Evidence of meeting #56 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 interference.
A video is available from Parliament.
Noon
D/Commr Michael Duheme
The RCMP is committed to answering this question.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
Ms. Sahota, you have four minutes and 20 seconds.
Noon
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you. There are so many more questions and there's never enough time.
I want to thank the witnesses, first and foremost.
At the beginning of the statements, it was mentioned that many Chinese Canadians become victims of the type of foreign interference that occurs. Would you also say that candidates could be blindsided and become victims of this type of foreign interference?
Noon
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
The purpose of foreign interference is, again, to push the agenda of a foreign country. As we have mentioned, it takes many different forms. Absolutely that could include engaging candidates, engaging staff and engaging people of different parts of Canadian civil society. As we have said, everybody, potentially, depending on their position, could be subject to foreign interference.
Noon
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Does your agency regularly brief parliamentarians on foreign interference and how to protect themselves? Especially if a candidate may be a victim of foreign interference, would your agency brief them about it? Has it done so for these occurrences in the past?
Noon
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
We brief many parliamentarians across party lines and across different levels of government, as I mentioned before.
We also continue to publicly speak about foreign interference. We have publications that exist specifically in terms of foreign interference. A guide is available in multiple languages to help people understand very concretely what foreign interference is and what they could do about it.
CSIS has been engaged with its partners. I believe the chief also has examples.
12:05 p.m.
Caroline Xavier Chief, Communications Security Establishment
I would just add that since 2017, the CSE has been putting out publications with regard to threats to democratic institutions.
One thing we clearly outline in the guidance that we provided to democratic institutions around general elections is that foreign interference could happen to voters, candidates and politicians—as recently as the 2021 election, as well.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Because I don't have that much time, I also want to get in two more things.
How many countries might be involved in these types of activities in Canada? Do you have a ballpark figure of how many countries are involved?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Madam Chair, I would say we have publicly acknowledged the different activities of the PRC, Iran and Russia. There are also other countries involved in foreign interference in our country overall—not just in democratic electoral processes.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
There are a few countries that you acknowledge publicly. How many countries? Is there an idea of a number? Is it a lot greater than three or just a few greater than three?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Madam Chair, I would say that it is more than three. We're not talking about every country engaging in these activities. Most countries do not resort to these types of actions, but indeed we are concerned about a few other countries.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Many former directors of CSIS have commented on this recently. Do you believe a public inquiry might be a good forum for us to continue this conversation? Do you think that CSIS and our country would have something to gain from that, instead of having it in a committee hearing like this, at NSICOP or in briefings to SITE?
The Rosenberg report has recently come out. I'm sure you were involved in briefings with them in order for them to reach their conclusions.
Having done all these things and being engaged in these ways, do you think a public inquiry on top of that would be beneficial?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I would say that the focus of CSIS over the last number of years has been to publicly engage in talking about foreign interference. We're using all platforms available to us, including parliamentary committees. Whatever decision is made to continue these discussions, CSIS will be engaged actively in contributing to the discussion.
Of course, the one remaining consideration is the classified information. How we can find the best possible way of having classified information inform proper debate without becoming public is the key conundrum.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
With that, I would like to thank all of our guests for coming. It's been really interesting. Something I often hear is, when does the public get to know? These meetings are taking place in public. You've really demonstrated the level of detail and the layers of it.
I can speak for myself that I appreciate that you are responsible for our security. You are doing really important work. I thank you for being available today.
I'm going to let the witnesses go, so we can get to the next—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Very briefly, it's related to the witnesses, Madam Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Vigneault undertook to provide a consolidated response in consultation with the PCO. I would ask that the clerk contact the PCO to request that response be provided within a week. The briefings were matters that were easy to anticipate, and it would not require a significant amount of time for calendars to be checked.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I appreciate that, and I have full confidence that everyone who is appearing here will get us information as quickly as possible. I have not found one person yet who does not take this matter seriously and who does not want to ensure that our elections are protected, open, transparent and fair.
I would ask that you provide information as quickly as possible to the clerk. If there's other information you would like to provide us, give it to the clerk and we'll make sure it's circulated to all members.
With that, on behalf of committee members, thank you to you and your teams for your service. Have a great day.
We'll get ready for the next panel.
For committee members, I am going to suspend until 12:20 p.m., so that everyone has time to go to the washroom, take a health break or whatever they need to do. We will resume at 12:20 p.m. with the next panel.
Thank you.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Welcome back. Good afternoon, everyone. For our third and final panel today I would welcome from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, David Morrison, deputy minister of foreign affairs, and Rob Stewart, deputy minister of international trade.
Mr. Morrison, I understand you will be delivering opening remarks on behalf of both of you. We will give you up to seven minutes. You can return any time that you need to.
Thank you.
March 2nd, 2023 / 12:20 p.m.
David Morrison Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, everyone.
I am pleased to appear before this committee to discuss foreign election Interference. I am joined today by a fellow member of the panel that stands at the heart of Canada’s critical election incident public protocol, Mr. Rob Stewart, deputy minister of international trade and previously deputy minister of public safety.
I thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for looking into the issue of foreign electoral interference. Ensuring that we defend Canada’s federal elections against electoral interference is a critical part of keeping Canada’s democratic processes legitimate, credible and trustworthy.
Madam Chair, the critical election incident public protocol was created ahead of the 2019 general election as part of the plan to protect Canada’s democracy, which put in place a number of measures to safeguard Canada's democratic institutions and processes, including our elections.
The plan is a whole-of-government effort based on four pillars, which are enhancing citizen preparedness, improving organization readiness, combatting foreign interference and ensuring a healthy information ecosystem.
The protocol lays out a simple, clear and impartial process by which Canadians would be notified of a threat to the integrity of a general election during the caretaker period, whether national or in one or more individual ridings. The government created a panel so that there would be clear, non-partisan oversight of the election as well as a clear process for informing Canadians about any incident or incidents that could impair our ability to have a free and fair election. The decision to make such an announcement must be agreed on by all panel members, that is, by consensus.
The panel members are responsible for determining whether the threshold for informing Canadians of a threat to the integrity of a general election has been met. That threshold is high and limited to exceptional circumstances that could impair Canadians’ ability to have a free and fair election, whether due to a single incident or an accumulation of incidents.
The incidents in question would need to pose a significant risk of undermining Canadians’ democratic rights, or have the potential to undermine the credibility of the election.
It is important to note that an announcement by the panel is a last resort. There are other actors in the ecosystem that may also speak up before an incident meets the threshold for an announcement by the panel. For example, the media could be in a position to call out disinformation, or a candidate themselves may step in to provide correct information. Civil society also plays a key role in fact-checking and correcting false narratives.
The mandate of the protocol is limited. It is initiated only to respond to incidents that occur within the caretaker period and that do not fall within Elections Canada’s areas of responsibility, as identified in the Canada Elections Act.
At the centre of the protocol are the panel members who bring different perspectives to the decision-making table based on experiences working in national security, foreign affairs and democratic governance, and based on a deep understanding of the democratic rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
During the 2019 and 2021 elections, members of the panel received regular and frequent security briefings from the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, known as SITE, including a daily sitrep update note during the election period. As you know, SITE is comprised of CSIS, CSE, the RCMP and Global Affairs Canada. Officials from each of these organizations have appeared before you.
Moreover, the cabinet directive on the protocol states very clearly that whenever national security agencies become aware of interference they must consider all options to effectively address the interference.
As part of this process, they inform the panel, but in addition to that, barring any overriding national or public security reasons, the agencies may also directly inform the affected party of the incident. As the committee is aware, there is always a baseline threat of foreign interference. However, the two most recent panels did not see activity that met the threshold related to those elections. Here I would refer you to my own testimony when I last appeared before you, on December 13 of last year, when I spoke of the baseline threat but stated that I was not aware of any spike in foreign interference during the 2019 or 2021 elections. That remains the case today.
As the committee is aware, both the Judd and Rosenberg reports validated that the threshold used by the panel is appropriately high and that the panel is intended to be used as a last resort.
Before concluding, Madam Chair, allow me to speak as a former acting national security and intelligence adviser, a role I performed during the latter half of 2021, including throughout the electoral period, before Jody Thomas assumed the position in early 2022.
Like Ms. Thomas, I will not be commenting on any individual media reports, but I wish to acknowledge—as members of the committee are well aware—that there is an active debate going on right now about how reputable media organizations could be reporting that highly classified intelligence documents describe how a foreign power did this or that to influence the most recent Canadian elections, including by engaging in patently illegal activity, such as funnelling money to candidates. How could that be going on while, at the same time, others, including me, maintain there was no foreign interference detected in 2019 or 2021 that threatened Canada's ability to have a free and fair election nationally or at the level of individual ridings? How can these two sides of this ongoing debate be reconciled?
I believe much of the answer lies in the questions recently addressed on social media by professor Stephanie Carvin of Carleton University. These same questions form the crux of a recent interview given by former clerk of the Privy Council Ian Shugart, who, as you know, was a member of this panel in 2019.
The key questions are these: What is intelligence, and how is it used? Without repeating all the points made by Dr. Carvin and Mr. Shugart, let me simply say that intelligence rarely paints a full, concrete or actionable picture. Intelligence almost always comes heavily caveated and qualified in ways designed to caution consumers such as me from jumping to conclusions, while at the same time helping us at least to gain a little more awareness.
An example would be a report based on “an uncorroborated source of unknown reliability”. In layman's terms, I would call this a report based on rumour. Now I, for one, am very glad we live in a country where even information of unknown reliability is passed up the chain, because that allows people like me, daily consumers of intelligence, to begin to form a picture of what might be going on and the steps that might need to be taken if the information turns out to be accurate or part of a larger pattern. However, let me say that it is extremely rare to come across an intel report that is concrete enough to constitute a smoking gun. Intelligence is much more a game of disparate pieces of information, many of which don't seem to fit together, at least initially.
Keep in mind that people doing nefarious things don't want us to know about those things. It is often only after one reads the full body of intelligence over time that one can approximate an actual picture of what might be happening and why. There are glaring historical examples, Madam Chair, even when that picture finally emerges, of the intel's being just plainly wrong. The war in Iraq comes to mind.
In this context, I would make one final point. Intel that gets leaked and is then taken out of context—for example, a report from a single uncorroborated source.... If that report instantly becomes taken as fact, this can actually be prejudicial to Canada's national security. I believe Jody Thomas tried to make this point yesterday. There is nothing our adversaries would like more than to divide Canadians and have us call into question the very institutions that keep us safe and free, including our electoral processes. We must take all suggestions of foreign interference seriously, even where we have only partial or dubious information. Let me assure you that we do just that. However, the larger point is that intelligence needs to be seen for what it is and what it is not, and if that doesn't happen, we will all end up much worse off.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Because one person was speaking out of the two of you, I was able to provide some leniency. Both of you combined would have had 10 minutes, and you are under 10 minutes. Thank you for those opening comments.
We will proceed with six-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Cooper followed by Mr. Turnbull.
Mr. Cooper.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My questions will be for Mr. Stewart, since he is the first member of the critical election incident public protocol panel to appear before this committee.
Mr. Stewart, did the panel, during the 2021 election, refer any intelligence or other information that it had to the RCMP or to the commissioner of Canada elections?
12:30 p.m.
Rob Stewart Deputy Minister, International Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
For the record, Madam Chair, Mr. Morrison was also on the panel for the 2021 elections.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
