Public Safety Committee on April 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Now we go to Ms. Damoff for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty, Senator Lankin and others for being here today. I especially thank you for the work you do on NSICOP.

It's been in the news a lot lately. I'm so privileged and proud that I was on this committee when we created NSICOP, as well as NSIRA. At the time, Canada was late to the game in creating this committee. I think at the time the U.K. had had a committee similar to ours for about 20 years. That's why we said we'd review it in five years, because we wanted to see how it was working and how it evolved. I think my friend's math was a little off—it's not been seven years, but about five and a half. I'm disappointed to hear about the cabinet confidences, because that is something we discussed at the time of the creation of the committee.

You were talking about top-secret interpreters. I think one of the things that have been missed in the conversation generally about NSICOP is that it's not “top secret” because you're not wanting to be transparent with Canadians. Can you maybe explain why you have a top-secret clearance, and why you're meeting in a different location? Why is that critical to the work you do?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks for the question.

It speaks directly to the access the committee has to highly classified information. That information is shared after a process of screening members for top-secret security clearance, swearing an oath and, effectively, as parliamentarians, signing away our parliamentary privilege.

It's also important for members and Canadians to understand that the government doesn't have a majority of members on this committee. It was actually designed so that no government would have a majority of members on the committee. In fact, with the Senate and House combined, the government is always in a minority situation. However, I think it's important for members and Canadians to know that, in the last five and a half years, we've never had to hold a vote. Everything has been unanimous. If we don't have a unanimous outcome, we go back at it again and deliberate.

It's important for us to remind Canadians that we deal with classified information and material. We have to be careful in how we use and share it, because it speaks to, for example, the sources and methods behind it. Where did this information come from? How did our information collectors obtain it? If it's shared publicly, that can put at risk those systems. It can put at risk the Canadians who are good women and men working in security and intelligence in this country. They are working to help keep us safe and deal with national security and intelligence threats. We have to be very careful, and behind closed doors, because some of the information we get is from our Five Eyes partners. Perhaps it's shared with us in great confidence that it won't be shared again or passed on anywhere else, in any other shape or form.

There are privacy considerations we have to work around. The committee is not choosing to hide itself in a secure facility somewhere because it doesn't want to see the light of day. On the contrary, Senator Lankin and other members—and Mr. Motz, during his time at NSICOP—were very forceful in helping the committee come to the conclusion that we want to be as transparent as we can. We want to share as much information as we can. We want to push out on the redaction process as hard as we can for Canadians' benefits.

However, the decision to do things in a secure facility when handling highly classified information is not something we invented just because we want to be secret people. It's because we have to handle this information.

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

Also, you're required to keep it secret for life. It's not just during your time as a parliamentarian. Is that correct?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's correct. Under the Security of Information Act and the oath we swear, no information of this nature can ever be wittingly or unwittingly shared.

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

Would you agree that our democracy in Canada is one of the strongest and most stable in the world?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm not sure I can answer that question completely. It's not something the committee has applied its mind to.

I will say that, with respect to the cybersecurity review we've done, we have progress to make. It's a work in progress. However, I would want Canadians to understand that the system we've evolved in Canada, on the cybersecurity front at the federal level, is very good and world-renowned, frankly. We should be confident we have a system in place that's keeping our information safe, as well, but there is work to be done.

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

I know my time is up, but I want to say I'm very proud of the work you and the committee are doing, and I thank you sincerely for it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll pass it on to the other members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question about the allegations of foreign interference.

As we know, on March 6 of this year, the Prime Minister announced that the NSICOP would be undertaking a review of foreign interference in the 43rd and 44th federal elections. Some authorities or organizations have already started their reviews of these alleged cases of foreign interference. The Prime Minister also appointed a special rapporteur who will be charged with the work. You probably know that the Bloc Québécois has asked for an independent and public inquiry on this issue. If the votes of some Canadians were not what they initially intended, we think that those Canadians should be made aware of what happened.

Given that the members of your committee are bound by confidentiality and secrecy constraints, do you believe that your committee is best placed to conduct such a review?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The committee members have not discussed this. We received a request from the Prime Minister to continue our work in the field of foreign interference. You should know that we have already submitted to the House of Commons a report on a review that covered three years worth of activities and over 40,000 documents. It was the most extensive review done in Canada on the subject. We submitted our report to the Prime Minister and to Parliament three years ago. We are picking up where we left off and concentrating on what happened during the last two elections.

As to the work of Mr. Johnston and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, that remains to be seen. We do not know what Mr. Johnston will recommend if he recommends anything at all.

As for our committee, we will carry on with our work. We have made our work agenda public. Honestly, we don't have any other comment to make on all the debates that are going on outside of our committee. We are concentrating on the work at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead, for two and a half minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

On the issue of foreign interference, the NDP brought forward, and Parliament passed, a motion calling for a public inquiry.

There is no doubt that NSICOP has an important role to play. We also firmly believe that a public inquiry is warranted and needed in this regard. When we look at the excellent recommendations you put forward, again there is a sense, as the allegations have come out in the last few months, of possible support by the Chinese government of certain candidates from a couple of political parties. Concerns were already raised last year around Russian interference in Canada. We saw this with the so-called “freedom convoy”, which caused such misery in downtown Ottawa, depriving people of groceries, medication, and sleep. These are major concerns.

I see the recommendations, but I also note that to adequately respond to the threat of foreign interference requires Elections Canada to be bolstered and the disinformation campaigns to be stopped. I see the recommendations, but do you feel that a broader degree of coordination is warranted to push back against this to ensure that, after you've done your review of previous elections, we can get the answers for Canadians and ensure that in future elections we can stop any possibility of those attempts to influence our electorate increasing or deepening in any way?

You offer these recommendations. What about the coordination to actually get them implemented?

[Frances Lankin]

You asked a question that perhaps asks us to predict what our recommendations will be on this review, and we haven't done the review yet, so please excuse me if I don't go so far as to adequately answer that.

First of all, the recommendations that came out in the first part of our foreign interference review were based on the period of study we looked at. Whether it's that or whether it's cybersecurity, we see the world speeding up on these issues, so that will be something that will be part of this as we look at this and understand it.

It also calls upon us to understand a bit of the history of how this has come along. It's not as if it's just now that we're finding out about these cases of interference. There have been alarm bells over the years. I'm one who firmly believes that governments of all political stripes have responded by putting in place measures and have continued to build on those. If anything, what we will look at is whether they have kept pace with the need, but we are not at that point to be able to answer that. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. I'm afraid we have to draw the line there.

Thank you to NSICOP for all the work you do on an ongoing basis. It's very important. We appreciate your time with us today. It's very helpful.

Thank you all.

With that, we are adjourned.