Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Van Popta, you have two and a half minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, Mr. McGuinty, for raising the issue of malicious cyber-activity. I was very interested to hear what your report had to say, and I also have to admit that I was very alarmed.

These are foreign entities breaking into our security and stealing our intellectual property, so my question is really about that. How big of a threat is that, of foreign entities, foreign companies, let's say, controlled by foreign governments, stealing our intellectual property and, in that way, threatening us economically?

[David McGuinty]

Mr. Van Popta, in the report, from paragraph 61 forward, for four or five paragraphs in a row, we describe that threat quite clearly. The committee was unanimous, as it is behind all these paragraphs, that it wanted to name specifically China, the Russian Federation, Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

CSE's information, which we re-present here, says they “continued to see cyber activity consistent with each actor's national strategic objectives, including in cyber activity against Canadian government networks, private sector systems and critical infrastructure systems.”

We've looked at enough evidence to conclude that “China and Russia continued to be the main drivers of cyber threat activity targeting the government since 2018”, since we last looked at this, and it's focusing across a whole series of government sectors. I can't go into any more detail than that.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

That's fair enough. Thank you for that.

Are these state-owned enterprises controlled by the Chinese communist government or the Russian government, or are they private actors? To what extent is it a nation-to-nation issue?

[David McGuinty]

I don't think I'm in a position to give you any more detail than the fact that the report refers to Chinese and Russian actors.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

That's fair enough. I respect that. Thank you.

Is that my time?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, you're pretty well done.

The final two and a half minutes will go to a Liberal questioner, failing which I'll take it, if no one else will.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Why don't you take it, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. McGuinty, first of all, thank you for coming. You've only hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of the overall threat assessment, and you have some limitations.

I'd like you to delve into the nature of the threat to our democracy. We saw in the last four years that the Russians were very successful at setting Americans off against each other, exaggerating their differences, if you will, and imperilling the actual expression of American democracy.

I'd be interested in the way you see both the Russian and the Chinese activities and how they operate to threaten our democracy—in some specificity, please.

[David McGuinty]

I wish I could be, Mr. Chair, more specific. We've been as specific as we possibly can be in the report in the Canadian context.

I would, however, repeat that the evidence indicates that this is happening in the context of every political party in this country at all levels of government. It's about the deployment of individuals on Canadian soil directed by a foreign state actor.

I would point committee members and Canadians to paragraphs 70 and 74 as an example of the extent to which a foreign actor will go. We lay out what has ostensibly happened in the likely launching of a cyber-attack against the Australian Parliament and its three largest political parties, likely by China, prior to the Australian general election in early 2019.

We then go on to describe what happened in June 2020 when China likely conducted another large-scale cyber-attack against Australia and Australian companies, hospitals, schools and government officials.

In the case of the United States, in paragraph 74, since our report was published the U.S. justice department and Homeland Security confirmed that their voting machines weren't necessarily tampered with, but Russia clearly tried to influence the election by using sophisticated online disinformation campaigns.

We've captured that in the report to point out the nature, the extent and the level to which some state actors will go to disrupt the democracy that we have, which is why we made four or five major recommendations to the Prime Minister around the five-person panel that is there to help blow the whistle, if and when major irregularities should occur during a Canadian election. We think it should be expanded. We think the membership should be varied, and we think the way in which Canadians are informed should be handled very carefully.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. As for the limitations to your answer, I understand them, but it's also frustrating to not understand the nature and extent of the threat to both our economy and our democracy in a more specific way.

Thank you, though, for your presentation. As you can see, there's a huge appetite from the members for the work of your committee. I think, speaking on behalf of the members of the public safety committee, that not only you and Mr. Jorgensen are to be thanked, but also, if you'd thank them, the other members of Parliament who have joined you, including our Mr. Motz, who I'm sure has contributed to your deliberations.

Thank you.

With that, we'll suspend for a minute or two to let Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Jorgensen leave. Then we'll ask Madam Damoff to present her emergency motion, and then we'll deal with the subcommittee's report.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a point of order.

This is not to challenge the chair directly, but to point out that a motion was moved by Mr. Van Popta when he had the floor at this meeting. It wasn't ruled out of order. It was just postponed, so I think that motion is on the floor. That would be my understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The emergency motion may also trump, in positioning, any other motions that are on the floor. If there can be a collegial way to work this out, I'm perfectly happy to do that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm not sure if the intent of the emergency motion was to supersede everything else the committee is doing. Maybe Pam can enlighten us about that.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Actually, yes it does, Jack. The date in the motion, as you see, is to begin a study immediately—no later than May 10.

I think it would be wise to do the work plan after we've debated the 106(4) motion, especially after what we've heard in the testimony today from Mr. McGuinty and all of us who have read the report. I think his words were that this is a very serious matter for Canadians. It's a very serious matter for parliamentarians.

When we get to debating the 106(4), I will speak to it more, but I do think we would be wise to wait to deal with the work plan until we've dealt with that. If the other members don't want to do that, then so be it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll go to Kristina and then Shannon.

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

I wanted to speak afterwards regarding the motion related to Standing Order 106(4). However, I gather that we won't be starting the debate right away.

The order doesn't really matter to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Shannon.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Chair, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 106(4) motion hadn't actually been moved yet. The motion for the adoption of the subcommittee report was moved first, so it actually is the first thing we should deal with.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'd be delighted to correct you if you were wrong, but I'm happy to deal with both in whatever order. I think Pam does make a very good point, which is that if the committee does choose to adopt the 106(4), it would potentially affect the work plan report.

Glen.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would just point out that I agree with Mr. Harris and my colleague, Shannon, on the need to deal with the motion that's on the floor. Let's have the conversation on 106(4). It may not be as difficult as what I suspect some might anticipate.

There are a lot of things we have to finish. There are a lot of comments I'm sure we all have with respect to Pam's motion and the 106(4) in regard to this and how we proceed with it. I will leave the comments specific to it for then, but I would say let's deal with the adoption of the motion on the floor and then let's deal with Pam's motion that has yet to be moved, which is the letter to the committee.

That would be the proper procedure, Chair. I would confer with the clerk if there is any other way to do it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Let's just vote on the motion that's on the floor, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

The motion on the floor is to accept the subcommittee report as presented by the committee.

Jack.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

For recommendation number one in the report, which refers to the consolidation of certain motions, I believe subsection (c) of that was in fact modified during the subcommittee meeting that we held. Subsection (c), which is “reports of sexual coercion and violence by officers against female inmates”, was actually changed to “reports of sexual coercion and violence in federal prisons”.

Pam, can you confirm that?

We did discuss it as a committee and the consensus was—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have the same note, Jack.