Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

[Daniel Jean]

There are two points to clarify.

First, on the subject of society and the media, which are growing gradually more aware of this, I want to be very clear. For example,The New York Times, The Guardian and numerous other networks worldwide have talked about what was going on at the World Anti-Doping Agency, when the Canadian media had not seen it. I think this was a sign that at that point, the public was not aware of it. This is no different from what happened in the United States during the election. Among the foreign news agencies, a Washington Post journalist explained at one point that the journalists felt like they had fallen into the candy jar. All this information about the election was being disclosed to them and they were writing articles about it, until one day they started wondering who was sending them the information and whether someone was manipulating them. That is, in fact, what the investigation showed later.

On the second point you raised, I don't want to state an opinion about the forum to be chosen. The concern I have about commissions of inquiry is the time that takes, when, in my opinion, it is urgent that the right measures be taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Very good, thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Of course, everything I say goes through the chair, and I want to thank the witness for testifying here today.

I'm really happy you're here, because I'm hoping you'll be able to clarify something.

I've been asking about the ability of the President of the United States to declassify information as needed. When there's a situation in which classified information could be provided that would clear the air on an issue that is important to the country, they have the ability to declassify it without disclosing any sources or any methods of gathering that information.

I did ask that question of Ms. Telford, and she said that she has been asking herself about that. I am paraphrasing. When I asked a similar question to Mr. Wernick, he said that it can happen. In your testimony, you gave some specific examples of how that happened.

Could you outline maybe not the details but the process of how that would happen, and maybe give me a little bit of clarity about what rules we already have in Canada? Is there, in your opinion, anything we need to change or explore around this issue?

I would hate to have information declassified, rightly so, but if that information was somewhat revealed, it could lessen the temperature in this country and provide Canadians with a little assurance. Because we don't have the right tools...although I'm now confused about that. Do we have the right tools, and could you enlighten us as to whether there is anything we need to add to those tools to make them stronger in the future?

[Daniel Jean]

Just to be clear, in the positions that I have been in I have never been in intelligence collection or in the custodial role. I've always been a consumer. I'm not necessarily the best authority on this. It's a question that would be much better addressed to David Vigneault or Caroline Xavier at CSE.

Having said that, in general terms, what happens is that if we somehow see that it is in the public's interest to.... When we say “declassify”, that doesn't mean we're going to go and give you the document. That just means that we're going to make a decision that, for some of that information that is classified, we're going to render that public, because we think it's in the public's interest to do so. It's like what was done in 2014 in the context of the attack on the National Research Council and in the context of the attribution that I spoke about in my remarks.

Our system is very different. Those decisions don't usually come from the political side. There usually will be conversations where the officials will provide advice on what would be in the public's interest and what the pros and cons would be. They have their own process to do this.

As I said, it's been done. It's never “here's the piece of intelligence; read it,” but in that piece of intelligence, for that element, we render that public, because we want the public to know. That's why we're taking these actions.

An example is in the context of the Skripal.... In March 2018, we joined many other countries in attributing this to Russia. We PNG'd four Russians. In the press communication, the Prime Minister explained that these people had been involved in foreign interference activities on Canadian soil.

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

Thank you. That provides a little bit of guidance for me.

I heard your comments earlier on concerns that you have about a public inquiry. I personally think that it's still needed, because we're at a point now where Canadians are feeling so much concern that I don't know how else we can do this. It's too bad that we got to this point, quite frankly, but here we are. I think that a public inquiry is important.

However, I also heard very clearly from Mr. Wernick that legislation is another component. It's something that could be public and shared with Canadians. His recommendation, of course, was to cut and paste what the U.K. is providing.

I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on what kinds of steps we need to take in this country, especially on the specific issue that we are in today. I know you don't have any classified or very important information, because you're not doing the same work that you used to. From that perspective—when you were in these roles prior—what kinds of things do you think would be important for us to look at in terms of legislation? Do you think the U.K. is the best place to start? Are there any other countries that are doing innovative things that would be important for Canada to do to deal with this issue?

[Daniel Jean]

As a start, I would say to draw on the work of the GSPIA task force on national security last year and the letter that was issued yesterday by the Canada Conference of Defence Associations.

Canadians need to recognize that we're living in a different world. As much as we want that world to remain free and safe and our privacy to be protected, we need to find ways to give better tools to our national security intelligence and others, like Elections Canada, and all of that.

I actually like it when we do legislation and we take the best of all, not just look at one country. Look at the best in one and the best in others. Definitely we should have a foreign registry. In most countries they review national security every three years. We haven't reviewed the CSIS Act since 1984. We should have regular review. The review should not be about just looking mechanically at the legislation, but bringing forward new measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, Mr. Jean.

Earlier, you opened a door when you said we should not focus only on election periods, we should also focus on what goes on between those periods for political parties. I would like to give you an opportunity to clarify your thinking.

Do you have something specific to tell us on this subject?

[Daniel Jean]

Democracy is more than the few weeks that an election campaign lasts. As someone who believes fundamentally in democracy, I hope democracy doesn't come into play only during elections. In this context...

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Have you been made aware of things that we should know? Are you issuing us a warning?

[Daniel Jean]

I am thinking of intimidation of the diaspora, for example. People are trying to contact individuals about politics or other things. They are...

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That may also be connected with financing issues.

[Daniel Jean]

It may also be connected with financing issues, yes.

I have read various people's testimony. If I recall correctly, Mr. Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer, and Ms. Simard, from the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, talked about the fact that the mechanisms are limited to elections at present.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

As national security advisor, you received information from all the security intelligence agencies. So you were the one who collected the information, and you reported to the Prime Minister's office. Is that correct?

[Daniel Jean]

Under our governance model, the Privy Council Office is the advisor to the Prime Minister. In that role, I used the information I received to give advice in that field. I also played a coordinating role with those agencies.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Right.

Mr. Wernick said very clearly, and said it was not his job.

[Daniel Jean]

Exactly.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

He said you were the one who did that.

Is it reasonable to think that since 2018, when you left, the Prime Minister has been briefed only six times about foreign election interference?

[Daniel Jean]

I don't think I can comment on that subject.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

We are talking about six official briefings on foreign interference, in three years, by the national security advisor.

[Daniel Jean]

You know, the important thing is not so much the frequency as ensuring that the right information is transmitted. There is limited time for briefing the Prime Minister on a number of subjects.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I understand, but it seems to me that you are still hesitating. I heard it in your answer. Six briefings seems like not much.

[Daniel Jean]

What you have to understand is that if there is a briefing on China, for example, it is going to talk about foreign interference, but the title of the briefing won't be "Chinese interference."

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay. The fact that it was talked about six times seems like not much.

[Daniel Jean]

I'm not going to comment on that.