Evidence of meeting #79 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Last Thursday, a job opportunity was posted for Mike MacDonald's job within the office of the NSA.
Why did he depart your office?
11:05 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Mike MacDonald is leaving for a different opportunity in the national security world, having done the job he is in—which is a 24-7 job—for three years.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Okay.
Do you agree that the failure to alert Michael Chong that he and his family were targets of the Beijing regime was a serious failure? Will you at least concede that point?
11:05 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I acknowledge that Mr. Chong should have been told.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
There is no one person. There's no single point of failure. I've said that already.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Do you accept that the Prime Minister is responsible for the machinery of government?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Do you accept that the Prime Minister has special responsibilities when it comes to national security?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Do you accept that the Prime Minister has special responsibilities for the government relationship with Parliament?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You must acknowledge, then, that this failure ultimately rests with the Prime Minister if that is so. Isn't that right?
11:05 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
The Prime Minister cannot brief parliamentarians on things he's not been told.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Through you to the witness, I'm sure she's looked at the independent special rapporteur's report. In his report, the special rapporteur noted, “There has been too much posturing, and ignoring facts in favour of slogans,” when it comes to foreign interference.
As our most senior and non-partisan public servant on national security matters, do you believe that the polarization we're seeing right now on this topic has made your work and the work of our security agencies more challenging or more difficult?
11:05 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I'm not sure how I'd characterize it. I think the partisan nature of the discussion we're having clouds the ability to discuss foreign interference in a mature way, as a G7 country should. I hope the work of this committee will bring to light the seriousness of foreign interference and the work that needs to be done going forward to ensure that Canada is safe from foreign interference.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you for that. I appreciate your honesty.
It's been questioned many times what the proper forum for this is. Whether it's an independent investigation, like the special rapporteur had, or anywhere, for that matter, polarization has gotten so strong that it's been difficult to really find a venue where it doesn't exist right now. It's been challenging, even for us as members of Parliament, I think, to dig through this and get to a place, like you said, where we can discuss this in a sophisticated manner.
The Right Honourable David Johnston also wrote, “Canada requires a more sophisticated approach to national security,” and we've just realized this through the current challenges we're having.
Would you agree with that? What kinds of changes do you think should be made, other than the ones you have mentioned that have been made recently, in the weeks prior to coming here?
11:10 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I have outlined process changes that have been made to ensure that the material is put in front of the right decision-makers, so that decisions can be taken as to how to action intelligence. I also think that it's time, and this has been said by Minister Mendicino and others, that we have a foreign interference transparency regime, that we look at changes to the Security of Information Act and that we look at CSIS changes. The CSIS Act came into being before the Internet age and the movement of information we see now, the polarization we see now and the rise of China that we see now, so I also think that it is time to look at how we modernize CSIS to be able to respond to the threats of today.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Do you have some ideas, when it comes to how we could modernize? What particular changes should be made to the act, since it has been so long?
11:10 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
There are a few things, in particular.
Number one, with the foreign interference transparency regime, there need to be Criminal Code changes that make it a Criminal Code offence not to disclose. Other countries that have this same regime have taken that step, and it has given some meat and teeth to the regime itself.
In terms of CSIS, there are a few things that need to be done. CSIS cannot disclose information that is protected to other levels of government or opposition parties. That was created in its day for a reason, but I don't think it meets the need any longer. They need to be able to discuss classified information.
It would be very useful if they had a method of disclosing that somewhere between their defensive briefs—which is the kind of brief you hear from CSIS when they speak to parliamentarians about, “Here is the threat,” and they speak about it in very general terms—and the threat reduction measures, which are a very formal process, because there is a specific threat against a specific individual, for example.
There should be something in between to allow them to have more general conversations with some protected, classified material, not necessarily disclosing the totality of it but allowing them to have a conversation that is less general.
One of the things we hear from members of Parliament when they have conversations with CSIS is, “I don't really understand at this point if I'm under threat.” That's not because CSIS doesn't want to share information. It means it is limited in what it can share, so that modernization of the CSIS Act would be extraordinarily useful.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Your answer is very informative. I appreciate that, and I think it's very useful in enabling this committee to take some action and recommend some steps the government can take.
I don't remember whether you said there was a need to modernize NSIA as well. Do you have any comments on that?
11:10 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I'm not sure I'm the best person to analyze what should be done with this job. In other countries, it is a job that has more authority, perhaps. PCO convenes. I don't direct the security agencies, although we are giving more direction to them now in terms of the communication flow and the dissemination and management of material.
I heard Mr. Wernick say it should be a five-year job. I'm not sure anybody should do this job for five years, again, because it's a 24-7 job, and you need to be a senior person in government to do it. That said, recommendations, I'm sure, would be appreciated.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
We thank you for your service. We hope that you can stay well while doing it.
