Foreign Interference - Parliamentary Briefer

We’ve been hearing a lot about foreign interference lately, and the news hasn’t been good. If, for some reason, you’ve been looking for an excuse to drop yourself into a deep pit of helpless despair over the topic, then your go-to resource is definitely Sam Cooper’s The Bureau. In addition, Professor Wesley Wark has also contributed good research in this space.

But if all you’re after is a quick summary of the 18 hours of parliamentary committee discussion across nine separate meetings since back in June, then right here is exactly where you need to be.

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions (and access the original transcripts for yourself), but I will note that my trusty AI research assistant surprised me by signing off with an extraordinarily pessimistic conclusion.

Both the Public Safety and National Security (SECU) and Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) committees addressed the issue through those months.

As is the plan for these Parliamentary Briefers, the summaries and analysis are courtesy of my generative AI research assistants. I’m just here to guide the conversation.

---

SECU Committee Summary

The Public Safety and National Security (SECU) committee convened to investigate foreign interference by the Government of India, focusing on public safety and electoral interference. Key participants included representatives from the Privy Council Office, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Discussion topics included:

• National Security Risks: Officials highlighted concerns over public safety due to interference linked to India, noting a long-standing investigation by CSIS into these activities.

• Limitations on Disclosure: Due to ongoing investigations, officials expressed that some information could not be fully disclosed.

• Bilateral Relations and Cooperation: Efforts at collaboration with India had met with limited success, impacting Canada's national security and public safety response.

The committee discussed the broader implications of such interference on community safety and Canadian sovereignty, acknowledging that public transparency was limited due to the sensitive nature of ongoing investigations.

The Audit: Did the SECU committee not discuss China at all?

The SECU committee’s discussion focused primarily on interference linked to the Government of India. However, it is common for discussions on foreign interference to also touch upon other countries, such as China, given the broader context of state-sponsored activities. I’ll review the records specifically for mentions of China within the SECU committee's discussions to see if they addressed it in any capacity.

The SECU committee did discuss China in the context of foreign interference. Members referenced various concerns related to China's influence, often in comparison or conjunction with interference activities by other nations. Key areas of discussion included:

• Cybersecurity Threats: China was cited as a significant actor in cyber-attacks targeting Canadian infrastructure and political figures, similar to other state-sponsored threats.

• Intelligence and Surveillance: Witnesses discussed China's involvement in surveillance activities within Canada, reflecting broader issues in handling state-sponsored interference.

• Comparative Threat Analysis: China was frequently compared to other countries, particularly in discussions on the types and persistence of foreign interference in Canada.

The SECU committee's analysis of foreign interference was comprehensive, extending beyond India to include China and other international actors as ongoing areas of concern.

PROC Committee Summary

The Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) committee discussed foreign interference, specifically focusing on cyber-attacks targeting members of Parliament. Key issues discussed included:

• Increase in Cyber-attacks: Experts warned of an expected rise in cyber-attacks, particularly state-sponsored ones, directed at government officials at various levels.

• Types of Threats: Intelligence experts identified primary threats, including state-sponsored actors, radicalized individuals, organized crime, political activists, and insider threats.

• Concerns over Past Government Responses: Witnesses criticized previous governments for neglecting or avoiding action on foreign interference threats, which may have emboldened foreign agents.

Witnesses urged for improved cybersecurity measures and a higher level of awareness among elected officials about these threats to protect democratic institutions and individuals.

The Audit: Could you identify any particularly contentious or surprising discussions in either committee?