Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 25th, 2023

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Should the government be involved—just like you're saying that the government should have a website to clarify—or it should be an arm's-length agency?

We've been doing things like that, but then it's often criticized as a government-funded news source or that there's support that the government gives. The news agency's independence is automatically questioned at that point.

Similar to that, Mr. David Johnston, who has great integrity, is also being questioned as the special rapporteur assigned this new task.

How does the government implement things? Obviously the government would be paying for these agencies to run a system like this. How do we do that yet keep the integrity and independence of those people, systems and journalists?

[Laurence Grondin-Robillard]

I think the important thing is to continue to be transparent. As well, when there are accusations or criticisms, as was recently the case regarding the CBC, it might be good to remind people of the other funds that exist and the ways the other networks in the country are funded. It might be useful to point out the role the CRTC plays in distributing funds. That might remind certain entities of how the funding of certain networks functions.

As a final point, being more transparent and giving more information about the process would be a good start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you all very much for your comments.

If you have anything else to...

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Bordeleau wanted to say something, but since there's no time left, as you've indicated, would he be able to provide the answer to that question in a written response?

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

That's what I was going to say, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Interestingly enough, that's what I was going to say, but who am I?

I do this at the end of every single panel. I know it's our first meeting on foreign election interference, so people might not know. If you have anything to add to your comments or something else comes up later on at night, please do send it to the clerk. The clerk will make sure that it is distributed to all members.

With that, it was a very insightful conversation. We're really grateful for the work that you do and the time that you've taken to be here. It really does mean a lot to our committee. On behalf of all PROC committee members, thank you so much and have a good night.

We will suspend for two minutes. We have to do a sound check for one of our witnesses who will be online, and we have one in person. We have a two-minute suspension, and we will continue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good evening, everyone. We will continue with our next panel.

We have with us Ms. Sophie Marineau, Ph.D. doctorate, international relations, who is joining us by video conference. We also have with us Ms. Lori Turnbull, associate professor, and director of the school of public administration, Dalhousie University.

I would like to thank both of you for being with us here this evening.

You will each have four minutes for an opening statement, after which we will proceed to questions from committee members.

We will start with you, Ms. Marineau. Welcome.

[Sophie Marineau, PhD Doctorate, International Relations, As an Individual]

Hello, Madam Chair.

My name is Sophie Marineau. I am a doctoral candidate in the history of international relations at the Université catholique de Louvain, in Belgium, and I specialize in Russian foreign policy. In recent years, my work has focused primarily on the use of disinformation as a tool of foreign policy, more specifically in the 2016 and 2020 American elections. I have also done a lot of work on the war in Ukraine and the effectiveness of western sanctions.

The study of Russian interference in the American elections is particularly relevant in that we must not look at interference in Canada as an isolated phenomenon, and must rather see it from a more global perspective. Russian interference in the recent American elections was so extensive, including through the use of social networks, that platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit were held to account and had to explain how the Russians had infiltrated their platforms to carry on massive disinformation campaigns and undermine Americans' confidence in their electoral system and government institutions. In the reports produced by Twitter and Facebook, in particular, the methods used and the results achieved are reported in sufficient detail to become a method or process to follow for other actors, potentially China, who might use them against Canada.

In the United States, the investigations revealed that the disinformation campaigns and attacks were not limited to social media and had also resulted in violence in real life. The FBI was able to show that there had been interference in the organization of the rally in Charlottesville in 2017 where members of the alt right and Black Lives Matter supporters faced off, ending with three dead and nearly 50 injured.

In a parallel move, Russians were also involved in organizing a gathering in Houston, Texas, where adherents of the nationalist Heart of Texas movement and of United Muslims of America ended up in the same place at the same time. Once again, it led to violent incidents.

Based on Russia's current approach, the disinformation and interference has several parallel objectives, including sowing chaos, undermining Americans' confidence in their electoral system and their institutions, and trying to influence the election in order that the party in power would be more sympathetic to Russia.

Foreign interference in all its forms often has the effect of blurring the traditional lines of a conflict or an attack by another country, which makes the effort to combat the phenomenon of interference that much more complicated.

As we have seen in the United States, the work done by the government alone is not sufficient to eradicate the phenomenon. The government cannot be the only rampart protecting us against these all-out attacks. The interference has to be exposed. Media platforms, social networks, institutions, political parties and the general public have to be made aware of these phenomena, and a collective effort is what will make Canada better able to protect itself against foreign interference.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

It is now your turn, Ms. Turnbull. Welcome.

[Dr. Lori Turnbull, Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for having me. I'll make just a few opening comments.

The issue of foreign interference in elections has gained prominence in Canadian politics as of late, due largely to concerns about the possibility of such interference in certain ridings in the 2019 and 2021 elections. Moreover, recent leaks of classified intelligence that decry a failure to act on the threat of foreign interference have contributed to a sense of urgency around the issue.

We all know that foreign interference in elections is not new. That said, it is taking new forms, because foreign actors have an increased capacity to interfere, particularly through the use of digital technologies and social media.

According to a Government of Canada publication entitled “Foreign Interference Threats to Canada's Democratic Process”, foreign interference “includes attempts to covertly influence, intimidate, manipulate, interfere, corrupt or discredit individuals, organizations and governments to further the interests of a foreign country”. Simply put, foreign interference comes down to attempts to clandestinely influence political decisions and outcomes.

You have testimony from others who are far more qualified to tell you about the nature and specifics of foreign threats. I am a political scientist who studies parliaments, elections, political attitudes and behaviour, and public and political institutions broadly, so my comments will be focused on the health of democracy inside Canada and our ability, or lack thereof, to fend off threats, whether foreign or domestic.

I'll start with an obvious point, and I don't have to convince you of this point: Elections are important—really important. They are the primary mechanisms by which, as a sovereign country, we decide for ourselves. The legitimacy of governments and their decisions rests with the fairness, both real and perceived, of the processes that elect people to office. As elected members, you don't need me to explain this to you, but I raise this point because we need to bear in mind how any threat to the perception or reality of the proper administration of elections, whether from a foreign or domestic source, undermines our capacity to decide for ourselves. We can't take this matter lightly.

The report I referenced earlier describes our democratic institutions and electoral system as “strong”. Sadly, I think this statement requires qualification. I don't want to overemphasize the problems. We have much to be proud of, including a long history of free and fair elections as administered by independent elections offices in Canada and in the provinces and territories. We have many examples to point to of how governments are held to account in meaningful ways and subject to regulations and political processes based on transparency, including the recent inquiry into the federal government's use of the Emergencies Act. This was a time when the Prime Minister of Canada and the people who are the most powerful around him were held to account and had to answer questions in public. This doesn't happen in the absence of democratic values and institutions.

That said, our democracy needs a shot in the arm. We need to have a hard look at what works and what doesn't. Voter turnout is a clear indicator of a hollowness in our electoral democracy. Only 43.5% of voters participated in the last provincial election in Ontario. With such a low level of participation, the relative threat of foreign interference is greater. Our democracy is increasingly lacking the centre of gravity that comes only with widespread participation and engagement. Without this stabilizing factor, we are less able to fend off threats and attempts to mislead and intimidate.

It is shocking how many Canadians feel politically orphaned. In a functioning democracy, this shouldn't happen. Democracies are supposed to work like markets. There is an incentive for politicians and parties to give people what they want. When most people switch off and aren't engaged, those who are selling political products have an incentive to play on the margins and to court opinions that would not survive in a robust political marketplace but are firmly held by a motivated few. This is democracy gone bad.

We need a proper filtering process for ideas. This can only happen when a strong majority of people participate. Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate for the tyranny of the majority. That can have and has had disastrous results. However, democracies can handle only so much apathy before they stop functioning, and I think we're there now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will start our first round of six minutes with Mr. Cooper, followed by Mr. Turnbull.

It will then be Ms. Normandin's turn, and she will be followed by Ms. Blaney.

I will ask everyone who will be speaking to remember that we have two official languages. If we could all be mindful of the speed at which we speak, that would be excellent.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to direct my questions to Professor Turnbull.

Although there has been a lot of focus as of late on Beijing's election interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, during the 2015 election there was also foreign interference and foreign money that was directed to third party organizations that were registered.

For example, in 2017, I wrote to the commissioner of Elections Canada with a complaint in which I had identified that a total of $693,023.50 had been transferred from the Tides Foundation, which is based in California, to eight different third party groups: The Council of Canadians, the Dogwood Initiative, Ecology Ottawa, Équiterre, Greenpeace Canada, Toronto350, the West Coast Environmental Law Association and the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. None of that was reported by any of those eight third party groups. They did spend a total of $317,426.80 in the 2015 election.

In short, when Elections Canada responded, they said effectively that there was nothing they could do because of certain loopholes that existed in the legislation at that time. The government did move forward to amend the Canada Elections Act, with really significant amendments in Bill C-76. I know that you appeared—I think at this committee—on Bill C-76.

The Chief Electoral Officer, in his report on the 43rd and 44th elections, does in a section speak about some of the issues around third parties, in which he notes that some of these loopholes still exist—at least two.

One is that there's a melding issue. That was an issue with respect to my 2017 complaint, in which funds donated to a third party, even from a foreign source, can be treated as melded and as part of the general revenue of the third party. A second loophole is that a third party can accept contributions from another entity and report having received those funds from that entity, even though those funds may have come from another source.

That's a long preamble, but I think it's important to provide some context in terms of loopholes or gaps that exist within the Canada Elections Act.

I know that you have studied the act and you've appeared as a witness. Do you have any recommendations on how we can strengthen the Canada Elections Act to stop the flow of foreign money?

[Dr. Lori Turnbull]

I appreciate the question. Thank you.

I think that when it comes to third parties it's particularly difficult, because they tend to function as multi-purpose kinds of organizations, where they might be getting all kinds of money from all kinds of people and organizations from different places, depending on what their primary function is.

Then, when they switch specifically to a campaign period and they become engaged in the electoral process, I think the melding issue you identify is the important one. If they have a general revenue supply and they start to shift towards campaign spending, how do you then start to pay very close attention to the activities of a third party and how much money and what kind of money is being flowed toward campaign activities and which of it is preserved for their organizational purpose, which happens and exists all the time? At the same time, I think you don't want to get to the point where you're auditing to the point of granularity that you deter the activities of the organization and they don't want to function at all.

I think educational aspects are important. It's important to talk to third parties about being compliant. It's about trying to make sure that people are aware of what the rules are and what they require. Apart from that, again, it's difficult when you start to look at some of these third parties that are not that: Some of them are working primarily as political entities and don't necessarily have big purposes outside.

As for what's there, sometimes I get concerned because there seems to be a bit of a lack of concern around the activities. You can see in some jurisdictions—for example, in Ontario—that there can be court cases that remove the rules around third parties or that create the possibility of not having a level playing field. I think that would be very bad, so I'm thinking that it's important to keep the rules we have.

Again, I think we're always catching up. There's always the activity that's going on, and the law and the regulations are always a bit of a step behind in trying to figure out how to be compliant. In-kind contributions are another challenge, because that's much harder to trace than the flow of money.

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

I take it from your answer that you don't have any suggestions for amendments to the act to deal with the melding issue, or is there something you have in mind?

When we're talking about $317,000 spent, and nearly $700,000 that went into just eight groups.... There were other groups, but those were eight where money went directly from Tides into the eight. That was all in 2015, in months leading up to an election in which all of those organizations took, to one degree or another, a fairly active role and position in the 2015 campaign.

[Dr. Lori Turnbull]

That was 2015, so the rules have changed since then.

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

Yes, but the issue was still.... The loophole in the melding issue remains.

[Dr. Lori Turnbull]

Apart from transparency, I'm not sure what you can do, apart from making it so miserable for a third party to contribute to political conversations that they don't want to do it at all, and I don't think that's a better thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to Professor Turnbull and Ms. Marineau for being here today. We appreciate your testimony.

Professor Turnbull, in your opening remarks, I think I agreed with everything you said, although I was a little shocked by the last statement and the apathy comment you made that we're sort of there and, from your perspective, it sounds like things are getting pretty bad.

From all of our work in this committee on this topic, our government has been making strides all along the way to address the evolving threat environment. That's not to say that we can't do a lot more, which I think is the very legitimate and authentic concern we all bring to this work in taking every threat to our democracy seriously. I think you shared that sentiment in your opening remarks, so I definitely relate to that.

In terms of how this committee and some of these conversations have become overly heated, I know that you made some comments about some of the things that the leader of the official opposition said. You called it “overheated rhetoric and making unfounded allegations”, I believe, at the time.

I'm wondering if you can expand on that in the sense that I think we really need to tone this down and focus on what measures would enhance our democracy. Would you not agree?

[Dr. Lori Turnbull]

I would agree with that, and I think that's what's really important.

At this point, I think we are in the middle of a process whereby Mr. Johnston will make some recommendations about how to deal with this issue. They could include a public inquiry or not. I would be really sad if he didn't make a recommendation for a public inquiry that is broad and not just about foreign interference. I don't think it's the right place to deal with foreign interference issues as a kind of fact-finding mission, because you can't say everything in public. I think it's more important to have a much broader conversation at this point about the health of democracy as measured by a number of indicators.

For me, to try to be quick in answering your question, if we thought about things like whether we should bring back the per-vote subsidy for political parties so that they have stable funding they can count on year over year, would that bring some kind of stability? Are we seeing some inflamed rhetoric because parties are very heavily dependent on private donations, for example? Maybe some of that would have the tone-down effect you talked about.

Would it be a good idea to lower the voting age to 16 and recognize that 16-year-olds are actually quite capable of making these sorts of decisions and having conversations about things that affect all of us, and that this type of inclusion in conversation, matched with robust civics classes across the country, would maybe then change the dialogue? I think we're more responsible when we have conversations with teenagers and younger people. We're not as nasty—I hope we're not—so sometimes that can have a really good effect.

I think we need to be talking about things like how to recruit and retain people in public office, and how to make it less of a miserable experience for a lot of people. I think we have to talk about how we can build our own civic self-defence so that we can tell the difference between truth and lies, no matter who is throwing them out there.

When you build those things, you don't necessarily have to say things like, “We are going to censor divisive rhetoric.” We can't do that. We have to make other things different so that they become much less marketable and much less common.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Those are interesting ideas, and I appreciate those sentiments and comments.

Based on the last panel, which I found really interesting—I noticed you happened to be in the back of the room, listening in—I am struck by how much the tools we use to consume information have changed our democracy fundamentally. It's not even a slow drip of information that we're consuming. It's a fast drip. We're sucking on the firehose of information, and it's interesting how that changes the discourse.

I find it troubling to think and to hear from multiple witnesses that we're not able to determine what is true from what is false in that online information space and that we're consuming it in the way we do.

Do you have any ideas about how we can address that? It seems to me that it is really at the forefront of the threat environment that we haven't yet responded to. We've heard about it in terms of the CSIS Act.

I wonder whether you have any ideas.

[Dr. Lori Turnbull]

To try to identify what is truth and what is not truth.... You'd think that would be an easy process. You'd think that people would agree on the difference between truth and falsehood, but we don't anymore. I think that things like education are really important. However, that's not an easy fix. That's something that happens over time.

I think that doing what we can to try to increase the voter turnout and the sense of engagement in politics more broadly is really important. What's happening is that, when you get so few people participating.... So many people think that they're political orphans. They want to vote. They want to engage. They're looking around, and they think nobody is matching what they want. That's a problem. That is a system malfunction. We shouldn't have that. We shouldn't have parties that do not see why it's important to appeal to that kind of sense of consensus—because we don't see the consensus anymore.

I have the long-game kind of answers around making sure that, for example, people are getting exposure to what our democratic values are at a very young age and then going forward so that they're ready for this kind of thing and can handle it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Normandin, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will have questions for both witnesses, but I am going to start with you, Ms. Turnbull.

You have already answered some questions...

Do you have access to the interpretation? I would like to be sure before continuing.