Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Next is Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our new witnesses.

Thank you to Ms. Wong for sticking around a little longer. I really appreciate it.

First of all, my question is for you, Mr. Mitrovica, and I hope I got your name somewhat right.

I think that has been the challenge. I read your articles as well. Going through this process, I feel like we're looking for the bogeyman in the closet. It's like, “Here's what this means”, and I know that it may not be what it means. It's about trying to gather information in a more holistic way, take a common-sense approach and really address the key issue, which is how to make sure that Canadians have faith in their systems. What do we need to do better as a country to make sure that this is there?

I read through your article, and I was very interested. You used the word “hysteria” quite a lot. I guess my question for you is around whistle-blowers. I hear what you're saying: Because there's nothing attached to this person, we accept that as factual, and it becomes concerning what that information is.

Could you talk about that? Do we have enough rules in place to support whistle-blowers? In getting information, is part of the challenge that we don't have enough supports?

[Andrew Mitrovica]

I wrote a piece many years ago about the protections that should be afforded to whistle-blowers who come forward to share, in the public interest, information that is in the public interest, but I have some difficulties with the construct that The Globe and Mail source is a whistle-blower.

He or she is being trumpeted on the front page of my former newspaper as a whistle-blower. Whistle-blowers generally step out of the shadows. They don't make accusations in the shadows; they step out of the shadows.

This individual is making some very serious allegations about individuals, organizations and parties, and I think it requires that person to step forward, like other whistle-blowers—courageous whistle-blowers—who have stepped out of the shadows and pointed an accusatory finger at the institutions they operated within and were prepared to publicly defend their accusations, their motivations, in a public forum. That's what true whistle-blowing is about.

The Globe source is not a whistle-blower. That person is still an anonymous source who's causing a great deal of chaos, in my view, and is not having to defend what they are doing and is not being questioned about their motivations, the sources of their information, the veracity of their information, how that information was corroborated—if it was corroborated at all—and whether or not they're embellishing or editing the information—to fit a certain narrative.

I think this is a real point of contention. When a newspaper provides a source with that kind of protection and then trumpets the person as a whistle-blower, I have a great deal of difficulty with that situation.

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

Thank you for that.

I think it is challenging to try to navigate this in a way that goes back to protecting Canadians and making sure that they have information they require. That's, of course, why we support a public inquiry.

With regard to the other part I want to talk about, you said—and we've heard this a lot—that a lot of our legislation around these issues is old, which is a big challenge for us, and that a lot of legislation around CSIS is old and needs to be reinvigorated.

You spoke in your earlier testimony about information being what is gathered, not evidence. When you look at that process and at the changing reality of foreign interference, at the changing reality of misinformation, how do you see those things going together?

It seems to me that misinformation is largely at the core of this, and it has been in many countries. In a convoy out here not too long ago, we had people holding up other presidents' signs. It was like, “You're in the wrong country.”

We have to look at this really seriously, because it's not just one country but multiple countries that are doing things during elections and between elections, and they have a huge impact on us.

I'm wondering if you could talk about all of that in terms of the role of CSIS and what needs to change to make sure that there's a more thoughtful process.

[Andrew Mitrovica]

It's a big question.

Let me try to answer it this way. There's a great deal of misinformation about CSIS itself. I wrote a book painting a rather unflattering portrait of Canada's spy service. There should be some sort of inquiry on one of my key findings, because it points to the fact that CSIS itself—and I don't want to be hyperbolic here—can be considered a bit of a threat to our national security.

Let me just be specific about that. I reported on a national security breach that has never been properly investigated by any authority, including CSIS. I devoted a chapter in my book to it. It involved a senior member of CSIS in Toronto who was a member of special operational services, one of the most sensitive aspects of CSIS operations.

I reported that he was exchanging highly sensitive information—bartering that information—with Mafia-affiliated drug dealers for heroin. This was at or about the same time that the crown jewels of the agency, their operational planning document, went missing. It allegedly was stolen, according to CSIS at the time, by three drug addicts. That was a cover story.

We have to understand that CSIS itself is.... The misinformation that is being presented at the moment is that CSIS is filled with these Boy Scouts and Girl Guides who sing O Canada in the morning and O Canada before they go to sleep. The fact is that there is real trouble inside that agency. However, if you listen, watch and read much of the coverage lately, it's the hagiography that needs to be challenged.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to have to say thank you. I can tell that your answer probably could go a little bit longer.

Mr. Mitrovica, Mr. Conacher and Ms. Wong, thank you for your time today and for offering these insights.

It is very possible that members might have other questions that we would like to send to you, and we would ask for written responses. Is that okay? We'll send those to you.

If you have any more information that you would like the committee to consider, please send it to the clerk in writing, and we will have it translated and distributed to all members.

With that, once again, on behalf of PROC committee members, Mr. Mitrovica, Mr. Conacher and Ms. Wong, thank you for your time today. We wish you a good rest of the day.

We'll see you this evening at 6:30. The meeting is adjourned.