Evidence of meeting #81 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was intelligence.
A video is available from Parliament.
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
Yes, and it's in his report that he met with me. I will point out that my name was misspelled in his report, but I won't make a big deal out of that.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I see.
What was the gist of the questions Mr. Johnston asked you?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
I'm not sure I'm at liberty to talk about that. I wasn't expecting a question like that. I can certainly answer that, but I can't get into the specifics.
There was a lot of discussion about how to improve the system and conversation such as we're having today about measures and cabinet committees. He mentioned in his report the possible creation of a cabinet committee on national security, greater transparency and information flows generally speaking. We talked about those kinds of things. It was, in a lot of ways, similar to the conversation we're having today.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'm curious about something you said at the beginning of your testimony. You talked about some needs for systemic change within the system and about how some of the processes in place were not necessarily as effective, and how you were working really hard to see what you could do to clean those up.
We did have Ms. Thomas in. She talked about the process of intelligence information sharing with the government and how she had corrected that process, and how she believed there would be no further problems. Even based on the questions that I asked the last time around, one of the things we see is that when information comes sometimes it gets lost. Ms. Thomas talked about being away for a month and then not going back to that information. It seems a little concerning.
I'm wondering if you could talk about whether you think the process Ms. Thomas outlined will address the issue. Is there anything else you think is important for us to address, especially when it comes to this point of privilege? To me the biggest issue here is, in this particular context, how do we make sure that MPs have the appropriate information at the appropriate time so they can respond in a way that is effective?
I heard from you, I believe, and from Mr. Chong as well. Mr. Chong talked about receiving a briefing, just a general briefing on what foreign interference looks like. He felt that it was very helpful, but he knew that only a small number of the members of Parliament actually got it.
There are two separate questions. With regard to the process, has it been addressed? Are there gaps that you in your role see and would want to point out and draw to the attention of the committee? How do we make sure that the information is clear so that members of Parliament, and in fact all parliamentarians, are getting information that will assist them in having a point of view with more wisdom in terms of foreign interference?
Thank you.
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
With regard to the changes that the national security intelligence adviser has introduced, I think they're a great start; I really do. I have tremendous respect for my successor, Jody. She's a really great Canadian.
I think the idea of setting up a committee, which I think she mentioned before this committee, to focus on actionable intelligence, especially with respect to foreign interference, is really great. Again, I tried to set that up within the DMIC. If she's created it as a separate new committee, that's great. Have deputies sit down, talk about this kind of intel and move it up.
I'm a little nervous about suddenly sending up every single piece of intelligence about foreign interference and potential threats to members of Parliament. The reason I'm a little bit concerned is that you could possibly go from famine to feast in the sense that every single piece of intel, whether it's corroborated or credible or not, goes up to the top. That could potentially gum up the system.
Can I make one quick last point? Getting it right at the deputy level is really important, but it still has to go somewhere when it gets to the political level. You need that central, functional body to have those discussions. That comes back to the idea of having some kind of a committee, chaired by the PM, to actually talk through the intel and the response.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Our next panel has arrived, and we're excited for it. We'll be going slightly over.
First, I will give the floor to Mr. Berthold for five minutes. Then, it will be Mr. Fergus's turn, also for five minutes.
Time required for interpretation will not be counted during speaking time.
I ask you to speak according to the rules so that the interpreters can do their job.
Mr. Berthold, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Rigby, I'd like to come back to a question you asked my colleague about the discussion you had with Mr. Johnston.
You said the discussions focused mainly on possible solutions for the process. Is that right?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
We talked about solutions. Again, I'm at sea a little bit here because I'm not sure to what extent I can talk about these discussions, so I'm going to be very careful.
We talked about a broad range of topics. Certainly, I was questioned about processes, about what I knew about what happened in the past, and also about the future. It was a backward-looking conversation and a forward-looking conversation, as you'd expect.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
During those conversations, did Mr. Johnston try to shed light on the events that supposedly led to no one among the political staff in the Prime Minister's Office seeing the famous memos we've been talking about from the start? I'm referring specifically to the February memo that talked about a network of 11 candidates funded by the regime in Beijing.
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
I don't recall his mentioning that specifically. If he did, then I don't think I'd be in a position to reveal that information.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
So, what I understand is that you don't remember him talking to you about it.
It seems that Mr. Johnston didn't really want to go look for the causes in that file, and that he was more interested in the second part of his study.
Mr. Rigby, in your report from May of last year, you made the following observation:
Many Canadians today mistrust government. This has major implications for national security.
Unfortunately, despite this report and despite everything you flagged, this does not seem to resonate much on the government side.
Do you think that the current situation is worse than when you tabled your report in May 2022, in terms of the trust Canadians have in their government on national security?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
Madam Chair, just for the record, I did not make any reference to Mr. Johnston not focusing on causes. That is the member's statement. I will not say that.
With respect to confidence and trust in the government, what we said in the report is that there is not a particularly strong culture of national security in this country at the governmental level or with Canadians. Governments traditionally—not just this government but governments writ large—have not always had the support and trust of Canadians when it comes to national security because they haven't had the information. They haven't had the chance to talk about it. It was in that context that we made that phraseology.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Rigby, you took the time to correct me. I will therefore ask you the same question I asked earlier, so that you can answer it this time.
In terms of trust in the government, do you find that the situation is worse now than when you did your study and tabled your report in May 2022, yes or no?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
I can't answer that question with a yes or no, because I haven't seen opinion polling, and I don't know if Canadians have less trust in government. Certainly there have been a series of events over the last year since both the Ottawa U report and the CIGI report came out that I think have confirmed a lot of our concerns. Those are probably somewhat alarming for Canadians without a doubt.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Rigby, I'm a little surprised to hear that, before coming here, you did not familiarize yourself with all the newspaper articles and information saying that people do indeed trust the government less and less. If the people are demanding an independent public inquiry, it's not because they trust the government, it's because they want to shed light on the national security file.
In your testimony, I was very disappointed to hear that in all the documents and reports you read, and all the memos sent to you, a subject like funding a network of candidates in an election campaign did not attract more of your attention. I understand that one can read a lot of information, but when it comes to a direct attack on democracy, I don't understand why it didn't raise certain questions, why the situation wasn't dealt with on a political level and why we aren't sounding the alarm.
You yourself said you had direct access to the Prime Minister when you asked for it. Why did you fail to do so with this file, Mr. Rigby?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
Madam Chair, I read 5,000 to 7,000 documents, and I would suggest that a lot of those documents, probably the vast majority of them, represented threats to the democracy of Canada.
Foreign interference is not the only threat to democracy at the moment. There is a whole range of other issues. I was dealing with a multitude of threats, a multitude of issues. There was a pandemic going on, so if—and it's if, I don't know if I missed these documents or not—I missed a document or two, I will take full responsibility for that. But for someone outside the system who's never been in that kind of work to suggest, I'm really surprised that you didn't pick this up, it's easy to say, it really is, and I would suggest walk a mile in the shoes of the NSIA.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I also thank Mr. Rigby for his 30 years of service to our country. We are very grateful to him for it.
Mr. Rigby, being a local MP I have the privilege of running into former retired deputy ministers from time to time and engaging them in informal conversations.
One of the conclusions that I've gleaned is that there is, I would call it, a cultural reluctance sometimes for deputy ministers to share routine intelligence issues with their ministers with no possibility for resolution. The time with the minister is limited, and they always want to make sure that it's used most effectively. In other words, this is sort of the intelligence to evidence problem. Does my interpretation rhyme with your experience?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
Madam Chair, I think those are two different issues in terms of intel to evidence, which speaks to courts of law, criminal prosecution, etc. So that's one basket.
The other basket with respect to deputy ministers and what they tell their ministers.... I think deputy ministers make a thousand judgment calls a day in terms of what they put before their minister. As you said, ministers are incredibly busy people, and deputy ministers are incredibly busy people, so a lot of judgment goes into deciding what to put before a minister on any given day. Sometimes it's just situational awareness, “Minister, you should know about this important context; it may come down and bite you at some point at a later date.” Then there's the stuff, “I need to speak to you now, Minister, because this is very important.” You're always as a deputy, I think, sensitive to the fact that you don't want to gum up the system. You don't want to fire too much at the minister. You don't want to fire too much at the Prime Minister.
I remember with the Prime Minister seeing stuff all the time and trying to decide: Do I fire this off to the PMO; do I fire this off to the PM; do I ask for time right away knowing how busy he is? If it's a really important issue, of course that's what you have to do, but you have to make that judgment. It's a tough call every single day for deputy ministers, but it's why they're paid the big bucks.
Liberal
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
It does work, absolutely.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Also, we recognize there are gaps in the system.
This gets me back to more of a forward-looking question. Because you had raised the importance of setting up a type of cabinet committee on intelligence, can you explain a little further how you would expect, in large terms, that kind of committee could work? Also, are there examples in other jurisdictions that you're aware of in your experience in dealing with some of your international colleagues where they have something to this?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
We are the only Five Eyes country that doesn't have that type of body. The United States has a national security council, which is actually in legislation. The other three Five Eyes countries, I believe—I don't know if all of my information is up to date—have cabinet committees with their prime minister heading that up.
What I'd love to see is a cabinet committee that is chaired by the prime minister with key national security ministers—the minister of public safety, the minister of national defence, the deputy prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs—meeting regularly, every couple of weeks. Don't wait for the crisis to happen to call an incident response group meeting. They are great, but they're always trying to catch up.
If the Prime Minister and his ministers together were being briefed on the intelligence on a regular basis—every couple of weeks—and then having discussions about what that intelligence means, asking questions of the directors of CSIS, CSE, Public Safety or DND, and then talking about responses.... To me, especially given the security environment that we live in, with Russia, China, pandemics and climate change—all of these are national security concerns—it is just so logical to create that kind of body at this time in our history.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I have a final question.
Should it be limited to just government? I'm thinking of former governor general David Johnston's conclusions that there needs to be a greater baseline level of understanding of security and intelligence issues by the public, but especially by parliamentarians.
Would you agree with that recommendation, as well, and how would you foresee that?