Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 2nd, 2023

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I appreciate your answer. You said it was a high threshold.

[Rob Stewart]

That's correct.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It seems to me it's a threshold that almost renders the process useless, given the fact that if you're going to combat foreign interference then the most effective way of doing it is in real time, when it's happening. That didn't happen.

With that, I want to make note of recommendation 11 of the Rosenberg report. It states, “There should be further study of the issue of whether the Protocol should be amended to provide for the possibility of announcements below the threshold set out in section 6.0.” Section 6.0 is the section relating to informing the public.

Recommendations do not come out of thin air. Was there a disagreement amongst panel members about whether that threshold had been met?

[Rob Stewart]

The panel operates by consensus. There was no disagreement. The recommendation Mr. Rosenberg makes is a worthy recommendation, but as things stand under the protocol, the announcement would occur only were the threshold to be met.

[David Morrison]

I would simply add that we as a panel were informed by SITE on a regular basis of things that the various intel agencies were picking up. We had vigorous debates as a panel as to whether what they were picking up constituted foreign interference. We did not have in this election year—to the best of my recollection—any debates on whether a threshold had been met, because as per my comments in my appearance before this committee on December 13, we did not see a spike in foreign interference activities during the 2021 election.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It just seems incredible that you would say that there was no spike in the 2021 election. That's notwithstanding the hundreds of complaints that were received by Elections Canada. That's notwithstanding the alarming reports of interference by Beijing based upon a review of CSIS documents by reputable journalists at Global News and The Globe and Mail.

Here you are, citing one of the Prime Minister's favourite talking points, that there was no spike in foreign interference. I have some difficulty believing that. It really begs the question of whether this panel was really interested in getting to the bottom of foreign interference to respond in real time, or whether what we have is just a reiteration of the Prime Minister's talking points.

It just doesn't add up. On what basis can you conclude that?

[David Morrison]

I said in my opening remarks that I continue to believe—as I did when the question was first asked in December of last year—that there is a baseline amount of foreign interference going on every day in Canada that we need to be mindful of, but that I was not aware of any spike in foreign interference during either the 2019 or 2021 election campaigns. I stand by that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

I just want to assure you that we appreciate your being here today. I am confident that you come here in the capacity in which we've asked you to come and that the information you are providing is from within that capacity. Perhaps sometimes people might imply otherwise, but rest assured that I am confident that you are here to provide information you have access to, so that we can do our important work.

Mrs. Romanado, you have five minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll be quick because I'll be sharing my time.

If I understood correctly, Mr. Cooper mentioned that complaints were filed by the Conservative Party during the election, saying that they were seeing some instances of things of concern. Then we heard that these did not meet the threshold.

My question to you is this. If a political party was aware of information it felt was a concern, would it not share that with its own candidate, or would it rely on an external body to advise it?

[Rob Stewart]

If you'll forgive me, I think the question is for someone other than us.

Let me take the opportunity, if I may, to make a couple of points. The information that eventually flows to the panel is about what's going on in the public domain, to which many people have access. We have institutions that are reviewing it, assessing it and providing advice to the panel.

We also have lots of other people who are seeing what is going on in, say, social media. It is entirely open to other individuals or institutions, be they civil society organizations, some of which take on the responsibility of election oversight, or the intelligence institutions for that matter, which have in their own remits the capacity to say something about it.

I think that putting this in the realm of the panel itself as the sole source of valid information is not appropriate.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I'll turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Morrison, I'm going to ask you a question similar to the one I put to your CSIS colleague, David Vigneault.

Given your experience and knowledge of foreign interference techniques, is it possible that unconfirmed and unverified leaks could be in themselves a form of foreign interference?

[David Morrison]

I don't know where leaks are coming from. That's where I would start.

I did try to say in my prepared remarks that with the current debate going on in social media, the mainstream press and this committee, Canadians would be better served if the debate took into account what intelligence is and what intelligence is not. Misreading or taking out of context an intel report can lead to divisiveness, which in itself plays into the hands of some of our adversaries.

Without speculating about whether a foreign power might be behind something—I think your question was whether this could be a form of foreign interference—the outcome is the same. They seek to weaken our societies and the glue that holds our societies together. That's why I went on at such length to try to suggest that intel taken out of context and without the normal caveats and qualifiers can be very pernicious.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'd also like to share my time with Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus and Madam Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Morrison.

My understanding is that our government set up the critical election incident public protocol panel and took a lead on setting up, with the G7 countries, the rapid response mechanism. It also stood up the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. It also implemented the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It set up the security and intelligence threats to elections task force and implemented the four-pillar plan to protect Canadian democracy. I think there's a whole host of others, too, in Rosenberg's report.

Is it fair to say that we have done nothing on foreign election interference, in your professional opinion?

[David Morrison]

I would say that the threat of foreign interference, including from our major adversaries, has increased in recent years, and it is therefore reassuring to know that our mechanisms and tools and, I would hope, the vigilance of Canadians, particularly within the political process, are also increasing.

The final point I would make is that we will, as officials, certainly do our best to continue to implement and continue to use the tools we have, but it is awareness of the threats throughout the country that will be the best antidote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Next is Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Morrison, I'm going to go back to my questions and your answers, particularly on the link you made to Saddam Hussein. We know that this was a very political question that went beyond the information we had. However, as for Chinese interference, it is not only the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that is talking about it: reports from intelligence services around the world point to interference activities on its part.

I can't help but get the impression that there is a kind of lack of deference to CSIS expertise and that you dismiss information they provide when it doesn't suit you.

In this context, I feel like asking you the same question I asked Mr. Vigneault earlier. What is the relationship between the government apparatus and CSIS like? Is it a good one? Are there any conflicts between the two?

[David Morrison]

Once again, this is a very important question.

My intent in using the example of what happened in Iraq was to suggest that even when there is a consensus view within an intel community, that view can sometimes be wrong, so I think it is entirely appropriate within our system, and within all pluralistic systems, to welcome a range of views on any one subject, particularly something as threatening as foreign interference.

There is absolutely no intention on my part to question the expertise, the authority and the judgment of our security agencies on questions of foreign interference, but equally, for all the reasons that I have tried to set out here today, that is but one stream of information that goes into the policy-making process.

Intelligence is not truth, and it is often inaccurate, or partial, or incomplete, or in fact designed to throw us off our track, and therefore I believe it is.... There are no tensions between Global Affairs Canada and CSIS. We do have healthy debates, as Canada would expect, when the stakes are so high on something like foreign interference, and I would expect that there are healthy debates within CSIS as well, because of the picture I've tried to paint on what intelligence is and what intelligence is not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian is next.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We in the NDP believe that we need to have, urgently, a national public inquiry on the issue of foreign interference. We've certainly seen the examples: the allegations from China and the allegations from Russia. There is no doubt that we need to clear the air on a number of issues.

I wanted to put that forward in the context of your reply, Mr. Stewart—and I believe, Mr. Morrison, that you contributed as well—around the threshold at the riding level. Your comment was that the political parties as well can step up on this, but if the candidates are not aware, if the threshold is different in informing the candidates, then it's very difficult, I think, for political parties to intervene in the case where foreign interference may make a difference in a riding.

How do you reconcile that issue of, understandably, not acting with information that is not necessarily complete, but at the same time, non-action or non-information could mean a difference in a riding? I'm thinking particularly of an upcoming election campaign.

[Rob Stewart]

Thank you for that question. It will allow me, I hope, to clarify.

In the instance we have been talking about, the 2021 election, for which I was a member of the election panel, through a series of meetings and a significant amount of discussion based on information flowing to the panel, we determined that a threshold—and this is not a bright line; this is a value judgment on the part of the panel—had not been met. As it happened, that meant we did not define a threshold since it was not met.

However, we were seeing indications that foreign interference could be occurring. Indeed, I think it's been on the public record for a long time that this is an ongoing issue. Reports by intelligence agencies and reports by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and so on have pointed to the fact that foreign intelligence is an issue, and it's a growing issue, as Mr. Morrison has said.

I think the problem here becomes understanding what you're seeing on the ground and whether social media campaigns, to pick an example, are a reflection of the politics of the day or whether they are in fact instigated by foreign actors. There is a very difficult and grey area there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Gentlemen, I have been listening to you from the beginning, and I sincerely doubt the usefulness of the working group. An election campaign lasts just over 30 days. Since the threshold you mention must be met, it is virtually impossible for this group to notify people that an ongoing election campaign is the target of foreign interference. This process is only intended to roundly postpone decisions that need to be made immediately.

And yet, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has been clear. Here is what it said in July 2021:[...] foreign state actors are engaged in interference activities directed at Canadian democratic institutions and processes. These activities are effective. They are ongoing and some are escalating. They are carried out by foreign states to achieve immediate, medium and long-term strategic objectives. They pose serious threats to Canada's national security, prosperity and strategic interests, its social fabric, and the people within it [...] Given the current geopolitical situation, these activities will almost certainly increase.

We have learned from the newspapers about the illegal financing of an underground network of potential candidates, the presence of fake volunteers in election campaigns, the existence of a campaign orchestrated by the Chinese regime to promote the re‑election of a Liberal government and defeat Conservative candidates, and the conduct of a massive disinformation campaign by the Chinese regime in some ridings, all of which may have led to the defeat of some Conservative candidates.

Despite all this, you tell us that absolutely nothing is happening and that there has been no increase in threats of foreign interference. What is it going to take for the threshold to be reached? Does it take President Xi Jinping making a recorded statement saying that any Canadian who does not vote Liberal will face the wrath of the Chinese communist regime? What is the threshold? What is the limit?

We're having trouble following you.

[David Morrison]

On the question of a 30-day period, the panel exists because it's in the caretaker period. Before that period and after that period, there are elected officials whose remit is to keep Canada safe from foreign interference. It would be inappropriate for a panel of unelected officials to be doing that when there is a ministry in place. I would say that there was an incident in the 2016 U.S. election, a data dump, an email dump, which many scholars believe had a material effect on the election, and no such panel existed—