Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2024

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

What do you think, Ms. Sgro?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

I think that they should know that they are named in a report of concern, but certainly they should not be publicly released.

How could you throw out anybody's name?

There's a lot of innuendo in that report and so on and so forth, but there's no proof. There's lots of possible intelligence and all of that. You could not turn around and throw out Ken Hardie's name as being in that report as a person who's possibly working contrary to Canada.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll have something to say on that one in a second.

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Chair from the Canada-China committee, I'm glad to see you here.

I'm going to draw your attention to page 66 of the NSICOP report, “Engagement with Parliamentarians”. To answer your question in brief, I just want to quote this part and say, yes, those names should be released. It says here in paragraph 162:

It did so because Parliamentarians are often at the center of interference activities by foreign states. While the Committee recognizes that CSIS has provided briefings to some members of Parliament, a comprehensive briefing strategy covering all Parliamentarians was not implemented despite PCO seeking the Prime Minister's approval on two occasions.

It goes straight to the top.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Right.

There's some character running around Surrey right now who's identified as a proxy for India. He's telling everybody, including the reporter that I spoke to last weekend, that he and I are just like this. That's not the case. I wouldn't doubt that my name is in that report just based on that. I would deserve to know, even if it's just private, because I think it's a matter of privilege.

Mr. Kmiec, I have to compliment you on the work that you have done on the Canada-China committee. You've been in the thick of a lot of very interesting testimony and commentary.

We know that China is very persistent. They play the long game. APT31 is one thing, but I'm concerned about the cumulative effect of APT31 on top of what the United Front does on top of all of these other things.

Do you care to sort of gather all of that and comment on what we should be looking at here?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.

I agree in general. There are many different APTs out there, as I've discovered with my staff. When you do a search of it, there are multiple units. This is the thin wedge of the sword that the PRC wields. As you know, Chair, we expect that a lot more of these types of activities in the future, entire campaigns that will be led against western democracies and against legislators. In many cases, legislators are seen as the weak point in the government because you typically don't have the help of the agencies.

I'll draw your attention to the statement made by Belgian legislators, who said that they equally were not told by their government that they had been targets of APT31. In their case, they said there was a direct attack on their democracy and on their Parliament for their government not having told them, and they expect other attacks by PRC entities and agencies.

I will say that, since 2012 when Xi Jinping took over, the United Front Work Department has basically become a state security apparatus that operates in all western democracies, and we should be paying serious attention to all of their subentities like these APT31-type groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's about it, Mr. Hardie.

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'll just go back, Mr. Chair. I note that what I've found, which is from the Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information de la Republic française, is our Communications Security Establishment. When we met, we were expecting some details.

I'm telling you: go get it. Inside, there's the entire chain of infection—it dates back to 2021—intrusion vectors, invasion methods, victimization, infrastructure, targeted equipment and the back door, for example. It's all there; it's been available since 2021. I invite you to read it. We will be vigilant.

I have just one question. Is your privacy affected? If so, are your families worried?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

They are, but that's as far as it goes. I said to not worry; I'm well protected. I said don't worry; that's just the way it is.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It's unacceptable.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

My husband and I basically accept the situation because, given the life we live, we have no privacy. That's more or less the truth. It's a little more complicated for my son because he's young. He's afraid, he thinks about things like nuclear war. He's worried about us and whether it's dangerous for us. Obviously, we have to continue to live, knowing that the threats exist.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On a daily basis, the answer is no. My three children know that I travel and take pictures. Those of my children who are allowed to have an account follow me on social media. I don't actually take my children to many public events.

However, I worry about the fact that my children are part Chinese and part Jewish. When I see street protests and anti‑Asian racism, I have concerns about our country's culture and the harmful effects that these kinds of campaigns, led by foreign agencies against us, will have on our culture and our society.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

One of the reasons we were given at this committee that MPs within the IPAC group were not informed was that there was an active investigation under way and there was a belief that it might become public, which would interfere with any further investigation.

Do you accept that as a reason?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

No.

They know how to run their part of this operation. We're parliamentarians, so we don't necessarily understand their rationale, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Don't try to protect me. I can protect myself, but I have to know if there's a serious threat out there. I want to know. It's probably not going to change much, but I want to know if it's serious.

I can't see the rationale for not sharing that information.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of what Mr. Hardie was asking, I do worry in terms of.... I'm not on one side or the other about whether we release the names or not. I see the harm in terms of that court of public opinion. We work in very public jobs, as we've just said.

What does that do to a parliamentarian? In my estimation, intelligence isn't always evidence. For that investigation, how do we allow that to happen, if I can merge both questions?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

We have to fix the system. That's a real, serious problem, if intelligence isn't evidence.

This goes back to my initial point of what I perceive to be a naïveté and the necessity to revamp the entire system. As I said, I believe it's a result of naïveté. I believe it's a result of indifference, inaction and incompetence.

It shouldn't be that way. We should be able to trust what's in the report. That's a huge problem. I really hope—whether it's this government or another government—that it can be addressed so that, when something is published, we can have confidence in it.

If not, what does that say about us as a nation, that we can't even have faith in the information within what is supposed to be the most sound and most sensitive report? I think that's a pretty sad statement. I hope one day to live in a state where we can trust a report such as that and the information within it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's about it, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Kmiec, if you have a quick response, you're welcome to go ahead.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My only response would be to go back to the very beginning of my statement and what I said in the House of Commons. The Government of Canada, when dealing with legislators, has a positive responsibility to tell us. We had a need to know. It had a moral and ethical responsibility to tell us, and it failed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kmiec, Mrs. Kusie and Ms. Sgro, thank you very much for joining us today. We very much appreciate your reflections.

Colleagues, I think we've had another set of very productive and insightful meetings. Thank you for your co-operation today.

The meeting is adjourned.