Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 9th, 2023

[Adam Fisher]

I'll really quickly echo what my colleague from the RCMP said, which is the requirement to address intelligence to evidence. That is an obstacle for us. Our inability to translate intelligence that's collected in a very covert way into an evidentiary arena that can assist law enforcement is a challenge for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

For the record, when the “beep beep” happens, that means you've run out of time. It's the end of the time.

Ms. O'Connell, you have up to five minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, through you to our witnesses, I'm going to make a couple of comments first, and then I'll get to my question.

One of the frustrating pieces of this study.... I was a member of NSICOP and had that security clearance, so I do understand how difficult it is to receive that clearance. I understand the quality of that information. I understand the sensitivity of it and all of the protections that go along with it. I highly recommend that, if other members have the opportunity from their party to be part of NSICOP, you absolutely do it, because you learn a lot. It's done in a way that is sensitive and secure and in a way that protects our national interests.

There's always this debate around what should be shared publicly so Canadians can know and prepare themselves but also the risks of sharing that information, because then our adversaries also get that information. Sometimes it's not the specific details; it's operational information. It's frustrating. I'm sure you'd love to answer these questions and give all these details, but in doing so, in providing that to Canadians, you're also providing that to China or Russia or other foreign state actors. Even I sit here frustrated sometimes.

What's also a little frustrating is the nature of these conversations. Because they are so sensitive, they become a political opportunity for some to hold up documents that are redacted. How salacious. What a public prop that can be. There's also an opportunity to call in witnesses and ask them to tell what they heard in a meeting, knowing that it was a classified meeting and that those details can't be shared. How salacious and how political it is to look for this smoking gun instead of talking about.... I give credit to all my colleagues across the floor, too, for trying hone in on some recommendations for how to improve the system in Canada.

I don't think anybody has said that everything here is perfect and there are no improvements to be made. Of course not. It's going to be evergreened because the nature of threats is constantly changing.

I also want to point out some of the areas we're criticizing. How well does SITE work? How well does the critical election incident public protocol work? Is NSICOP the right place to look at this stuff?

I remind this committee that none of those things existed prior to 2015—none of them. Security threats and foreign influence didn't just begin in 2015, but there have been things put in place to make that better, to give parliamentarians more opportunities to access this information and to allow Canadians to see more. Seeing the CSIS director's public comments, CSIS has come a long way. If you follow any of these things—and I did for a long time—and read those speeches, they have come a long way in sharing information. Can they go further? Yes, I think so, but how do we have that conversation?

I've used a lot of time, but I want to ask about the details of that balance of sharing that information versus the very real risks. That can include things like how we collect information. What we don't know could be useful to adversaries.

Ms. Henderson, because I called out CSIS for clearly making a distinction, what is your thought process on that balance of risk versus communicating with Canadians?

[Cherie Henderson]

That is a very important question.

I can honestly say that it's a very difficult balance to strike. Whenever we are doing assessments or sharing information, we are trying to look at what we can say that will still enable us to get the messaging across but also protect our sources, our techniques and our tactics, so we aren't giving too much to an adversary but we are still able to inform Canadians the best we possibly can, without harming them through making weaknesses in our national security structure.

It's a balance we try to strike, and we're constantly learning and evolving as we go. I appreciate your comments that we have come a long way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say that I'm sorry for leading the witnesses down a slippery slope. As we can see, the government isn't doing very well.

I'm going to ask some questions, because I'm thinking of people back home and, in any case, I'm one of those who doesn't seek power. So I'm sincere.

When we talk about the level of infiltration of the United Front and the Chinese Ministry of State Security, in relation to political parties, do the witnesses think it would be necessary to have a look at the registry, including volunteers, constituency workers, in fact, any individual or platform that revolves around the candidate?

I'd like to know what you think, Ms. Ducharme.

[Lisa Ducharme]

Thank you.

If I understand correctly, your question is about the foreign agent registry.

Where do we stop and where do we start?

Again, this is a discussion that is under way right now with our senior policy-makers and in consultation with our experts at applicable global security and intelligence agencies. We'll provide input into that, but ultimately the discussion at that level will be what the appropriate scope is. What's the appropriate breadth and width of where the registry will start and stop?

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

Madam Chair, given that we've only heard from one witness, would it possible to ask the witnesses to provide us with additional information on proposed amendments or changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and on what can be done to amend the protocol or on the urgency of setting up a registry?

We can draw inspiration, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We can fast-track this.

I think I have 30 seconds left. I'd like to hear Mr. Fisher tell us if he agrees with his colleagues about the registry.

[Adam Fisher]

Yes, I agree with what's been said by my colleagues with regard to a registry.

I think it would be a useful tool that would bring some baseline transparency. As has been mentioned, it's something we're discussing with the policy departments that lead the development of tools in response to the threat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This has been a very interesting conversation. It is frustrating. I think we're just trying to get clarity. I reflect on the fact that, if this was easy and not complex, wouldn't that make life a lot easier for the process?

I really appreciate the comments made during testimony about the fact that this is evolving. Adapting to that evolution is a key part of this process.

I'm hearing a lot about what's happening in terms of monitoring the foreign interference. I'm curious about the other side, which is what's happening around deterring that. Is there any place where actions are happening, but there are no laws? Technically that means nothing is happening that is inappropriate, but there's a concerning trend. How are we going to address that? Are there gaps in legislation that could help address those things?

What I'm really trying to wrap my head around is where the slippery slope is. Do we have the appropriate rules in Canada to deal with that slippery slope so that we don't get to the part where we're over the edge? In terms of that, is it a question of creating more transparency like other countries have done with tools like the foreign agent registry?

I hope that makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out where the gap is and how we can start to fill that.

How do we use those processes to inform Canadians in a more fulsome way, not necessarily of the details but of the processes in place to protect politicians, people who are running to be politicians and the country at large, and for addressing foreign interference?

[Cherie Henderson]

Thank you very much for the question. There are no simple questions in this. I appreciate that.

I would say that one thing we haven't spoken about too much—I think I mentioned it earlier—is that the service does engage its threat-reduction mandate. You will not be aware of that. It is behind the scenes, but it is one way that we are able to engage and mitigate the threat in some areas. We do that. That's legal. We do everything legally and respecting the rights of Canadians and people within Canada.

I think we're out of time. I apologize. I heard the buzzer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are sorry too. Thank you so much.

We will go to Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will be moving a motion at this time. I will first read the motion into the record. I move:

That, given the Global News report published by Sam Cooper on February 8, 2023, revealing that national security officials drafted a warning for the Prime Minister in June 2017, alleging that Beijing agents were assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices and included well-documented evidence of Beijing’s efforts to infiltrate “all levels of government,” the Committee,

(a) add additional meetings as required to its study on foreign election interference;

(b) invite the following witnesses to testify in public on the contents of the report: Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister; Michael Wernick, Former Clerk of the Privy Council; and Daniel Jean, Former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister; and,

(c) order the production of all memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, including any drafts, which are in the possession of the government, with respect to the matters referred to in the Global News report, provided that the documents, which may be redacted to protect the identities of employees or sources of Canadian or allied intelligence agencies, shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, within two weeks of the adoption of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Turnbull.

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

Madam Chair, I didn't have an opportunity to speak to my motion. I moved a motion.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You moved it, so....

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

Now I would like to speak to it. That is the normal process.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

On a point of order, the normal process is also to share motions in both official languages, and I would like to request that from Mr. Cooper, because we'd like to actually read the motion. I need to see it in writing.

I would also ask, Madam Chair, if possible, if we could have a little bit of time to discuss the motion as a team, just a very short recess to take a look at it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Let's get this motion circulated first. I'm not sure who all has it. It is in both official languages. We'll just get that circulated.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a relatively straightforward motion. It arises from yesterday's Global News article that reveals that Katie Telford, chief of staff, had requested a memo that was then prepared by Daniel Jean, the former national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister. That in turn was passed on to Michael Wernick, the then clerk of the Privy Council. The contents of that memo note that there is well-documented evidence of an active campaign of interference by the Beijing regime, which threatens the national security of Canada and which involves the corrupting of politicians, including by assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices.

In light of this report and given the scope of the study, I think it's appropriate that we hear from the three individuals named in the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Just to confirm, there is no relation between you and Mr. Sam Cooper....

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

There is no relation, I can assure you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I just would not want you to have any unintended consequences.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor goes to you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I would just ask for a short recess to have a team huddle and talk about this. We haven't had a chance.... We had no notice. We didn't know this was coming. It would be helpful to have that time.