Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2023

[Daniel Jean]

First of all, on the issue of other state actors, at my April appearance, I mentioned that, indeed, there are other countries, particularly when it comes to surveillance and the intimidation of the diaspora.

On your second question, absolutely. I think it's time we focus on the diagnostic of the problem. Whatever process we do to shed some further light on this should not, in my view, delay further the actions that need to be taken.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Juneau-Katsuya, what do you say to that?

Should our approach in whatever public process in the way forward...? That's being decided, I'm sure—negotiated, in terms of what that looks like. Should it be comprehensive and include other state actors—Beijing, but also other countries?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

Definitely. We need to be able to, at this point, educate the general population at the same time. That will be one of the aims or purposes of this general inquiry.

At the same time, a fair amount of knowledge has been accumulated through various committees. Over 350 witnesses have come in front of Parliament to testify at various levels. I think we have a good understanding of what's going on.

I will agree with Mr. Jean that there is urgency of going into action and coming out with some clear action, because the price we have been paying now collectively is tremendous. The people are losing trust in our elected officials, in the leadership of this country and in the institutions. Worst of all, our allies are losing trust in our ability to fix the problem.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Last time, Mr. Juneau-Katsuya, I asked you about Prime Minister Harper, because you made comments about how many of these threats go back over 30 years and how every government has been influenced or compromised in some respect. You said that PM Harper had become soft on China.

What I'm interested in today is whether there's—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Berthold.

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

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order of relevance.

We are here to study the case of Mr. Michael Chong, and I don't see how Mr. Harper has any connection to the matter under discussion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would always encourage relevance, but we did expand the question of privilege to include foreign election interference. In fact, it was a motion presented by a Conservative colleague. As long as it's within the realm of foreign interference, I do find relevance, but I will always encourage people to stay on topic, please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is relevant. Foreign interference has been long-standing. Mr. Juneau-Katsuya has mentioned that.

In 2014 PM Harper signed a 31-year trade deal with China. I want to ask you about whether there were concerns expressed at the time. There were reports in the media. I was just looking at some of the reports back then from national security and intelligence experts who flagged that as a real concern.

Has that had an impact on Canada's national security and, in terms of our trade relationship, has it put us in a vulnerable position in any way?

I'll go to you first, Mr. Juneau-Katsuya, and then to Mr. Jean.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

I agree, and I did state and will repeat again that, since Mr. Mulroney, every single prime minister has been compromised one way or the other and led to decisions that were questionable in terms of the interests of Canada. We accuse or we impugn this to the agent of influence that succeeded in gaining access to the decision process.

So, yes, Mr. Harper is—quote, unquote—guilty of wrong decisions, but he's not the only one, unfortunately. That's why it is so important at this point to tackle this issue collectively.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

If I may follow up on that, though, I want to ask you specifically about FIPA and the trade deal. Did that compromise Canada's national security in any meaningful way in terms of China's being able to interfere?

Mr. Jean, maybe I'll point that one to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to actually—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Give me the same lenience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

If it's a one-word answer, I can give it to you; otherwise, I need to go to the next round.

Mr. Jean.

[Daniel Jean]

You have to remember that it was signed and that it took two years before it was ratified, and some of the national security concerns were very much at play, but in all our trade deals, in our FIPAs, we always protect our ability to be able to do national security reviews. Other countries have made a mistake not doing that; we have not made that mistake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madam Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We have met more than 60 witnesses since we began studying this matter in November. I don't have your expertise, and would like you to tell me whether I'm giving an accurate picture of the situation.

We heard that there is an obvious failing with respect to the intelligence culture in Canada and a lack of interest on the part of ministers and the Prime Minister.

This lack of interest means that intelligence reports often fall through the cracks. I also understood that it's systemic. It could ultimately mean that documents are never read. That's what we're trying to understand, and that's why we have invited Mr. Mendicino. It could also lead to the neglect of, and too little funding for, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. We were given some numbers on that recently. I'm wondering whether Canada's lack of credibility makes it dependent on the Five Eyes. This has also led me to wonder whether it's why we are not part of the AUKUS security pact. I'm trying to connect the dots, but perhaps Canada isn't serious enough about defence. I personally have no doubt about that being the case.

Do you believe we are properly protected?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

Thank you for the question.

We certainly heard that from several senior and high-ranking witnesses.

We have excellent investigators in Canada, and our reputation is admirable from the operational standpoint. On the other hand, in matters of policy, we've been shooting ourselves in the foot, by which I mean that we've been taking far too long to make certain decisions.

Let's look at the Huawei saga.

Our allies in the Five Eyes came to a decision relatively quickly, while Canada lagged far behind. This ambivalence supports the evidence given here to the effect that since the 1990s, there has been talk of an operation in the United States called Dragon Lord. The purpose of the operation was to monitor political activities and actions in Canada, and we were suspected of being influenced, having been infiltrated, or having failed to take appropriate steps to protect the Five Eyes alliance, and ultimately, Canadian security. Unfortunately, events appear to be consistent with these views.

As early as the 1990s, if allies like the United States, our closest ally, were concerned about certain decisions, they no doubt saw exactly what I saw in my time as chief of the Asia-Pacific unit, and I too tried to alert people. But we were asked to destroy the report rather than take it seriously.

These problems continued, and even increased over the years, and we were unable to see the growing audacity of what certain countries were doing, especially China, which were spending much more time interfering at all levels, whether economic, academic, political and even in the communities.

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

Thank you very much indeed.

I would also like to give Mr. Jean the opportunity to answer, because that would lead me to strategy and action.

My comments at the outset were that it was—

[Daniel Jean]

For my first point, I would like to talk about two aspects you mentioned, which are the lack of culture and the lack of political interest.

If we were to look, let's say, at the reports to which Mr. Rigby alluded last week, the one from the University of Ottawa, to which I contributed, and the one from CIGI, the Centre for International Governance and Innovation, the lack of a culture was mentioned. However, when these reports were being written, the writers sometimes wondered whether the absence of a culture was also part… They were wondering whether the only time there might be political interest was when there was a crisis of that kind. We definitely need to demonstrate more maturity in terms of national security. That was the first point.

As for the intelligence reports, when the case under consideration is looked at closely, it's obvious that there had been a problem. So you have to go beyond that and find ways of taking corrective action, without going too far.

I worked closely with Prime Minister Harper in various capacities, and was Prime Minister Trudeau's national security advisor, and I can tell you that generally speaking, the intelligence that required action, or at least requests for information, did get to the Prime Minister and the ministers. Appropriate action was often taken.

The June 2017 memorandum is a very good example of this. The purpose of this memo was to make the right people aware of China's foreign interference efforts. As for providing better protection for our elections, it was necessary to go beyond just the cybersecurity aspect, and also look at it from an analogous standpoint. Appropriate mechanisms were introduced to do just that.

With respect to your allusion to the Five Eyes, we will never be in a position to contribute as much as the United States or Great Britain. We don't have the resources. In my conversations with these people over the years, we always point out that quality is more important than volume.

To return to what you said at the outset, Canada has to make Canadians aware of how important this issue is. That's why it's important to continually adjust our mechanisms. That's what Mr. Juneau‑Katsuya was saying at the end of his response.

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

I have a few seconds left.

I asked the Minister of Public Safety if he had failed in his responsibility. Technically, it's not true that he can't have the information.

Do you think that's what happened? I get the impression that the information was already making the rounds over the past few decades.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

When I was speaking about the problem of vertical communication, that's exactly what I was alluding to.

When I said in my earlier testimony that we had noticed some information was reaching the highest level but that, unfortunately, whether for personal partisan reasons, or simply because people had been given bad advice, poor decisions were made.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I thank both of the witnesses for being here today.

One of the questions that I continue to pursue is the need to see legislation updated.

I'm going to ask both the witnesses this question.

I'll start off with you, Mr. Jean, because I'll be quoting you from when you were visiting us here on April 18. You did talk about the fact that we haven't reviewed the CSIS Act “since 1984”. You said that we “should have [a] regular review” and the “review should not be about just looking mechanically at the legislation, but [should bring] forward new measures”.

I'm wondering if you could talk a bit—and, like I said, this question is for both witnesses—about what we need to be looking at and what pieces of legislation we've seen in other countries that might best give us input in this committee to address this issue of figuring out the best process to ensure members of Parliament know when they are being targeted and that they're given the information they need to look after not only their own concerns but those of their family members.