Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2023

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to you, Ms. McCuaig‑Johnston.

You mentioned in your opening statement that, despite your respect for Mr. Johnston, you were nevertheless somewhat disappointed that he hadn't recommended a public inquiry. Then, in your answers—correct me if I misquote you—you suggest that his analysis of the information he had received and his report led you to believe that he might somehow lack knowledge about China and that he also wasn't an intelligence expert.

In that context, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the next steps. Since Mr. Johnston will continue holding the reins on this issue and will conduct public hearings, do you consider him an appropriate person to occupy that position, compared to someone who has received the approval of all parliamentarians in the House, for example, and who might have different competencies?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. The Johnston report said that he does not lack confidence in the last two elections, but surely if even one riding was adversely affected by Chinese interference, that is a reflection of the Canadian electoral system and it should never, ever happen again.

From what many of us have seen, it appears that Kenny Chiu's riding was affected in that way. He lost by 3,500 votes and there was a disinformation campaign against him. In the Johnston report, that's called “misinformation”, and there's a big difference. It wasn't errors. It was, frankly, lies that were told about the intention of the registry that he had proposed, including that all Chinese Canadians would be made to register and that from there, the government could circumscribe their activities. That is not at all what a registry would do.

If he lost 3,500 votes because of that—and I think that's very possible—it is undermining our entire electoral system, and, frankly, it tells the Chinese they can do it again, because they've just been given a pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to ask Mr. German a question. He spoke a lot about money laundering and moving money, and that is a particularly interesting aspect of this whole discussion. I understand that one of the challenges we have been hearing about repeatedly is that we may not have the appropriate legislation to address some of these key issues.

I am just wondering, in terms of following the money trail, do we have appropriate legislation federally? Is there any need to expand that legislation, and if so, what would you recommend that look like?

[Dr. Peter German]

Thank you for the question.

There are a lot of things we can do in terms of our money-laundering legislation. It's a big question. Budget 2023 did deal with some issues. The Province of British Columbia has been dealing with issues. Yes, we could talk about potential changes to legislation, enforcement agencies and any number of things, but to be pertinent to this committee, on May 11, I spoke about the ability of the commissioner of elections to investigate cases of electoral interference. There is an investigative unit at the office of the election commissioner, but that office, I suggest, doesn't have the necessary tools to carry out a money-laundering investigation.

For example, to my understanding, they do not receive intelligence from FINTRAC, which is Canada's financial intelligence agency, due to various restrictions. I don't believe they could obtain a wiretap for electronic eavesdropping. Canada Elections Act offences are not, to my knowledge, listed as designated offences, under part VI of our Criminal Code, that give rise to a wiretap.

There are these types of issues. I would not only recommend that this unit within the office of the commissioner of elections be expanded, because it's a good unit with good people in there, but they also need the tools and the resources.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold has time to ask a quick question, and he will be followed by Mr. Turnbull.

Then we'll end our time together.

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. McCuaig‑Johnston, the testimony you've given this evening is quite informative.

It appears that the government is currently in reaction mode. It was informed of the Beijing regime's manoeuvres three years ago and has known for two years that an MP was being targeted by the Beijing regime as a result of a vote in the House of Commons.

Do you think that, as a result of the government's slow reaction, the Beijing regime's actions have achieved their intended effect on the diaspora and that people are now afraid to speak out because their government isn't defending them?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

I think that could be one effect. It's really, in my view, unconscionable that another government could be threatening a member of Parliament and his family. That this has happened is a huge surprise to most of us. Without much broader action on China's general interference in our society, we can find more things like this happening again. They may stop that particular case, but there will be other things they do. For example, WeChat, as Mr. Johnston points out, is controlled in the PRC, so really there's nothing we can do about it.

Many other countries are watching what we do in this committee and the Johnston hearings and what Canada does about this very serious foreign interference. One thing we may want to do is look at WeChat and suggest that, working together, we could each, in our own country...have Canadian data kept on Canadian servers of WeChat rather than have Canadian data kept in the PRC. That's something that's tangible. It's something that a public inquiry could look into, and it could discuss with legislators the ways in which this would be done and how it would be drafted. I don't think high-level public hearings are going to get at opportunities like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

The same amount of time will go to Mr. Turnbull.

The floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Ms. McCuaig-Johnston, I have to admit that I'm a little bit concerned about a comment you made in relation to misinformation having potentially swayed as many as 3,500 votes in the last election. I don't think that you'd necessarily be in a position to really verify that it had any impact on voting behaviour in the last election.

We all recognize that China...even though it's difficult at times to establish where disinformation and misinformation campaigns originate. I think that is a very commonly cited concern or challenge that security and intelligence individuals identify. They say it's very tough for them to trace back to a source where these are originating from.

What's interesting is that there's been some really detailed research done by the media observatory, which I've reviewed. They've done a project on misinformation and disinformation. These are the top experts across Canada who have come together. It's a government-funded initiative, prior to the election. They've analyzed pre- and post-election data and done surveys. It's a very detailed data analysis of information that was circulating in the last election, specifically with regard to Kenny Chiu's riding, for example. I have the report here in front of me. I won't quote it, because I think I'm limited for time. They said that there has been no impact on voter intentions in comparing pre- and post-election data.

It just strikes me as really hard to accept your testimony today. You've indicated that swaying 3,500 votes was very possible. It's not remotely possible, based on the evidence and data that's been cited by experts, who I think are far more qualified, to be honest, than yourself. I don't mean to offend, but I had to say that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just a comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I appreciate that, because we've already asked for extra time from Mr. German and Ms. McCuaig-Johnston.

We thank you for your time and attention today. On behalf of PROC committee members, we want to thank you for making yourselves available. Should there be anything else that you would like to add, please do not hesitate to send it to the clerk. We will have it translated in both official languages and circulated.

For committee members, we will meet again on Thursday with another exciting panel. Tomorrow, I will be presenting reports to the House of Commons, including an extension for the Ontario redistribution, which we'll have a conversation about because we do need to concur in it.

With that, we wish everyone a good evening and look forward to seeing you again soon. Keep well and safe. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.