Information & Ethics Committee on March 31st, 2023

[Dan Stanton]

I was working in the field office. I really don't know; I have no idea.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you for that.

Now, Mr. Chiu, in about the minute or minute and a half that I have left, we've heard about the bill that you tabled on the foreign influence registry. I'm wondering if you could expand a little on why you believe that would be an important tool to help restore some of the trust that Canadians need in their democratic institutions.

[Kenny Chiu]

It would be consistent with what CSIS has been advising the leadership of our country, that sunshine is the best disinfectant and that openness and transparency is the best way to deal with foreign interference issues and also regain much of the lost trust of Canadians in our institutions. It would also remove political partisanship from all the issues.

Disinformation is most effective when it is used in the shadows, under the table. At the same time, though, by repeating itself, it becomes more and more effective, so by having a registry and allowing our society, the investigative journalists, to look at that.... For example, through my research I was able to find that the Liberal Party of Canada had an entry in the United States FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, in 2019, fundraising among the Canadian diaspora there. Transparency like that would definitely help protect our confidence in institutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek, and thank you, Mr. Chiu.

Next I have Mr. Bains for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be sharing some of my time with Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Stanton, I'm going to go back to you on this topic of the registry. Several countries have had them. You've mentioned that the new tactic is that proxies have eclipsed traditional spies. If foreign agents are using proxies to conduct their work, how can we enforce legislation? How do you broadly put the net on these Canadian proxies?

[Dan Stanton]

Here's the thing. The Security of Information Act is where we're going to get that enforcement. There's an actual legislative and regulated way you could use.

I know there are a lot of people who want the registry. I think it has merits, but I don't think that it should necessarily be the priority over the legislation. People who are going to put their name on the registry are people who represent some foreign agency, whether it's a Canadian diplomat overseas, a business or whatever, so they're not going to get a fine. There are clandestine actors. If you want to link them to the United Front Work Department, they are not going to be putting their name on a registry. There's no box to tick.

A lot of the most damaging foreign interference activity is clandestine. What it's really going to do—and I think a registry is good—is allow the government to have some control over lobbying and rein it in a bit, because I would have to identify if I am representing a foreign country.

Is it going to really blunt PRC foreign interference in our democratic institutions? In my opinion, it's not.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have two quick questions. I know that it's a risk to do this en masse and both at the same time. I hope we can get answers. They're very different questions.

Monsieur Juneau-Katsuya, everyone here has acknowledged that this issue has been going on for decades. When we formed government, we created NSICOP, NSIRA, the SITE task force, the election protocol panel and the rapid response mechanism. The list goes on.

Why do you think these kinds of tools were not developed by previous governments, since we all recognize that this was a long-standing problem?

The second question I would ask is probably to Mr. Wilczynski again.

You mentioned the importance of having diversity as part of the security establishment. It seems that we are always running behind, because we don't have direct connections into the diaspora communities that are subject to intimidation and pressure.

What can we be doing? Are you aware of whether your former colleagues who are now in place are seeking to deal with that issue?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

Very quickly, I think it's a problem of culture. It was mentioned by my colleagues.

For too long, Canadian governments have not developed the culture of security to warn the general population or elected officials of the temptations or danger that they will be facing. If you have access to power, you become a target. You are somebody who might be approached and used. Intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or unconsciously, you will be used.

Let's remember one thing. The Chinese wrote the book 2,000 years ago: The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It's right there, how to use influence. They know exactly how, and they're really, really good at it. They've become even better, so we have to develop a new culture.

[Artur Wilczynski]

I'll speak very quickly on equity, diversity and inclusion within the national security and intelligence community.

Just a few days ago, colleagues from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service released their equity, diversity and inclusion plan. Before I retired from CSE, that was my main task, to work both inside and with colleagues on the development of a similar strategy.

The objective was to make the institutions more welcoming of that diversity, so that people's experiences, when they came in, were positive, and not only were we able to recruit them, but we were able to retain them.

I think part of the strategy needs to be, again, more transparency to engage a broader range of Canadians, so they understand what our roles and responsibilities are, they know they're welcome, and, when they come, they will be productive and contribute to Canada's national security. We have to be deliberate and quite open in understanding their lived experiences as they join Canada's national security community.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Wilczynski.

I have enough time for about two minutes for each round for Mr. Barrett and Ms. Martinez Ferrada. I believe she is on the list for the Liberals.

You have about two minutes, Mr. Barrett. Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Again, thanks, everyone, for providing us with your experience and perspectives today.

We have been crystal clear that we think having a public inquiry, an open and transparent mechanism, is the best way to remove this from the political sphere and to provide openness to Canadians. I think there's definitely a place for the type of transparency in the examples I mentioned from the U.K., when there are incidents that give rise to that.

What would the benefit be of having an open, transparent, public inquiry on foreign interference in our elections?

Go ahead, Mr. Juneau-Katsuya.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

The only way the inquiry would be beneficial is if we make sure that it doesn't turn into a partisan fight in a ring.

If we are capable, just like my colleague Artur has mentioned, of bringing more transparency, it will bring greater awareness and greater warning to the population, and demonstrate the sizable threat that we are currently facing. Eventually, hopefully, it will give the adjustment and power to the intelligence community to be capable of being much more efficient and of warning our leaders of all parties in due time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That was quick.

You have two minutes, Mrs. Martinez Ferrada.

Go ahead, please, pour deux minutes.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chiu, in an article published on March 20 of this year...

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Please wait a minute, Ms. Martinez Ferrada, someone has a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

The interpreter said that the audio quality is not sufficient for interpretation. It's not an approved headset.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think we do have a problem with Ms. Martinez Ferrada's headset, because this is the second time we have not been able to hear her voice properly. However, I believe the member is going to split her speaking time with Mr. Fergus.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus, please.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to thank Ms. Martinez Ferrada for suggesting the question for me to ask.

Mr. Chiu, in an article published on March 20, your colleague and former Conservative candidate Mark Johnson stated that he had never noticed interference during his campaign and that no one had reported anything to him after it ended. He is confident that our elections, his included, were neutral, honest and accurate, and he acknowledges that his opponent won fair and square. In his opinion, the larger debate regrettably lacks a sense of proportion, and the rhetoric is becoming overheated, potentially exaggerating the problem and misleading voters about the quality of our elections, and most disturbingly, sowing mistrust towards an ethnic group.

Do you agree with your former Conservative colleague?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have about a minute, Mr. Chiu. Go ahead.

[Kenny Chiu]

I'll try my best to answer your question. The interpretation was not at its best.

I believe those who are on the ground with many of the witnesses can attest to the fact that there was a coordinated effort in the 2021 election across the country, using disinformation and employing lies and completely false statements, to attack certain political parties and, particularly, certain candidates. I believe that is true. Unfortunately, the country doesn't seem to have any interest in getting participation and involvement.

Throughout the election, I was not involved with SITE. Nobody from CEIPP, NSCIOP or NSIRA was contacting me. None of these organizations were investigating me. Actually, to date, other than CSIS, which I provided information to, nobody—no Canadian official—has approached me and talked to me about my experiences so far.

My experience has been that Canada is open to foreign interference, and we are not doing anything. We have been expressing a lot of concerns and worries. Disinformation continues to be spread, not just by state actors, but also by non-state actors. For example, the fact is that many of the interested parties are from foreign countries, and maybe they are acting on their own behalf and not necessarily on behalf of foreign governments—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Chiu, and thank you, Mr. Fergus.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I know it was an action-packed event. We had six witnesses, which is somewhat unusual, but we had two hours.

The committee is going to be on a break for two weeks so, as chair, I really wanted to bring what I thought was an informative panel together. You all accorded yourselves very well today with the information that you provided, not just in your opening statements but in responding to the questions as well.

Thank you to all members of the committee.

I want to say to our witnesses, thank you, on behalf of the committee and on behalf of Canadians, for being here.

Analysts, clerks and technicians, thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.