Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to each of you for being here today and assisting our committee in investigating this issue.

Of course, the revelations of October 14 have to be taken in the context of what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons, of the NSICOP report and of the Hogue commission's initial report, which all extensively mention India.

Ms. Drouin, I'd like to start with you.

Of course, a number of weeks ago, the Prime Minister was before the Hogue commission and made a pretty stunning allegation in naming Conservative Party parliamentarians who were under threat of foreign interference. He neglected to mention other parties, but I can only surmise that other parties are involved, given that both the Hogue commission and the NSICOP report made mention of other parties.

In the context of the Prime Minister's remarks, was the source country of that foreign interference India? Are you able to confirm that?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I mean, if you look at all the public summaries that—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'm sorry. I'm just looking for a short answer.

Can you determine whether India was the source of the foreign interference, specifically in the context of the Prime Minister's remarks before the Hogue commission?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I think I need to answer that if you look at all the public summaries that we have disclosed to the commission, you'll see that three main countries are doing foreign interference: China, Russia and India. We have others, but those are the three main countries.

India is active with all parties, including the Liberals, the Conservatives—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'm sorry. My time is short.

You understand the political climate we're operating in. What was the intention of the Prime Minister's remarks?

I mean, you must have known what the fallout would be from those remarks. I'm just trying to understand, because we're still wanting to know the names, but of course the names can't be released. I understand there's a wide gulf between evidence and intelligence.

What intention was that serving, given the political climate we're in right now?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I'm here to talk to you about the facts. What I'm telling you is that India is a player when it comes to foreign interference. India can target all parties depending on their respective interests.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Rogers, I'd like to turn to you.

Welcome to the committee, and congratulations on your appointment as director of CSIS.

Is it clear that a security clearance is not automatic for federal party leaders? They have to go through the same process that anyone would.

Can you confirm that?

[Daniel Rogers]

Yes, that's correct.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much.

We are in a situation right now, with all of this that's going on, where Green Party leader Elizabeth May, BQ leader Yves Blanchet—I believe he is in the process of getting his clearance—and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh have all taken the steps necessary to get that security clearance to be fully briefed.

I want to understand, from your perspective as the director of CSIS, what the desired outcome is of having federal party leaders briefed. I understand they are under the obligations of the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act, but what is the intention in having them briefed? What are the desired outcomes and actions that you are hoping for by having them briefed?

[Daniel Rogers]

Thank you for that question, and maybe Madame Drouin would like to add something.

From our perspective, the more knowledgeable party leaders are about the threat of foreign interference and some of the specifics that we've seen through our intelligence, the more they can be aware and the more they may be able to take appropriate actions within their own parties.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll let you finish, but you said “actions within their own parties”.

We've had complaints from the Conservative Party leader, saying that it's going to gag him, and he can't speak publicly about it. I think we all understand that.

In terms of actions—because I think this is the crux of the issue—what specific actions can a party leader take, without breaching the security of information act, that would give CSIS confidence that we're treating this as seriously as we should?

[Daniel Rogers]

I might say that part of those conversations we could have with party leaders is around particular types of intelligence that we might see. It's engaging in a dialogue with those leaders about what actions they feel they may be able to take and how we might be able to provide information or disclose information to help them take those actions. A dialogue on that would start that process.

I think there are actions that party leaders could take if we were aware of certain types of threats. That might involve looking at the way their party is operating. I don't want to speak to any hypothetical situations. I would say that a lot of that would be case-specific.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I appreciate that you don't want to speak in hypotheticals but, theoretically, given how much power a party leader has, I guess that could be steps such as keeping certain individuals away from certain parliamentary activities, and, maybe at the most extreme, preventing someone who might be completely compromised from running under the party's banner in the next election. Is that something that could be done?

[Daniel Rogers]

Again, I don't really want to speak to specifics. I think party leaders know their roles better than I do. I think our objective, from the perspective of the service, is to give them the information that we can to enable them to make good decisions.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Do you have anything to add to that? Mr. Rogers signalled to you.

[Nathalie Drouin]

I totally agree with that. I guess you know that leaders of parties can manage their party, their caucus members. That management authority gives them a series of tools in terms of responding to the intelligence we can share with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We go now to Ms. Dancho, please, for five minutes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Drouin, you are the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister, so you take direction from him. Do you take direction from anyone else in his office—his chief of staff, for example?

[Nathalie Drouin]

No, I do not.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Only from the Prime Minister.... Did the Prime Minister authorize you to leak this information to The Washington Post?

[Nathalie Drouin]

The Prime Minister did not direct us in terms of the media strategy. It was a strategy that we developed at the civil servant level. The PMO and other MOs were aware of that mitigating strategy if India wished to not collaborate with us, but the Prime Minister did not direct us to do it, nor did they approve what was going to be shared with The Washington Post.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

As you said, they were aware that you were about to do it. Is that correct?

[Nathalie Drouin]

The whole strategy has been shared with the Prime Minister and his office.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Did that include leaking the information to The Washington Post—

[Nathalie Drouin]

We did not leak information to The Washington Post.