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?