Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2023

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, I would say several things.

One is that the whole review and the work that you're engaged in is to build trust in our democracy and reinforce it when it is in peril by foreign interference.

In the quote you just read, we continued on to say that, in our review, we found very serious shortcomings in our systems of dealing with foreign interference, which require very substantial review and improvement, and the responsibilities of this committee and other agencies of Parliament are to do exactly that.

Foreign interference has been growing like this, and our ability to adapt has been growing like that. We have to close that gap, but it's the work of Parliament to get at the facts and to come up with recommendations and improvements, using the precedents from other jurisdictions, especially the Five Eyes, which have had to deal with this for longer periods of time, with more difficult threats in their case, which are now very much present in our home. Our job is to look forward and to determine how we can do a much better job of putting together a system that deals with foreign interference in a constructive and very protective way for Canadian interests.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I agree completely that it would be nice if other parties would contribute to those discussions in a constructive manner and operate based on the facts, but what we've seen is.... You've built in validation for your findings, but members of opposition parties are not willing to review the annex to your report.

Is this what you meant in your report by referring to operating behind “a veil of ignorance”?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, in our report, we presented what we could publicly while paying full respect to the classified information that we were able to receive. We prepared an annex to that report, in which we go into detail on the classified information that permitted us to come to some of those conclusions.

That classified part, of course, will be with the report before the NSIRA and NSICOP committees, to be reviewed and corrected, but it means getting on with the job and Parliament doing its work, which is to deal with this danger of foreign interference in our elections in a constructive and thoughtful way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We have three minutes left before the voting period begins. I am going to give Mr. Therrien the floor for 10 minutes. Then we will suspend so everyone can go and vote.

Mr. Johnston, you may answer in either official language; that's your choice. The time used for the interpretation won't be included in Mr. Therrien's speaking time. Take the time to listen to the question and comments, and you may take the time you need to answer.

Go ahead, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Johnston.

Today we are trying to mount the greatest possible defence of our democracy, which is under attack by foreign interference. What we're doing today is extremely important.

When I go door to door, people tell me they aren't sure they'll vote. I'm sure you hear the same thing. So I encourage them to do so by telling them that it's important to vote and to get involved because their choice may decide the colour of the government and of the policies that are adopted.

However, more and more people are abstaining, and we're struggling against that trend. Unfortunately, when we see these threats of interference, people's trust in democracy and in our institutions declines. That can lead them to think that the dice are loaded, to wonder what's the point of voting and to question whether foreigners are deciding for them. This can take on extremely large proportions. It's this trust that we have to protect, and it’s our institutions that we must protect.

According to the latest Léger poll, 72% of people want an independent public inquiry because the situation is critical. It's important to shed all possible light on this matter, and people think that's the only way to do it. I won't cite you a whole list of reasons, but many experts in the field tell us we need to hold an independent public inquiry. Most of the members in the House have said that we need to strike a public and independent inquiry.

In his report, Mr. Johnston rejects this option. I'd like to know why he rejects the idea of an independent public inquiry, which so many people have called for.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, first of all, I warmly reinforce the comments that have just been made with respect to people losing interest in and understanding of democracy and that we must work very hard to build that trust.

I would also say that what we're seeing around the world is a diminishing trust in democracies all over. As people move away from the rule of law, which is so important here, and move to the law of rule, strong people, autocratic governments, come into place. That's the danger we face.

With respect to the question of a public inquiry, we thought long and hard about this. The dilemma is that we're dealing with classified information. It is not possible to discuss classified information in public, nor to report it in your reports. This has been apparent in other inquiries that have had to deal with this difficult matter.

What we have done is say that, having dealt as best we can with the classified information on the questions of responsibility within the government for dealing with foreign interference, there are very serious shortcomings. We'll proceed in the second phase of our mandate, the next five months, to deal with those issues in public hearings, inviting the public to come in and participate with experts to do so, and to put a focus on the urgency of getting on with this. We'll begin with public hearings with diaspora communities, whose voices have been explaining these concerns to us but without adequate protection and response up until now.

In the balance of our work, we hope to address that and a number of other issues that will place a very strong focus on the urgency of dealing with foreign interference, encouraging and strengthening our parliamentary institutions to develop the appropriate reforms, put them into place, and then see that they operate in a way that does, in fact, build trust in our democracy.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, there are precedents for an independent public inquiry into extremely sensitive matters that sometimes involve issues potentially related to the safety of certain individuals in the event information is disclosed. That's why in camera meetings have been held in previous independent public inquiries in order to obtain that kind of information. That's the best way to shed light on a matter.

Three secret services from foreign countries were involved in the Maher Arar inquiry. Ultimately, an independent public inquiry was established, as was the case of the bombing of Air India flight 182. There are precedents.

Mr. Johnston says that the subject matter of an independent public inquiry has been discussed and considered but that certain factors prevent one from being held. I would very respectfully respond to him by saying that it has previously been done.

I'd go even further. Dan Stanton, former executive manager of the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency, gave compelling testimony on this point. He feels that Mr. Johnston is wrong in saying that a public inquiry is impossible. Mr. Stanton said that foreign interference is one of the easiest issues to explore through a public inquiry, and knows what he's talking about.

Mr. Johnston, I'd like to know your opinion of Mr. Stanton's statements and past experiences that show that an independent public inquiry is possible.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, the issue of public inquiries is important, and what we realize is that when we're dealing with classified information, it becomes very difficult. It has been possible in other reviews to have sessions that haven't dealt with classified information and to shine the light of day on those. That's what we intend to do with the public hearings regarding the reforms in our system that are most important.

When Justice O'Connor finished the Arar inquiry, his comment was that public inquiries under the Inquiries Act are very difficult tools to use for something whose job is to shed light on situations, particularly situations of negligent responsibility and so on. Because they are led by lawyers with cross-examination, they have difficultly getting at information that is classified. We can't do that in public. They are very expensive and very time-consuming and often do not result in providing that light.

What we had hoped to do, of course, in the many months of our mandate, was exactly that—to have public hearings on matters that are not part of the classified information. I think we may recall an earlier inquiry. It was the McDonald commission that led to the creation of the CSIS Act to take over from the RCMP responsibilities regarding foreign interference. That commission took five years to complete its work.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I'm astonished, Madam Chair.

We're being told that an independent public inquiry can be expensive. What's the price of a democracy? What's the value of democracy?

Two parties are currently neck and neck in the polls, and the colour of the government may be decided by a few ridings. But we're being told that shedding light on this matter might be expensive. People agree on this: the only way to shed light on the matter is with an independent public inquiry. It may be a long process, but we may live a very long time in darkness if we do nothing. That wouldn't be better.

Mr. Johnston says that some aspects are classified "secret" and can't be revealed in public. How is that worse than what we saw in the Arar affair, where three secret services from three different countries were involved in the inquiry.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, certainly with respect to the public hearings we have in mind, it will be possible to invite representatives of CSIS and other experts from both the government and outside of the government to comment on this.

With respect to the issue of cost, I want to emphasize the costliness in terms of the time that is wasted in getting at the real issues of how we address foreign interference and come up with reforms and changes and improvements, and the careful oversight of our operations to be sure that we will do a much better job than we're doing at the present time on something that is a very serious and not fully recognized danger to our democratic society in Canada.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

May we proceed with the vote, Madam Chair?

I'll suspend my speaking time. Does that suit you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes. We will now suspend and come back in a few minutes for a question or two.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

All right. You're very kind.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We can all vote. Tell me if you haven't voted.

We're pausing for votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to call us back to order. I'm glad everybody was able to vote.

Mr. Therrien, you have the floor for 1 minute and 38 seconds.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're hearing that the process is a long one, but I think it's essential. It's important that we shed light on this situation in order to resolve the issue once and for all and that we build trust in the general population.

It's true that we received Mr. Johnston's report within a fairly short time, but when I read it, I see virtually nothing that leads us, first, to understand that we can trust Mr. Johnston for the next steps and, second, to say that we've shed light on the situation.

I'm going to go back to one simple question, Mr. Johnston. I'm appealing to your intelligence because I know you're a brilliant man. Your experience proves that. What's the difference between the "secret" classification of information in the case of foreign interference and the "secret" classification of information in the Arar affair? Why is the present case worse than the Arar case?

It's a simple question. I'll come back to it if you don't answer it because I think it's important.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, that's a really important question of when information moves into the sphere of evidence and when it's classified or not classified. It's one of the issues that we hope to address in depth in the public hearings that will be held over the next five months, the issue of whether we have the right direction and the right balance in determining what must be kept secret and what can be put into the open situation.

We have experience from other jurisdictions that have dealt with this very particular problem. It seems to me that we can learn from those experiences and try to find a better balance of what must be classified to protect our people who are working, as well as our Five Eyes allies.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Johnston, I just want to tell you that what you said is very important.

What I understand from your answer is that we don't know why we can't hold an independent public inquiry. That's what I heard. You said it would take several months to determine the difference between pieces of information and the importance of classification. So you aren't even prepared to tell me today that we don't need an independent public inquiry because you'll have to take a few months to think about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Therrien—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I just wanted to conclude our conversation. What Mr. Johnston said is extremely important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will continue with you, Mr. Singh. You have 10 minutes.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, through you, I would like to thank Mr. Johnston for appearing today. Thank you for appearing to discuss the report.

I want to lay out a couple of opening statements. You've also addressed the question, but I want to make it clear as well. I've made it clear that I disagree with your finding that there should not be a public inquiry. I believe there should be a public inquiry. I think that is the only way to really restore public trust and confidence in our electoral system.

Last week, we passed a resolution in the House. You alluded to it, but I also want to state that we recommended that you step down as special rapporteur for a very specific reason, given the appearance of bias. I gave one concrete example that, to a reasonable person, it would seem that there is a clear appearance of bias: the fact that the lead counsel had repeatedly donated to the Liberal Party and attended a fundraiser with the Prime Minister as late as 2021. This appearance of bias, to a reasonable person, would undermine the work you're hoping to do, and that work cannot be achieved because of the appearance of bias, which is so fundamental.

I am also disappointed that you rejected the majority vote. The will of the House was expressed, and you rejected that vote. I think that's disappointing.

I want to use my time to talk about some of the details of the report. I'll turn to my first question, through you, Madam Chair.

My first question is in relation to a question I asked of the Prime Minister on May 9. I asked a question in question period about the impact of foreign interference on the diaspora, which, as you alluded to, will be a major part of your public hearings. I asked a question of the Prime Minister about the impact on diaspora communities of foreign interference. In response, the Prime Minister said, “the diasporas, whether the Chinese Canadian, the Iranian Canadian, Russian Canadian or Indo-Canadian communities, are often the first communities to be targeted by foreign interference.”

In fact, the national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, also highlighted that foreign interference, particularly from India, has an impact on Canadians and especially the Sikh community. Many people from diaspora communities will tell you that they left communities of repressive regimes and came to Canada hoping for security, liberty and safety, only to be pursued by that same interference. In the Sikh community, many people will share stories of being denied visas, or of their communities or their family members being threatened for raising concerns about the human rights track record of India, for example.

Given that it is well known that this exists, and particularly that the Prime Minister has expressed that these threats to diaspora communities exist, how do you expect that people from diaspora communities—knowing that they are already targeted and that they're already at risk of personally being targeted or their families being targeted—would have any sort of confidence to attend a public hearing, given these threats to themselves or their community and potential backlash and repercussions to their families?

How would they have the confidence to show up to a public hearing? How would that process work for them? Are there any steps being taken to protect their security, given the concerns they have?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Thank you for those questions, which are really vital and important and require very thoughtful attention.

You're quite right: The diaspora communities have been beset with interference and the disturbance of their tranquility, their own safety and their well-being in ways that are unconscionable. It behooves all of us to see this as a very serious threat in our community, where pluralism and respect for one's cultural heritage are very important values to us. It has been neglected for far too long.

I look at Mr. Chong over here, who has chaired the Canada-China relations committee, for example, where there are reams of testimony from diaspora communities about this particular matter. We have not done the kinds of things we should do and we must do—because it is real, it is damaging and it is simply unacceptable for Canadian citizens.

What we hope to do in the balance of the five months is to put a real light on this issue of the threats that diaspora communities are under and develop much more effective ways of, first, equipping ourselves and our intelligence agencies to deal with them more effectively than now, and second, acquainting Canadians with the fact that so many people in the diaspora communities are unwitting victims of something that lies far beyond them. We, as Canadians, have a responsibility to protect them, to embrace them and to say that this is not acceptable and we will not sit here and let it stand. We must recognize that it's happening to these communities and take adequate steps in terms of our governmental protections to see it.

In the last month or so, we have seen a step forward in at least trying to provide a better understanding and warnings to members of Parliament and others who have been subjected and whose families have been subjected to these things. That, too, requires very important remedies.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Thank you. Again, I'm hoping you will also address how those families will feel safe to come forward or how those individuals will feel safe to come forward.

In my second question, I want to touch on how you identified the serious shortcomings in communication between security agencies and the government. You made it clear that there were “no examples...of Ministers, the Prime Minister or their offices knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations.” So it is conceivable, in your report, that the ministers or the Prime Minister were not properly informed. However, you also recognize in your conclusion that it is very clear that foreign governments are absolutely or undoubtedly attempting to interfere in our democracy and that this is something that's been well known.

Given how clear it is that there is foreign interference going on and that the government ought to have known that, generally speaking, there is foreign interference going on, my question is about the utter lack of curiosity of this government. Despite clear and credible evidence of foreign interference, in your investigation, at no point in time did the Prime Minister or ministers ever actively or proactively ask CSIS or other security agencies whether or not members of Parliament were being targeted.

Was there never an attempt to proactively assess threats to members of Parliament? While you accept that they were not maybe advised of this by CSIS, did they never have the curiosity to say that if we know there's foreign interference going on, maybe it's impacting our members of Parliament? Was there never any evidence of that curiosity and interest in following up?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, thank you for both questions. I'll answer very briefly but I hope helpfully.

With respect to whether we would expect members of the diaspora community to be able to appear before a public hearing in openness, I'm quite confident they will, in many instances, and in instances where they do not want to be there, we would receive submissions. We've already received perhaps half a dozen or so submissions from diaspora communities, very painfully and eloquently setting out the burdens that they're bearing and crying out for help. In the cases of people who feel they can't come in person, we would invite and encourage whatever information they could give us and, in particular, what steps we can take.

Now, let's come to the question of curiosity in dealing with those foreign threats. In our report, as you know, we've been quite critical of the shortcomings of the government, indicating that it has been slow to react and slow to anticipate in many instances, and that must be changed, but it must be changed with the work of this committee and other parliamentary committees. NSICOP and NSIRA—one in place since 2017, the other since 2019—are review and oversight committees. That's the kind of responsibility to see whether our agencies are working properly or not, and we must bolster that kind of thing.

I'm quite in agreement that we have not had that kind of curiosity, and particularly the flow of information so that we may act upon [Inaudible—Editor], and I hope we can address that.