Information & Ethics Committee on June 2nd, 2023

[Dean Baxendale]

Michel Juneau-Katsuya made it clear after the break of Operation Dragon Lord. He confirmed that such investigations were taking place. He stated that every prime minister had been influenced by the PRC over the past 40 years and had been, in one way or another, compromised by people who were close to the prime minister or within the apparatus of government.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure and Mr. Baxendale.

Mr. Green is next on the list.

You have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, and thank you to the witnesses who are present here today.

Like you, Professor Juneau, I am also interested in finding some solutions. I know you've provided that to other committees. I'm hopeful we can get back to that space as a committee, to provide recommendations to prevent any type of future instances like this occurring.

Professor Juneau, you stated that after the 2016 U.S. election, there was a fear that Canada needed to take the issue of foreign interference more seriously. Do you believe Canada has adequately prioritized addressing foreign interference since then?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

I think the country as a whole does not take foreign interference seriously enough. That is something I've said—including when you were there, I think—in a couple of other committees, including the Canada-China one a while back. So I would say no, not seriously enough.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In a CBC article, you stated that the existing critical election incident public protocol is “problematic”. Could you describe why the protocol is problematic?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

I don't recall saying that. Could you elaborate?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It was a CBC article we flagged that was talking about the CEIPP.

Are you familiar with the critical election incident public protocol?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

I am. I'm not sure what I said in saying that it is problematic. I have said that it should be more transparent in its work, but that the basic idea of the protocol I think is correct and appropriate.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In your opinion, what would be the ideal solution for determining whether interference in an election has occurred and whether the public should be notified?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

Maybe I remember which article you're referring to. One thing that I did say was on the issue of a threshold. The current system indicates that above a certain threshold, a panel of deputy ministers and senior public service officials would then speak out on an issue of interference. There is a tension here, in the sense that for unelected public officials to make a public statement in the context of an electoral campaign about something as sensitive as this is uncomfortable. I think nobody should find that this is an ideal solution.

That being said, I do think that the system as a whole—of the protocol and the task force—is the right one. What I did say in that article was that there should be more transparency, not only about the nature of the system but about the criteria and the threshold above which there is a public intervention, and that overall, even below the threshold, even if it has to be after the election, there should be more transparency about it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Professor, we're in a minority government. We've had two elections over the last three years. What message would you want to give those responsible for free and fair elections in Canada about the urgency on a move-forward basis? What would be your immediate steps to help us safeguard not just the electoral process but also the public's confidence in the electoral process?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

That's a good question. I think that a number of steps.... I'm going to sound like a broken record, but there should be more transparency on the part of the government at the political level but also at the bureaucratic level to better communicate with Canadians about what the nature of the threat is and what is being done to mitigate that threat.

When the information comes from the political level, there is of course always an issue of trust; it will be perceived—often rightly—by many Canadians as being politicized. That is part of the challenge. That is why some of the information has to come from the bureaucratic side, but when that happens, the challenge is that it can be perceived by some as interference, for lack of a better word, in an electoral campaign by security services, which is not something that is ideal, either.

That being said, I think that right now the debate on these issues is very polarized by the dissension we're seeing today, where on the one hand some people make exaggerated statements about the survival of Canada's democracy being at stake, which I don't think is the case. On the other side, you have other statements whereby the threat of foreign interference is dismissed, which I think underestimates the threat.

There is a need on the part of government officials to be much more transparent and provide a balanced view, saying yes, there's a problem, and it's a real problem, but being as accurate and balanced as possible.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You've talked about transparency a lot, and I appreciate your message discipline on that topic, but you also referenced ways in which we could be mitigating this. I am keenly interested to know if you've contemplated from your perspective things administratively and legally, from a security standpoint and from a social standpoint, beyond the transparency, because the transparency tells me that the action is already under way and has happened, but how do we safeguard against it? Do you have any opinion on that?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

I would go back to some of the key points that I mentioned on Tuesday at PROC. I think there is a serious need for governance reform of the national security apparatus to be able to better deal with these threats—putting aside, as you said, the transparency dimension.

We need a national security committee of cabinet to focus high-level political debate on national security issues, which is not the case right now. We need a stronger bureaucratic apparatus to support that committee, which has to mean a stronger national security and intelligence adviser to the PM in PCO. We need reforms on the human resources level, which bores everybody out of their minds but is essential, because the human resource, the human capital dimension of all of this, is very challenging in the government right now.

We need—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're talking about recruitment and screening, specifically.

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

It's at every level.

There are problems with recruitment. There are problems with retention. There are problems with security clearances with massive backlogs. There are problems with careers paths, and so on.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

That concludes our first round. The second round is going to start. We'll get five, five, two and a half and two and a half minutes.

We're going to start with Mr. Barrett, I understand.

Then it'll be Mr. Gourde's turn.

Mr. Barrett, you have five minutes between the two of you. Go ahead.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Mr. Mitrovica talked about gutter comments, with which he's very well acquainted. He's written columns filled with disgusting anti-Semitic tropes. He's written columns including lies about Jews murdering Christian children in Europe, and he's compared the men and women who served in the IDF to being members of the Mob.

I certainly didn't add him to the witness list today. I have no lessons to take from him, and I have no questions for him.

I'll return the time to Mr. Gourde, please. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Gourde, you have four and a half minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for all the witnesses.

A number of witnesses, including those here this morning, acknowledge that there's been political interference for at least 30 years. In this particular case, that interference took place during an election period, when Parliament was in a position of weakness. Once the writ drops, fewer services are available to members. They become candidates again, so there's very little that they can do anymore. In addition, ministers have limited responsibilities and powers.

Canada was, then, in a position of weakness for 35, 40 or 45 days. Unfortunately, I think that foreign actors engaged in interference were well aware of that context and really took advantage of it. The Canada Elections Act exists to protect Canadians from irregular activities carried out by other Canadians in connection with an election, but not necessarily from irregular activities carried out by foreign actors targeting Canada.

In addition to all the existing weaknesses, there isn't necessarily a mechanism to allow Elections Canada to halt an election, even if it finds out that there has been political interference, be it generally or partially, in ridings when evidence exists that such activities took place. Often, in a short time frame, it's impossible to prove there's interference. Those investigations take time. In that short 35- to 40‑day window, even if some people believe that there's interference, they're unable to prove it. Elections Canada must then let the process continue.

In your opinion, what mechanisms could we put in place to ensure fair and impartial elections when foreign interference seems almost certain?

You may respond first, Mr. Juneau.

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

Thank you for raising this very important issue in committee.

The first thing I want to say about this is that I have confidence in the reports by Mr. Judd and Mr. Rosenberg on the work done during the most recent elections. In spite of the real threat that existed, there's no reason to believe that the overall integrity of the elections was in jeopardy. Nevertheless, we must bear that in mind.

What can be done to address the real problems that arise during an election campaign, when it's very difficult for politicians to intervene? As I was saying to Mr. Green in answer to a previous question, we want to avoid having politicians respond publicly during an election campaign to those kinds of situations, because it would obviously be seen as partisan, and no doubt rightly so. It's a very uncomfortable situation. At the same time, the public service is also very uncomfortable having to intervene publicly during an election campaign, but I think that must nonetheless be the remedy.

Some work needs to be done regarding the threshold. When it comes to interference, what is the threshold at which the panel of deputy ministers, the director of CSIS and others must publicly intervene? Perhaps that threshold is a bit too high. It should be lowered, but not too much. Otherwise, there will be too many public statements coming from the panel.

To repeat somewhat what I said earlier, I think the public needs to better understand how the system works and why things are done the way they are. That can only be done though active communication with the public, and that has to include the members. They're not well enough informed, at present. They're not getting enough information from the intelligence services to be able to act as spokespeople. Consequently, they need to be better informed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You only have three seconds left, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

If the witnesses have anything to add, they can send it to us in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

If the witnesses have something to add to Mr. Gourde's question, please submit that to the committee.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Bains.

You have five minutes, sir. Go ahead.