Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, thank you for that question. Madam Koutrakis's question is very important.

The simple answer to the question is that effectively no measures existed before our government won the 2015 election. The first general election in which there was a series of discrete and deliberate measures in place to detect, respond to, mitigate and ultimately, if necessary, inform Canadians around foreign interference was the 2019 election. Our colleague Karina Gould at the time was minister of democratic institutions. That's when many of these measures were stood up.

Parliament changed the legislation in 2018 to plug some loopholes around potential foreign financing in the Canadian electoral system. Those are measures that have existed for five or six years. At the G7 summit in Charlevoix, in the province of Quebec, the Prime Minister agreed with G7 leaders around establishing a rapid response mechanism, because this threat is not unique to Canada. Many of our allies around the world and other big democracies, like those in the G7, face similar threats.

We modernized the Elections Act in 2018. Those amendments to the Canada Elections Act brought in, for example, advertising and reporting regimes for fundraising events and for party leadership contestants. Those were new measures. In 2019, we unveiled the “protecting democracy” plan, which had four important pillars. One was enhancing citizen preparedness and citizen resilience. One of your colleagues spoke about the challenge of misinformation and disinformation. It's increasingly a threat to free and fair elections. The best remedy is to inoculate Canadians against those threats. That has to be done by civil society and outside experts to the extent possible.

We improved organizational readiness within the Government of Canada. We provided, for example, briefings to all political parties, to designated representatives who were security-cleared to receive this information. We set up the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, a group of professionals that head our security and intelligence agencies, who would provide advice. Perhaps you took note that we again stood up that group in the context of these ongoing by-elections that were called for later next month. We also passed the “Canada Declaration on Electoral Integrity Online” provisions to hold social media platforms accountable for their appropriate role in dealing with disinformation and misinformation.

It's an ongoing effort. Federal budgets in 2019 added $19.4 million over four years. We gave the Communications Security Establishment, an agency of National Defence, $4.2 million over three years. We've continually invested in the apparatus necessary to ensure that our security and intelligence community has the tools needed to do the best we can, but we don't pretend that these are perfect answers.

In response to your colleague's questions, we don't think the job is ever done. If there are ways that we can further strengthen and improve these measures.... The threat continues to evolve. We can learn from other countries, so we're very much on the hunt for good ideas and better practices, and we're continually looking for ways to improve what we think is a considerable body of work that we've done to date.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Quickly, what is the government doing to strengthen communities and populations most at risk from disinformation?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's a very good question.

A lot of it speaks to diaspora communities in Canada. Many of these communities are targeted in languages other than English and French. We think preparing citizen resiliency is probably the best approach, including in those communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

Madam Gaudreau, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I got a lot of answers to my questions, but I'm forced to note that humans are like that: They wait for the lid to pop before they get busy and really focus on what's important.

You also don't need 20 years of experience in politics to understand that when you're in power you want to stay there, and when you're not, you want to try to find your way there.

Every three months, when it comes to being non-partisan with regard to particular interests, I repeat that I'm not looking for power. I'm seeking it for Quebec, later.

However, given the polls that were done, I'm worried about the next election. One in five voters have clearly expressed that they no longer trust our electoral system, its integrity.

I did not expect the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to begin studying the issue of interference in November. Now, May 23 is approaching. We'll get results that may have already been heard and are expected.

What should we say to the population, in the meantime?

This is a good time; let's take a good minute to explain to people that they can trust us, because we know where we're going and what to propose to improve things.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, that's an excellent question.

It's true that Ms. Gaudreau has the virtue of saying that her political party is not seeking to form the Government of Canada. I don't want to disagree with a colleague I like, but let's not confuse the terms “non-partisan” and “non-governmental”.

I've been a member of the House of Commons for a long time. I've made friends with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, who are some of the best supporters of the parliamentary system I know. They are people who fundamentally respect democracy and the parliamentary system, it must be said.

It's true that the Bloc Québécois does not aspire, unlike the other parties, to form a government.

Your question is extremely important and must be heard by all political parties present in the House of Commons, as it concerns Canadians' confidence in their electoral, political and public institutions.

I recognize and share the concerns about the challenges. The best thing we can do is build on what we've already established and continue to draw on the advice of MPs like my colleagues here, as well as you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Before I ask questions of the minister, I want to read in a notice of motion. I will be emailing that to the clerk and we can send it around. I'll read it out, and then I'll get on to asking questions.

The motion is as follows:

That the committee recognize that (i) a 2014 resolution prioritized by the Liberal Party of Canada called for “an all-Party process be instituted, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with recommendations for electoral reforms including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent Canadians more fairly and serve Canada better”; (ii) the 2015 Liberal election campaign included a promise to end the first-past-the-post electoral system; (iii) The 2016 Report of the Standing Committee on Electoral Reform observed that a majority of the experts who testified recommended proportional representation. The government stated it would “undertake a period of comprehensive and effective citizen engagement before proposing specific changes to the current federal voting system”; (iv) A Leger poll conducted in September 2020 showed that 76% of respondents supported a move to proportional representation and 80% supported the idea of striking a non-partisan, independent citizens’ assembly on electoral reform; (v) In 2021, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee passed a motion to undertake a study of a National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform; and, that the committee (a) urge the Government of Canada to establish a non-partisan National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform and (b) recommend to the House that it task the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with developing guidelines for the establishment of such an assembly and report these to the House by December 15, 2023.

My first question to the minister—and obviously my last, with the limited time I have—is around misinformation and the fact that Finland is actually coming out as quite a strong leader.

Part of that is having extensive education in many of their programs, not only in elementary schools but all the way into college and university. It's not limited to just that classroom setting, but every classroom setting. I'm wondering if that's something you're working on with other levels of government.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, I know that colleagues would be so interested in that answer.

Poor Al Sutherland was having flashbacks to that democratic reform period here. I want to make sure Al is okay after you read that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to—

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

In answer to her question, yes, that was one of the countries that was identified for me in terms of best practices around civics and education, starting with school-aged children. The challenge, of course, is that in a federal system, that is entirely within provincial jurisdiction. I can imagine your colleague to your right having views if we were to offer curricula suggestions in schools, but we entirely support the idea of greater citizen awareness, starting with younger people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

You have about four and a half minutes, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Sutherland, you are the assistant secretary to the cabinet at the PCO for the machinery of government. You're the lead PCO official on democratic files. When did you first become aware of the July 20, 2021, intelligence memo stating that Michael Chong was being targeted by an accredited Beijing diplomat?

[Allen Sutherland]

I believe I first heard about it when I read The Globe and Mail.

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

Thank you for that.

Minister, you implicitly acknowledged that sitting members of Parliament, other than Michael Chong, have been left in the dark. We know that at least two other members of Parliament are in the process or have been recently briefed that they have been a target of the Beijing regime.

Why is it that only now, after it was reported in The Globe and Mail that Michael Chong had been kept in the dark, that steps are being undertaken to brief members of Parliament? Why has it taken this Prime Minister so long to realize that MPs should be briefed when they're the target of Beijing and other hostile foreign states? Isn't it because the Prime Minister did nothing, covered it up and is now in damage control mode?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I don't think it will surprise you, Madam Chair, that I don't share Mr. Cooper's pessimism. As for those highly inappropriate words at the end of his question, I don't associate myself with those at all. I would think the Prime Minister acts in the opposite sense of those words.

Madam Chair, my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, of course, would have the lead responsibility for this, but he and I are working together in this space in a number of ways. We have said that the information sharing around these issues needs to be strengthened. That is what the Prime Minister has said publicly. That's exactly what the public safety minister is implementing now.

If these other colleagues are being contacted and asked to be available for briefings by the appropriate officials of CSIS, it's precisely because we want to strengthen their resiliency, and Mr. Cooper certainly wouldn't say that because we perhaps waited some time, we shouldn't do it now.

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

Minister—through you, Madam Chair—what is inappropriate is that we have a sitting member of Parliament who was kept in the dark for three years and learned about it in The Globe and Mail. That's what's inappropriate. What's also inappropriate is that under this Prime Minister's watch, only now are members of Parliament being informed. That's inappropriate. It's unacceptable, and what's further inappropriate, Minister—through you, Madam Chair—is that on May 3, when the Prime Minister was scrummed, the Prime Minister mislead Canadians. He said, in reference to—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have a point of order.

Madam Chair, under Standing Order 18, it is inappropriate to make reference impugning the integrity of a sitting member of Parliament, so I ask the member opposite to withdraw that statement.

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

I believe that I said “mislead” and not “deliberately mislead”. I'll put the words of the Prime Minister into the record. He stated, “CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed to be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern.”

Those were the Prime Minister's words. He made that categorical statement, except for the fact that this was simply not true. CSIS had alerted the PCO. They had shared that information with the relevant departments. It's not as if the Prime Minister said that he didn't know and that this was the first he learned of it. He very specifically said that they made a determination not to raise it to a higher level. Why would he mislead Canadians on something as serious as that?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, the Prime Minister would obviously never want to mislead Canadians on something as important as that. He subsequently said that he learned of those allegations surrounding—and this is where I agree with Mr. Cooper—the unacceptable circumstances involving Mr. Chong. He learned about those when they became public.

Again, it's a he-said-she-said scenario where I'm going to some extent by comments I've seen in the public space. I would draw Mr. Cooper's attention to the former national security adviser, Vincent Rigby, who was in that job for many of those critical months and who said that he himself had not seen what the advice was that had been sent to Privy Council.

Parsing who saw what piece of information when is interesting, and it makes a great episode of Matlock, Madam Chair, but I would think what's important is for the government to strengthen—

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

Minister, with the greatest respect, those were—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to pause this real quick because it's tough when both of you are speaking.

I'm going to give the last 10 seconds to Mr. Cooper because it's the easiest way.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians. He made a very specific statement that proved not to be true. It's part of a continued pattern, and it's all the more disturbing that the Prime Minister claims he was kept in the dark, this from a Prime Minister who is supposedly briefed on national security matters, reads everything and from whom nothing is currently held back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I'm going to continue with Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today.

Sometimes MPs make all sorts of accusations. In this case, however, the situation was quite simple.

Could you explain what happened in Mr. Chong's case and tell us about the briefings the Prime Minister received? Can you elaborate on that?