Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

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

I'm going to ask you a series of hypothetical questions.

Imagine, for example, that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has prepared some documents that report information about a diplomat who is acting on behalf of a foreign country in supporting a political party or candidate in an election. Would the national security advisor have transmitted that information to the Prime Minister's Office?

[Daniel Jean]

That is a very hypothetical question.

As my former colleague Mr. Vigneault always said, when it comes to intelligence, you first have to verify the information before transmitting it. If you think the information is reliable... As I said, I really do invite you to read the...

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

What about if it is reliable?

[Daniel Jean]

If it is reliable and it is important that the Prime Minister receive it, because it would enable him to take measures, the answer is yes. However...

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

Mr. Wernick also said that it was not up to him or to the Privy Council Office to take measures. He said it was the national security advisor who had the authority to act. Is that correct?

[Daniel Jean]

The national security advisor does not take measures; the agencies do that. The national security advisor will persuade the agencies to hold discussions and decide whether there are grounds for acting, within their jurisdiction.

The national security advisor determines whether it is important to inform the Prime Minister, so he is at least aware of the situation, but it is not the national security advisor who takes measures.

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

I am a bit surprised, because Mr. Wernick said something a little different earlier. He said that information also went from the top down, through the national security advisor.

[Daniel Jean]

For information, that is absolutely the case. However, you were talking about measures, which is different.

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

The question we asked Mr. Wernick related to the measures that have to be taken.

[Daniel Jean]

Let's be clear. When it comes to transmitting information to the Prime Minister, where it is credible and reliable and the Prime Minister should know it, it is certainly the role of the national security advisor. It's different when we are talking about taking measures.

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

I have one last hypothetical question, Mr. Jean.

If something is learned about a foreign state through an agent who decides to make their dissatisfaction public because it isn't moving fast enough, as we saw in an operation, how is the national security advisor going to react to it being made public?

[Daniel Jean]

I read the letter that this gentleman wrote to the Globe and Mail. In fact, when you read his letter, you see that he says he is disappointed at what is happening, because it is not what he wanted.

I can't support doing this kind of thing. When there are internal discussions about intelligence, even if you are in a senior position, you accept that you will face opposition. There are ways to have these discussions.

One thing makes me very afraid when it comes to our need to refine our measures. When we get to the bottom of the matter, if we see, as a lot of people have said so far, that there were really no grounds for taking measures, is it going to tarnish the reputation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the agency where the leak is coming from—we don't actually know where it is coming from—or of the security and intelligence community generally? Is it going to make it even harder to give them access to the tools they need?

We have to recall how the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was created, in 1984, and everything that came with it. That created constraints.

I will be able to talk more about it later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

That is the second time Mr. Berthold has gone past the time allotted to him. The next Conservative speaker will not be able to have all their scheduled speaking time.

Ms. Sahota, you have the floor.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Jean, we heard from you in your remarks earlier today that foreign interference is not just prevalent at election time, but it occurs between elections and that many are affected by this. Many aspects of our society such as our businesses, our charities, our post-secondary institutions, research institutions, members of Parliament and diaspora groups, particularly, are communities that are often targeted by foreign interference. Often those who have escaped regimes can then find themselves targeted here at home in Canada, so the threat is far-reaching.

You mentioned some countries such as China and Russia that we should be aware of. Are there other countries, other foreign state actors, that we could be conscious of? Do you have any advice to the diaspora groups and these different aspects that are affected?

[Daniel Jean]

The countries that CSIS has identified publicly are these two countries. As much as they do recognize there are others, I'm going to stick to what they've said publicly.

I think it's very important that, when members of the diaspora.... As you can see, it seems that it's happening in other countries as well, if you've read what happened in New York this week. I think it's very important, when members of the diaspora feel that they are under threat or intimidation by foreign agents, that they be able to come in confidence and trust to our national security community agencies.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Should we create a mechanism—is that your advice?— where they can come and privately, confidentially, be able to share that information? Should there be some kind of mechanism?

[Daniel Jean]

In theory right now they can do this, and some of them do. I know I've had conversations with some of the diaspora groups saying that they do. Some of them feel that it's not always taken as seriously as it should be. The challenge is always, as I've said before, that you may have information, but is that going to be solid enough, sufficient enough, that it can support an action? This is where some of our current legislative tools need to be refined.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You also mentioned in your answers to questions here today that misinformation can be coordinated as it's related to stories that come out in the media as well, that sometimes pieces of intelligence can be misconstrued or there could be an active coordinated misinformation campaign. Can you talk to us about ways that misinformation can be mixed or pushed out to distort the facts that drive the narrative of the day?

[Daniel Jean]

The WADA example was a good example because of the medical exemption registry of WADA. Athletes who have a medical exemption to take a certain medication.... Let's take an example, because it's public. Simone Biles, the gymnast who's won so many gold medals, was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder when she was a child, and she takes medication for that. Because it's justified, she has an exemption.

The Russians released that information. They released some information about some other athletes, including Canadian athletes like Christine Sinclair, and then their narrative was, “If you're a gymnast, taking that kind of medication can really focus your attention”. That's a disinformation campaign. It's very similar to the tactic that they used in showing the conflicts between the Bernie Sanders and the Clinton camps in the U.S.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Is there any other information that you think this committee should be aware of? Many experts have come before us and said that, because the issue of classified information is so tricky to deal with in a public forum, a public inquiry—although the public may be feeling the need for one and politicians may be pushing for one—may not get the answers to the public that they wish to have.

What are other things that you think we should explore? Legislation has been mentioned and the registry. Is there anything other than these that we should be looking at?

[Daniel Jean]

You need awareness. You need some of the tools that I described before but on awareness. I give a lot of conferences to universities and conferences on national security, and I always say that the crown jewels used to be in government, so our security agencies were all trying to protect them. Nowadays, the targets are outside of government, so the national security agencies need to adapt to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madam Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello, Mr. Jean.

I would like to know your opinion about what the former Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, told Radio-Canada in response to the various leaks about interference. I quote him:

Canadians have to know everything about what has happened. As long as there is no public inquiry, we will be going one drop at a time and people are going to pay a high price.

I would like to know your opinion about those comments. Is that the only way to really deal with it?

[Daniel Jean]

I think Canadians need to be reassured.

Was there really a sound basis for the allegations of foreign interference and should they have had to rise to the established threshold? A lot of people have told us that this was not the case. You are undoubtedly wondering whether the threshold is too high. The threshold is high for good reason.

However, Canadians are entitled to know whether or not action should have been taken, given the information available. That is what I would call very short-term measures. What concerns me is that the toolbox that enables us to take those measures is not up to date.

In general, a commission of inquiry takes several years. Sometimes it even takes several decades, as in the Air India case. That is what worries me about commissions of inquiry.

I think there are other credible ways of shedding light on events. I understand that people want credible ways and want to know that the right measures were taken, but do we not have a faster way of finding solutions? The legislative process itself is not a fast one.

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

We have talked about parallel measures. Now, what can we do in terms of simultaneous measures?

You said earlier that a commission of inquiry was a long process. On March 15, a special rapporteur was appointed who is to submit his report on May 23. The committee has been told that the rapporteur could propose a public inquiry commission. If those measures are taken simultaneously, given that the legislative process can take up to 18 months and that we have already been given advice, I would hope that the right things are being done.

Briefly, what is the winning solution?