Evidence of meeting #126 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was india.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Basically, on the other side, the Leader of the Opposition says that it's going to be gag orders from whomever.
Would it make sense, as a responsible leader, to take that clearance and get all of that information, so that leader is better placed to protect or play a role in protecting Canadians?
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
What I would say is that we at the service will be able to brief more to those who have a security clearance. Madame Drouin and others may speak to this also, because classified information doesn't uniquely come from the service. There is CSE and there are other agencies across government.
I think I have to leave it at that.
Liberal
Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council Office and National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister, Privy Council Office
No, that's good. Thank you.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you.
I come back to the RCMP.
What lessons has the RCMP learned from this situation?
How will it prepare for similar scenarios to not happen in future, so that Canadian lives are safe and not at risk?
Commr Michael Duheme
In my press conference, I did say that there were exceptional circumstances.
One of the lessons learned here is to explore other tools. If public safety is at risk, explore other tools in order to disrupt.
This is exactly what we did in reaching out to the NSIA, as well as GAC, to look at options, considering that the threshold for laying charges against a diplomat is fairly high and the chance of prosecution sometimes is challenging.
Considering that there was an immediate public safety threat, we stepped outside and used the disruption method, which is not commonly used in the RCMP but has proved to work very well based on the results we've seen.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
There are a number of things in Bill C-70 that could assist the service in dealing with foreign interference threats. I mentioned earlier that there is now a provision for us to be able to engage in resilience discussions and disclosures with people outside of the federal government. That's something we've been doing already.
There are other provisions to allow things like production orders and preservation orders, which could assist our investigations.
Importantly for us, there's a statutory review of our legislation, which will allow the service and its legislation to potentially keep pace with evolving technical threats.
I think I can leave it at that. There are a number of other measures.
I should say that it also closed one of our investigative gaps, which had come to light recently, where CSIS was unable to collect information about a threat actor in Canada if that information resided outside of Canada. That could certainly be applied in a foreign interference context. That was resolved with Bill C-70 also.
Liberal
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McGregor talked about what the situation with India might mean for Canada's relationship with its allies.
Mr. Morrison, in the Washington Post article you mentioned earlier, you said that your approach was mainly to talk to our allies and send a message to counter misinformation being spread by India about the situation.
Why did you decide to speak to our allies through the media? Is it because you were targeting more the general public in those allied countries? I imagine that there were already conversations happening with those countries.
What does that mean for our relationship with other countries engaging in foreign interference in Canada's democratic institutions? What evidence do we have that India doesn't want to collaborate?
Mr. Duheme, you said earlier that Canada's position on the situation with India right now isn't the same as its position on foreign interference by Russia and China.
What could that mean for Canada's relationship with countries like China and Russia?
My question is for Ms. Drouin or one of the other witnesses.
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you for the question.
With regard to the first part of the question on our allies, I will reiterate that we discussed it with them before going to Singapore.
What we're dealing with here is not unique to Canada. We've mentioned the Five Eyes. I have mentioned that we did things in lockstep with our allies all the way through Singapore, when we returned to Singapore and since, because other countries are also talking to India.
I don't mind saying that our media strategy continues as well, because there are various ways to send messages and to correct the record. Believe me, India is coming at us in full force with its own narrative, which simply doesn't add up. Allies have been an important part of this from the beginning, as have strategic public communications.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
I go now to Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes, please.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On the whole subject of foreign interference, I've heard it in my couple of years at this committee: We know the Iranian diaspora would have something to say about the Government of Iran. I've heard from the Tibetan community about what the People's Republic of China is engaged in. Now, of course, we're hearing the South Asian community with respect to the Government of India.
In my riding, I have a large South Asian population as well. The historic Paldi Sikh Temple is in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I think, to an earlier point, the attention on the Government of India is validating what many in that community have known for quite some time now.
I think my questions will be for both Director Rogers and Commissioner Duheme.
I don't doubt for a second that the men and women in your respective agencies are going to work every day and treating this with utmost seriousness. As a parliamentarian, it's also my job to hold to account, and I can't escape the fact that the most recent NSICOP report labelled Canada as a “low-risk, high reward” environment in which our foreign adversaries are able to operate.
I know that sources have reported to CBC News that the clandestine Indian network is still largely in place. You might see some elements of that disappear and go more quiet.
Maybe we'll start with you, Director Rogers. How do we flip those terms around? With the passage of Bill C-70, do you feel confident that we're now on a path towards making Canada a high-risk, low-reward environment in which to operate for our foreign adversaries?
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think that's a very important question. I would start by saying that I think the extraordinary circumstances around these events and the fact that the RCMP has gone public demonstrate the seriousness with which we take the issue. I have to imagine that this will set the tone that this is not a permissive environment for the Government of India—or others, for that matter—to operate in. I think this sets a very clear tone that this is not something that would be accepted in Canada.
You're absolutely right that the people within the service will be very diligently pursuing foreign interference from all countries who may seek to perpetrate it here in Canada, including India, China and others.
Liberal
Commr Michael Duheme
I would add—again, tying it to our public media event on the 14th—that it's about education. It's about letting people know we're there and want to work with them. Any criminal investigation, be it a bike theft or a fraudulent cheque, starts with people coming forward and talking to us. I can appreciate that some communities are reticent about approaching us because of their experience with the police in their respective countries, but we want people to come forward. We want to educate people.
The other challenge we sometimes face is this: All of this is done in a clandestine manner. Until people come forward, or when information is given to us through which we can launch an investigation, we're unhappy. We want people to make sure we're there. The message is that we are working with all departments and the service. We work hand in hand with the service on many of the files.
Liberal
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, thank you to the witnesses for being here. It is quite the panel we have: the commissioner of the RCMP, the national security adviser, the director of CSIS and two top-level deputy ministers for Public Safety and Global Affairs. I appreciate your time very much, and your commitment to national security in this country. I have no doubt that you all work extremely hard to keep Canadians safe.
Ultimately, of course, you all answer to the Prime Minister in some way or another. He is the head of our government. You'll recall that, in 2015, when Mr. Trudeau first became Prime Minister, a document was released called “Open and Accountable Government”. I'm sure you're all familiar with it. It mentions that, as the head of government, the Prime Minister has special responsibility for national security, federal-provincial-territorial relations and the conduct of international affairs.
Do you all agree that the Prime Minister is the head of our national security apparatus? Does anyone disagree with that?
No.
The responsibility ultimately ends with him, as you agreed.
We are in a circumstance in which multiple individuals—one for sure and perhaps others, according to the Washington Post article—have been murdered by those with direct ties to the Government of India. We have quite an extraordinary situation on our hands. We also have a situation in which we have a foreign interference inquiry with Justice Hogue. The real centre of that is China, which has been interfering in multiple elections and looking to undermine our democracy. We have misinformation en masse from Russia. We have issues with Iran. We have issues with Pakistan and others. Canada, in my understanding, has never been in this type of pickle—to put it lightly—where so many adversaries, and others whom we thought were certainly friends, are coming at us from all angles.
Can you point to any other time, deputy minister, when Canada was facing this many threats in this way, domestically, from foreign actors? Was there any other time in the last two generations, for example?
Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council Office and National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister, Privy Council Office
It's true that any attempts at foreign interference need to be taken seriously. It's been said that the last elections were fair and free from the consequences of foreign interference.
As parliamentarians, you introduced Bill C‑70, which was a step in—
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to cut off the national security adviser, but that wasn't, specifically, my question. I appreciate her commentary in response to my commentary, but she was not directly answering my question.
I just put that aside for now, as, actually, my colleague from the NDP mentioned that an NSICOP report labelled Canada “low-risk, high reward”, enabling foreign adversaries, in essence, to come to Canada, wreak havoc and cause a lot of crime, chaos and even death now—from India, for example—as you mentioned. My concern is about leadership from the top, given that the only individual ultimately responsible for national security....
We have death on our hands. We had 13 more individuals in peril. From an objective analysis, things are not going that well in Canada. I appreciate that there are things you've done that we'll never know but should be grateful for. I appreciate that very much, but the fact that there are individuals being murdered in Canada by a foreign government is beyond comprehension. I'm sure you agree.
From our perspective as the official opposition, tasked with holding the Liberal government accountable, this is an abject failure to maintain national security, the fact that individuals have been murdered and that there are communities in this country—the Sikh community, for example—that feel incredibly vulnerable under the so-called leadership of the current Prime Minister. I think that, really, the reason we are here is that he has failed to maintain national security. The reason we have the national inquiry into foreign interference is that there has been a failure to maintain the integrity of our democracy in terms of attacks from China: The confidence issue that creates across Canada is deeply concerning, and the message that sends to other adversaries is that they can take advantage of our democratic process and our trusting nature.
I think that really needs to be underlined, in the sense that your limitations are what the country's leadership's are. I just want to underline that, because I feel that members opposite seem to have an obsession with the opposition leader, when I wish that the Liberal members would apply that same energy to holding their own Prime Minister accountable for failing to stop the murders, by a foreign government, of a number of people in Canada, and for failing to stop interference with our elections. That's really quite a frustrating matter that has happened on their watch, while they've been part of the Liberal government.
Just to conclude, I again thank you for your efforts, and I appreciate very much what you've done to protect Canadians and to fill the gaps created by the lack of leadership by our Prime Minister and his failure to do so.
Liberal
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to remind those who are watching, maybe the press who are here or others who are paying attention to this, that this study is about “electoral interference and criminal activities...by agents of the Government in India”, but there seem to be only three parties that are asking questions on this study, while one party is asking questions based on a new love affair with Canadian journalism. It's pretty interesting that, all of a sudden, there's a big love affair with Canadian journalists over international journalists. I'm pretty intrigued about that, and I hope that goes further in terms of supporting journalism in Canada.
Part of this study focuses on disinformation tactics employed by the Government of India. I'm very pleased to hear that there is actually a media strategy employed on this file. Can somebody elaborate for me what the hallmarks of Indian disinformation are, with some examples?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The national security adviser spoke a bit about some of the tactics that we've seen in this very particular case. There is a deep concern that these activities are happening, not just from one country but from multiple countries.
One thing we talked a bit about today and need continue to talk about is this: How do we ensure the resilience of Canadians? How do we ensure that they are well informed about efforts to disinform or misinform them? There's more to be done in that space. That's an effort ongoing by the Department of Public Safety, among other colleagues. We're well informed by the intelligence from the service and from the RCMP about the tactics that are being used, but right now what we really need to focus on is how we increase resilience so that Canadians are able to detect that and make sure they're not affected by it.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
We have seen Canada, in the past, even prohibit Russian broadcasters and television, I believe, from working on Canadian networks, because of that disinformation. What I'm hearing from my diaspora, and what other members hear as well, is that, when they watch a lot of international news, unfortunately, they're watching a lot of the propaganda coming from that country. In particular, in this matter, they're hearing that Canada is harbouring terrorists and that India, actually, is only going after terrorists. They're actually justifying it, and they're saying that Canada is accepting terrorists and giving them free rein. What are we doing to counter that narrative that's being spewed to Canadians? Unfortunately, some diaspora populations watch international news more than they watch Canadian broadcasters.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
There are three parts to the strategy. One we've talked a bit about, some of the media strategy that we've employed recently.
We at Public Safety are working very closely with colleagues at the Department of Heritage, who also have engagement with the CRTC, amongst others, in terms of how we manage that at the macro level. How do we deal with some of the outlets that are propagating that disinformation and misinformation? There's work to be done there.
We also spoke about direct engagement with Canadians. I think some of the outreach, the engagement, the trust and confidence that we're talking about are all also going to have significant impacts in terms of making sure Canadians understand when they are being affected by disinformation and misinformation.