Evidence of meeting #80 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 johnston.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Johnston, earlier you said you hadn't met with the commissioner of federal elections because no complaints had been filed. However, Ms. Simard testified before our committee, and we know that many complaints of foreign interference are under review.
Are you aware that the commissioner is actively reviewing those complaints of foreign interference in our elections?
12:55 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, we were aware of investigations, but no findings of interference. Our expectation is that we would continue to follow the progress of those investigations and meet with the commissioner of Canada elections to have a good discussion about those.
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Chair, it's very important that that meeting be held before the decision is made whether to proceed with a public inquiry.
Mr. Johnston, I listened closely to your testimony today. You said that an inquiry would cost a little more and that it might take a little longer, but you also acknowledged the weak points of the approach you've adopted. You clearly said at the start of your testimony that foreign interference was real and constituted a threat to our democracy.
I believe the contradictions in your testimony are obvious to Canadians. Aren't you concerned that they will undermine the credibility of your approach, all the more so because parliamentarians don't agree and have voted differently?
1 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, the question is whether I have confidence in the public responding in one way or another. That is for the public to decide. We undertook this task and did the best job we could to build trust in democracy. It will be reviewed by the appropriate review committees. We welcome their suggestions and their conclusions.
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Chair, I suggest that we extend the meeting by 16 minutes. Mr. Johnston has been very generous, but I know that some members still have questions for him. So I'd like you to allow a four-minute round for each party, for a total of 16 minutes.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Julian, do you want five more minutes for the Conservatives and five more minutes for the Liberals?
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
No, Madam Chair, I would like you to allow each party four minutes, for a total of 16 minutes.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
The current round that we're in would be completed after 10 more minutes. I do believe, with our committee having agreed to work through votes, that if I summarize the amount of time, we're pretty close to three hours with the Right Honourable David Johnston. That's very generous for the amount of time.
We do have resources. I think it's absolutely astonishing that we're doing this. Is that the will of members?
Ms. Sahota, go ahead.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Madam Chair, in the last couple of rounds, we saw that members didn't even ask a question. They just used their time to make their comments. If that's how this committee is going to be running, and we've seen ample evidence of that throughout the last three hours, I would say that we release the witness and adjourn for today.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I, for one, did know who the president was at my university. I know we didn't get to ski together and hang out together, but I do appreciate the service you've offered.
I come into a situation as a chair where I do need to see the will of committee members. I want to say that I find this very awkward, because I did work with everyone to make sure we could find agreement to find a way forward. I actually thought we were quite credible in the way we did this, so I am concerned about this conversation. It will be noted.
Mr. Johnston, I know the calibre of individual you are, so I know you're not going to say no—unless you want to; you can walk out right now. Otherwise, I'm going to have to go with just another quick round.
I apologize, at least on behalf of myself and some members. This was not the intention.
Who is going for the Conservatives?
Mr. Chong, you have five minutes.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Johnston, for agreeing to stay a bit longer.
You mentioned in your remarks that there are three advisers for the second part of your mandate. Could you tell us who those three advisers are?
1 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
No. We have not begun that at all.
June 6th, 2023 / 1 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Okay, thank you.
I want to focus on the second part of your mandate that you outlined in your report. You mentioned, on page 16 of your report, “There is no doubt that these communities are distrustful of security agencies.” That's not entirely accurate. Many diaspora communities have been pleading with security agencies to do more to stop the foreign interference that they are subject to, particularly the Chinese Canadian community.
Chinese Canadians are being targeted by Beijing, and they have rejected your proposals for public hearings. They are frustrated because they have already spoken up and testified many times over the last four years in front of the four parliamentary committees that I've referenced. The government has largely ignored their pleas for help, and they have suffered in silence. They're exhausted. They want more action, not these hearings you are proposing.
Just yesterday evening, I looked at a partial list of members of the Chinese diaspora here who don't want this second phase of hearings, who want an independent public inquiry: Mabel Tung of the Vancouver Society in Support of Democratic Movement; Mehmet Tohti of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project; Chemi Lhamo of the International Tibet Network; Gloria Fung of Canada-Hong Kong Link; Victor Ho, the former editor of Sing Tao Daily, one of the largest Chinese-language newspapers in the country; Cherie Wong of Alliance Canada Hong Kong, and the list really does go on.
All of these civic leaders in the Chinese community, and many more, have expressed a lack of confidence in your first report and in this process, so how can you possibly proceed with the second part of your mandate in light of that lack of confidence from many parts of the Chinese community in Canada?
1:05 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, our hope is that we could encourage members of those communities to continue their work in trying to draw to the attention of Parliament and the public generally the dangers we're facing.
We hope that the work we have done and the review by NSICOP and NSIRA, joined by leaders of the opposition, will provide a great deal of impetus to do much more of an active kind in providing the appropriate protection for these communities.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
These communities, which have been most impacted by PRC interference, have been asking for an independent public inquiry. They put their hope in Parliament, over the last four years, that we would get some real action through Parliament, but unfortunately, because Parliament has been unable to do its job because of a lack of information from the government, a lack of documents, a lack of forthcoming testimony and forthrightness from government witnesses at committee, we've all, in Parliament and within the diaspora community, now put our hopes on an independent public inquiry with the full powers of a public inquiry to subpoena witnesses and to call for the production of documents so that the government can be held accountable as to what happened and so that these long-standing issues can be addressed.
What would you say to those who've said that an independent public inquiry can be held while at the same time protecting national security? Reference was made earlier to the fact that we've had inquiries before like the Maher Arar inquiry, which dealt with highly classified intelligence information. In fact, some of that information was Five Eyes' intelligence. That is the most sensitive intelligence because it comes from our Five Eyes partners and not from domestic intelligence agencies.
We've also had the former head of CSIS, Dick Fadden, say that a public inquiry is possible on this matter. We've had Dan Stanton, a former CSIS officer manager, also say that a public inquiry is possible. We've had the former Chief Electoral Officer of Canada say that a public inquiry is necessary.
In light of all these calls for a public inquiry, how can the second part of your mandate restore confidence?
1:05 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, I would say that there are other experts, including Ward Elcock, for example, who have suggested that public inquiries are not the appropriate way, and Justice O'Connor, following the Arar committee, made the same point. There are differences of opinion on that, and those are reasonable.
What I believe is that the work of our group, the special rapporteur, will, in fact, provide a great deal of pressure and impetus for the government to act with greater acceleration on improving our system of dealing with foreign interference and that the work we will do over the next five months will add very considerable effort to that, so I'm quite hopeful that we will see some very considerable action over the course of the next few months on this very important challenge.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank Mr. Johnston for extending his stay with us for another round.
Just in following up on that last line of questioning, on the difference between a public inquiry and the current process that is under way, I think a lot of folks are forgetting the fact that a public inquiry is actually named by an order in council, which is cabinet. Therefore, the same argument that it would not be independent could be said for a public inquiry, because at the end of the day it would be cabinet deciding the terms of reference and so on.
We know, Mr. Johnston, that you've done the work of interviewing various people with respect to foreign interference. You've looked at the documentation. You've written a report. You will be conducting interviews and public hearings, which of course could include going in camera for those who, out of fear, may not want to testify. That would be the same situation in a public inquiry situation. If they're afraid to testify before you in a public hearing, it could be the same thing for a public inquiry. The difference doesn't make sense. You've offered that some meetings could be held in camera for those who would like to testify for any concerns they may have.
Given that the next scheduled election is October 20, 2025, the goal of course should be that we want to make sure the systems we have in place are as strong as they can be to detect, deter and counter any foreign interference in our next election, if we're looking at “forward-facing”. You've already addressed some of the issues we've seen with respect to communications problems. What would you recommend, in addition, that this committee could suggest we do to make sure that, in a forward-facing goal, we protect our democracy? Is there something this committee could be doing to assist, to make sure we are ready for the next election?
1:10 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, thank you for that question.
I would encourage the committee to be very precise and very disciplined and rigorous in accountability to improve our systems with respect to foreign interference. Yes, we have seen some progress and some changes. There is a clear outline of changes that are in process.
In fact, in our next report, what we would like to do is identify the initiatives that are currently under study—like the foreign registry, for example, and many others like that—and to see if there can't be timetables for dealing with these reforms, with amendments to the CSIS Act and so on, so that there's a very disciplined procedure, say, long before the next election of 2025. We can look to our Five Eyes colleagues and look to Canadians in saying that we are really working hard in dealing with foreign interference and we're making real progress on it to restore confidence in Canadians that they can trust our government to protect them.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
In that regard, would you suggest that NSICOP and NSIRA also provide a list of deliverables with respect to timelines to make sure we're ready and that we check in, perhaps six months from now or a year from now, on where people are at with respect to those recommendations?
1:10 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, I think that's a wonderful suggestion and should be done.
What's important about that, for me, is that we have these overview committees with expertise, with the opportunity to go into deeply classified information, and that we make those bodies as strong as we possibly can in their current existence and with amendments to how they're set up and so on, and ensure that they have the task of working with you and other committees of the House to be sure that we are truly making progress on this in an important way.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Last, you touched a bit on the civics necessary. We touched on that a little earlier when I was asking the question. Evidence and intelligence are not the same thing. How can we make sure that Canadians, parliamentarians and everyone who wants to protect our democracy recognize that? What does it look like? What are the tactics used by non-friendly state actors in terms of interference? How can they be part of the solution in terms of identifying and reporting them? This could be a team Canada effort in terms of countering foreign interference. I think this would be a joint effort from all Canadians.
1:15 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
One of our recommendations, with respect to the public hearings over the next five months, was to deal exactly with that issue. Bring in the best expertise we can to it. Learn from others who have been able to provide more light. Then, help to acquaint the public with this distinction and how we can manage it and put more light on the subject.