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.
Conservative
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
That's because he got a PM weekly intelligence brief. That's what he received. I'm not sure if saw the daily.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
But Jody Thomas and you just said he had also received a daily reading package, so why—
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
The daily brief was not aimed for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's weekly intelligence brief went directly to the Prime Minister, usually on a Friday. Whether the Prime Minister was seeing the daily, which had a very wide circulation.... The PMO certainly saw it, there's no doubt about that, I would suggest, but whether the PM was seeing the daily and reading the daily, I'm not sure. Again, there were two separate items, and one was specifically aimed at the PM, and that was the weekly.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Who would decide as to what was put in the weekly and was—?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
That was left up to the international assessment secretariat working within PCO.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Would you consider that it was a significant breakdown that we have at least two sitting members of Parliament who were targeted by the Beijing regime and that information was passed along to the Minister of Public Safety, the deputy minister and the minister's chief of staff, and he didn't see it? Then a memo was sent in July 2021 to three deputy ministers plus the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, your successor, and no one saw it.
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
Certainly, when I saw the news reports, it did raise some concerns. I have not looked—
Conservative
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
It raised some concerns, but I haven't seen all of the intelligence, and any intelligence that crossed my desk.... I'm assuming that this document would have been based on some source reporting. I certainly would have wanted to take a look at the source reporting and the nature of the intelligence. Was it a human source? Was it an intercept? If it was a human source, was it a human source with a corroborated reporting history? I would have a lot of questions—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Cooper, resist. Mr. Cooper, resist. Resist, Mr. Cooper.
When I hit seven minutes, I provide the courtesy that I have now been known to provide, and then, Mr. Cooper, for some reason, you don't notice that courtesy. I think it takes away from what we're trying to do here. I let you finish your question. You got to six minutes and 32 seconds. I let Mr. Rigby comment back, because it was appropriate. I time this stuff. Maybe I take it too seriously, but I think when it comes to our democratic institutions, we all should.
It's early in the game. I'm letting you know how it operates. I'm asking the mike tech to make sure that only one mike is on at a time. That way we will ensure that what interpreters are hearing.... This is a resource that is very limited right now.
I don't want to live in a world where my ears can't hear. It's a blessing to have, and I'm not going to have these people who do this for a living and provide us with our two official languages continue having to have this battle. I will battle for them, and I hope every single member stands with me on it.
Thank you, Mr. Rigby.
Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Rigby, for being here today.
I want to acknowledge your 30 years of service and say how much we value your expertise and that you can lend some valuable insight into what we need to do in order to continue to evolve our response to the threat environment that we know is changing in terms of foreign interference.
I want to ask you a question. It's something I've been wondering about for a while, and I thought, just based on your experience, that you might be a good person to enlighten us on this.
I know that the government's response has been changing. Certainly, I think we've heard from Mr. Johnston that there are shortcomings we need to address. I think we can all acknowledge that, but what I'm interested in is that it seems to me—and you can tell me whether you would consider this an accurate characterization of the evolution—that we've gone from kind of a siloed approach within a few different departments in terms of foreign interference and perhaps in past governments to what Rosenberg called an electoral ecosystem approach and the four pillar plan to protect Canadian democracy, which was, I think, a change.
It looks to me like it's more a systems approach. Maybe a whole-of-government approach would be a good way to describe it, and I think maybe we're even moving to a whole-of-society approach where we're thinking about engaging citizens and having more of a public dialogue about this so that people are aware.
Do you agree with that assessment, first of all? Do you agree with the general sentiments I'm laying out here that there is this evolution in terms of a more systemic approach to combatting foreign interference?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
I would say that is true. I think the system has matured over the last number of years as we've seen the threat evolve in terms of what's happened in not just Canada but other countries as well. I've advocated on a number of occasions publicly that we need a whole-of-Canada response, not just a whole-of-government response. We need all Canadians informed. We need all Canadians educated. We need all Canadians aware.
Absolutely, I'd like to see us move not just whole of government but also whole of Canada.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Got it. I recognize that this seems to be the next chapter in this evolution.
What I wanted to get at in relation to this is that I studied systems theories. When you add a whole bunch of new mechanisms and actors and departments into a more complex threat environment, you're likely going to increase the chances that information flow and structural challenges arise. Would you not agree with that? It's almost a natural evolution in challenges that we're now confronted by and are having to overcome as a result of the next stage of the evolution of our response.
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
I would suggest that what you have here is the perfect storm. On the one hand, I think you're 100% right. Electoral interference is not new. It's been around for a long time, but I think it has become more intense in the last number of years. The challenges have become more complex. The way we're responding has become more complicated, with greater attempts at using different mechanisms. There are a lot of, as you say in terms of the systems, moving parts, etc. We're probably still experiencing some teething problems. That's pretty clear.
Having said that, the perfect storm emerges when a lot of the problems with respect to information flow and information sharing have been there for a long time. Those are legacy issues. You have new systems being put in place, and new mechanisms like the panel of five and SITE, etc. Then you have old problems with respect to sharing intelligence, having it fuse properly and having it pushed up at the political level and the right people seeing it at the right time. That's the perfect storm.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Right. We heard from Jody Thomas as well that there needs to be a focus on what advice is given and recommendations are made as to what should be done about the intelligence, even when it does flow correctly, at the right pace, to the right people, at the right time, which is a bit of an orchestration. It's complex. I'm just acknowledging that it's complex and it's changing, and therefore there will be challenges.
In terms of the general sentiments here, there are some shortcomings in terms of structural challenges and communication flow. There's also a significant cultural change within the intelligence agencies and the intelligence community in general. Can you speak to maybe the cultural shift and describe that a little bit further for us?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
Well, a cultural change has to take place within the public service but also at the political level. Again, this is operating at two different levels. Within the public service and within the government writ large, yes, absolutely; I think the S and I community, the core agencies of PCO, CSIS and CSE, take this very, very seriously. We may not have it perfectly right....
I'm sorry. I keep referring to “we”. I'm retired now.
Certainly, best efforts have been made to improve that culture. The problem is more across the public service writ large and trying to bring other government departments into the intelligence picture, making sure that, again, this intelligence gets outside not just the core 10 or 12 S and I departments but to other spaces in between. I think the political level, in many respects, is the most important level. You can get the best intelligence in the world up the chain and it can go to the political level, but you need someplace to actually receive that intelligence and discuss it.
One of the problems I've had for a long time is the fact that you really don't have anywhere for this intel to go right now. The NSIA briefs the prime minister. Other deputies brief their ministers, such as the minister of public safety. The CSE chief briefs the minister of national defence. You have occasional briefings to cabinet committees. I gave a lot of those briefings. Once in a blue moon there was a presentation to full cabinet.
I think it would have been really useful here to have the prime minister with key ministers sitting around the table in a cabinet committee on national security talking about this stuff on a regular basis so that we wouldn't get to crisis mode. You'd be getting regular intel briefs. The PM would be able to talk about it with his ministers.
We've never truly had that in this country. We've made a few attempts, but that's what we're missing. I think that would have helped in this situation.
I'm sorry to go over time, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you, Mr. Rigby.
Before giving the floor to Ms. Gaudreau, who may use either official language, I want to inform you, Mr. Rigby, that the time taken for interpretation won't be counted against Ms. Gaudreau's time. I therefore invite you to take the time you need to listen and answer her.
Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also thank the witness.
In your speech, you said you had co-written a report with Mr. Juneau. What was the publication date of that report?
Visiting Professor, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, As an Individual
I believe the exact date was May 28, although I may be mistaken, but it was about a year ago, in 2022.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Excellent.
I'm trying to make the connections and understand how, based on what we heard, even with all the witness's professionalism, the repeated warnings, a reform has been needed for 20 years…
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Excuse me, there is a point of order.
Ms. Sahota, you have the floor.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I apologize. Maybe I'm on the wrong channel, but I wasn't getting interpretation. It might be my fault.
I'm sorry. I'm okay.
I apologize for interrupting you, Madam Gaudreau.