Evidence of meeting #51 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lyall King  Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment
Lisa Ducharme  Acting Director General, Federal Policing National Intelligence, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Cherie Henderson  Assistant Director, Requirements, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Adam Fisher  Director General, Intelligence Assessments, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

11:10 a.m.

Acting Director General, Federal Policing National Intelligence, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Lisa Ducharme

I am unable to respond whether there are investigations, Madam Chair, into federal election issues.

I am able to confirm that there are active investigations into foreign interference activities.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you for that.

Mr. King, given that you were chair of the SITE task force, we know that in September 2021 the SITE task force was monitoring interference targeting MP Kenny Chiu, which was released months later.

The problem is that the information was not passed on to Kenny Chiu at the time. He was kept in the dark. It didn't come to light until the election was already over. From the standpoint of combatting foreign interference, why was MP Kenny Chiu kept in the dark?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Thank you for your question.

Madam Chair, I would only say in general, as we identify through our methods what may appear to be foreign interference, we need to go through a process of evaluation before we can take actions.

What we can do, and what we did do, with the information that we had available to us was inform, as was our remit, the critical election incident protocol. That was done through regular engagements, briefings and daily reports.

There's a distinction between observing and needing to analyze—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

I just want to cut you off.

I want to give you as much time as needed to answer the question, but you did make reference to the critical election incident public protocol, which is set out in a cabinet directive. It provides, with respect to informing a candidate who is the target of interference, that the candidate or political party be informed. Surely that would mean being informed as expeditiously as possible. Wouldn't it?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Madam Chair, I would simply restate that it's not a decision of the SITE task force to engage in that. That is a decision made by that critical election incident public protocol. It's in their remit to make that decision and make that call. We provide the information that we have to them, so that they can make an informed decision.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you.

Just so everyone knows and we're all on the same page, with a nodding of heads I will get agreement that the two hours will now be in public.

(Motion agreed to)

Do you see that, Mr. Cooper? It's magic. It's a good committee to be on, this PROC committee.

I'll just say to all witnesses that, if at any time you want to jump in to answer, give a nod and we'll make that possible, because this information is really important and there are many people who are listening and engaging. As long as we keep questions and comments short, we can always have time.

Ms. O'Connell, you have up to six minutes.

February 9th, 2023 / 11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Chair, through you to the witnesses, I'm following up on Mr. Cooper's questions about the SITE committee.

Through either your testimony previously or other testimony at this committee, the Conservative Party, which is Mr. Chiu's party, did in fact send a representative who was security-cleared to have these discussions, to bring allegations to any of their candidates or, on the reverse, for you and your committee to provide information to that party member.

Can you speak to the fact that there seems to be this suggestion that nobody was notified? Would it not be through that party process, which the Conservatives had access to, that they could have raised any questions of influence and could have had that classified security briefing?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Perhaps I can begin. I would open it to my colleagues of the service to interject where appropriate.

Those engagements with cleared members of the political parties were very much to provide context to the threat—a little bit more detail to what we say publicly so they can understand—and to help them identify some of those issues themselves as well, and, quite frankly, to enable and open up some manner of dialogue.

Again, I just would like to restate that there are multiple levels of classification as well. The members we spoke to I believe were cleared up to “secret”. Sometimes our information is more than that. Classification levels can be an issue.

Again, as I was trying to state prior, there's the fact that we do take time, sometimes, to analyze before we start to take an action. I think it's important to develop a threshold and understand what you're conveying to an individual, so I would just say that—

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

I'm sorry. It's just because I'm limited on time, but if others want to jump in, please do.

With that being said, previously...and the reports from the national security community have actually said and we've talked a lot about the difference between attempts and impacts. I believe CSIS has come out and said that in SITE the protocol was not engaged. Do you still feel that for 2019 and 2021, although there were attempts made that everybody takes very seriously, the attempts did not equal impacts in the election results?

11:20 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Typically the way SITE approaches this matter is not to try to get into the evaluation of impact, ultimately. It's to understand what is happening in that domain and to inform and to try to take some action. We don't typically get into a deep assessment of the impact of that activity.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

CSIS has confirmed.... They have stated publicly that there was not an impact in the 2019 and 2021 elections despite attempts, that the protocol was not reached, the incident protocol committee was not reached to actually acknowledge anything, and that has not changed since the last time you appeared here.

11:20 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

That's correct, to my understanding. I'm not involved in that space anymore—

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Fair enough.

11:20 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

—but yes, there's no difference in that stance from my perspective.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you.

With that being said, is it not.... We heard testimony on Tuesday where our witnesses, despite the national security community not indicating any sort of decry or decree that the 2019 or 2021 elections were impacted by these attempts.... We heard from witnesses who said they felt that there was an impact in Mr. Chiu's riding.

Doesn't that somewhat undermine one of our pillars of democracy? That if we're to trust the non-partisan security officials who live in this space, who have all of the classifications that would be needed, who see the information, isn't this kind of doing China's bidding by suggesting our elections were in fact influenced, when the national security officials, who know far more than any of us in this room, who have the security classification, have come out and said they don't see that any of these attempts were successful?

Doesn't that kind of do China's bidding in undermining the civility and security of our elections?

11:20 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

I think we can only be honest and open with the facts that are before us at the end of the day. Again, you are speaking to perhaps bigger issues than I feel maybe I am able to address because of my position, but we strive—we do strive—to be open and communicate as much as possible. That is effectively why we have opened up those channels: to speak to and share some classified information with partners.

We will do our best to identify. We will do our best to get that information to the people who need it to make a decision and take an action. Ultimately, other people are going to take some of those decisions. It's not necessarily—

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

I'm sorry. With the amount of time I have left, I think Ms. Henderson would like to speak.

11:20 a.m.

Cherie Henderson Assistant Director, Requirements, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the question. I think it's a very important point that we actually need to discuss.

When we talk about foreign interference, the service is extremely focused on any foreign interference activity against our country by numerous hostile state actors, so what we are trying to do is build that picture and educate all Canadians, because all Canadians can partake in supporting all of us in protecting our sovereignty, which includes not only our elections but also all of our democratic institutions. That's why these committees are so fundamentally important as well.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you.

Mr. Fisher, I know you want to add something, but maybe that will be for next time.

I'll now invite those who don't speak both official languages to use their earpieces.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I've just learned a number of things that I'd like to ask the witnesses about, and I invite them to tell me if I am on the wrong track.

Witnesses, you are subject to a protocol that, in practice, may have prevented you from accurately disclosing the information or the warning we received from Global News to raise awareness of the threat. Do I have that right or not?

11:25 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Madam Chair, if I understand the question correctly, and just to make sure.... Are you verifying whether or not the protocol prevented us from sharing information that you're saying was publicly available?

Publicly available information is there for everybody. We are not just—

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I'll stop you right there because interpretation can affect understanding.

Your role is to advise and inform the public, and we have reports where it is written in black and white. Besides the protocol that may have prevented you from informing the public—we'll ask you about that later—is there any other reason why we weren't informed? Are there any concerns or anything else?

I bring this up because we had the Minister of Public Safety here who, in his speech, raised concerns about the stigmatization of the Chinese-Canadian community. He also talked about vigilance.

If the protocol prevents you from doing so, what is there to prevent us from making a change? In other words, do you have a duty to be vigilant about your role to inform and advise the public?

11:25 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Thank you for that.

With respect to the protocol, it's there for a very particular purpose in a defined time frame: an election period.

I will note—as Cherie, my colleague from the service, mentioned before—there are avenues outside of that through which we can communicate trends, information and our understanding of a threat to the public. The service does this through outreach and issuing reports. CSE and the cyber centre do this by sharing and issuing reports. It is the nature of some declassified information. You lose some of the granularity of those details. What's important is that people understand where the issues lie.

The protocol itself is very specific to the election period. Whether or not we determine to go public, in the event we feel we cannot hold a free and fair election.... Again, that's a decision for a panel of senior deputy ministers to make.

We all have other avenues, and we use those avenues to communicate threat information and trends in order to educate and prepare people—

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Okay.

Considering that you had elements and all the restrictive measures at the time did not allow you to inform the public, even though Global News did, was the government well aware of the results?

You say that an investigation is under way. I imagine there was a warning, a sounding bell. I'm asking because I want to make sure. People are watching and are worried about what's going on.

Also, when the minister came to meet with us, she said that she hadn't been informed. It may be a communication problem, but I want you to tell me more. What happened?