Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you for the question.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I wouldn't agree with the premise of it. I think it's really important, when you're talking about disinformation and the source of it, to note that just because we aren't able to fully confirm it's a foreign entity.... As I said, it's really important. It could be Canadians or it could be other entities having conversations, so I wouldn't want to imply that this means it is not foreign and that it is counter to that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, and thank you for that question so I can clarify what I meant to say. What we look for are those tactics. When I said that we couldn't confirm whether it was a foreign entity, I meant it could be a foreign entity using proxies in different ways to amplify content. You need to find the link back to a foreign entity that's directing that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  RRM's mandate is specifically foreign threats to democracies. We look at the threat landscape more broadly. Perhaps Mr. Fisher would like to add to that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Perhaps I can start, and others can add as appropriate. You're right that ascertaining the impact can be challenging, but I think what this committee has heard is that we understand there is intent by many countries to interfere, and that we really take this seriously and do everything we can to address it.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, you are correct that for the RRM, which is a member of SITE.... Being able to look at the open-source environment, we are looking for tactics amplification that we may see. It's artificial amplification of content that we can ascertain has a link to a foreign entity. That's what our focus is.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I could add to that. There is a difference between being able to speak to intelligence that would have been shared with cleared party political members, who would have been briefed accordingly, and your question related to disinformation specifically. The RRM works on open-source information.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  What I would say to clarify that is the panel and the protocol are about protecting the elections at the time. For the last two elections, based on the information that was shared with the panel, at no time did it reach a threshold of notification.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Perhaps I can provide a bit of context into what we've heard. This panel has heard a lot about how difficult it is in the disinformation landscape. When we look for artificial amplification, we want to understand that landscape. We're continually learning about it, but if we're not able to ascertain that there's a foreign aspect behind that, which is pushing that amplification, then again, from our perspective, that is not something we would be focused on.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The role of the RRM is to identify potential tactics or campaigns to amplify information. As well, as it has been explained, our role is to brief the panel on that information. The panel then takes into consideration not only information we are seeing, but the full spectrum of information that they're being provided, and it is the panel that then makes a decision.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In terms of the protocol that is in place during the writ period, it is the panel that makes the assertation if any public announcement is made. Again, in this instance, what I can say is that without an ability to identify that it was a foreign entity—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  —it could have been amplification from Canadian content—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  For the purposes of clarity, because of the hybrid nature, as you said, the main message here is that, yes, we saw the amplification of content, but we were not able to ascertain if it was from a foreign entity or within domestic sources. That is our role. We flag what we're seeing for an analysis.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you for the question and for that report. Yes, any of the reports that the RRM produced were shared with the panel. What I would like to just note is that in that report, it says that it “may” be. Again, what we do is open source analytics of the information environment.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Chair. If I understand your question, it's on whether or not any information was shared with the public.