Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2023

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's very important to make the clarification that foreign interference activities in regard to the so-called police stations refers to the activities themselves.

I would add something else. It is that the resources we are giving to the RCMP through budget 2023—as I said, roughly $49 million—is a way in which we can be sure that we can better protect Canadians and, specifically, diaspora communities, who are often the target of foreign interference activities.

Mr. Fergus, what I would say, through you, Madam Chair, is that it was disappointing to see that Conservatives did not support budget 2023. They often talk tough on national security. They talk tough on foreign interference, but they voted against the budget, which would have given the RCMP additional capacity to deal with the very foreign interference activities that you're talking about, and they've also voted against other authorities that would equip our national security establishment with additional tools to fight foreign interference.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Minister, as a follow-up to that, what are the challenges that you have with folks conflating the nefarious activities of the police stations with these community centres?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, that's an important question because the geographic locations where these so-called police stations are located attract people for totally legitimate purposes. They could be going to the same space to participate in extracurricular activities or to be getting other essential supports.

It is my assessment that it is one of the challenges that is presented, just really distinguishing what are legitimate activities from potential foreign interference activities. I think we need to be very sober about the reality that the PRC is deploying a wide array of tactics when it comes to foreign interference, not only through these so-called police stations, but equally through our economy, through our academia, through other attacks on our democratic institutions, which is why the way in which I structured my opening remarks lays out the plan, the plan that is based on prevention, protection, accountability and transparency. The additional tools and resources that we, as a government, have put into place are all about advancing that plan so that we can tackle foreign interference.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Minister, as you're surely aware, we have had substantial testimony that speaks to, frankly, the information breakdown that has happened amongst our security and intelligence information sharing and the lack of coordination in that regard.

What is the government doing to rectify these snafus?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, that too is a critically important question. As the minister, I'm responsible and accountable for my office, my department and the agencies that report to me. It is important to identify where the challenges have been around information and intelligence flows.

In my job as the Minister of Public Safety, by identifying that issue, I believe we have begun to address it through the issuing of a new ministerial directive. The point there is that where there is foreign interference in relationship to parliamentarians, I'm now to be directly briefed by the service so that we can be sure that the issue is being addressed and so that we can be up front with Canadians about how we're doing that work.

I would also say that Mr. Johnston's first report, a report that is very substantive and incisive, does lay out an additional number of steps in which we can continue to strengthen our internal governance when it comes to intelligence and information flow, because that is the best way in which the government can take the appropriate actions that are necessary to deal with foreign interference. That's precisely what I'm committed to doing.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have a final question for you or the deputy minister. I asked this question of the CSIS director, and I'd like to ask it of you.

It seems that the framework in which we have set up the structure to respond to these issues, our whole security intelligence network, was set up in response to terrorism threats. It seems that the frame has changed. How do we now adapt our structures to deal with these new and emerging...perhaps an ongoing emerging, but just a new way of looking at the threats faced through foreign interference now?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'll say a few words and then I'll turn it over to ADM Geddes.

I think what your question touches on is the need to think about how we frame national security concerns. You're right; after 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, the government put into place a national security strategy. Today, yes, of course we continue to be vigilant against anti-terrorism, but we also have to think about foreign interference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you. When the beep goes, we can't pass it to the ADM. I'm sorry. Maybe there will be another opportunity.

Madam Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today. We very much appreciate it.

We're here to shed light on the intimidation of Mr. Chong, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Unfortunately, we're also here to shed light on your contradictions. We're hearing of all kinds of them from you and your colleagues these days. You say that briefing notes and emails were lost, and you simply plead ignorance within many ministers' offices.

You mentioned transparency earlier in your opening remarks. However, Minister, in every respect, you've been anything but transparent in the foreign interference file since day one. You are the Minister of Public Safety Canada. You are responsible for ensuring safety, and you have a duty to be informed and to gather information. To say that an email was lost, that you weren't briefed or that the note went missing: these aren't acceptable answers.

How can you explain why the person who should be informed first in a security matter in Canada was informed last instead?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to tell my colleague Ms. Michaud, through you, that I absolutely agree with her. It's my duty as Minister of Public Safety to ensure that we have a system in which information circulates in an efficient, transparent and clear manner. That's why I've issued a new directive within my department to reinforce our protocols.

I've acknowledged that this incident has uncovered problems, but now I'm focusing on reinforcing protocols so the government can take the necessary measures to combat foreign interference.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Minister, this isn't the first time your remarks have subsequently been disproven.

Madam Chair, with your permission, I'm going to ask a few questions in quick succession because we've compiled a list of examples of this, and there have been many situations in which the minister said one thing and we subsequently learned the opposite.

Minister, you said last year that the police had asked you to invoke the Emergency Measures Act. However, we later learned that was not the case. How do you explain that?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, the decision to invoke the Emergency Measures Act was made in the midst of an unprecedented incident. The situation on the ground was a national emergency, and the decision to invoke the act was made in light of discussions and consultations with police services.

That's exactly what I said before Judge Rouleau, and he confirmed the fact that the decision in question was the right one. It was the correct decision to restore public safety on the ground.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I expect my brief questions to be followed by equally brief answers.

Thank you, Minister. In the matter of the so‑called Chinese police stations, you told us that they had been shut down. However, we learned shortly thereafter that, once again, that wasn't the case. Mr. Cooper demonstrated that a little earlier.

Once again, how do you explain that?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Our colleague Mr. Cooper asked the question, and I'm going to repeat, before this committee, the remarks I previously made. The RCMP is taking specific measures regarding the so‑called police stations and will continue to monitor that threat. That's clear.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Minister, you said a few days ago that you hadn't been informed that the murderer Paul Bernardo would be transferred to a medium-security prison. However, we subsequently learned that the briefing note was sent to you and that your office was informed of those facts.

How do you explain that? Was it because your office didn't forward the information? Why doesn't information get through to you?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead on a point of order.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I know I was a bit late getting here, but my understanding is we're studying foreign interference today, and it's specifically a question of privilege. I don't know whether this question is relevant. I wanted to point that out and seek your advice on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I did, at the top of the meeting, remind us that.... I know that, on Parliament Hill, everything is important. That's why we do a whole list of important things.

One of our colleagues has brought up the issue of foreign interference on a question of privilege that was sent to this committee. I hope I'm never in that position, but I would also hope that, as an elected official, my question of privilege would be given the importance it needs. I would encourage us to stay on that topic, as well. There's always something more exciting happening.

The time is yours, Madam Michaud, but we are here on the question of privilege related to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members.

Do you want to continue with your question or ask another one?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I'm going to continue, Madam Chair, and to explain to my colleague Mr. Turnbull that all the minister's contradictions regarding public safety in Canada have landed us in the middle of this foreign interference and intimidation campaign against our colleague Mr. Chong, from Wellington—Halton Hills. The minister has to be transparent. He's accountable. Since he has contradicted himself on numerous occasions, we're entitled to answers. The public is entitled to answers as well. I believe that brings us back to the main question.

How is it that we learned about this through the media, that we learned from leaked information that some of our fellow MPs were being targeted by foreign interference and intimidation campaigns conducted by Chinese diplomats? How is it that, when we ask the Minister of Public Safety questions on these matters, his answer is that he wasn't aware of them?

I'm simply trying to understand the situation. I think Canadians and Quebeckers are trying to understand it too. So I expect answers from the Minister of Public Safety. I think all the points we've addressed today are extremely important, and they bring us back to this problem.

So, once again, I'm going to give the minister an opportunity to explain to us how it is that briefing notes don't get to him, that emails get lost, that the minister who is supposed to ensure public safety in Canada isn't aware of everything that goes on and that our democratic institutions are the target of foreign interference.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I want to thank the member for that question.

Departmental responsibility requires that I take action when problems and challenges arise. I want to emphasize, in response to that question, that I'll be taking specific measures, such as new ministerial directives to reinforce the protocols. The objective is to ensure that information is communicated to my office, to my team and, even more importantly, to the government so we can take the necessary measures to respond to public safety challenges. That's my focus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I admit that I share frustration with my colleagues and with Canadians about how often it feels that this story is changing from one thing to another.

What I keep hearing from the minister, through the chair, of course, is that a ministerial directive has been made and now everything is good. I understand that the ministerial directive was made on this on May 16 to inform MPs if they are being targeted in any way.

I think it's also important that we make sure everybody understands that if a new minister is appointed, that directive would have to be made again. It's sort of a short-term solution. I'm not sure that it's actually a full solution, and in fact it's not, but it is a short-term band-aid to deal with this big issue.

Is there a timeline to move forward with permanent legislation so that we can see this fixed in a comprehensive way, instead of this ad hoc band-aid solution, keep finding the holes in the sinking boat, patch something up and hope that it works? I'm wondering whether there is an actual plan for legislation.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, through you to my colleague Ms. Blaney, the answer is yes. Certainly it remains the focus to introduce legislation that would create a new foreign agent registry as quickly as possible.

I also want to assure my colleague that there is a plan, and that plan is based on the four pillars that I outlined in my opening remarks. Again, just to be clear, they are prevention, protection, accountability and transparency.

I agree with my colleague Ms. Blaney that it is important we continue to strengthen the internal governance around the sharing of information and intelligence. The ministerial directives do succeed through governments and they succeed through administrations. The ministerial directive that I issued in regard to parliamentary foreign interference is a way in which we can strengthen those protocols.

To use your metaphor, Ms. Blaney, there are definitely waves, but the boat is being reinforced so that we can navigate those waters.

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

You're putting together what I see as needing a fundamental change in legislation to make sure that MPs are oriented appropriately and you're mixing it up with the foreign agent registry. I'm not clear on why you're putting those two things together.

I guess my first question is what the timeline is for legislation. You didn't give me a timeline. I would like a timeline.

Second, we know that on May 9 the foreign agent registry consultation was closed. When are we going to get the “what we heard” report?