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 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 51 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to continue its study on foreign election interference. The first hour will be public. For the second hour, we'll continue in camera.

From the Communications Security Establishment, we have the former chair of the SITE task force, Lyall King, director, risk mitigation programs. From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Adam Fisher, director general, intelligence assessments, and Cherie Henderson, assistant director, requirements. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Lisa Ducharme, acting director general.

Thank you, all, for being here today.

Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone to please address all comments through the chair.

I understand, Mr. King, that you will be bringing greetings on behalf of everyone. You have up to five minutes.

Welcome.

11 a.m.

Lyall King Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Thank you very much.

Hello. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to reappear on the study of foreign election interference.

My name is Lyall King. I am the former chair of the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, also known as SITE. I am now the director of risk mitigation programs at the Communications Security Establishment. I am very happy to be joined today by my colleagues from CSIS and the RCMP, with whom we worked very closely in the SITE task force.

Since our last appearance on November 3, there has been a great deal of media attention on the topic of foreign interference. The SITE task force understands the concerns shown by Canadians, and we do take them very seriously. I would like to begin by providing some background on—and revisiting a bit—the SITE task force and outlining a couple of the key trends observed on the threat of foreign interference. I hope this will help set the stage and provide some context for the discussions we have today.

As mentioned in our previous appearance, the CSE recently published the renewed national cyber-threat assessment, the NCTA. The NCTA highlights that online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries seeking to influence elections and impact international discourse related to current events. We assess that misinformation, disinformation and malinformation—referred to sometimes as MDM—propagated by state-sponsored cyber-threat actors does represent an ongoing and persistent threat to Canadians.

I will now return briefly to an overview of the SITE task force and the work we do. As I discussed in my last appearance, I believe it is important to have a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each of the SITE task force members, as well as the mandate of the SITE task force. The SITE task force is comprised of officials from the CSE, CSIS, the RCMP and Global Affairs Canada.

The SITE task force's mandate—just to reiterate—is to provide a clear point of engagement within the security and intelligence community for government partners; to review and focus intelligence collection, assessment and open-source analysis related to foreign interference; to provide government partners, senior public servants and other partners with situational awareness; and to promote the use of intelligence, assessment and open-source information analysis in the protection of electoral processes through sharing with partners or, when our mandates permit, taking action to mitigate the threat.

I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the important contributions that our partners have made to the task force. Again, this is an overview and does not cover all of the roles and responsibilities of SITE task force members.

CSIS provides threat briefings and intelligence reporting to Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Elections, and provides assessments of hostile state activity methodologies and capabilities to Government of Canada decision-makers. Global Affairs Canada provides research on disinformation campaigns targeting Canada by foreign actors; reports on global trends, metrics and incidents; and coordinates attribution of incidents. The RCMP investigates any criminal activity related to interference or influence of Canada's electoral processes, and works closely in partnership with intelligence, law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

The CSE provides intelligence and cyber-assessments on the intentions, activities and capabilities of foreign threat actors. We protect government systems and networks related to elections through cyber-defence measures; and provide cybersecurity advice and guidance to political parties, provinces and other institutions involved in democratic processes.

The important work the SITE task force conducts is also done outside of election periods as we continue to help the government assess and respond to foreign threats to Canada's electoral processes.

I'll just note that, since our last appearance, the CSE was tasked with a production of papers order to facilitate the committee's study on foreign elections interference. We do understand the important work of the committee, which is why we have produced and worked to provide documents in response to that order. We submitted 36 documents in total to ensure that your committee had the necessary information needed to complete its study, while at the same time respecting the national security limitations.

In conclusion, I would just state that the SITE task force does remain vigilant to protect Canadians and Canada's democracy from threats of foreign interference. I do hope this opportunity to reappear on the committee's study helps to answer further questions you may have and better showcase the importance of SITE.

Thank you for the opportunity to reappear, and we look forward to answering your questions.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you so much for those opening comments.

We will now begin with our six-minute rounds starting with Mr. Cooper for up to six minutes.

Please comment through the chair, and I would ask that no two people speak at the same time.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll direct my question to Mr. King or whichever official is in the best position to answer.

What is the highest security classification level of information that will be provided to this committee during the first hour?

11:05 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

We'll only be able to discuss unclassified information in this setting today.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Would that also be the case in the second hour?

11:05 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

Yes. Madam Chair, you have my apologies. We will only be able to discuss unclassified information in this particular setting today in both sessions.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Is there no material difference with respect to the security level of information that would be offered in the first hour versus the second hour?

11:05 a.m.

Director, Risk Mitigation Programs, Communications Security Establishment

Lyall King

That is correct. I can confirm that there will be no difference in the level of classification we will discuss from the open session to the in camera session.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Given that there is no material difference, it seems to me that it is entirely unnecessary to go in camera, especially having regard for the advice that CSIS has provided, including what was laid out in a February 2021 memo to the Prime Minister that issues of foreign interference be grounded in a policy of sunlight and transparency. Therefore, I move that the second hour remain in public.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Mr. Cooper, I think what's suitable for the purposes of this committee, and I will welcome comment.... Pause the clock on his time, please. I would love a signal from others as to what would be best. I think the level of conversation in an in camera setting is different from an in public conversation.

We have, as a committee, up until now been able to find and chart a path forward, which I regard and respect. I think that you should use your six minutes, and I will gauge the audience—Mr. Turnbull wants in—and we can then sort out what the best way to proceed is, but I think it is taken in good faith.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

I have no problem with what Mr. Cooper is suggesting. He didn't ask all the witnesses that question, so I just wonder whether there are any others who would reply differently to that question.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I understand that the appearance today by witnesses is through the SITE task force, and Mr. King is speaking on behalf of the task force. Therefore, the answer would remain the same.

I would take a nodding of heads if it's not the case. It seems consistent.

Mr. Cooper, why don't we proceed with your six minutes? I'll get a gauge of the room, and then we'll get back to this.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

We have a motion on the floor. I don't think there's any objection. It appears that we might have reached unanimous consent on this.

February 9th, 2023 / 11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I would have liked two minutes to think about the pros and cons.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I think you're right that we can get there. Is it okay that one member gets a couple of minutes to reflect, and we continue with your time to proceed with maximum time? I think we can definitely get to the bottom of this. Can we proceed with our questions, and we'll get that sorted out before your six minutes are over?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

I don't want to belabour this, Madam Chair, but will there be a vote on the motion upon the conclusion of my six-minute round?

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I think that we can get consensus, that we don't even need a vote. Therefore, that's what I would like to proceed with.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Okay, that's fair enough.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I will return your six minutes to you, and I will get a good gauge. By the end of your time, your four minutes that are now remaining, I will have an answer. Is that suitable, Mr. Cooper?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

That's very good, Madam Chair.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I appreciate your collaboration here.

We'll go back to you, Mr. Cooper.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Ms. Ducharme, can you confirm that there are ongoing RCMP criminal investigations respecting foreign interference arising from the 2019 and 2021 elections?

11:10 a.m.

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

Thank you for the question.

Madam Chair, I can confirm that there were no criminal investigations into the 2019 elections, as per Commissioner Lucki's letter to this committee dated 28 November, 2022. That being said, there are active investigations into foreign actor interference activities at any given time—multiple investigations.

With respect to the 2021 elections, I am unable to respond whether there are active investigations into the election at this time.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

There are active criminal investigations pertaining to interference in the electoral process. Is that correct?