Public Safety Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No.

[David McGuinty]

For the first time, we studied nine security and intelligence organizations, including CBSA, CSIS, CSE, DND, GAC, ITAC, PCO and the RCMP.

We established a baseline to compare representation of women, indigenous peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities across the nine organizations active in security and intelligence. We did not conduct an in-depth review on violence and discrimination, but that is something we are recommending to the government.

Essentially, we currently do not have access to the best talent in Canada, because we do not know exactly where the nine organizational players stand. We do know, however, that international studies, including FBI and CIA research, show that diversity and inclusion in security and intelligence agencies makes a big difference in performance, accountability-wise. I am not sure whether that's clear.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to have Ms. Marcoux say a few words.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, by all means.

[Rennie Marcoux, Executive Director, Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians]

I would be happy to.

The purpose of the review was twofold. The first objective was to gain a clearer statistical understanding of diversity and inclusion across the security and intelligence community, as Mr. McGuinty mentioned. The second objective was to identify the departmental programs and policies aimed at building diversity and inclusion in the organizations.

We wanted to gain an understanding of where things stood in order to issue two or three recommendations. The main recommendation is that the committee undertake another review in two or three years based on more robust data collection and more extensive performance measures.

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

Thank you, Ms. Marcoux.

I want to follow up on what you said previously, Mr. McGuinty. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about access to the best talent.

Why doesn't the review that was done tell us where things stand?

Why are we kicking the can two or three years down the road?

What does the current review reveal? Is it positive or negative?

[David McGuinty]

That is precisely the question we want to answer. We are not in a position today to tell Canadians whether the situation is improving or not.

Allow me to explain what the committee means by seeking out the best talent. Given that the security and intelligence community has not made sufficient progress to improve diversity and inclusion in the past decade, we want to make sure that it has access to the best talent in Canada. Obviously, that means incorporating members of the four basic groups, so women, indigenous peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities.

The idea is to establish a baseline for study so that progress can be measured. In all nine organizations, senior management is aware of the recommendation, but no real initiatives have been operationalized at the working level. We need to make sure the work is ongoing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Michaud.

Mr. Harris, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty, for your presentation and your report.

I will touch briefly on the diversity and inclusion study. It seems to me rather disappointing that there's been such slow progress. You seem to be telling us you don't even know what the level of progress is.

I note that you say there seems to be lack of engagement by the whole of these agencies and it's all left up to the HR departments, which indicates the lack of real concern to actually achieving goals.

I'm wondering why your report simply asks for a three- to five-year review of where things are going, as opposed to insisting upon the setting of goals and targets and something like that. It seems to be an inadequate response to what you've clearly identified as slow progress.

[David McGuinty]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I think one of the things we did point out in the report, to be as specific as possible, was that we took a long, hard look at the Prime Minister's tiger team, which was created in 2016. We called out the fact that the tiger team, which was set up to develop a performance measurement framework for the entire federal government, hadn't met since June 2018. We believe that there's supposed to be a report every six months to the deputy secretary of the cabinet, and July 2018 was the last meeting we could find.

We went as far as we felt we could as a committee to call on the government to make improvement, and we set the baseline. There hadn't been an examination at all, ever before, that we could find, of diversity and inclusion in the nine organizations that constitute the community.

We felt it was important to call it out and to cite statistically, and on an evidence base with the facts, exactly where we stood. Now we're looking for progress. We've called on the government to take certain measures; we'll see what the government does.

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

Well, there seems to be a significant lack of commitment, obviously, that you've identified. I'm surprised it didn't appear more obvious in your recommendations, but thank you for pointing that out. I'll have to search for those tables.

The thing that interests me the most in your report, because we've been dealing with it in the Canada-China committee and it was the focus of an opposition motion last week, is foreign interference in Canada. I'm not particularly referring to China, although we did hear witnesses saying some of the things that are reflected here in terms of going from one place to another. Your report notes a lack of coordination, for example, and a lack of direction on where to go.

I'm looking at the problems noted here, at the challenges the RCMP faces: that the operations are focused primarily on counterterrorism; that intelligence provided by CSIS is difficult to use as evidence supporting criminal investigations; that Public Safety only recently identified and dedicated resources to the issue of foreign interference; that until late 2017, interdepartmental collaboration on foreign interference was ad hoc and issue-specific; and that prioritizing areas of concern that are the most important has needed to be addressed, and that work in this regard is in its early stages.

It seems to me, Mr. McGuinty, that all of this adds up to kind of a conclusion, in my mind, that the whole issue of foreign interference has not really been taken seriously by these agencies that are either focused on other things or don't have their act together, as it were, and we're very late in the game in doing this. Was that your conclusion as well?

[David McGuinty]

I think the committee members would agree that of course there is a lot of progress to be made. I think they would agree that—

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

You're being kind, I think.

[David McGuinty]

Well, I think they would agree that the nature of foreign interference is evolving. I think they would agree that the seriousness of the threats is becoming better known. We tried to describe those threats throughout that chapter, that review. We focused on the core community members and actors. We laid out as well what the community is already doing.

To use the language I used in the press conference, we believe we have to up our game on foreign interference. That is why we pointed to the most obviously successful, we think, reaction in a Five Eyes partner country to deal with foreign interference. That is the example of what's taking place in Australia. There are many reasons set out for that in the report as well.

We hope readers come to the conclusion that they understand better now what is going on and what other countries are doing and how they're dealing with it. I wouldn't say we're necessarily late to the game. I think the question of foreign interference is one that most countries are struggling with. We laid out the facts and the evidence based on classified information as best we could. Of course, a lot of it has been redacted. Now we're calling on the government to bring a much more centralized interdepartmental and intergovernmental approach, and at the same time inform Canadians and inform parliamentarians.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

[Rennie Marcoux]

May I add something, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

By all means.

[Rennie Marcoux]

Thank you.

Just to add to what Mr. McGuinty said, I think it's important to point out that the time frame for our review was from January 2015 to August 2018. The material we received reflects the findings and the status of the recommendations in our report.

I think we do point out that, for example, CSIS has been talking about and investigating foreign interference since its creation. We also point out that other departments don't necessarily neglect threat, but their reaction, and the whole-of-government reaction, is very much ad hoc and on a case-by-case basis. Our recommendations are to strengthen the whole-of-government approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. We'd better not do that again, because Mr. Harris will start to think that his six minutes will become eight or 10.

With that, we have 25 minutes, colleagues. I think we can squeeze in six more questions. Mr. Van Popta and Madam Khera will have five minutes each. Madame Michaud and Mr. Harris will have two and a half minutes each. Madam Stubbs will have five minutes. I'll have to be advised by my Liberal colleagues on who will have the final five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

Mr. McGuinty, you stated in answer to a question from my colleague Mr. Kurek, that you hadn't undertaken studies on foreign interference in elections, cyber-threats and foreign acquisitions, but I think you said you were now going to undertake a study into cyber-threats. Is that right?

[David McGuinty]

That's correct.

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

Is that your next study?

[David McGuinty]

It's one of our next two major reviews that are now under way. It's an examination of cyber-threats and the ability of the government to respond to those threats, keeping in mind as well, sir, that under new legislation, new powers, a private sector actor can now approach the Minister of National Defence and ask for assistance if required, if the private sector actor is now the subject of major cyber-threat activity.

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

Thank you.

Do you have any recommendations for studies that this committee could undertake [Technical difficulty—Editor] very good work that your committee[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[David McGuinty]

You're breaking up a little bit there, sir, so I couldn't get all that. Sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think he was asking whether you have any recommendations for what this, the public safety committee, could undertake that would be complementary to the work that you're undertaking.