Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2023

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

Madam Chair, we have many individuals who have come forward to us, and I'll say specifically since we were seen as being publicly visible in responding to the threat of the police stations. Part of our plan behind that public visibility in uniforms and in police cars, particularly in provinces where the RCMP is not seen in uniform, was to help build some of that trust and confidence with the communities so they would feel comfortable coming forward, because, to be frank, they have not historically come forward to police to provide this information.

That's not a criticism. That's a criticism of ourselves, because we did not create the environment where they felt safe in doing so.

We have responded to many. We're investigating many of their complaints. We are challenged in that some of the threats they are facing are external, and it is difficult for them to be seen publicly engaging with us when their family members are facing some of that external threat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now have five minutes with Mr. Berthold and then Madame Romanado.

Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Duheme and Mr. Flynn, good morning.

Mr. Duheme, you said at the opening of the session that the foreign threat was great and that it came from several countries. I also heard you in an interview you gave to 60 Minutes Australia. There you made it clear, along with your colleagues, that China was currently the biggest threat we faced.

Is that also true for Canada?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Yes, Madam Chair, that's what I said based on our intelligence on criminal activity. I said, when I was in Australia, that China was the biggest threat to our country's democracy.

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

Are you basing this on information from the RCMP?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Yes, I'm basing this on the information we have and that I've gathered at other meetings I've attended.

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

There are several types of threats. Is this the biggest criminal threat? As head of crime legislation enforcement, you consider the Beijing regime and the Chinese Communist Party to be the greatest threat for criminal acts in Canada. Is this true?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

That's according to intelligence and the criminal activity database. You've seen my interview. I also said that we know that organized crime groups have direct ties to China, based solely on what we currently see in criminal activity.

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

Thank you.

So, as politicians, we need to focus our efforts on this threat.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

I would like to speak to Mr. Flynn.

A few moments ago, you said you were proud of the exchange and flow of information with your intelligence partners. I was rather flabbergasted earlier when I heard that it was in committee and in the media that the RCMP learned that MP Michael Chong had been intimidated.

How do you explain that information, which was held by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, was not passed on to you before it was made public through a leak? I wouldn't be proud of this.

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

Madam Chair, I completely understand the question, and I hope you will understand the complexity of the answer.

The reality is that we do have distinct organizations with distinct mandates involved in the national security space to combat this threat. There is, at times, an appropriate withholding of specific information.

The news that individuals, parliamentarians and the general public in Canada are subjected to threats and intimidation is not news. It has been in the director of CSIS' annual reports for years and in materials in NSICOP reports. This is not new information.

I have had, with my counterparts, discussions about foreign interference, foreign influence, and I know they are not necessarily the same word.

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

I don't have much time, Mr. Flynn. I realize this is a complex answer, however, could you summarize it in a few words so I understand the situation, as do the people watching?

You said earlier that when something special happens, special meetings are held. Mr. Chong's specific case wasn't only known when it was revealed in the media, so you knew about it beforehand; otherwise there's a problem.

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

I'm aware of that type of threat's being present, but I was not aware of the specifics with respect to Michael Chong.

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

We have a real problem, Madam Chair, since CSIS doesn't seem to be able to pass on information to either politicians or the RCMP, and the RCMP learns about the news from the media. This is a real concern for me today.

You say, Mr. Flynn, that no one from CSIS notified you.

In the case of the Chinese police stations, you were asked earlier when you were notified, and you will provide us with an answer. The Democracy Watch group made the location of these stations known a long time ago.

Did you initiate an investigation immediately upon learning of this, when the report was made public, or did you wait, again, until it was before the committee?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I'd have to check the exact date, but as far as I know, it was done as soon as we got the information through Safeguard Defenders. In fact, I'd like to underline the Safeguard Defenders lady's praise for the fact that the RCMP has been tackling these places more aggressively.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, you have the floor.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Through you, I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I'll be honest with you, Madam Chair, that it's tough to follow MP Blaney, because I have some of the same questions she brought up. I'm glad she was able to cover them.

I have a couple of follow-up questions further to my colleague, Mr. Berthold's, comment just now. He mentioned the fact the RCMP was not aware, the fact that the National Security and Intelligence Advisor was not aware, the fact that the Prime Minister was not aware, and the Minister of Public Safety was not aware of the specific threat to MP Michael Chong, which is the subject of today's meeting, the question of privilege with respect to the intimidation campaign.

Does that not reinforce the findings of the special rapporteur, Mr. Johnston, where he put forward the recommendation about the governance and the communication of intelligence and the problems in terms of the flow of that information.

Would you agree that you yourselves were not aware of the specific threats? And if you are in agreement with that, what would you suggest that we improve in terms of making sure that you are made aware? CSIS was aware, but you were not made aware.

What would you improve in the process to make sure that any threat to or intimidation of a sitting member of Parliament is brought to your attention and, therefore, make sure that everybody who needs to know is made aware?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Madam Chair, we welcome a review of how the flow of information takes place and how we can improve the process of sharing information.

I just want to go back to the initial comment with regard to how the security intelligence service knew and we didn't know. Again, we have a really good relationship with the service. With the amount of information that flows, sometimes it's the decision as to, "Does that meet the criminal threshold and when do we engage in the RCMP?"

I'm not here to judge the service on just one single aspect, but if we can improve the flow of information, for sure, for the betterment of everyone.... That ties into the earlier question on how we get this information out to MPs.

I agree with two things out of that report, that we need a little stronger governance and, really, that we should have a look at how the flow of information proceeds within the community and to the elected officials.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Duheme.

You just touched on something that I find very interesting. I think it's interesting for the general public who may be watching and for ourselves as well. You mentioned just now that the decision on whether or not to bring the RCMP into the loop is based on whether it meets the criminal threshold.

Could you clarify for everyone listening where does the intelligence gathering end and the policing begin and the protection?

There seems to be a gap somewhere. You're brought in when it meets a certain threshold with respect to criminal activity. Is that correct?

That's sort of after the fact. That's not in the prevention part.

Am I understanding that correctly?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Perhaps I can walk you through it really quickly.

The service begins an investigation under their respective mandate. As it sees something that is starting to morph towards something that's more criminal, we would receive a letter for which certain information could be used to begin an investigation. You've heard me in the committee before, when I said "actionable intelligence". Actionable intelligence means that intelligence I receive whereby I can actually start an investigation, because in law enforcement when we lay charges, I have to be able to start from the very beginning of the investigation to say how we started this investigation with the expectation that information needs to be disclosed. When the service provides this information, there's an agreement that the information can be disclosed. There are other ways as well for information that cannot be disclosed, but that's another area. In a nutshell, that's how investigation would work.

As I mentioned earlier, we have had some investigations that we bounced back to the service, because as we continued, the criminal element had not unfolded. It's happened where it was switched back to the service.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Okay.

I'm going to flip it on its head. I know that you mentioned that when it comes to members of Parliament you work very closely with the Sergeant-at-Arms, the PPS and so on. In this case, Mr. Chong was not made aware of the specifics of the threat until after a news report came out.

What would you say to members of Parliament who may be aware of activities that they are not sure could be considered intimidation tactics? What would you recommend that we do?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Madam Chair, I would say if anyone in the public or elected officials are in immediate danger, that would be 911.

The other aspect is we have a 1-800 number for the RCMP, but the easiest way would be to share it with the Sergeant-at-Arms, with whom we have an excellent relationship, and the information will flow from there.

We have the 1-800 number. We have a website as well. Some people have the security officer, and they can report it to them, but make sure it comes back.

If it's immediate, it's 911.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

As always, I will take into account the time required for interpretation. Your speaking time will be adjusted accordingly.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Duheme, please tell me if I'm mistaken. From what I understand—it's not a bad thing—you're currently dependent on information to be passed on by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. You're doing an outstanding job on crime. Right now, what I understand from everything that's happening on the national and international scenes—we're talking about foreign interference—is that our model doesn't resemble those of the FBI and the CIA or those of other countries.

You have an obligation to be very effective and warn people who may be under threat, or worse.

Am I wrong?