Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2023

[Katie Telford]

In the same efforts of transparency, conversations about potential election interference attempts began long before the 2019 campaign. That's why steps were taken to protect the 2019 campaign and more steps were taken to protect the 2021 campaign. I think it's really important that it be said in this committee—because it should be said as many times as possible—that experts, very senior trusted public servants, have come out saying that those elections were fair.

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

No one is disputing that the overall outcomes of the elections in 2019 and 2021 were not affected by Beijing's interference, but if even one riding was impacted, that is a problem.

You acknowledge that there was interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections. I hope you at least acknowledge that much, Ms. Telford, through you, Madam Chair.

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, I assume that when the member talks about Beijing all the time, he's speaking about China's foreign interference. I acknowledged right in the opening statement that there was foreign interference by a number of states, and that's written into the reports as well.

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

Very good.

Ms. Telford, through you, Madam Chair, the advice of CSIS to the Prime Minister was that the policy of the government in response to foreign interference should be grounded in sunlight and transparency, and that such interference be made known to the public. That was provided in a briefing to him on January 21, 2021, another one of the few documents produced to this committee.

Why is it that, in the face of your acknowledgement of Beijing's election interference and the advice that CSIS provided to make such foreign interference known, the Prime Minister instead kept Canadians in the dark?

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, I will be quick on that and just say that it's rare for the member and I to agree on anything, but what we can agree on is the importance of transparency, sunlight and growing confidence for Canadians in our institutions. It's for that reason that our government took steps to protect elections that had never been taken before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Telford.

Go ahead, Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here with us today, Ms. Telford.

I'm going to quote from testimony that was given at this committee before by Mr. David Morrison, deputy minister of foreign affairs. He spoke about the limitations and caveats around intelligence. He said to this committee:

...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—

He was referring to himself, the deputy minister.

—from jumping to conclusions, while at the same time helping us at least to gain a little more awareness.

He continued:

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—

Again, it's the DM.

—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.

He continued:

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.... There is nothing our adversaries would like more than to divide Canadians and have us call into question the very institutions that keep [Canada] safe....

I know you spoke about this in your opening statement. Would you like to elaborate a bit further on the DM's comments in relation to this and his previous testimony?

[Katie Telford]

Thank you for that.

I think it's worth pausing a bit more on something I said in my opening, which is that sometimes the intelligence is wrong. In whatever form you're looking at it, there is something that you are.... Whether it's because you're talking it through with others, you're looking at it in a different context or you're comparing it with other things, because of your own knowledge or because of somebody else's knowledge in the room, you know it to be wrong, yet you still look at it because it paints a broader picture. You still leave it in there, because it's even useful to know that information's being spread out there or being stated somewhere for some reason.

If that is taken completely out of context, no one has the opportunity to put it into that wider context to know what is true and what isn't true.

Also, some of it you need to take time with to be able to figure out its veracity. That is why we have people who specialize in analyzing this information and who get to know whether it's from a region or a community, and whether it's domestic or foreign. Where they're looking at it and able to become an expert in it over time—or come into the job being an expert—they're giving us that best advice that, unfortunately, Canadians aren't able to get in the way that some of this has been coming out of late. I'm really hoping that through the good work of NSICOP and NSIRA, and potentially other things, the special rapporteur will give us advice so that Canadians will be able to get a better sense of the picture.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I have another question I'd like to touch upon. Last month, the Minister of Public Safety launched a consultation on having a foreign influence registry. This consultation and potential action on that are critical steps that we should be taking.

We know the diaspora communities are particular.... They face the challenges of foreign interference. Diaspora communities are impacted by this. The CSIS director came before the committee and said:

[CSIS has] been clear that the principal threat to Canada comes from the People's Republic of China but, to be clear, the threat comes not from the Chinese people but rather from the Chinese Communist Party and the Government of China. Indeed, we are keenly aware that Chinese communities are often the primary victims of PRC foreign interference efforts in Canada.

This distinction that he's making between the government and the Chinese people is critical. Would you like to elaborate on that?

[Katie Telford]

I'm really glad you raised that. I mentioned very briefly in my opening statement the impact on communities. This isn't something that is only an election-focused issue. Foreign interference is much broader than that, and it has been going on for some time in all of the different parts of our communities, but particularly in diaspora communities.

We need to take extra care that, when we are creating any of these mechanisms, they are taking into account how to protect, specifically, our diaspora communities in whatever steps are being taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Telford, I'm sure you've noticed—or maybe not—that we're approaching two o'clock. Just because there are a few more questions that need to be posed, we would like to complete this round and then we will do just a quick one-off to each of the parties. Then we will end shortly, by 2:30.

I'm sorry to impose upon you, but I appreciate your leniency. I know it's awkward for you to say otherwise right now, so I'm going to proceed as chair and just thank you in advance for your latitude.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Telford, I have a question that is also a comment of sorts.

It's often said here that, because of its role, the NSICOP should be responsible for administering the interference issue. However, in the fall, the chair of that committee, David McGuinty, wrote to the Prime Minister to let him know that it was sometimes very difficult to obtain documents from cabinet to enable the committee to do its job properly. We know that the parliamentarians on the NSICOP must advise Mr. Johnston, who will have to decide whether or not to recommend an independent public inquiry.

We have a situation where Canadian universities received funding from foreign interests. There is growing evidence that the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation had ongoing ties with the Prime Minister's cabinet and that interference took place in at least 11 ridings, possibly more.

Hasn't this matter become too big to be handled within the government? Shouldn't it instead be the subject of an independent public inquiry, as your former colleague Mr. Butts recommends?

[Katie Telford]

There was a lot in there.

On the provision of information to NSICOP and the special rapporteur, the Prime Minister has committed to providing and giving access to as much as possible. He provided unprecedented amounts of information and access to information during the public inquiry in the fall, so if there are concerns on that front, I'm happy to take those back.

In terms of ties to the PMO and so on, there's a lot of assertion and innuendo there that I'd be happy to answer questions on if there are questions on that, because there's not a lot there.

In terms of the broad question of whether it is too vast, well, it's for that exact reason that there are a number of different organizations looking at things. It's why the Prime Minister took the additional step of putting in place an independent special rapporteur to identify exactly what might be getting missed in all of this and what more needed to be done to ensure we are getting as much of the best work possible done in all these different parts and are effectively answering Canadians' questions, most importantly perhaps.

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

Regarding Mr. Johnston's role, there is growing evidence that the foundation had a relationship with Mr. Trudeau and that Mr. Johnston was aware of the donation that was made. Mr. Johnston will have to decide whether or not to recommend a public inquiry, in which this donation that was made will likely be examined.

Notwithstanding Mr. Johnston's qualifications, doesn't this cast a shadow over his ability to make a good decision about whether or not an independent public inquiry should be held?

[Katie Telford]

I'm glad you asked that, because I think it's really important—and I know it's been said in other public forums—to make it clear here, given the subject matter. The Prime Minister has had no contact and no relationship with this organization for over a decade. When we insinuate that there are some other ties there, there aren't. The tie is in the name.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Everything is always through the chair, so I appreciate that.

I just would like to say to Ms. Telford that we had a little bit of discussion earlier about a previous inquiry, and I've done a little bit of research on it. I would like to quote from a Toronto Star article that says, “Harper last month asked academic and lawyer David Johnston to craft the terms of reference for the inquiry and Harper says he'll take whatever advice Johnston gives.”

I'm just clarifying that a bit. I'm happy to share that with you if it helps you understand the point of view I'm coming from, but I do want to go back to this issue of having a public inquiry, having a transparent process that Canadians can have faith in.

I'm just curious. There were some questions earlier about what we're seeing across this country, which is an increase of anti-Asian hate. That's very concerning, because it puts people who are in this country, many Chinese people in this country who have been fighting for an extremely long time to get acknowledgement from this government about interference from China into this country, people who were willing to take that step to draw attention to that issue....

If the rapporteur comes forward and recommends a public inquiry, I'm wondering if the PMO, if the Prime Minister and if Ms. Telford would admit that it was wrong to allow these issues to fester in the public mind for such a long period of time that it has created a distress that is just not necessary, and that the longer we ask Canadians to wait, the more we are actually harming other populations by not seeing that action.

I'm just wondering if that would be the case and if there would be a willingness to say: “You're right. We should have just done this in the first place.”

[Katie Telford]

I feel like we're going to have to take the discussion on what happened in the past off-line, because I totally know the article you're talking about and I can point you to another one, but I think we're actually dancing on the head of a pin there.

In terms of the actual substance of the rest of your question, I believe—and I suspect we will agree to disagree on this, Madam Chair—that what is a bigger problem in terms of things festering at the moment is the partisanship and hyperbole that has been brought to this so often in the discussion in the last while. That's why we needed to get it out of those hands and into hands like the agencies and the committee of parliamentarians that do seem to be able to work in a way that doesn't do that, and it's why the special rapporteur was necessary. Somebody had to be able to put their mind to it who was out of this space to figure out what those other appropriate next steps might be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Mr. Brock for four minutes, who will be followed by Ms. Sahota for four minutes.

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Telford, earlier today, my colleague Mr. Berthold asked you about the Globe and Mail story of February 17, 2023, regarding Beijing's objectives in the 2021 election. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that the report was full of “inaccuracies”, without denying the existence of the report and not identifying what in the report was inaccurate.

My colleague asked you the question: In your opinion, what was inaccurate about that report? You couldn't confirm. My belief is, if the report was full of inaccuracies, you would identify those inaccuracies or, if the report was completely false, you would say so. I'm giving you the opportunity now: Is the report truthful or not?

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, maybe I'll just take a crack at explaining why it is that whether or not it's inaccurate I can't answer, because if I started to answer the things that were either missing or inaccurate in some of the specific questions that you're getting into, it is as much as confirming, then, some of the other things that you might be raising.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

I believe the most damning fact in that report is that Beijing's objectives in the 2021 election were to help the Liberals secure a minority government and to defeat certain Conservative candidates. Do you accept that? Do you believe that to be the case?

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, my experience going into both of the last two elections was that our relations with China were at their lowest point. I was working day and night, alongside many other incredible Canadians, to try to bring home the two Michaels, who it was just amazing to see in Parliament when President Biden was here—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Telford.

CSIS tracked specifically the surrounding circumstances involving the former consul general in Vancouver—her name is Tong Xiaoling—who held the post during the 2021 election. In fact, CSIS reported that she was doing victory laps, bragging about how her role was to defeat certain Conservative candidates.

You are aware of that. Is that inaccurate?

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, I'm aware of the reporting on this matter. I can't speak to what different countries' ambassadors and consuls general have said—