Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2023

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, with respect to that, the information we had did not permit us to conclude that there was a state-sponsored source. There may be other information that would make that clearer, but that was not clear to us at the time.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Well, there were Communist Party media accounts, with one account having 26 million followers, but you made the unequivocal statement that there was nothing to indicate recirculation and amplification by the Beijing regime.

You further cite, on page 25 of your report, in reference to the misinformation directed at then member of Parliament Kenny Chiu, that it, too, “could not be traced to a state-sponsored source”. Mr. Johnston, were you not aware of it? On September 10, an account associated with HuayiNet, which is connected to the United Front Work Department, posted disinformation from another Global Times article, this time targeted at Kenny Chiu, yet you make that unequivocal statement in your report.

How is that possible?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, let me refer specifically to what we said on that matter on page 25:

Chinese-Canadian MPs, including Mr. Chiu, were and remain of particular interest to the PRC. There was online misinformation about Mr. Chiu's proposed foreign agent legislation, which he corrected in the media during the campaign. But the misinformation could not be traced to a state-sponsored source. The government does not regulate consumption of social media, during elections or otherwise. However, it has engaged with social media platforms to deal with misinformation, and the threat that it poses to election security. This does not include WeChat, which is based in the PRC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank Mr. Johnston for being with us today.

First, Mr. Johnston, I'd like to apologize to you and your team for some of the personal attacks that have been thrown out there with respect to the integrity of yourself, your team and the work that you're doing. I do want to thank you for the task that you have at hand for a very serious issue.

Mr. Johnston, I read the report multiple times. I have to say that the conclusion I come to is that it is very well done. It is very clear to me that you had access to the information that you required to enable you to determine some of the statements and debunk some of the misinformation that was out there. References to the information that led you to come to those conclusions are part of the confidential annex that is included in the report, for those who have the top secret clearance, obviously, to be able to see it.

I have two things. We're hearing that there may be additional information that you did not have access to. You testified earlier that the leader of the official opposition, Pierre Poilievre, was invited four times to provide additional information for your consideration on this issue. He did not provide that and you merely received copies of media reports. We understand that the Cumming report coming out of the last election was not provided to you.

Is there anything else? Gathering intelligence is something that is ongoing. This is not something where you have one piece of a puzzle and it doesn't change. Do you need more information in order to continue and to conclude the work that you are doing?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, I have two observations.

One is that, as we've been dealing with an ocean of information in eight short weeks, it's like painting a picture where you have different brush strokes. You need brush stroke after brush stroke until finally a picture emerges. In building a synthesis, that is very key.

Am I confident that we saw every bit of information that we would like to have had or perhaps should have had? Given the ocean of information, the answer is no. I'm not sure how we could absorb any more than we did in the space of eight weeks.

What more needs to be done? I think it comes to the machinery system that we indicated is in need of major reform. It is about having much better clarification of when something moves from intelligence, in this emerging picture, to something that becomes a threat and is passed on. We simply don't deal with information as well as we possibly should.

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

Actually, on that note, something that we heard in earlier testimony, Mr. Johnston, is that intelligence agencies really don't understand politics and political parties, and political parties and politicians don't really understand intelligence gathering and so on. That is something that needs to be improved in terms of making sure there is a two-way dialogue between these two stakeholders in terms of foreign interference.

One other thing I would question is this. Given that PROC is looking at this issue, and we have NSICOP, NSIRA and yourself looking at this, and I believe other committees are, would you recommend that perhaps members of this committee receive the necessary top secret clearance to be able to see the same information that you have in terms of the annex that clearly demonstrates how you came to the conclusions that you have? Would you recommend that, or would that be a duplication of efforts with respect to NSICOP?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, with respect to the second of those two questions, I think that is something that should be looked at very carefully, particularly if it permits parliamentarians to perform their proper functions.

Other jurisdictions have had experience with that. They have review committees like NSICOP, but to expand the “cone of silence”, so to speak, and the opportunity to get at this to make intelligence decisions in Parliament makes sense. Whether every parliamentarian should necessarily have that clearance, it may not be, but I think we could expand considerably how we involve parliamentarians more. In particular, when it comes to issues that affect individual parliamentarians, like their safety, it's very clear to me that we have a much better job to do in getting past “This must be kept secret. We can't tell you about it because it will destroy our forces.” I think we have to find ways of bringing those folks into the confidence.

On the first question, you're quite right. We have a culture with intelligence agencies to keep things secret, and for very good reasons. They have sources whose lives are at stake. They have confidence that they have to share with other intelligence agencies. But I think other jurisdictions have made some strong and successful efforts to deal better with that declassification/classification nexus. I think that's a job we have to do here.

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

Thank you very much.

I have two last points.

With respect to our intelligence assets, I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Johnston, that my two sons are in the military, and one of them is an intelligence officer, so I understand full well the importance of understanding national security and understanding the difference between a classified “need to know” and putting our assets at risk, as well as our relationship with the Five Eyes.

One thing we did hear is that a lot of parliamentarians and/or their staff won't recognize what is foreign interference. Would you agree that there's some education that needs to happen to make sure that we can be a partner in finding the solution to combat foreign interference?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

First of all, I salute your two sons and their service, which I admire very much.

Second, how we refine that information and put it into a palatable, understandable form is a major challenge, and we have, as we pointed out, challenges with respect to this that must be addressed and improved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Bells have just ended. What we're going to do is do the six minutes for Mr. Therrien, and then we will take a break to make sure everyone has voted.

Mr. Therrien, the floor is yours.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Johnston has discussed public hearings at length. When I talked about a public inquiry, he often responded by saying that he was going to hold public hearings.

Mr. Johnston, let's suppose I'm a victim of Chinese interference through some police station, for example. Do you think I would then appear at a public hearing?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, certainly some people will not want to appear before a public hearing. That said, we will encourage anyone who wants to make a submission to us, or write to us, or account personal experiences that they've had. They would be very much welcome, and we hope we can give that appropriate attention.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you for your quick and specific answer.

Holding public hearings means telling people that they are welcome if they want to come and discuss interference. Cherie Wong very recently said she wouldn't participate in public hearings. She's a member of the Canada Hong Kong Alliance and doesn't want to appear because she's afraid of reprisals.

That's the difference between a public hearing and an inquiry. An inquiry will summon people and be conducted in camera. It can summon people and request that documents be submitted to it. That way, people can safely go and speak with inquiry members and be examined and cross-examined. Information thus gathered would give us a clear idea of the kind of Chinese interference being carried on here.

Mr. Johnston, don't you think that's a promising approach?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, I think it's quite possible, and very appropriate, that in the public hearings, one could have in camera sessions. In fact, since our review will continue with respect to threats to our safety and so on, I expect we will have to go in camera, certainly to hear from officials with classified information.

With regard to any member of the public who does not want to be seen publicly but wants to tell a story that's important to a proper review, I think it would be very appropriate to arrange for those meetings to occur in camera with all the appropriate protection.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

So you're in favour of the idea of inviting people without necessarily putting legitimate pressure on them to provide the desired information and so we're better equipped to deal with foreign interference. That's what I understand.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Exactly.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Can we shed light on interference merely by inviting people to appear? The answer has already been confirmed: victim members of the diaspora have said they won't attend those hearings.

Won't you then be facing a lack of information that prevents you from shedding any light on the matter in accordance with your mandate?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

I don't think one should try to force people to come, either in the open or in an in camera session, to disclose anything if they don't wish to. They're Canadian citizens. They have a right not to do so. That would be fully respected.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

In camera proceedings are extremely important in an inquiry. Referring back to the Arar inquiry, people were summoned, but they didn't face threats of physical or other violence. That's proof that an inquiry protects people who are victims of this kind of pressure and makes it possible to gather more comprehensive information, compared to what might be gathered at public hearings. These are the reasons why many experts who were opposed to a public inquiry before Mr. Johnston's report changed their minds after reading it.

Now coming back to senior counsel Sheila Block, I won't go on at length about her. She donated $7,500 to the Liberal Party and participated in a fundraising activity in 2021 that the Prime Minister also attended.

Does the fact that you selected her as senior counsel earn you the trust of people expecting solutions to Chinese interference? Is that a good move that will encourage people to trust this special rapporteur?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, Ms. Block's credentials, as a thoughtful and impartial person of great integrity, are known throughout this land to any members of the bar who have been acquainted with her. In my view, we've been extremely fortunate to have her skills, her integrity, and her commitment to improving our way of dealing with foreign interference.

I have every confidence in her, and that's shared widely across the land, regarding her as one of the pre-eminent counsels we have in this country.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

The Conservatives were very keen to know if he was a friend of the government, of the Prime Minister and so on. I didn't really ask the question, for one simple reason: in his report, he blames the media, CSIS and the public service, but he doesn't blame the government or its ministers. I think this report is proof that he's ultimately a friend of the Prime Minister.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, we don't blame the media, nor do we blame public officials in our report. What we are calling for in this continuation of public hearings is to provide the ways of reforming our system so it functions in the interest of all Canadians and functions very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask that we pause for not more than a minute, hopefully, to make sure that everyone has voted and that your votes have been registered.

I'm pausing for one minute. Try not to move.

I'm going to continue.

We will continue with Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Johnston, your report noted that:

Irregularities were observed with Mr. Dong's nomination in 2019, and there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC Consulate in Toronto, with whom Mr. Dong maintains relationships.

Did you look into what those irregularities were? If yes, what were they?