Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2023

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

Madam Chair, I'm still hearing an echo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We'll pause.

Is there still feedback, or is it okay when we're speaking? There is still feedback.

Is there something we can do to correct it?

[Artur Wilczynski]

I can also repeat what I said in French, if you wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are trying to have a system that works in both official languages. If you can answer in the language in which the question is asked, that's always better, but you can choose between the two official languages.

We want the system to work.

You're not getting any feedback when I speak. Is it maybe just her earphone?

Madam Gaudreau, do you still hear feedback?

Are we okay? It's all good.

Ms. Blaney, do you want to summarize your question again? If you're okay with just going to the answer, that's fine.

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

Are you good? Do you need me to summarize?

[Artur Wilczynski]

No. I think you're—

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

He's got it.

[Artur Wilczynski]

—wondering why I'm more than a little bit hesitant on that process.

It is around information security. We're talking about highly classified documents. We have obligations in terms of protecting the information, and I think we need to be as robust in the protection of that information as possible, which is one of the reasons that—much like my colleague—I believe, fundamentally, that there are institutions in Canada that can independently look at this information in as transparent a way as possible, that have both the physical means to do so in terms of safe, secure rooms as well as the technology to do so.

I have yet to experience that level of security for highly classified documents when it comes to this place, I'm sorry to say. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but again, in terms of my job, which was always managing risk, I think that, in terms of protection of the information, it is too high a risk.

Again, I think an inquiry that has the individuals and the facilities to appropriately handle the information is the right way to go. I understand that lots of committees are looking at it, but my preference, from a security perspective, is that inquiry process, because it has the means to manage that information.

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

Thank you.

I only have 10 seconds left, so I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

I will just say—

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

Madam Chair, I really have a problem. There's still an echo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I will just ask members to be reminded that your earpiece should not be near the microphone. That might be the cause of some of that feedback.

I do find it interesting that the feedback is not evenly shared throughout the room, but there are different systems, so it could be that it's impacting one more than the other.

Madam Gaudreau, the concerns have been noted, and they are being looked into. As you can tell, our IT guru is on his feet. He's very concerned and wants to respond to this.

Mr. Cooper, before—

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

Give me 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Can you try for 10?

Go ahead. Just give me your 10 seconds. What would you like?

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

Madam Chair, just before we move on to the next panel, I note that a letter was sent to you signed by all members of the opposition on this committee on May 19 requesting that Minister Blair appear for two hours. I see that he is coming to committee, but only for one hour.

Given the troubling reports that he dithered for four months to sign off on surveilling an Ontario Liberal cabinet minister as well as the very troubling information that sensitive information concerning MP Chong essentially went into a black hole because he didn't have the signing authority, after being minister for 18 months, I would say there are many questions and that the minister has a lot to answer for.

I would just ask if you could address, as chair, his availability for one hour versus two. I know you don't control the minister's schedule, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

There are a lot of things that I—and none of us—control. As you know, our resources are very limited. As you know, PROC is to meet for four hours a week. As you know, we're meeting for a lot more than that. We're also juggling who has committed and who has not.

The motion that was presented to this committee did not provide me a lot of leniency. I respect that. We did get Jody Thomas to commit to her two hours. Because we got an extra hour, Mr. Blair was able to give us an hour. We can always work on getting them back and so on forth.

I'm working at trying to put puzzle pieces in a schedule that's challenging. I'm sure some might know that perhaps in the House of Commons right now there's someone standing on a question of privilege, which will come to this committee. I'm trying to manage what our focus and our priority is every single day because it's continually changing. For us, it's difficult. I hear you. I read in both official languages the letters you write to me and I always enjoy reading them. You don't have to send so many, but when you do I hold them close to my heart.

Right now, we have the national security intelligence adviser, who we want doing important work in keeping our country safe, appearing for two hours. We have Minister Blair appearing for one hour. You want him for a second hour. We will try to do our best to make that happen.

Minister Mendicino's office has responded back to confirm where we can make his schedule work with our schedule. Minister Joly has also been doing that. We're just kind of in this multiring circus. Rest assured and be reassured, Mr. Cooper, that I take your requests very seriously and I'll do whatever I can.

With that, Mr. Stanton and Mr. Wilczynski, we really appreciated your insights today—at least I did. I've been watching you at other committees. I like this duo you have going on. It might go really far. I also noticed that you—

[An hon. member]

Take it on the road.

[An hon. member]

The CSE and CSIS together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

“The CSE and the CSIS: Things that happen after retirement that might not happen when we're serving”—maybe it will be contagious.

You mentioned certain documents and additional insights. If you could share those with the clerk, we will have them put in both official languages and shared with everything else. If later on tonight you think, “Oh, I wish I had said that” or “I should have added this”, do not hesitate to send it to us tomorrow or the next day. We welcome any insights you have. If you ever want to come back to PROC, just make a request. We might beat you to it.

With that, we wish you a really good day.

Our next panel has one person who's on video conference, so we'll do a sound check.

I'm suspending really quick and starting back in two minutes.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call the meeting back to order.

We have with us today Mr. Andrew Mitrovica by video conference, as well as Mr. Michael Wernick, who is joining us in person. Both are reappearing at this committee. We appreciate your coming back at our request.

You will have up to five minutes for your opening comments.

We will commence with Mr. Mitrovica.

Welcome back. The floor is yours.

[Andrew Mitrovica, Writer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon.

Three weeks ago, I reluctantly appeared before this committee to try to say something of value that might help you and Canadians navigate reports about Chinese interference—a matter that I once spent a lot of time reporting about as an investigative journalist. I came here reluctantly because, as I suspected, while members of this committee listened to what I had to say, I came away convinced that several of you didn't hear what I had to say. That's an important distinction.

I know that you listen to what witnesses like me have to say through the prism of politics and then decide if it has any political currency or not. I get it. Politics is what you do.

I like to think that, as an investigative reporter, getting at the truth is what I do, so please, hear me out.

The last time I was here, I said several things that I believe are relevant to the serious matter at hand, which requires serious people to do serious thinking about—not posturing, but thinking.

First, I reminded the committee, Canadians and my colleagues in the fourth estate—many of whom have suddenly fallen deeply and madly in love with an intelligence service they know nothing about—that, beyond the ineptness and the racism inside CSIS, intelligence officers make big mistakes all the time about a lot of important stuff.

These are, as well, the same invisible intelligence officers who a Federal Court judge slammed in 2020 for having “a degree of institutional disregard for—or, at the very least, a cavalier institutional approach to—the duty of candour and regrettably the rule of law.” In other words, CSIS doesn't always tell the truth, and it breaks the law. That fact, I suspect, might be news to most of you, and to too many starry-eyed reporters, editors and columnists, who don't have a clue about how CSIS operates.

With that caveat in mind, I urge the committee, Canadians and my colleagues to treat cautiously and skeptically the drip-by-drip bits of information being leaked by what likely amounts to a handful of members of Canada's largely unaccountable security intelligence structure.

I also reminded the committee that so-called intelligence, which is just an eye-catching word for information, is neither evidence or proof. That information has to be considered in context. It has to be corroborated so that it can be embellished and edited to fit a narrative that can bear little resemblance to the truth, particularly when it is leaked by intelligence officers who, dare I say, may have an agenda, and who know, one, that top secret information can be spun to their parochial benefit and, two, that they can leverage reporters to be spun and who, in turn, can torque their stories to make a bigger splash to the delight of those intelligence officers.

Still, perhaps the most important point I made was that the leaks have caused deep harm to some of our fellow Canadians by raising spurious questions about their loyalty to the maple leaf.

These few intelligence officers, who prefer to do their handiwork in the comfortable shadows, know they will get away with the damage they have done to Canadians of Chinese descent who love this country, too. Why? Because they always get away with it.

Last week, in his report, the special rapporteur confirmed the main thrust of what I told you three weeks ago. David Johnston is not my pal. I don't live near him. I am not a member of any foundation he is a member of. In fact, I am not a member of any foundation at all. Also, anyone familiar with my writing about the current Prime Minister would never confuse me with being a Liberal lackey.

Mr. Johnston was right when he wrote that a lot of reporting fuelled by these selective leaks involved “unsubstantiated speculation”, “limited intelligence”, a “lack of...context” and finally, “When information about foreign interference is provided without care or context, it can cause the public narrative to turn on...communities.”

Ask Han Dong about the damage that can be done when this happens. A television news outlet tarred Mr. Dong as, in effect, a traitor. Mr. Johnston found that egregious, life-altering charge was absolutely categorically and emphatically false.

We are witnessing “Maher Arar: The sequel”.

This sinister stuff has a familiar ring. A former CSIS director and national security adviser to another prime minister publicly peddled the same insinuations in 2010.

It's ironic that, in an editorial at the time, The Globe and Mail denounced these remarks as “reckless” and “foolish”. The same could be said today about the newspaper itself.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Mitrovica.

I know, Mr. Wernick, that you don't have comments, but I would like to pass the floor to you to say a quick hello and to set the stage.

Mr. Wernick, you have the floor.

[Michael Wernick, Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very happy to give you a second hour at your invitation.

No, I have no opening statement. I would just be repeating the past appearance, which was before we all got the chance to read Mr. Johnston's report.

My takeaway message is the same as last time. I think it is time for you as legislators to step up and start legislating, and I'd be happy to talk about what could go in it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

We will now start with six-minute rounds beginning with Mr. Cooper, followed by Ms. Sahota, Madam Gaudreau and then Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours. Comments should be through the chair, pausing in between comments and answers for the sake of our interpreters.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am going to direct my questions to Mr. Wernick, through you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Wernick, you served as Clerk of the Privy Council and, having been in that role, were you surprised that the national security adviser confirmed that the PCO had received a CSIS memo regarding the Beijing intimidation campaign targeting Michael Chong in July of 2021 and that Michael Chong was never informed about it and learned about it through The Globe and Mail?

Secondly, were you surprised that the Prime Minister apparently—at least according to his word—had no idea about it and also learned about it through the media?