Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2023

[Samuel Cooper]

I didn't prepare any materials around that question. As I told the honourable member, I'm not going to speak to materials—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You can send it in later, Mr. Cooper, if you'd like. We'd be happy if you would table it with the committee. Will you table it with the committee?

[Samuel Cooper]

Going back to my introduction, I'm not going to speak to editorial processes or legal processes around prior stories.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Global News has actually put in a statement that it has not confirmed the allegations in the story. The Globe and Mail refused to run a similar story because it couldn't verify the claim that was made in that story.

What I'm interested to know is, based on the fact that these were allegations—in the statement of defence, Global News also says that these were allegations and not meant to be taken as fact—how could you, with any degree of journalistic integrity, publish an article that is based sheerly on unfounded allegations?

[Samuel Cooper]

The article is based on....

Going back to my opening statement, for the honourable member, I'll reiterate it. The story stands. I will not speak to the identification of sources. I will not speak to editorial processes. I want the member to remember that I will not speak to legal processes surrounding this story.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Cooper, the Canadian Association of Journalists has ethics guidelines that state:

We seek documentation to support the reliability of these sources and their stories, and we are careful to distinguish between assertions and fact. The onus is on us to verify all information....

Do you agree that this is the ethics guideline that you should be following as a journalist?

[Samuel Cooper]

The story stands, and we're here today because of a body of reporting.

I'll remind the member that I said I'm not going to speak to editorial processes—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Is that a “no” then; you don't believe that you should follow the ethics guideline for your own profession?

[Samuel Cooper]

The answer, honourable member, is that the story stands and the body of works stands. We are all here today because of the body of work—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay.

We all read the headline that it was demonstrably false, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to pause to remind us that one person speaks at a time.

Mr. Cooper, I know you're not a stranger to how committees operate. There is sometimes repetition around here. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Members do have the time. If we can have a clear exchange back and forth, because the work that we're doing is important work....

This is a reminder for one person to speak at a time, because it helps with the record and interpretation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The national security and intelligence adviser, the Right Honourable David Johnston, the director of CSIS, deputy ministers and ministers all confirm that the headline that you published as part of that story was demonstrably false.

Did you knowingly mislead Canadians?

[Samuel Cooper]

The story stands. The editorial procedures and the legal procedures around that story are the subject of a legal procedure, as you know. At the outset, I told the honourable member that the story stands and that I will not speak to editorial processes or legal procedures regarding my prior story.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I'd like us to take a closer look at the motives and questions that were considered.

So my questions are about the motivations that result in an article, in a story that was revealed in November 2022. I'd like to hear what you have to say on the subject.

[Samuel Cooper]

If I understand the question, it's about what is the editorial or vetting process, or the motivation of a journalist to report on....

Could you rephrase that, please?

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

I'm talking about the subject.

In the context of your work, what are your reasons for conducting an investigation on this subject, for taking an interest in it.

[Samuel Cooper]

As I said in my opening statement, after hearing and researching and filing access to information requests regarding former CSIS director Richard Fadden's very public statement, I was working in Vancouver at a major newspaper, and I was seeing and hearing about activities related to financial crime that started to appear, possibly, to feed into foreign interference-type activities. The motivation for me started over 10 years ago to understand, essentially, public interest questions that were very current. These were matters that people in Vancouver wanted to know about.

I completed a body of reporting in Vancouver. I then landed in Ottawa, as it were. My motivation at that time was that I understood that this is the seat of power in Canada. Decisions taken around foreign investment matters of laws that CSIS and the RCMP are regulated by, and whether foreign actors can be prosecuted or can freely operate.... This was my motivation.

As I've explained, I do a number of podcast interviews about some of my stories and especially my book. My book, which is called Wilful Blindness, delves into the connectivity.... I know you've heard from Commissioner Duheme recently. He was recently on 60 Minutes Australia and said that he—that is, the RCMP—was seeing connectivity between organized crime and...directly up to the Chinese state. This is the subject matter of my book.

Making findings in my book led to more information, if you will, coming to me in Ottawa. When I found this new information, and how laws have not been changed so that the Government of Canada can really find connections to foreign agents, connections that are easily found now in the United States, as we see in the so-called 110 police station prosecutions.... My first story quoted a CSIS officer's saying that, at this point, “it's just CSIS telling...politicians, 'Hey, be careful out there.'” There are no laws and regulations that allow, really, a firm deterrent, prosecution or investigation even.

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

Madam Chair, I know my next question is quite sensitive, but I'm sure Mr. Cooper can answer it.

When your sources confirmed or disproved the information, what were their motives? Surely there was something that urged them to talk to you about them.

What do you think motivated those sources to provide you with that information, which led you to delve more deeply into the subject and to write an article?

[Samuel Cooper]

It's a very simple answer. Again, my book, Wilful Blindness, really grew out of disclosures from a casino anti-money-laundering official named Ross Alderson. He was very concerned about the activity he saw. His view was that there was “wilful blindness” on the part of British Columbia's government with regard to the lack of prosecution against transnational crime and money laundering.

I understand that people in Ottawa, people in other jurisdictions, including the United States.... I've said that people in the Pentagon were interested in my book. There are officials at a high level who understand what's happening in Canada, and there are whistle-blowers who don't believe that adequate laws are in place to investigate and prosecute foreign interference. This can be the type of motivation for sources: simply national security and patriotism.

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

I unfortunately have little time left, and I'd like to ask Mr. Elcock a question.

Mr. Elcock, I believe you served from 1994 to 2004. What were the directives of the prime ministers and ministers concerning interference, intimidation and threats? I know you can remember that because you were there for a long time.

[Ward Elcock]

Madam Chair, in response to the honourable member's question, it's a bit of a challenge to make a short answer. The issue of foreign interference is really just espionage. It is a subset of espionage involving sometimes not necessarily intelligence services but foreign actors.

We treated it then as it is largely treated now—as espionage, attracting counter-espionage programs on the part of the service, I'm sure, even today and back then as well. Those contained specific directions to provide information to people who knew that the reality was that CSIS was established to provide information to the government itself and was, in fact, specifically enjoined from providing it beyond the government. Giving threat briefings to people was very complicated then. It still is relatively complicated now, although there are some new directions that allow perhaps more flow of information.

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

I'll ask my other questions during my second round.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

There are bells ringing. I'm going to go with the same approach as earlier, unless we come to a different conclusion, and just keep us moving in this meeting.

Ms. Blaney, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Of course I thank the witnesses for being here.

I'm going to start by asking a question or two to Mr. Elcock. Thank you again for being here.

We've heard a lot of testimony over the last several months and we also have heard very clearly from Canadians that they're worried about what's happening in terms of foreign interference and what that means for our democracy. Of course, my major concern is that if Canadians lose faith in their institutions, it becomes very hard to do the things we need to do in a safe way.

We've heard a lot of testimony from ministers about not knowing that certain MPs were being targeted or about how that information was provided but they didn't receive it in a timely fashion. It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts, given your time serving in that role, about communication processes and if you had any concerns at that time about making sure that people had the right information to make decisions they needed to make at those levels.