Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2023

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

I think that's interesting.

I have just a few seconds.

I look at a place like Finland, which is doing a lot of active stuff in terms of education, from very young children all the way into universities and colleges. I am very curious about that process, because I've heard, even from one of the ministers, that it's a provincial jurisdiction. However, these are issues of national security. If we don't teach that literacy....

I'll come back to that when it's my turn again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

Now we'll go into five minutes with Mr. Carrie, followed by Mr. Turnbull.

Go ahead, Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

This is not my usual committee, and I find the testimony very interesting.

Mike Chong is a good friend of mine. Frankly, what happened to him is outrageous, and there is a real lack of credibility in the story the government is putting forward. I think it's causing a lot of distrust in our institutions.

Mr. Juneau, I want to ask you a couple of questions. In your opening testimony, you said we need to create a cabinet committee. We need to build up the credibility of a national security review, but it's very important Canadians have confidence in the people at the top.

I am curious about this: When you were hired at your university—it's a pretty important job you have—did they give you an email address?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

Yes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

They did.

Because it's very important for people around you, like your boss and your students, to communicate with you, how many days did it take you to figure out how that email address worked?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

It took about three minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay.

Information about Mr. Chong was sent to the former minister of public safety in May 2021. Apparently, the minister and his staff did not see that information because he didn't know his own login credentials to access these emails.

I find that incredible. I was just wondering how that would happen. What do you make of that? You've worked in government. Can you explain to the average Canadian how that would work?

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

To be frank, in narrow terms, I don't think the fact that the minister would not use his top secret email is surprising and I don't think it is a problem.

Ministers have staff who will manage email for them, especially on a highly classified system. You cannot have a top secret system in the minister's office because then the whole minister's office becomes a top secret zone, which means that everything becomes extremely complicated.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This is public safety for the entire country. Don't you think the person in charge of that should at least know his login credentials? Maybe or maybe not.... Whatever the system is, people around him should be responsible to inform him. I find it unbelievable that he says he didn't have access to those emails. I find that you are sticking up for him here.

I can criticize an individual. I find that outrageous.

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

I'm not sticking up for the minister or for anybody else. I just think that in this or any other government, it is not for a minister to manage his or her own email. That specific aspect, especially on highly classified systems—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

For top secret email, the guy at the top shouldn't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry, but I'm just going to pause really quickly. We can just pause the time.

Mr. Carrie, I appreciate your being at committee tonight. It's always a privilege to have people come visit because this, to me, is the place to be.

At this committee, one person speaks at a time and we go back and forth because the two official languages are of utmost importance. It helps the work of the interpreters. We keep eye contact with each other and then we just give a turn to each other. Two people do not speak at the same time.

With that, I will give the floor back to you, Mr. Carrie. This time was not taken away from your time.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair. I want to apologize. I was getting a little emotional about it.

What do you make of the fact that it took the previous minister of public safety four months to give CSIS the authority to monitor a politician they identified, who had long been on their radar?

Mr. Juneau, we might as well stay with you.

[Dr. Thomas Juneau]

I find that in the absence of more information, it's very difficult to come to a clear conclusion on that. It seems long based what is out in public. It seems too long, but it's hard to say more specifically than that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Wark, I'm curious what you think.

Please explain it to the ordinary Canadian.

[Dr. Wesley Wark]

Madam Chair, I would simply say that my understanding is that the committee is going to hear from the minister in question, Bill Blair, tomorrow. Obviously, the question should be addressed to him.

I would only note that Minister Blair publicly said that the Globe and Mail report alleging that it took four months for this action to take place was in error. Perhaps he will clarify that.

If I could come back to your previous question about trying understand the kind of intelligence flows that come to ministers and their staff, I would just say two things.

One is that intelligence flows are extremely voluminous. There are multiple classified systems to handle different levels of classification. It's not a simple system. It's not a matter of having our university email logins available to us and not forgetting them. I think that is a bit of a caricature of a complex reality. It's not to excuse the fact that intelligence can get lost. That is inexcusable.

I do want to draw attention to another issue, which is that, as best we know from media reporting, what was being discussed here, at least initially, was a nine-page intelligence assessment in which this component of a warning about the targeting of unnamed MPs was frankly buried in the middle.

That comes back to an important issue, which is that it is incumbent on intelligence agencies and those who frame their reports and their analysis to be very clear about what they think is significant information. You cannot expect a minister, staff or senior deputy minister in the government to read through nine pages and see that there was this vague reference in the middle of this report that they really should have paid attention to, but actually nobody asked them to do that.

I do think that there's a larger systemic issue here. It is not just governance, as Mr. Johnston indicates; it is larger than that. As I've said, it's around intelligence cycle issues. Get the collection right. Get the analysis right. Get the reporting right, and raise the bar on culture issues.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to both of the witnesses for being here today. Your appearance and expert testimony are greatly appreciated.

In response to Mr. Carrie's comments, I'm friends with Han Dong, and on the flip side of this, you can see how allegations made in the media from a supposed unverified leak can irreparably damage someone's reputation. I'll just state that at the outset. We have to look at this in a very balanced way and try to get to the actual facts.

I want to ask Mr. Wark to comment on the need of a public or judicial inquiry. This morning, we heard from some witnesses who said a public inquiry is needed. I keep getting the sense that some members of the public think a judicial inquiry would air, or vent, all of these highly classified national security documents in public, but I don't think that's true. Vast amounts of intelligence would have to remain undisclosed, and therefore secret, even within a public or judicial inquiry.

Mr. Wark, would you agree with that?

[Dr. Wesley Wark]

I would indeed. There are very significant secrecy protection issues involved in a judicial inquiry that might look specifically at intelligence operations, and ongoing intelligence operations, which would be at the heart of any judicial inquiry specifically focused on Chinese foreign interference.

I also think it's important for the public to understand some other things about judicial inquiries, and I say that in the context of having been engaged in three of them over the past two decades: the Arar inquiry, headed by Justice O'Connor, dealing with matters to do with the treatment of Mr. Arar and, in particular, the RCMP's involvement in that; the Air India inquiry, headed by Justice Major; and, most recently, the Rouleau commission, which looked into the “freedom convoy”, for which I wrote a paper on intelligence and took part in the policy round tables.

Judicial inquiries are a great thing. They're an important instrument, but they're not always fit for every purpose. It's important for Canadians to understand that judicial inquiries are not designed to move at speed. Judicial inquiries take time. They're meant to take time. They're deep dives. They're surrounded by a judicial framework. They're quasi-judicial in nature in terms of their proceedings, with many parties potentially having standing, and, as you know, being able to cross-examine witnesses.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Can I interject there? I have limited time, and I want to ask you some specific questions.

How long does one usually take? You said in a recent article that it was about two to three years. Is that correct?

[Dr. Wesley Wark]

Two to three years is probably an average. I've never tried to count it. The McDonald commission, which established CSIS, took five years to come up with its recommendations.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

From an expediency perspective, viewing what must be a strengthened intelligence system and response before the next election, whenever that time comes, would you agree that we really need a much faster process?

[Dr. Wesley Wark]

I would indeed.

I'll keep my response brief. If urgency is the issue, which I think it is, in terms of coming up with some measures to strengthen the government's response and improve Canadians' understanding, you will not get that through a judicial inquiry. Urgency and transparency are the ingredients that can be delivered through public hearings.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Recently, in your article, you stipulated what you think would be or should be the objectives of a public or judicial inquiry. You said, “an increase in public knowledge and understanding...to improve the capacity of the Canadian intelligence system.” Is that correct?

[Dr. Wesley Wark]

That's correct.