct it, or things of that nature?

As you understand, the intelligence community is always looking at gathering intelligence. There's a lot of information that members of Parliament probably have, but they're not aware that they have that information, because they're not aware of what to look for. Once they have the understanding of what intelligence agents are doing, they are able to provide the appropriate intelligence agencies feedback also. We heard from another witness that Canadians writ large may be privy to information that would also help the intelligence community.

This is a sort of whole-of-Canada approach. We have a state actor that is trying to undermine our democratic institutions, and I think all Canadians would agree that we need to work together to counter that, to deter and counter. Those missing pieces of the puzzle all together might be able to ensure that in two years' time, when there's another election, we're not in the same situation that we are in here today.

Could you elaborate? In your opinion, do you think providing members of Parliament, senators and their staff, but also Canadians writ large, with at least a better understanding of what foreign intelligence looks like...? Also, then, what would be the channel for them to feed information through, so that they can help and be part of the solution?

[Jody Thomas]

I think you make a very important point or series of points. The director of CSIS has been before this committee and other committees, and certainly in the public, talking about the need to talk about foreign interference and the national security of Canada. It's not a conversation that we generally have. We talk about a lot of other things in Canada. Raising the level of understanding of what national security threats are, who is interested in Canada, who could possibly be working at cross-purposes to Canadian interests, is a really critical conversation.

It is absolutely a criticism of the national security community that the conversations we have with parliamentarians are potentially anodyne, not specific enough, not descriptive enough in terms of the things to watch for. That is something we are working to change. I think some of the things we have done with regard to elections and that continue to evolve are really important for Canadians to understand. The panel of five and the SITE task force are normally connected to a caretaker convention when there is a general election. Well, we stood up the SITE panel to analyze what's going on in five by-elections right now.

It was recommended by Mr. Rosenberg that the panel of five actually meet between elections. The panel of five will begin to meet this summer, to ensure that there is continuity of the period before a general election, so that the panel members, when they see a piece of intelligence during that election period, understand what's come before them. They'll see the totality of the picture. It's critical that this kind of action, I think—which we could certainly report back to parliamentarians—be transparent, to raise the level of awareness, to know what to be on the lookout for, and to know what techniques are being used by adversaries, so that, in the election, we can not only watch for them but prepare all of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have two and a half minutes.

I want to say this again. How is it that this is the place, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we are finding all of this out, as the public watches? I want to thank the media. The idea is to provide transparency and information to reassure the public, but this is not at all reassuring.

I want to use my time to ask the government to state clearly which measures it's taking right now and what it's game plan is. We can get that information out or make an appeal.

You can have the next few minutes to talk about what's coming in three months, six months or a year, not what you've just done.

[Jody Thomas]

I don't have a crystal ball. I would hope that members of Parliament and Canadians—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order. Sorry, the interpretation isn't coming through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm pausing the time.

Ms. Thomas, did you get the question? Did you hear the question? Is it working for you now? Okay.

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you.

I don't have a crystal ball. I would hope that I can reassure you that over the next months you will see more communication from the national security community; that you'll see more dialogue with Canadians, with diaspora communities; that we will talk about foreign interference in a more open and transparent manner; that it can be done without revealing national security classified information; and that the briefings we give to members of Parliament will be more specific and in plainer language and give you examples of what to look for and what the concerns are.

I hope that members of Parliament will be briefed more frequently if they are a target, and the direction from Minister Mendicino is very clear about that. I would hope that, in terms of internal process and dynamic, we will have a steady flow of information and advice to government—and the advice part, as I say, is critical—about what to do about particular scenarios and situations; and that we will start to address and change the tools that are needed by the national security agencies in order to be able to do their jobs.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'll just conclude by saying I would hope to see real transparency and the truth uncovered, so you can reassure the public, given your expertise and influence. As it stands, the situation is extremely worrisome.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I have a brief comment before I ask a question. I heard what you said earlier about a public inquiry. I agree that this discussion has become far too partisan, which is part of the reason the NDP feels it's important to have a person leading this process who is selected by all parties. We need to move out of this rhetoric and really deal with the issue, but we are also at a place where Canadians' sense of trust in our systems has been profoundly impacted. That, I think, can be solved only by a public inquiry.

I appreciate your sharing your opinion. I just took my opportunity to share mine.

My question to you is.... Mr. Chong, when he spoke, talked about the fact that he was briefed generally quite a while back about what foreign interference looks like. He said he heard that about 40 MPs received that briefing to just alert them.... It was not on specifics around his own reality, but just in the broad strokes of what it looks like when that could be happening to you.

It makes sense to me that all parliamentarians should be briefed on what that looks like, so that there is a better understanding. Again, part of what I'm hearing in a lot of the testimony is that we need to raise the literacy of parliamentarians and Canadians on how to address foreign interference and how to start to see it. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether that's a good thing to move forward on.

We also heard testimony that more parliamentarians should be going through a process similar to what they do in NSICOP. Go through that, have clearance and have more access to information, so that we can, again, remove the partisan reality and have more parliamentarians...not understanding top secret issues necessarily, but having a better understanding of what's going on and taking that promise and oath not to share that information.

When you look at this, do you not feel concerned that maybe parliamentarians themselves are not being given the right tools to address this issue and to better understand it when they are briefed?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you.

That's a complex set of questions you've asked. I think that NSICOP could be used more effectively with its cleared members to understand the intelligence being collected and how it's being actioned within the national security community. I think that it's a very critical committee.

Clearing more parliamentarians is complex. Intelligence is, of course, based on the need to know. I'm not sure that clearing more parliamentarians is the answer. Talking about the threats in an unclassified, but very clear and precise manner, I think, is part of the solution.

I don't think one-on-one briefs with parliamentarians are necessarily needed or possible, but when we speak to parliamentarians as a group, I think we have to change the way we do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We'll have Mr. Cooper and Mr. Turnbull, and then we'll have Ms. Thomas on her way.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.