Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. O'Toole, thank you for your testimony. We are most grateful. It will help the committee come to some conclusions and produce a report.

Further to your opening remarks, I think it's important that the public inquiry into foreign interference takes a look at our work, which will help it delve even further into the issue.

This brings me to the following question: what happens when we learn that we are the target of Chinese interference? We haven't really talked about that yet.

I hope that you will be able to tell me about your experience as a member of Parliament and as a leader. I am all ears.

[Erin O'Toole]

Thank you for the question.

The issue is a serious one. In fact, it impacted me not only as an MP, but also as a father and as the brother of my sister who lived in Hong Kong.

That's why it is important that Parliament adopts an approach similar to that of the United States in terms of intelligence and the risks involved for the country and its MPs.

As I said to Ms. Romanado, it is very important that MPs have the choice of maintaining or not their stance towards China. Each individual MP will wrestle with the risk of foreign interference for his or her family and community.

As a veteran, I believe that public safety and issues related to intelligence and national interests are a priority.

That is how I see things, but each MP needs to be able to make their own decisions.

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

If I understand you correctly, the day that an MP learns that he or she is the target of foreign interference, it has an impact on their personal life.

[Erin O'Toole]

Yes, absolutely.

That's why I said in my statement that all parties need to take a non-partisan approach. I understand that it is difficult, but it is important for our fellow citizens and the diaspora communities in Canada.

We have heard allegations from the Prime Minister in the House of Commons about a murder in Canada. As a Parliament and as a country, we must take a more serious approach to foreign interference.

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

I would like you to tell us about the steps we have taken since then. Things have changed.

From an outsider's perspective, what are your thoughts on the steps that are being taken right now to address this issue? I know that you have first-hand experience.

[Erin O'Toole]

Yes. That is why I have been calling for an independent investigation for a few months, and that is why I am pleased to see Justice Hogue's role.

We must take a serious and unfettered approach to intelligence. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnston received a predetermined briefing with partial information. I have a lot of respect for him, but following the allegations against Ms. Kwan and Mr. Chong and the problems that occurred in 2019 and 2021, as well as the case of the two Michaels and the transactions involving Canadian companies in the area of critical minerals, we must take a more serious approach, and we must examine the decisions made by the government in a professional and, I hope, non-partisan manner. This is important if we want to preserve the interests and values of our country.

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

It is important to shed light on this. The public inquiry into foreign interference began its work on September 18. Thank you for your three questions. We have taken note of them and they will certainly be retained.

You may not know this, but when Mr. Blair appeared before the committee, he clearly told us that it was the opposition's role to put pressure on the government and to ask questions. That's true.

That said, while everyone has sounded the alarm and agreed on the urgent need to establish a foreign agents registry, it is our party that will introduce a bill on the subject.

What do you think of that?

[Erin O'Toole]

Like our allies, we definitely need a registry.

In my opinion, every riding and every member of Parliament counts. If there are allegations of interference in Vancouver or Markham, that has to be taken into account. It is possible to get a positive result. I've said this several times to the Prime Minister. Having said that, I am still concerned about certain ridings, whose constituents are entitled to a professional and serious investigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

I know that Ms. Romanado and Ms. Gaudreau still have questions to ask. People have a lot of questions. Your comments are crucial to the study we are conducting because, as you mentioned, this work is very important.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Erin, for being here with us again. It's good to see you.

I think what is very clear in your statement, and also in your service in multiple ways to this country, is that making sure that the trust of Canadians in our institutions is a key focus. We must continue to do all that we can to build that trust. Right now, there's uncertainty in Canada. I think it is really important that we take a non-political stance on this, really get to the challenging parts, and create solutions so that people can have faith in our system.

I think one of the things that Mr. Chong did an incredible job at before this committee was to really outline the steps that happened. The first thing he talked about, of course, was that he had a briefing from CSIS, who talked to him about how to notice signs of foreign interference. They gave him some helpful tools to help him note that. There was no discussion that in any way he was being targeted. It was given to him just as information. After that, he met with CSIS more than once. However, all of those times he met with them directly because he requested that, based on what he was experiencing and his wanting to share what he was experiencing with them. Then, of course, he found out about what was happening in a Globe and Mail article. I don't think that any member would want to have that experience: to find out through an article that you're being targeted, that your family and loved ones are being targeted. I think that was one of the most embarrassing moments—I hope—for this place.

My first question for you—and I'll have a couple of follow-ups—is about the briefing. Mr. Chong said that he hoped that what we would out of this process was a briefing for every member of Parliament about how to notice signs of foreign interference to make us aware of what we could be looking at in our day-to-day work. What are your thoughts on that being the most basic of steps moving forward?

[Erin O'Toole]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

One thing I think is important for Canadians to understand is that when the term “target” is used, it means you were the target of an interference operation or measures designed to interfere. We often think of “target” in a much more aggressive way, as well. However, it doesn't always mean that. It could mean observation or tracking, but that is equally concerning. I think it's important for us to realize that I was targeted. I've been advised that I will continue to be a target because of some of my concerns over the years about the conduct of the regime in Beijing.

I think that Mr. Chong is right in the fact that we need a system. This is something that I think this committee can be seized with, simultaneous with the work that Madame Hogue will do on the independent inquiry. Make recommendations on how we can have parliamentarians outside of NSICOP who can never tell sensitive information, but allow for a mechanism for risks to be outlined to members of Parliament.

I do think that we're living in an age where the wolf warrior diplomacy of China is well known, but there's also the war in Ukraine. There is the attack on Israel at the beginning of the month and tensions in the Middle East. We're seeing increasingly a more aggressive foreign policy posture from a lot of players.

MPs should not be restrained in their actions for their constituents and their values. Make sure that we have a mechanism for if a threat or an issue is flagged. I believe the member of Parliament, regardless of party, should be aware of that and should be equipped to be protected. Our democracy is very important, and we should be willing to make some changes and accommodations to defend it.

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

Well, thank you for that.

One of the things that we've heard repeatedly in this study—and then, of course, in our other study on foreign interference in elections—is that there's a threshold of intelligence. Sometimes information is coming in. It has to be assessed, and there's a desire to make sure that it's fulsome before it's actually delivered. I'm not sure that the particular incidents we're talking about meet that.

From your background in the military.... I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. What is a threshold that you would feel more comfortable with?

[Erin O'Toole]

That's a very good question, Ms. Blaney, because I think the thresholds used to date need to be questioned.

Part of the final questions I outlined and that I think Madame Hogue and this committee must examine.... The critical election incident public protocol and the group of five were—or should have been—aware of all the allegations from 2019 in the unredacted NSICOP report of the briefings the Prime Minister received in January and February 2021. They should have been aware of the intelligence with respect to the official at the Chinese embassy and Mr. Chong's family.

We now know, only due to reporting and some leaks, that there were many incidents that, I believe, would have met a threshold for at least telling the parties at the start of an election that there were current risks in the environment. Not only were we not told, we were led to believe there were no serious problems with 2019 and there was nothing to flag as the election got under way. I think that was an error.

The threshold those officials used in engaging with the parties.... Each of the parties had to have a security-cleared representative. This was not ad hoc. I think the group of five's conduct needs to be examined.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now enter our second round. There will be five minutes for Monsieur Berthold, followed by five minutes for Mr. Duguid and two and a half minutes for Madame Gaudreau and two and half minutes for Madame Blaney, five minutes for Mr. Duncan, and then five minutes for Madame Koutrakis.

Then we will probably—just a heads-up—do one quick six-minute round. We won't pause in-between to try to respect your wishes, but I think, with the exchange taking place and the fact that there are more questions than fewer, we will need a bit extra of your time. We'll try to get you out well before two hours, though. It's just a heads-up so the team can plan accordingly.

Mr. Berthold, over to you for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. O'Toole, it's always good to have you here. I am really pleased that you are here today to answer our questions, especially since you were at the heart of an election that was much talked about because it involved foreign interference.

At the beginning of your testimony, you said that we need to recognize that we have a long history of not doing enough to protect our democracy.

What has changed since 2017 for the communist regime in Beijing to feel free to do what it wants in Canada?

[Erin O'Toole]

Thank you for that important question, Mr. Berthold.

Following the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing, the Chinese government significantly changed its approach in China and around the world. Then there was the Uighur genocide and the building of the islands in the South China Sea.

They've taken a strategic approach to procurement around the world in terms of public safety, intelligence, energy, critical minerals, and so on. It took a long time for the West to react.

That is why I proposed the creation of a special committee on Canada-China relations. That is also why we must take a more serious approach to elections, as well as to the protection of our democracy and our institutions.

There have been leaks and articles in The Globe and Mail and on Global News. This has been worrisome for our intelligence services for a few decades now. Unfortunately, we only looked at the benefits in terms of the economy and international trade, but not the concerns around human rights and international security.

We need to take a non-partisan approach, if we can, and put more resources into our intelligence services. There needs to be a serious approach to the risk to members of Parliament and senators.

That is why the work done by your committee is so important.

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

However, there was a marked change in attitude on the part of the Beijing regime towards 2017. You saw that and that led you to propose the creation of the Special Committee on the Relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China, or CACN.

Do you think that nowadays, we have a lot of information, but we do not seem to be reacting quickly enough? I am asking you this question because last summer, we once again saw that MPs, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, had been the victims of a “spamouflage” campaign.

Yet, even today, the government refers to Mr. Rosenberg's famous report every time we talk about foreign interference, saying that there was no problem in Canada and that everything went well.

In your opinion, Mr. O'Toole, what should be the attitude of a government that really wants to counter foreign interference?

[Erin O'Toole]

Thank you for your question.

A former ambassador, David Mulroney, said that the Prime Minister was naive about China. That is indeed the case. China has taken a more aggressive stance internationally, particularly since 2017. That is why it is essential that we respond strategically and defend our democracy.

I want to say that this is very important to members like Mr. Chong and Ms. Kwan, and it's also very important to the Chinese Canadian community and the diaspora in the greater Vancouver area and the greater Toronto area, for example. It is important that every citizen has the right to vote without interference, intimidation and pressure from foreign nationals.

There have been articles on interference and police stations, in particular. We're here to fix the problem, and we have to do something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Duguid is next.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's good to see you, Mr. O'Toole. Like others, I want to thank you for your service to our country and your service to our Parliament over the years.

Also, thank you for the tribute to Ian Shugart, whom I had the good fortune to work with when he was ESDC deputy. He was instrumental in bringing the National Microbiology Lab to Winnipeg, working through a great regional minister, Jake Epp, a Progressive Conservative.

Mr. O'Toole mentioned that foreign interference has been with us through Conservative and Liberal administrations. All of those administrations needed to do more, and we need to address the issue seriously now in a non-partisan “country first” way.

I'm a new member on this committee, as you know, Madam Chair, and I'm no procedural expert, but my understanding is that motions of privilege are dealt with expeditiously. We've had 34 witnesses, Mr. O'Toole. You are the 34th and, I believe, the last. My view—and I think the view on this side of the table—is that we need to get to recommendations, we need to get to a report and we need to stay out of the partisanship I've seen around the table here.

Would you agree that we need to get to a report and recommendations quickly to protect the privilege of all parliamentarians? I think you know that we've had some even more recent incidents of interference with the “spamouflage” revelations of late. Could we have a few comments from you, please?

[Erin O'Toole]

Thank you, Mr. Duguid.

It's nice to see all of you. If my treatment had always been this great, I wouldn't have left.

I jest.

It's so important that—I don't want to suggest that you need to constrain your inquiry and move immediately. What I tried to do with my presentation here today was to give some questions for you to think about, to give you my perspective, to talk about how both Liberal and Conservative governments have struggled to find the balance and, as Mr. Berthold said quite well, the balance became even harder to strike in 2017.

Madame Hogue will be doing her inquiry. You could conclude before her, and she could use your work, but I think that inquiry will be quite comprehensive. That doesn't mean you have to finish before she does. I think you have to let the will of the committee run its course.

Through you, today I tried to put a few things on her agenda, because I know her team will be watching this closely, and so I was putting the questions both to you and to her. I would say that when she was appointed and we saw the noise on Twitter—or X or whatever we call it these days—I defended her appointment because we had asked for it and we wanted to see it and she has an incredible professional background and I think the process deserves a fair start.

Part of what I tried to do today was to put questions for you and to give my own experience but also to indicate to Madame Hogue that I think that sometimes for a proper review to be done, it can't be limited in what is seen or in whose decisions are examined.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thanks for that, Mr. O'Toole.

As the former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada—and I'm going to refer, interestingly enough, to the National Microbiology Laboratory—do you think that party leaders should have top secret clearance so that they can be brought into serious and highly sensitive conversations?

As you know, that has been an issue with respect to the National Microbiology Laboratory and two scientists. My understanding is that the current leader of the Conservative Party was refused a briefing.

Should party leaders have those kinds of briefings so they can have inside knowledge of foreign interference or at least find out what's going on?

[Erin O'Toole]

That's a very good question.

I do think we can't divorce this process from politics completely, and I've said we have to try.

The briefings have to happen before The Globe and Mail headlines. When that happens, I understand the concerns Mr. Poilievre has about his ability to hold the government to account being limited.

If you want to talk more about the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, the former speaker, Mr. Rota, had to go to court to demand that the will of Parliament be fulfilled with respect to our questions about the lab.

The time when the Prime Minister should have brought the leader of the opposition, who at the time was me, into concerns about investigations of employees and ties to the Chinese military was before the eruption. That's why I think the fixes we can bring are longer term, but once we're in the middle of a storm, every political leader needs to do their best to navigate through it, and it's hard to do a mulligan, as I'm sure Mr. Trudeau would have liked to, on that lab.

I think there will be more instances like this, Mr. Duguid, which is why in the longer term we need better processes and we need to trust more MPs with intelligence briefings that may be confidential.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead.