Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2023

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

I'm listening.

[Artur Wilczynski]

To the question of whether the clerk of the committee or the clerk of the House of Commons can redact the documents so that parliamentarians can consult them, the answer is no. The reason is that you need a person with the appropriate security clearance, skills, and authorization to—

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

Are you saying that the clerk of the committee or the clerk of the House doesn't have that authorization?

[Artur Wilczynski]

I don't know if they do. This isn't a matter for Parliament, but for the executive branch, and I think we really need to look at who could redact these documents in order to ensure transparency.

I agree with my colleague. That's why I'm also in favour of a public inquiry, because the people responsible for conducting it will be able to see the documents in their entirety.

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

I would like to correct one thing: the clerk of the House told the committee that he had—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

This is now a debate, and the clock has been sounded very clearly. If there's more to say, we can always hear it later.

Ms. Romanado, it's your turn now, and you have the floor for five minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I want to follow up a little bit on some of the questioning we've heard today.

Gentlemen, in your expertise I'm hearing a lot of the same conclusions, which are actually identified in the special rapporteur's report with respect to the governance of the communication between the intelligence community and the machinery of government. This problem has been identified and you've alluded to it as well.

Mr. Wilczynski, you brought up a very interesting topic about education and about training people to understand what is intelligence and what is evidence. It takes years to be a consumer and understand completely what intelligence is. For full disclosure, my son is an intelligence officer with the Canadian Armed Forces. Trust me: We do not have conversations around the kitchen table.

However, in Mr. Johnston's report, he clarified very clearly that he had access to cabinet information, that he had access to top secret information and that his conclusions were based on evidence. In the annex, he includes a top secret reference, which shows how he got to where he got to in terms of his decision.

He has also offered the leaders of the opposition access to top secret clearance to get access to the same information, so parliamentarians can see this to determine for themselves whether or not his conclusions were sound. They may not agree with the conclusions and they can say publicly that they don't agree. However, they've been offered that.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Artur Wilczynski]

I think they should take the special rapporteur and the government up on those offers. It's important, if we're going to have a conversation about foreign interference, that all individuals or leaders who have the opportunity and who will influence the way Canadians think about it be as informed as possible. I do believe it is very possible for individuals who see that intelligence and who review it to actually offer some particular insight about it.

Mr. Johnston put out a public report. It contains numerous pages commenting about the specifics of those reports. I think it's important to note that individuals on all sides of the House and all sides of the issue should have the understanding that they, too, can pass judgment on what they see.

With that said, it's also a bit of a moot point, in my opinion. I say that because personally I have no reason to doubt or in no way, shape or form question Mr. Johnston's conclusions. I have immense respect for him as an individual and as a public servant who has dedicated years to this country, but it's not me he should try to convince. It is a threshold of Canadians and I'm worried that's what's being compromised right now.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Actually, on that note—that's where I wanted to go with this—I think, honestly, that this is going to be a multipronged approach. We have NSICOP and the special rapporteur looking into this. We have NSIRA and PROC looking into this. We have multiple branches looking into this issue.

The special rapporteur also mentioned that in terms of bringing back confidence to the Canadian public, that is why he wants to do outreach with the community to explain to people what intelligence is, what evidence is, how they too can play a part in terms of recognizing something and where they should bring that information.

As intelligence officers you know yourselves that pieces of information help bring the portrait to light, and there are many ways to capture this information, whether it be discussions with MPs individually when they see something that maybe they should be reporting....

Would you not say that what the special rapporteur is doing and proposing to do can instill some more faith in the Canadian public, who are concerned, by also educating them on what it is?

[Artur Wilczynski]

Again, I am very happy any time Canadians speak about national security matters, because we almost never do. I think the consequences of that, in my humble submission, are that we have not had a productive conversation about the threat that Canada is facing.

Again, would his bringing attention to various issues help? Yes. But at the end of the day, I don't think that's the issue. At the end of the day, it's how we restore the trust and faith of Canadians in democratic institutions. What is the process to get us there? All the technicalities that we talk about—I have pages of recommendations I can share with you—those are moot if Canadians don't trust. I think that needs to be the single objective of government. How do we restore trust? I'm afraid when you have the kind of partisanship we see, that does not contribute to that outcome.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madam Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, do I understand correctly that if there is no independent public inquiry at this time, the leaks will continue? Did I understand correctly that this is a concern for you?

[Dan Stanton]

No, I didn't say that's going to happen. I'm saying I would like to see the leaks stop. That's the reason I'm doing it. I think the leakers are probably playing on that distrust.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We're going to pause for a second, because we don't have interpretation. I want to make sure it is working.

It is working now.

Let's start that all over again, from the top, Madam Gaudreau.

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

I'll go back to my question. Is your concern that the independent public inquiry will allow the leaks to continue? We've been seeing leaks week after week since November, haven't we?

[Dan Stanton]

No, I have no insight into whether the leaks are going to continue or whether they've stopped. I'm simply hoping they are. I'm simply saying the distrust that lots of Canadians are having in their institutions is creating a nobility among the leakers, which I disagree with. There's this whole idea that the leakers are whistle-blowers and are going to save the country from ruin. Not having an inquiry, calling the leakers all malign actors, saying that the journalists are all gullible, I don't think is an intelligent strategy to stop the leakers. That's my opinion.

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

Thank you. I've got one minute left. Today, with all the expertise you have, what critical steps need to be taken to restore trust?

[Artur Wilczynski]

I think it would be important to have an independent inquiry managed by a judge or former judge so that no party could question its reliability. That would be an essential first step.

Ultimately, however, the objective is not the inquiry, but to take its findings seriously and to implement the measures proposed to counter foreign interference. The inquiry is just a process for determining ideas and proposing policies. If we rely on the motivation of the people behind the media leaks, the implementation of the policies is the key. Like Mr. Stanton, I have no idea what will happen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the leaks continue even if there is an inquiry, because it isn't the inquiry they're interested in, but the action.

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

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Stanton?

[Dan Stanton]

No.

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

What I understand, Madam Chair, is that, at the end of the day, with all the bodies in place, it's important to get to the point, which is the need for an independent public inquiry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madam Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to come back to you, Mr. Wilczynski, about the redaction of papers. I can't tell you how many hours I've met with people to talk about the redaction of papers, wanting to make sure that whatever we request is as safe as possible.

You talked a little bit about the law clerk. The way that we get papers redacted and the process that is in place, is that not sufficient? There seems to be distrust from some members of the committee. Could you share if that is something we should be concerned about?

[Artur Wilczynski]

I'm broadly concerned about the security of information. I'm a former departmental security officer. I should say this up front. I spent many years as a political staffer back in the 1980s and early 1990s too, so I know a lot about how this place works.

My concern would be around information security and information integrity. When we're talking about highly classified—