Thank you for raising this very important issue in committee.
The first thing I want to say about this is that I have confidence in the reports by Mr. Judd and Mr. Rosenberg on the work done during the most recent elections. In spite of the real threat that existed, there's no reason to believe that the overall integrity of the elections was in jeopardy. Nevertheless, we must bear that in mind.
What can be done to address the real problems that arise during an election campaign, when it's very difficult for politicians to intervene? As I was saying to Mr. Green in answer to a previous question, we want to avoid having politicians respond publicly during an election campaign to those kinds of situations, because it would obviously be seen as partisan, and no doubt rightly so. It's a very uncomfortable situation. At the same time, the public service is also very uncomfortable having to intervene publicly during an election campaign, but I think that must nonetheless be the remedy.
Some work needs to be done regarding the threshold. When it comes to interference, what is the threshold at which the panel of deputy ministers, the director of CSIS and others must publicly intervene? Perhaps that threshold is a bit too high. It should be lowered, but not too much. Otherwise, there will be too many public statements coming from the panel.
To repeat somewhat what I said earlier, I think the public needs to better understand how the system works and why things are done the way they are. That can only be done though active communication with the public, and that has to include the members. They're not well enough informed, at present. They're not getting enough information from the intelligence services to be able to act as spokespeople. Consequently, they need to be better informed.