Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Thank you so much.

Professors Juneau and Wark, on behalf of PROC committee members, thank you for your time and attention today. If there is anything else you'd like to share with committee members, please do not hesitate to let us know. Just send it to the clerk. We'll have it translated in both official languages and then shared with members.

Your insights and time are appreciated. With that, we wish you a good rest of the day.

To committee members, we will suspend for a quick two minutes. Then we will have one witness in person and the other by video conference. We will do the sound check and be right back at it again.

Thank you. We'll see you shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good evening, everyone. I'm calling the meeting back to order.

In our next panel, we have with us Ms. Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, senior fellow at the graduate school of public and international affairs and the institute for science, society and policy at the University of Ottawa. From the Vancouver Anti-Corruption Institute, we have Mr. Peter German, chair of the advisory committee, joining us again by video conference.

Each of you will have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

I will just remind members that if they are using an earpiece, it is best to keep it in their ear or away from the microphone.

With that, Ms. McCuaig-Johnston, the floor is yours. Welcome to PROC.

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and Institute of Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm honoured to speak about these critically important issues today.

My own expertise is on China. While I'm not an intelligence expert, I had top secret special access security clearance during much of my time in government. I've seen many intelligence reports. I've dealt extensively with CSE and CSIS over the years, always regarding issues relating to China.

Despite my name, I'm not related to the Right Honourable David Johnston, but I very much admired his work and contributions to Canada when we first served together on a task force in the 1990s. When he was appointed as special rapporteur, I supported his appointment in the media, as I thought that among all Canadians he would be one of the most concerned about the threats to our democracy posed by China. I was therefore extremely surprised and disappointed with his dismissal of an independent public inquiry.

I've been very concerned with the extent to which the PRC has acted to compromise our electoral system. I'm very grateful to the public servants who have risked their careers and personal freedom by speaking to media about these threats, which of course have brought us to these committee meetings and the report. I do not say that lightly. As a former senior assistant deputy minister, I know well the rules about keeping government documents secret, but without those leaks, we would still be oblivious. Their release has not caused the great harm to the Canadian interest that Mr. Johnston invoked.

In rejecting the inquiry, he stated, “A Public Inquiry examining the leaked materials could not be undertaken in public given the sensitivity of the intelligence.” Yet, in his report he went on to do exactly that. He went one by one through 12 specific intelligence allegations that had been reported in the media. In each case, he identified that he had reviewed the intelligence, whom he had interviewed about it and, in some cases, what they had said, and then reported very specific findings. In some cases, he found that there had been irregularities tied to the PRC consulates. He reported what the Prime Minister, ministers and others knew and didn't know. In some cases, he explained why the allegations did not have merit or could be explained, or how there was not visible evidence of money changing hands in cases of illegal campaign donations.

He did not address the 10 additional leaks that appeared in The Globe and Mail, so we're left to assume that they did not require comment and are therefore accurate.

All of this is excellent work on the part of Mr. Johnston. The results of his research and analysis are very clear. This is exactly what I was hoping for in this report. Given his thorough analysis, he has proven well how one can assess intelligence and speak about it publicly to ensure that we are clear on what happened. While I would dispute how easily he dismissed some of the allegations, I have no doubt that he used his best judgment and we can thank him for that. It proves that it can be done.

I would pose this question: What about the additional cases of Chinese interference about which the media have not reported? Given the depth and breadth of China's activities and the very large number of Chinese officials posted in Canada, I have no doubt there is much more that we should be made aware of. Without an independent public inquiry, we'll go back to being oblivious.

What the Johnston report did not talk about, and what no one is talking about, is what consequences China has seen for the many infringements of our democracy that it has already committed. So far, the consequences have been one single official sent home to Beijing, and only because his specific name was released along with his threats against Michael Chong and his family.

I'm very concerned that in talking about the public hearings, Mr. Johnston announced that he would be hearing from the Chinese diaspora. The Uyghurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong, pro-democracy Hong Kongers and human rights activists would be more targeted if they spoke in public hearings. For what? They've called for many years for a single window for investigations and for a foreign agent registry, which are still not implemented.

I hope the government has now gotten the message that Canadians care about these issues, because they clearly do. Other countries are watching us, too. We must do this properly so they can learn from us.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. McCuaig-Johnston. We look forward to your comments and answers.

Mr. German, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Peter German, Chair of the Advisory Committee, Vancouver Anti-Corruption Institute]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to return to the committee.

I appeared in person on May 11, and I was before the fisheries committee yesterday. I would have remained in Ottawa, but I had an obligation here today, so I am glad to be able to attend virtually.

I do not have an opening statement, because I provided one on the 11th and I won't bore you with another.

I think it's safe to say, by way of background, that I'm a former deputy commissioner of the RCMP and of Correctional Services Canada. Our Vancouver Anti-Corruption Institute is an NGO located at the University of British Columbia.

On May 11, I spoke about the possibility of a registry of foreign agents and some factors the government would want to take into consideration when creating such a registry, principally around the issue of transparency.

I also talked about money laundering, which is really my area of specialization, and the issue about following the money. I drew a parallel between dirty money entering the election process and dirty money being used for terrorism. It's really a case of what resources we have and what tools we have to investigate matters such as this.

I've also had the benefit of listening to your previous two witnesses in the past hour, and I am somewhat familiar with the conversation that took place.

Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. German.

I'm sure you've been watching all of our PROC committee meetings with a lot of thought and commentary, not just the last couple of hours but every single one.

Welcome back. We're going to look at a mechanism, for our frequent visitors to PROC, for how we can reward you for providing us the time. We do appreciate it and thank you for coming back.

With that, we're going to start a six-minute round. We will start with Mr. Berthold.

He will be followed by Ms. Sahota, Ms. Normandin and Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. McCuaig‑Johnston, first I wanted to thank you for your candour. You confirmed that you had initially approved of the candidate selected as special rapporteur, but you were very critical of his recommendations today.

I read your Twitter feed to prepare for my testimony today. You said the Government of Canada should start expelling more Chinese diplomats in response to the communist Chinese regime's disinformation efforts targeting members of Parliament. You posted that tweet today, and I wanted to link it to an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 12 stating that CSIS had provided the government with lists of diplomats who could be considered for expulsion because it had been discovered that they were carrying on interference activities.

Don't you think that the fact the Johnston report doesn't recommend expelling more Chinese diplomats or taking firmer action toward the Beijing regime is a major failing?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

I think this is one of the failings it has. It's a broader failing of the government not to act before this to take action on the interference we've seen so far. I am concerned about what's in the David Johnston report, and I'm very concerned about the leaks and about what else is going on.

We hear, when we talk to the diaspora, that there are other things going on in the system as well. This is one of the few overt actions that the government can take to show its displeasure with what a country is doing.

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

You mentioned something that really struck home for me because we're extensively discussing interference and the involvement of MPs targeted by the Beijing regime. You mentioned a recommendation in the Johnston report regarding consultation of the members of the diaspora. You said that being heard publicly would put them in a very difficult situation given the ties they still have with their families in China.

Would you please say more about that? It's important to note that MPs are the only ones who have been targeted by interference from the Beijing regime.

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

That's correct. Sometimes the diaspora have given testimony behind closed doors to parliamentary committees. Often, they've talked to government officials.

There's something called the Canadian coalition on human rights in China, a body made up of the leaders of many of these diaspora groups. What they have to reveal is shocking and very concerning as to how they and their families are treated. They are threatened through their families back home. To go public, as David Johnston wants them to do, would put them at further risk.

What we've seen is that, when he talks about public hearings, it's the diaspora that he puts front and centre. In addition, he's talked about having people like the intelligence and security experts you've heard from today, who have given testimony. We've heard them in this forum; we've heard them in many forums.

I think it's more important to get to the root of what's happening in parliamentary electoral interference and in the other systems of interference that they have in our society.

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

How many Beijing regime diplomats are currently in Canada? Do you think Canada is being too lenient?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

We have 176 Chinese diplomats in Canada. China has 178 in the United States. Why are they paying so much attention to Canada? To a large extent, it's because we have a very large diaspora. There are 1.4 million Canadians who have roots in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

They are attempting to use the diaspora as an extension of what they call the motherland and to have the diaspora support the position that the Chinese government takes on all kinds of issues, and certainly not do anything to undermine it. To the extent that they speak out against threats that their families have had or criticize regime politics and efforts, that can come back badly on them. They need to be able to speak behind closed doors, which a public inquiry would allow.

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

I don't want to get you into an awkward situation with the diaspora, but how would a public inquiry be different from public hearings? Mr. Johnston's whitewash report recommends public hearings. Considering the lack of trust he seems to have with the Canadian public and Parliament, do you really think that can make a difference? How are public hearings different?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

A public inquiry would be able to subpoena documents. It would be able to get much more intelligence from CSIS and CSE to analyze and assess what's going on in our society, to what extent Parliament needs to be informed and to what extent the public needs to be informed. They would then address that at a high level but have a very comprehensive report.

My concern about the public hearings is that they would be, and would be seen to be, superficial. They would hear from people like the ones you've been hearing from here, but not get into the very deep issues that CSIS and others have exposure to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

The beep that you hear will be the end of the round. If you are in the process of rendering an answer, we'll just let you complete that thought for the purpose of the work that we're doing. Thank you for that.

With that, we will now go to Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you know, we've been having these committee meetings for quite some time. It's interesting; depending on the witness, we kind of go back and forth on some things. The Right Honourable David Johnston has indicated...and many other witnesses here have stated that a public inquiry is maybe the right way to go, because certain things need to be in public. Others have said that NSICOP and other forums are a good place to go, because certain things need to be secret. Now we are hearing that certain things need to be kept secret and in camera at a public hearing.

Many paths, I think, could lead us to doing the work that's necessary to protect our democracy. I think that's what we're trying to get at. All of us are trying to figure out a way forward so that we can strengthen our institutions and make sure that foreign interference is not as prevalent as we see it today. That is the outcome we all want.

My question is for you, Ms. McCuaig-Johnston. After reading Mr. Johnston's report, it seems as though you do agree with some of the outcomes or conclusions he's come to. Do you not see that perhaps his conclusions could possibly also reach an outcome similar to what you would like to see in terms of strengthening our democracy? Could this not be a path that would still get us good outcomes?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

It appears, from how he has expressed his public hearings to roll out, that he's looking for public commentators, professors and experts on national security, whom we've been hearing from. He wants to hear a lot from the diaspora. That's front and centre. All of this is in public hearings. Without the attempt to go into detailed CSIS documents and analyze what has not been in the leaks and what further the Canadian public should be made aware of...and that some action should be taken.

He's also put the onus on the Canadian government for policy and governance solutions. I think there's merit in those, but it takes the onus off the Chinese government to stop doing what they've been doing to our electoral system. I think that's not going to be touched at all, from what he has said. That, I think, is where the public inquiry needs to go, to take a much deeper dive. We've seen the tip of the iceberg, but we now need to see what's in the water to see what else is happening in our system.

It also goes to the importance of a national security and intelligence committee of cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, which I fully support. I concur with my colleagues who were here earlier this evening.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But the public hearings are not the only things he's proposed. There is NSICOP. There are other institutions and panels and bodies set up that will be looking at this, so that the onus would still be on China. Also, to educate Canadians is an important part. I'm sure there's flexibility where, if some Canadians felt they couldn't come forward in a public manner, something could be put forward for them so that the evidence could still be taken and so that all is not for nothing.

Moving on to my second question, you've been at a deputy minister's level as well. You said you were taking in a lot of this type of information at the time, especially particular to China. Do you think it is not important, at this time in particular, for leaders of all parties to perhaps take the briefings they can get so that they, too, can become aware of the information that is out there?

I know that you've made some comments that, just as the Right Honourable David Johnston has disclosed some things without actually revealing intelligence secrets, discussions and commentary could still be made about the issue without disclosing those secrets, but it's important to have a better understanding and come from a place of knowledge. Would you not say so?

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

I believe more knowledge is always important, so yes, I would concur with that.

On NSICOP, Mr. Johnston talked about the high value of it, and I completely agree. I think David McGuinty has done a tremendous job, and the other committee members have as well, but their very important recommendations have repeatedly been ignored. Their reports prove, again, that a public inquiry can report on issues of national security. Mr. Johnston said that NSICOP can review his work and that they should report publicly if they reach a different conclusion. But they actually aren't allowed to do that unless the PM says they can. That would result in the PM saying that NSICOP has come to a different conclusion from his own Johnston report, which he has commended.

So there are some disconnects there.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

That's interesting. NSICOP regularly reports their findings, in the manner in which they can.

That's all my time for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you want to finish that thought, Ms. Sahota?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No, my follow-up was going to be a bit longer than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Madame Normandin, go ahead.

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

Thanks to both witnesses for being here.

I'm essentially going to go back to the question my colleague Mr. Berthold asked about public hearings and the fact that members of the Chinese diaspora could become targets of the Beijing regime if they testified.

Ms. McCuaig‑Johnston, would an independent public inquiry be a more appropriate forum enabling those people to testify in a safer setting? The members of the diaspora also have to provide information to a commissioner, who will make recommendations.

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

Yes, they should have an opportunity to provide it in public if they want, or as far as they want to go, but also with the option for in camera, and public inquiries normally would provide that option. I think it's important for the intensity of the work that needs to be done that it take place in a public inquiry.

This is not an issue that we can address in the next four or five months. It's going to take time to go through it in the amount of detail that it merits. Remember that this is an issue that has been the focus of Parliament, of this committee and of the Canada-China committee, to a large extent. People like me and all kinds of experts are looking at these issues. It's been all over the media, and the public opinion polls show that Canadians are very concerned. You don't just have a few public meetings and say, here are a couple of things that can be done in process and governance, and that's it. We need to get into the details of the interference as China has been conducting it here in Canada.