Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2023

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Telford.

I know it's inconvenient, as some members have pointed out, for you to even be here today and to be walking this fine line, which you have to do. It's quite the balance. It's very convenient for the leader of the Conservatives not to take briefings so that he can say whatever he would like to say.

In conclusion, I just want to thank you for being here today and for shedding some more light, as much as you can in this forum. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will do a quick last round, not exactly as planned, but I understand it's going to be Mrs. Thomas sharing time with Mr. Berthold for four minutes. Then it will be Ms. O'Connell for four minutes and then Madam Gaudreau and Mrs. Blaney for two and a half minutes each.

Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Through you, Chair, I believe what we heard today, then, from Ms. Telford and the testimony she provided was the following.

Today, she was asked a series of very simple questions. They were questions that did not require top security clearance, and yet there was a failure to give proper answers. We asked questions with regard to the Prime Minister's knowledge. We asked questions about the briefings he received. We asked questions with regard to whether or not he was informed concerning Beijing's interference in our elections.

Ms. Telford refused to provide simple answers to these very simple questions. We know that numerous intelligence documents were made available to the media and have been reported to the public. We referenced those documents throughout our questions today, and again the questions we put forward were skirted or altogether shot down.

Now, what's quite convenient is that Ms. Telford cannot confirm the existence of documents that contain, of course, the most damning information concerning the Prime Minister. With that, I'm talking about documents that reveal Beijing's interference in our elections and Beijing's motivation to elect Liberals to the House of Commons by providing paid staff members to these campaigns, as well as funnelling hidden, secret and illegal money to them. Ms. Telford was not able to discuss these documents, conveniently. What's interesting, however, is that Ms. Telford had no problem whatsoever in denying the existence of some documents, but when it came to this document, the document that shows Beijing's interference in order to elect Liberals, Ms. Telford did not deny the existence of that one, so I'll allow her silence to speak for itself.

However, Ms. Telford also told us that the Prime Minister is briefed regularly. Ms. Telford also told us that she is the Prime Minister's right-hand individual, constantly with him, and that—and I'll quote directly—the Prime Minister reads “everything” and there is “nothing [that] is ever kept from the Prime Minister”.

Given the fact that the Prime Minister reads everything and that nothing is ever kept from him, the committee must then assume that the Prime Minister was aware and that the Prime Minister chose to actively ignore and avoid the information, the briefings and the warnings that were given to him by our top security and intelligence agencies in this country when it came to Beijing's interference. One must conclude that the only reason to turn a blind eye to such information is certainly not in the best interests of the Canadian electorate, and therefore only in the best interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, which of course benefited from this interference by getting both money and paid staff in order to secure their ridings.

I'll leave it there.

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, it—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

There was no question, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Ms. Telford.

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, it's interesting that I was accused of silence, then told that I wasn't asked a question when I was trying to answer and, further, was then being quoted in the statement that was just made, so apparently I did say something.

Madam Chair, I would say that what was being alleged or at least part of what was being alleged there were infractions of Elections Canada law, and there are mechanisms for those things to be investigated, so I would suggest that you be speaking to the appropriate agencies about what, if anything, should be happening on those fronts if those things are the case.

I think the member probably could have written this beforehand, Madam Chair, and that was one of the reasons that I was concerned about—and I think many were concerned about—whether or not it was the appropriate thing for me to be coming to this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I will just note that the comment that was made by the member took over two minutes, and you were able to respond in less than a minute, so the time to the member was way greater than it was for you to respond.

Ms. O'Connell, four minutes go to you.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Telford, thank you for being here today.

I think what we just witnessed is exactly what Canadians don't want out of this process. The Conservatives have not been getting the allegations and clips they want throughout the day, so they have resorted to just making a statement. After weeks of asking for you to appear, they decided to use their last minutes to try to not ask you any questions and just summarize a series of conspiracy theories, frankly, that testimony here today does not corroborate.

In the last moments that I have left, I'd like to ask you about the process. Ms. Harder talked about how you conveniently gave non-answers, even though you could have answered. I won't make any assumptions, but I would presume that Ms. Harder doesn't have the process that goes into classifying documents or determining classifications on documents and information. Perhaps you could speak to the process of why you can or cannot speak to a matter of national security, and who actually makes that determination, because it's certainly not just the Conservative members who feel they didn't get the responses they were hoping for.

[Katie Telford]

One of the reasons I said in my opening statement that I would respect the bounds the CSIS director and the NSIA put in place, or had around themselves when they came to committee in a public setting, is that they are in a far better position to be able to make those determinations than I am. That's because the classification of material happens within their purview and within their departments. Obviously it's different if it's material coming out of CSE, for example—and there are a number of different places within government—but the ultimate adviser on this kind of information to the PM, who reports directly to him, is the national security and intelligence adviser.

All of us who get cleared, as I mentioned briefly earlier, have to sign documentation where we make a number of undertakings. Written right into those undertakings are not only the consequences from a legal standpoint of revealing some of this information, but also the potential consequences of it, as I mentioned in my opening statement as well. They can be very severe for the country, and that's why we should all really respect them.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you. As someone who used to sit on NSICOP, I went through a similar process and understand that. However, part of that is also remembering what is classified and not classified, and you have to be extremely careful. That's why the national security community determines an entire process when speaking in a public forum.

Is this precisely why the critical election incident public protocol is in place? Is it to have the knowledge of that national security community, which can take the full picture of intelligence and provide it to the incident public protocol, which is non-partisan? Then they can properly make a determination on what constitutes the threshold to speak to Canadians during an election, knowing that they don't want to tip the scales in any fashion or even allude to that. Is having a non-partisan body with access to that full picture of intelligence why that's so important during the election process?

[Katie Telford]

I think all of that is exactly right. The only thing I would add is that the senior officials who are part of that panel have spent their lives, in most cases, serving Canadians as public servants. I think there's reason for all of us to have a lot of faith in the work they do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I only have two and a half minutes, so it's quite an effort.

Once again, I'd like to thank the witness, Ms. Telford.

I have two questions.

We've been given a lot of information today. For several years now, measures have been in place to counter foreign interference. As far back as 2015, efforts have been made in this regard; we agree.

However, what can we say to Canadians to reassure them? We see today that defending our democracy is not working. What do you have to say to the people watching? Obviously, there have been alerts, but unfortunately, interference is still happening.

[Katie Telford]

I would disagree a little bit with the thought that it's not working, because I think the fact that we're all having these conversations speaks to the fact that this is in the public domain in perhaps a new and different way. It doesn't mean the institutions themselves have not been working.

I think there are questions to be asked. I think those questions are being asked by a number of the bodies that we're talking about, by the appropriate ones. There are ones that do oversight of the security agencies themselves. There's the NSICOP multipartisan parliamentarian group, which is able to look at other parts.

There are a lot of different pieces to this. I appreciate that it's complex, but it's complex for a reason. This is a moment in the world. This is where I think we have to take that step back from saying we have some specific challenge here that is unique to Canada and that Canada has to just snap its fingers and solve this problem overnight. I don't think this is something that gets solved overnight. I think this is something that's been worked on for years, and I think it's something that our allies are dealing with too. That's why it was so predominant as a discussion point when the G7 was hosted here in Quebec.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

Given all of that and the fact that we're constantly adapting to what's going on, how is it that between 2019 and 2021, Canadians were not made aware that interference was happening and that it would continue to happen? Why was this withheld when we've been discussing it here for six months?

[Katie Telford]

I would offer two things quickly.

One is that the review of the panel's work that spoke to interference.... NSICOP also continued that between 2019 and 2021.

What I'll say quickly—because I can tell I'm getting the look—is that I think there was a lot of other news between 2019 and 2021, and perhaps that's why some of the reports coming out on this subject were not in the same kind of spotlight they might have been in if there hadn't been a pandemic, amongst many other things, at the time. A lot of this work was ongoing between 2019 and 2021 and was being reported on publicly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Through you, Chair, [Technical difficulty—Editor] I agree that this work needs to be taken out of the partisan environment of Parliament. I [Technical difficulty—Editor] why did the PM not instruct Mr. Johnston to set the terms of a public inquiry [Technical difficulty—Editor] than to decide whether or not to even have an inquiry? Is it not true that a public injury is the best way to take this out of partisanship?

[Katie Telford]

I think that's the first question.... I don't know that it is his first question, but probably the first question the special rapporteur needs to answer before he is able to answer what a mandate should look like is what the mechanism should look like. What is the question we're trying to answer? What are we trying to satisfy here? What is the moment at which we're trying to meet with Canadians here that can give them the satisfaction we all want them to have in their democratic institutions? What's the best way to do that?

First we have to figure that out, and then we figure out a mandate. If those things can already be happening or are already happening through other means and the spotlight just hasn't been shone on them, then perhaps, to my previous answer to a different question, that's something we need to think about.

I think there's a lot more to think about here than a binary choice—inquiry or no inquiry. That's hopefully what is now happening. Actually, I'm certain it is.

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

If a public inquiry had started three months ago, I don't think we'd be sitting here in this room today, but I'll leave that to you.

My last question [Technical difficulty—Editor] presidents do have the ability to declassify information at will. In a [Technical difficulty—Editor] situation, where the government has classified information to clear the air, it would be helpful if it were declassified without necessarily disclosing sources and methods [Technical difficulty—Editor] that would concern national security. Does Canada have a similar process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I've heard the question. I understand that the interpreters are not able to hear the question and that the Internet connection might be unstable, so I'm not sure if something else is running on your computer. Did something change, Ms. Blaney?

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

Nothing changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Interpreters, can you confirm that you hear me now?

Ms. Blaney, can you briefly summarize your question again?

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

Okay. I'll try. I'm hard-wired, so I don't know what could have happened.

Presidents do have the ability to declassify information at will. If there were a hypothetical situation where the government had classified information, and it [Technical difficulty—Editor] would clear the air and would be helpful if it were declassified without [Technical difficulty—Editor] sources and methods. I'm just wondering if Canada has a similar process.