Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Nater, go ahead on a point of order.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just very briefly, on Bill C-76, Mr. Turnbull just mentioned knowingly making a false statement. I would just like to point out for the record that I made an amendment to that effect, but it was declined by the committee. The courts had to throw out that piece of the legislation. It had to come back in what's called the John Nater vindication act, in which we fixed that piece of legislation after the fact. I just wanted that for the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Nater, I think you know very well that's not a point of order, but just to demonstrate to all colleagues the leniency I show when people want to put something on the record—and I have done that time and time again—I think I've just offered that courtesy to you. I just want it to be noted, because I think sometimes people don't recognize the courtesies I offer.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Turnbull—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

As a courtesy, I will be brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On that matter, Madam Chair, we do appreciate that courtesy.

I would point out that one of our former colleagues on that side, Mr. Scott Simms, created what was called the Simms protocol—and I see Mr. Simms' former staffer back there—to allow that type of intervention. I think it is cordial and collegial to allow a member to make an intervention without yielding the floor, so I do appreciate that opportunity to make that comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I thank you, Mr. Nater. I'll take that in writing. I appreciate it.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

On that point of order, Madam Chair, just before I have the floor back, I'd like to speak to that. My understanding is that the Simms protocol can only be evoked when the member who has the floor gives permission to have it evoked, and I did not give permission for that intervention, which was not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I feel like we're doing well. Our resources are going to be limited. With that, let's keep doing what we've been doing. I'm going to remind us to take a breath, and I'm going to return the floor to you, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Kudos to Mr. Nater for getting that in. I'm sure he won some points with somebody somewhere.

Anyway, I'll go back to what I was saying, which was that we have this four-pillar plan and I've only spoken to one of the pillars so far, but there are three other pillars to speak to.

I was just speaking to two pieces of legislation that enhanced both CSIS's and CSE's abilities to combat foreign election interference, but also how Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, also enhanced our government's ability to tackle this very important issue.

The second pillar of the plan was improving organizational readiness. It says, “Government departments and agencies were briefed on how to identify threats, emerging tactics and systems vulnerabilities in order to strengthen security practices and behaviours.” That's important. Again, that all-of-government approach means actually educating and training people across government departments, which was done. Those briefs, that training and that capacity and awareness development did happen, and I'm sure it continues.

It continues, “Political parties and election administrators were provided with technical advice”. This one I find particularly interesting: “Political party representatives were also provided with classified briefings on threats.” This is interesting because Rosenberg refers to this in his report, which clearly demonstrates again a willingness and ability to work on these issues across party lines and to make sure that all parties have adequate information, that they're briefed, that they understand the threats and that they can weigh in on those discussions.

I'd also like to refer to the fact that, in terms of organizational readiness in 2018, our government established the Canadian centre for cybersecurity with a budget of $155 million over five years. CCCS is responsible for monitoring threats, protecting national critical infrastructure against cyber-incidents and coordinating the national response to any incidents related to cybersecurity. That organization didn't exist prior to 2018 and was established by our government. Again, it's another example of a body, an entity, that works across government and is tasked with one piece of the overall ecosystem approach or whole-of-government approach.

I think we can all agree that cybersecurity in the age of disinformation and data monopoly, referring back to the ethics report that was done in 2018, highlights how vulnerable the Canadian public is to disinformation. The use of online platforms for the dissemination of that information certainly has a real impact and changes the threat environment for anyone looking at national security and the seriousness of foreign election interference.

The other pillar that I'd like to refer to is combatting foreign interference. Our government established the security and intelligence threats to election task force. This is the SITE task force. It's the coordinating body and is comprised of the Communications Security Establishment, CSE; the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS; the RCMP; and the rapid response mechanism housed in Global Affairs.

SITE builds awareness to threats to Canada's federal election processes and prepares government to assess and respond to those threats. Each agency brings its unique information and expertise to the table to support the panel by providing up-to-date intelligence and information. The SITE task force has met regularly since 2019 and now meets on a monthly basis. It met daily during the 2021 election.

I think it is really important that the security agencies that are tasked with monitoring and collecting intelligence and identifying threats to Canadian democracy have been doing their work since 2019, meet regularly, meet on a monthly basis and then, during the elections, have daily meetings.

The information they are collecting is being relayed to government officials outside of the caretaker period, and then within the caretaker period, it feeds right into the panel. I don't know how anyone can claim that our government hasn't taken foreign election interference seriously.

That is not to say, Madam Chair, that we shouldn't be constantly improving and evolving our systematic approach and our comprehensive approach over time. That is what our national security advisers and experts have been saying to us, which is that we need to continue this work in a non-partisan way, in a serious way, in a way that respects Canadian democracy, and in a way that really tries to protect information that's highly sensitive and classified and to make sure that we don't put at risk our reputation with Five Eyes partners or other institutions.

I also want to speak to the fact that our government set up the rapid response mechanism with G7 countries at the 2018 G7 summit in Quebec. Its purpose is to strengthen the coordination across the G7 countries in identifying, preventing and responding to threats to G7 democracies. The rapid response mechanism supports the SITE task force in providing regular briefings to the panel of deputy ministers. You can see how, if you actually draw a picture of the flow of information, the rapid response mechanism basically shares information and coordinates efforts across the G7 countries such that we should find out about foreign threats to Canadian democracy in advance.

It's an early warning system, to my understanding, that feeds right into the SITE task force. That SITE task force then relays that information and briefs deputy ministers on the panel during an election, so this works as a comprehensive set of mechanisms that can identify threats to Canadian democracy.

I'd also like to say that, within the plan our government launched in 2019, which was the plan to protect Canadian democracy, again we acknowledged the need to work with external partners. Those include academia, industry and civil society to support information integrity in elections. These partners often have a unique role to play, it is safe to say, but it's an important role because they provide a unique perspective on the evolving threat environment. They help educate the public, and they alert the public to attempts at interference both before and during the campaign.

It is important that within a whole-of-government approach we also consider the fact that there are external partners that also play a very important role.

The other pillar, the fourth pillar, is building a healthy information ecosystem. One of the things that are obviously important is the degree to which Canadians get information online today. Our government launched the “Canada Declaration on Election Integrity Online” in 2019, and it was updated in 2021 prior to the election. Again, these are actions our government is taking. These are relevant to our work and our study and are exactly the reason why, if we actually look at the facts and information and if members opposite are actually concerned about what's being done, we have to acknowledge and affirm that lots has been done.

The commitment by online platforms and the Government of Canada to “safeguard elections from malicious interference and create a healthier online ecosystem” was endorsed by Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube. Again, that was updated before the 2021 election.

I'm not claiming that's the be-all and end-all of election integrity online. I think there's a lot more work to be done. However, I would say that going right back to the 2018 report, when there were many recommendations made about how to protect Canadians from consuming disinformation online, it's great to know that our social media platforms were in agreement and endorsed that declaration, and that they were willing to do it again before the 2021 election.

There's also something that was implemented called the Canadian election misinformation project. This is on page 20 of Rosenberg's report. They did an analysis of the role that social media platforms play in spreading false information. They found that “notwithstanding more assertive moderation and election integrity policies, large social media platforms continued to be home to widespread misinformation.”

This is an area where we could do a lot more, deeper work, calling witnesses and looking within a writ period—but also outside of a writ period—at how we ensure that Canadians aren't consuming vast amounts of misinformation online. Our online platforms are saying that they're committed to that, but the independent research is saying, no, those online platforms, although they're committed to that, still continue to be home to widespread misinformation.

There's a whole area of our work that we need to take seriously that doesn't involve calling political staffers. It involves calling more witnesses who are relevant to the study, and some of the experts who have written these fantastic reports that I have here.

I have one really good one on misinformation and disinformation during the 2021 Canadian federal election from March 2022. It's relatively recent. It's from the media ecosystem observatory, made up of McGill, the University of Toronto, the Max Bell school of public policy and the Munk school. All of them are collaborating on writing these insightful reports that demonstrate that we need to do more work in that area.

I think there is an opportunity there, so why are opposition parties not focusing on that, when these are clear indications coming from experts? It's clear work that needs to continue to happen in order to protect Canadians, yet members on the opposite side don't seem concerned at all with that. Maybe that would be something that we could focus on in our work to come.

The thing that is really not sitting well with me is the fact that we keep hearing these very false assertions made over and over again. I think we have to be really honest with ourselves. We have to be honest and say, if you really want to step outside of the partisan antics, get down to the truth and take foreign election interference seriously, let's stop playing games and trying to win political points by calling political staffers who don't have expertise in national security. Let's start listening to the experts who have come before this committee. Instead of repeating three or four times the same motion with slightly tweaked language, so that we're here debating it over and over, ad infinitum.

I can do it forever. I'm happy to talk about this topic, because I'm reading and consuming information and I care about it. I'm happy to continue talking about this if that's what opposition members really want. However, I don't see why we would waste our precious time. The public has elected us to do important work, and we want to protect Canadian democracy. It's clear from everything I've said so far that our government has a track record. I could paint you a picture of it. It's so clear to me.

I could lay it out in a diagram for any of the opposition members. I just don't see why they would continue to deny the real facts and information that are clearly laid out in multiple reports. There's lots of information to substantiate what I'm saying.

I'm not making this up. I think the Conservatives have a duty, if they are going to make false claims, to back them up with evidence, because they are not doing that, in my view. They are just spouting off things that they think will win them some political points or a little uptick in the polls or something.

I really believe there is a need to continue to adapt our approach to foreign election interference. I think we have heard that loud and clear. If there's a silver lining in all of the partisan antics, it's to say, okay, well let's do deeper, more meaningful work in this area. I think the Prime Minister has made that clear in his announcement and press conference, at which he gave us some substantive actions—some more substantive actions, I should say—that our government is now taking.

I think just before I get to that I would like to point out a few other things. I want to sum up.

An independent review was conducted after the 2019 general election, and changes were made. Removal of a reference to the specific election in order to make the protocol continue in perpetuity, hopefully.... I think the protocol, its panel and that work are all essential. I think we can all agree. I'm sure it could be strengthened, but it should continue, so that change was made.

The change was made to align the protocol with the caretaker convention.

Explicit provision for the panel to consult with the CEO of Elections Canada as appropriate...that change was made after 2019.

Provision for the ability of political parties to alert security agencies of incidents: Listen to that. The Conservatives keep saying that their concerns weren't taken seriously. Well, our government set up the panel and the protocol and then amended them based on James Judd's independent report that was done and the assessment that was done to add a provision so political parties could alert security agencies regarding incidents. That was added by our government.

They are not even listening, Madam Chair. The Conservatives have tuned out because they don't like what I'm saying. They don't like hearing facts and information that substantiate very real truths and claims about what our government has done on this issue.

Another one is recognition of the panel's ability to examine domestically driven interference. That change was also made. The original protocol and panel focused exclusively on foreign election interference. We know that domestic interference is also important, and the panel was expanded to include domestic-driven interference.

Recognition of the panel's ability to receive information from other sources at its discretion was also added. An independent review of the protocol no longer includes an assessment as to whether to establish the protocol on a permanent basis because, of course, our government made it permanent.

I also want to mention budget 2022. Again, this all goes to the false claim that we have heard over and over again by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Conservative Party who are making false claims every day they are out there in the House and saying—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The leader of the official opposition has not sat on this committee, so I don't know what claims the member is referring to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, just while we're on points of order, very briefly, I see that we're at two minutes to two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm hoping Mr. Turnbull finishes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I would just say on that matter that I would hope that when two o'clock hits we suspend until 3:30. I believe there's agreement that we would have resources from 3:30 to 5:30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Nater, I know you have always wanted to be the chair and I appreciate that. I have had a lot of feedback. I'm sitting here very patiently. I'm going—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'm just saying that would be the option we would support, to suspend until 3:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

There are many options. That's excellent to hear. I thank you for your options.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, in budget 2022, our government also added several new measures. One was resources and a renewed commitment to expand the rapid response mechanism was made. One was enhancing our ability to look at “ongoing cyber-activities to protect...against disinformation”. There was a commitment to support research at public institutions on foreign election interference and resources provided to the Privy Council Office to “coordinate, develop and implement government-wide measures designed to combat disinformation and protect [Canadian] democracy.” Those are four more measures that were added in the last budget.

I don't know, again, how there's any factual accuracy to the points that the Conservative Party has been making over and over again, but it frustrates me, to be honest, Madam Chair. I'm very frustrated by the fact that they seem to want to misinform people. I don't know why they would want to claim things that are false about our government over and over again, when they know that the truth is we have a track record of developing all the systems, mechanisms and independent review processes, and improving them and adding more measures as they make sense, to continue to evolve our approach with the evolving threat environment.

Just as security professionals in this country have told us it is necessary, our government has done that. The former minister for democratic reform, now the leader of the official opposition, didn't do anything—literally nothing. I would challenge the members of the official opposition to point to something that their leader did when he was the minister for democratic reform.

Lastly, I want to talk about the Prime Minister's remarks quickly.

I think the significant actions that the Prime Minister laid out are very conducive to us continuing to evolve our comprehensive and whole-of-government approach to tackle foreign election interference. The first thing I noted in his remarks was that he basically asked Minister Leblanc to work on an implementation plan as quickly as possible.

He also talked about the importance of what was set up in 2017—I know MP O'Connell also spoke to it—which is NSICOP and how that's an appropriate mechanism for reviewing highly classified information related to national security.

Madam Chair, do you want me to continue until the meeting runs out? I'd like to start whenever we continue again. I'd like to have my name on the speakers list so I can continue speaking to this. I know members probably want to adjourn to go to question period soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I am suspending this meeting. Stay tuned.

[The meeting was suspended at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday, March 7]

[The meeting resumed at 9:04 a.m., Thursday, March 9]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order. We are resuming meeting number 57 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we are picking up where we left off on Tuesday. The committee will continue debating the amendment of MP Ryan Turnbull.

As always, comments should go through the chair. The clerk and I will maintain a consolidated speaking list of members wishing to speak.

When we left off on Tuesday, Mr. Turnbull, you had the floor. I received the floor back, allowing us to continue with the day, so I will provide you the floor back briefly, and then we'll continue with the speaking list we have already.

On the speaking list I had, following Mr. Turnbull was Monsieur Fergus, followed by Madam Romanado.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I beat him.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You did. I wasn't paying attention. You were.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

There's a bit of friendly competition here. That's always good.

I'm really glad to be back discussing this important motion and the amendment that I proposed. When I left off, I had spent considerable time going through the many different mechanisms, independent mechanisms and non-partisan mechanisms, that have been set up by our government to combat foreign election interference. I spent considerable time on that mainly because I was debunking the thing the Conservatives keep saying over and over again, which is the false claim that our government hasn't done anything on foreign election interference. I feel, as person who is doing the work, reading all the material and reading Rosenberg's report and others, that it's a claim that keeps being made, but it's not factual. It's not based on the evidence I see.

When I left off, I was just getting into, in addition to all of the things that our government has done since 2017—it's really since 2015, but obviously some of that work took a while to implement—the new commitments within budget 2022 that have now been added to with the Prime Minister's recent announcement. I think there are some significant steps forward that we should all be taking note of.

I know that most of us probably were there or listening and/or have reviewed his remarks, but I have them here, and there are a few things that I'm sure we all need reminders about. One is that the Prime Minister obviously announced there would be the appointment of an independent special rapporteur, and although the Conservatives struggle with the word, it certainly is a mechanism that should be able to determine how we move forward. To me, it's a smart step. It's a smart move. It should give us the confidence that there will be a non-partisan approach to this important topic. A special rapporteur can make recommendations on how to move forward.

That's not the only thing the Prime Minister announced, of course. In his remarks, he announced that Minister Mendicino would be looking at and engaging in a consultation to guide the set-up—hopefully set-up—of a new foreign influence transparency registry in Canada. This has been a topic of conversation within our committee. We've heard multiple witnesses on that topic, and it's good to hear that Minister Mendicino is going to be moving forward with a consultation.

We also had another commitment: that Minister Mendicino will immediately establish a national counter foreign interference coordinator position in his ministry, Public Safety Canada. That, again, speaks to our commitment as a government to taking a whole-of-government approach. That coordinator will coordinate efforts across many ministries that are involved in the work, which I outlined in my previous remarks as core to the plan the government announced in January 2019. It's a plan to protect Canadian democracy, which really focuses on an ecosystem approach, and it means there are multiple strategies being implemented through various departments.

This is what our security and intelligence professionals want to see. I would just say that having a coordinator to coordinate all of that through Public Safety is a very smart additional step.

I have a couple of other quick points, and then I'll probably cede the floor to my colleagues, who I know want to get in on this important extended debate.

Minister LeBlanc and the Clerk of the Privy Council will review and bring forward a plan to implement any outstanding recommendations from NSICOP, the Rosenberg report and any other reviews on these matters in the next 30 days. That is, first of all, a pretty compressed timeline. Taking 30 days to come up with that suggests there's a seriousness being applied to this. The Rosenberg report just came out last week, I believe, so I think that's really good. Of course, any other recommendations from NSICOP will be integrated into that list of recommendations.

I think that plan is another important step. Again, these are all steps being taken.

One thing that stuck out in the remarks by our Prime Minister was that our institutions need to, will and must outlast every one of us. I thought that point was really good. We have opposition party leaders, in particular from the Conservatives—I won't say that anybody else has made these claims—making claims and suggesting that somehow our Prime Minister is working against the best interests of Canadians. This political rhetoric is highly dangerous. It's charged, and it detracts from Canadians' faith in our democratic institutions. I think we as members of Parliament need to take this work very seriously and work to identify real, meaningful solutions so that our approach to protecting our democracy evolves along with what intelligence and security professionals say is needed.

The threat environment is evolving—we all know that. I think we need to evolve with it, but we need to stay true to our core focus, which really should be a principled approach to this. That is to say this is not about us and our politics, but about our institutions. We need to protect those at all costs.

With that, Madam Chair, I will cede the floor to my colleagues. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Go ahead, Monsieur Fergus.