Public Safety Committee on June 6th, 2024

[David Vigneault]

It's a really important question. It speaks to the fact that, as a nation, we're going through an evolution in how we address national security issues. This is a bit of uncharted territory. In my experience, we have never seen politicians and leaders having classified security clearances and being in a position to receive information.

We have seen in the past that people who have received classified briefings have spoken publicly about what they were told. That creates an issue because the information may not be exactly as it was divulged. Also, the ability to protect sources, methods and the people gathering this information might be at risk, so I believe an evolution is required. That said, there are absolutely limits to what a leader in the opposition would be able to say. The question is whether there is an ability to reduce the threat of foreign interference by having the information and being able to make decisions. I think this is the discussion point, and the evolution of our system is required now.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Vigneault, if I receive a briefing tomorrow, could I ask questions in the House of Commons specific to, perhaps, names of people or what I saw? I'm seeing your colleague shake her head. In other words, there's a proverbial muzzle based on what is learned in that briefing. Is that right?

[David Vigneault]

I would probably use a different characterization. I would say the law would prevent the member from speaking.

The challenge we have is that there's the law, and there's also privilege in the House of Commons. Again, in terms of the evolution of how the system should work, if someone gets information in a privileged way and then uses the privilege of the House to divulge information, we are in uncharted territory for how this would be done. That's why, as a professional intelligence person, my advice would be that there is a need for a lot of discussion about this to create a new modus vivendi for Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I understand that. Perhaps when I say “muzzle”, I mean that the law would muzzle.

I'll ask the question in a different way. If an opposition MP receives a top secret classified security briefing and learns top secret classified information, including the raw intelligence that Minister LeBlanc just referenced, would the MP be able to act on that top secret information, or would acting on it potentially violate national security law?

[Nathalie Drouin, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and National Security and Intelligence Adviser to the Prime Minister, Privy Council Office]

I'll take that question.

Yes, of course they can act on it. This is why recently I offered to all parties to have a representative, in particular the leader, receive information so they can, for example, act during a by-election, act during a general election, manage their caucus and equip themselves to look at how they behave, what kind of events they are attending and what kind of relationships they are keeping. There are a lot of things they can do when they are armed with information without disclosing publicly the information they have received.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

My point is that they can't discuss the information. When I say “act”, I'm saying to deal with this information publicly, as in ask the government the hard public questions and ask the government specific questions on what is in the briefing. You can't do that. That's my point.

[Nathalie Drouin]

Minister Virani explained the legislation we have for preventing that, and behind that legislation, there are some fundamental principles. Collecting information through intelligence processes is not a contradictory process, and the targets of those collections are not in a position to defend themselves. That is why we talked about having the right balance between a very effective legislative framework when it comes to intelligence and national security and protecting human rights. I believe disclosing names that have been collected through intelligence processes would be contrary not only to our privacy principles, but also to our human rights principles.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

The minister can disclose classified information when it is in the public interest. What could be more in the public interest than whether a person is putting an X on their ballot next to the name of somebody who has been compromised by a foreign state actor?

[Nathalie Drouin]

One thing I can say is that there are a lot of mechanisms to reduce the threat. For example, CSIS can do a threat reduction measure, a defence briefing. A leader can manage his or her caucus. We can do a démarche for foreign actors. We can name what we call a PNG, persona non grata, for a consulate. A lot of things can be done to reduce the threat.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I understand that. I'm sorry; I'm not trying to interrupt. I have just a bit of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

What I'm asking is, what could be more in the public interest than that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Caputo, that's it. Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Bittle, you have six minutes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

According to Mr. Cooper, my time is running out. I think that was a veiled threat.

I have six minutes, so my time isn't running out, Mr. Cooper. That's adorable.

Anyway, my questions will be for the Department of Public Safety.

We heard testimony from witnesses who raised a concern that the provisions found in the bill won't apply to national political leadership races and conventions. Is that indeed the case? What is your interpretation of that?

[Richard Bilodeau]

The act includes government and political processes. There is a list of what they include. It is a non-exhaustive list.

Our interpretation of the bill is that it captures leadership contests because they're political processes. Ultimately, it will be up to the commissioner, but that is the intent of the bill.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

One of my colleagues has been asking witnesses their thoughts on the use of the word “association” in triggering registration obligations. Some have raised concerns that the word “association” is too broad. Can you comment on why it was chosen and how you believe it will be interpreted?

[Richard Bilodeau]

Sure.

The definition of “arrangement” was chosen to identify situations where an individual is acting “in association with” or “under the direction of”.... It's meant to communicate that there must be some form of understanding between an entity that is conducting the influence and the foreign power. There has to be some sort of understanding or agreement.

It was purposely not narrowed because we wanted to make sure that no type of arrangement, if that understanding has occurred, escapes the registration obligation because this is about transparency. There is a limit, obviously, if somebody decides to say something on their own without talking to anybody and without an understanding. There's no registration obligation at that point, but it's meant to capture a broad set of circumstances.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Another topic this committee has spent time thinking about is the independence of the commissioner. We know from the bill that the commissioner would be housed within Public Safety Canada. Why was that decision made and what benefit does it provide?

[Richard Bilodeau]

The model proposed in the bill is intended to situate the commissioner in the Department of Public Safety but with the ability to act independently in their mandate. The reason that was put in the bill was to benefit from the infrastructure that exists within the Public Safety portfolio more broadly with CSIS and the RCMP to facilitate information sharing, because the commissioner will ultimately need to rely not just on complaints or their own investigative work, but on intelligence that might be shared with them to inform their investigations. By placing the commissioner within Public Safety, there is an increased ability to do that, both from authorities to share the information and from physical infrastructure to receive that information. Ultimately, however, the decisions the commissioner will make are their decisions and the reports are their reports.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Is there any way for the minister to direct those reports or what the commissioner is doing?

[Richard Bilodeau]

The bill indicates that the minister must cause the report to be tabled, but ultimately it is the report of the commissioner. The minister would not have the ability to change that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Are there any logistical challenges in making the commissioner an independent officer of Parliament?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I'm not a machinery-of-government expert. I would defer to people who are.

That would require a different approach and would be more complex than setting it up within the Department of Public Safety. It could take more time.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I agree with the opposition members who raised that they want to see this in place before the next election. If we amend the legislation to make the commissioner an independent officer of Parliament, could that delay implementation of the bill until after the election?

[Richard Bilodeau]

It's a difficult question to answer because, as I said, I'm not a machinery-of-government expert in setting up offices of Parliament.

To speak to my area, setting up the infrastructure would definitely be easier to do within the Department of Public Safety.