Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 25th, 2023

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Chair, I just want to note that Mr. Waterhouse nodded his head. He didn't have a chance to answer, but I think he agrees with what Mr. Bordeleau said.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Normandin, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, I would like to get your comments on the risk of the public digging their heels in if an alert about an interference activity is issued publicly by a source that is not necessarily regarded as credible, such as a partisan organization. Can you talk about that danger?

I would also like to know what you think about the idea that Michel Juneau-Katsuya brought to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics: to create a kind of permanent independent bureau of investigation into foreign interference that would have to report to the House, a bit like the Office of the Auditor General, and would be non-partisan.

Could that body eventually be the one to alert the public when there is interference, to give the impression of neutrality and non-partisanship? Might that work to strengthen confidence in that tool?

[Steve Waterhouse]

The suggestion of having a guarantee of transparency and independence by creating a body like that is a good one. It will have to be determined whether it needs to be completely independent and separate from Elections Canada.

We should not be multiplying the number of voices that are giving answers to a worried public. On the other hand, having a guarantee that is parallel and completely independent of any influence from the judicial process, to prove that there has been any sort of interference, would certainly be welcome.

However, the question we have to keep in mind is: who is going to be assigned to do this kind of work? Obviously, the person will have to be absolutely apolitical in relation to it all.

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

I agree entirely.

I would say that in an ideal world, it would be a sort of auditor general who would work with analysts from various federal organizations, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment and Elections Canada. With the help of analysts from these various organizations, the person would, in my opinion, be able to do a better job of determining what information should be disclosed and how it should be disclosed.

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

So would it be a good idea for that entity to report to the House of Commons rather than to the government?

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

That would be an entirely good idea, as is the case for the chief electoral officer of Canada, who reports to the House of Commons. It would be the same style.

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

Excellent, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I'll go to you first, Mr. Bordeleau. I think one of the challenges is this: How do you inform Canadians? How do you keep the information clear? How do you not disrupt national security so that we continue to get the information that we rightfully need?

I hear what you're saying, that it needs to be arm's length. You mentioned in your presentation the fact that we need a legislative response to that. I don't expect you to write the legislation right now in front of us—although that would be very helpful—but what are the key things that we need to have in that legislation? I know that other countries are doing that work.

What are the key things that will help Canadians have faith in the system but also protect our ability to collect information so that we can protect the dignity of our democracy?

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

That's an excellent question.

There are different techniques. Foreign interference comes from a wide range of different fields. It comes from finance, from information, as we've talked about, and there are plenty of other potential techniques. That's why, when it comes to what information needs to be made available to the public, I don't think I can answer that question fully. I think only experts in those specific techniques and those specific fields would be able to do that.

In terms of information, which is something I can speak about, I will say this and I've said it before: It needs to be clear. In the case of Australia, for instance, when they make information regarding foreign interference in elections public, they talk very specifically about investigations that have concluded and are not ongoing. Right here, we are addressing the fact that this isn't going to compromise national security because these are investigations that have been terminated.

The information is also very clear in saying that X did Y with the objective of achieving “this”. The information and the objectives of the agent are made very clear. This is the best way to approach the topic.

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

I don't have a lot of time left.

You talked about having, on that site, multiple people signing off on the information. We also just talked about having an independent branch that maybe gives the information.

I'm a little confused about which direction would be wisest.

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

It is an independent task force, but there are members within that task force that come from a wide variety of expertise and departments, like the department of finance in Australia, the treasury board and the security services. It's a wide range of individuals with a wide range of expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I'm going to suggest, because you have such a wealth of information, that maybe you can send an extended answer to the clerk and we could circulate that. That way we'll get the details. Thank you so much.

We'll have Mr. Nater for two minutes, followed by Ms. Sahota. Then we'll be on our way.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, thank you to our witnesses for joining us.

It's been a fruitful conversation. I honestly wish we could have a little more time with these witnesses, but that's always the challenge with these types of meetings.

I want to begin with Monsieur Bordeleau and follow up on some of his expertise comparing the Five Eyes countries. The idea of a foreign influence registry has been mentioned a little bit. Here in Canada, consultations are ongoing. Earlier today, a Liberal-appointed senator sent out an open letter with some quite interesting observations, frankly, in opposition to such a registry. Obviously, there have been suggestions that this should exist in Canada. One of our former colleagues went so far as to table legislation on such a matter.

From your experience in looking at our Five Eye colleagues, what is the significance of such a registry? Why have some of our international colleagues gone down that road? What benefit does that hold for Canada as we undertake these consultations?

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

That's an excellent question.

In order not to waste time, I will be really brief in saying that I'm not an expert on foreign agent registries. I have done a bit of research on it, but I think the reports that will come from those consultations, which I am a part of, will do a much better job of explaining what should and shouldn't be done in that regard.

However, I think it is a good idea that we are considering it, if I may.

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

I appreciate that and look forward to any information that comes out of that.

In response to one of our questions, you talked a little bit about the idea of “controlled transparency”. What safeguards would you like to see put in place to safeguard some of that controlled transparency?

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

Could you clarify the question?

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

You talked about how some of our international counterparts have a controlled transparency in terms of information that is released. There are certain controls in terms of what gets released and how. You mentioned that it wasn't quite verifiable information.

I would like you to clarify that a little bit, in terms of what safeguards ought to be in place when that information is being released.

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

First of all, the information needs to be clear, of course. It needs to not be a concern for national security, as was discussed. I think it also needs to come from a strong, reliable and independent source that isn't affiliated and potentially could report to the House of Commons. That would be an ideal situation, for sure.

Having this independent organization or group have a clear threshold of what is made public to the House of Commons would be beneficial.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota, you have two minutes and 45 seconds.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Going off that a little bit, the Australian model is recommended highly by you, Mr. Bordeleau and other witnesses who have come before the committee, but the feedback that we've been reading in some articles isn't all positive. We want to make sure that we learn from the lessons of Australia as well.

In a recent article published last month about Australia's foreign registry, it outlined that the Confucius Institute at 13 colleges was not included on the registry but the Canadian pension plan is. To quote the article, “An 'agnostic' law that applies the same to democracies like Canada as autocracies like Russia—plus lax enforcement—have made the scheme largely ineffective, argues lawyer, [Mr.] Ward, who was a senior advisor to two former Australian prime ministers on the initiative.”

Do you have any comments on the Australian registry? What are some of the lessons we can learn about that?

I have one other follow-up.

[Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau]

I want to be clear. There's a difference between the transparency scheme in Australia and the foreign registry in Australia. This is just to make sure, because I've talked about both. I want to make sure that this is about the registry.

I think there certainly have been some failures and weaknesses with the registry in Australia, which you've mentioned, and also in preventing international organizations from working within Australia because of their work in other countries such as China.

I do think that those negative points need to be taken into consideration when considering a registry here in Canada, for sure. It's not all positive.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have another quick question. Based off a question I asked before about our media ecosystem, the government's been putting in place measures, like the online news act and other things, to try to make sure that we have public broadcasting as well as other news outlets for Canadians.

Do you think the closures that we're seeing globally are contributing to the rise in disinformation and misinformation? Should the government be doing more to protect our media sources?

[Laurence Grondin-Robillard]

Can you clarify the question?