Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Drouin, in response to my last question, you said there had never been a time when the panel made a determination to inform the public but a party representative disagreed with the decision. You also said that, if such a situation had arisen, the panel would have had the final say.

Has the opposite ever happened? Has the panel ever decided not to communicate information to the public but a party representative aware of the information had a different view?

[Nathalie Drouin]

No, we haven't experienced anything like that.

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

Since a party representative is bound to secrecy and cannot, on their own, decide to pass on information, for example to a candidate who might be the subject of sensitive information, how is it decided whether or not to notify a candidate?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Often, that decision will be made with the intelligence agencies. In fact, it was one of Justice Hogue's recommendations to learn to translate intelligence into unclassified information. It's not always easy, because we often have to protect our sources. This is a skill that we began developing as part of the commission of inquiry, but that we must continue to work on. Our intelligence agencies can work on wording that can be presented to the candidate. When we see that it's important, we can work to reduce the information so that the person targeted by the threat receives an unclassified version. That is part of the solution to reduce the risk.

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

Thank you very much.

If that happens, is this information shared with all party representatives or only with those whose candidate or riding is believed to be targeted? In some cases, could there be disparities in the information provided to the party representatives?

[Nathalie Drouin]

The information will be passed on to the people who are able to take action to reduce the threat.

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

How is that assessed?

[Nathalie Drouin]

It really depends on the person's situation. For example, if I have to tell you that someone in your circle is trying to get into your network in order to influence you to do one thing or another, I may not have to tell everyone about it. You are the one who needs to have the right tools, and perhaps some of the people around you, if this threat is directed at you, but I may not need to talk to more people about it. So the action really depends on what you're trying to achieve to reduce the threat.

Just a really—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We're well over again.

We'll move on to Mr. Cooper for five minutes, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The critical election incident public protocol's retrospective report states that, during the election, the panel concluded that “the ability to have a free and fair election...[in]...Don Valley North...was not threatened”. How did the panel come to that conclusion?

[Nathalie Drouin]

We were able to address what the candidate was facing in the early stage and redress the situation.

Maybe, Tricia, you want to add to that.

[Tricia Geddes]

There are a couple of things that I guess I would add. We did discuss this case a great deal. One of the principles we are involved in is to ensure we're not amplifying foreign interference where we feel it is not having an impact on the election results. That is one of the principles of the panel.

We did take a number of actions at that time to ensure the candidate himself had information at his disposal and also to make sure that the RCMP had information. There were a number of actions that were being taken then...but a very careful and deliberate conversation happening amongst the panel members as to whether or not we felt that this had impeded the ability to have a free and fair election in that riding.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Here's the situation.

Joe Tay, as the Conservative candidate, had a bounty placed on him by Hong Kong police. He was subject to a social media disinformation campaign by Beijing. In addition to that, he came before this committee and testified that he and his volunteers were harassed and intimidated. There were threats of violence, including a supporter receiving a parcel containing a dress splattered with red paint simulating blood and stabbed through the chest with a knife, sent as a graphic warning to not support his candidacy.

Mr. Tay's residence was surveilled on at least one occasion. There was a door-to-door disinformation campaign targeted at members of the Chinese diaspora community, including Chinese seniors homes. Mr. Tay reported that there was a significant drop in voter participation at Chinese seniors homes in the riding, and during the campaign he was warned by the RCMP that it was unsafe to canvass. It was so bad that he had to be checked in on, on a day-to-day basis, as to whether it was safe enough to go out and canvass, and all of this was happening in Canada during an election campaign.

In the face of all of that, what possibly could it take before the threshold would be met to say that this is not a free and fair election, that there is something here and, at the very least, that a full public notification needs to be made?

[Nathalie Drouin]

You can add, Tricia, but maybe, just to say, we did a regular follow-up also with the Conservative Party during the campaign. We also offered private security to the candidate: a program that was also available to all MPs facing threats. We were reassured by the party that the campaign was unfolding in the riding.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Well, I think most Canadians would be absolutely shocked that this sort of thing would be happening in Canada. It's quite astounding.

Now, the backgrounder provided through the Privy Council Office noted that there was a “deliberate and persistent” campaign, including disinformation, targeting Mr. Tay. Can you confirm if Beijing's Toronto consulate was involved in directing the interference campaign against Mr. Tay in Don Valley North?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Maybe we can talk to the engagement we had with China's representative on foreign interference.

[David Morrison]

There was no suggestion that we picked up of engagement by the Chinese consulate.

We did address the overall issue of foreign interference by China in the elections with personnel, as we did with all other governments, but we had no suggestion of active involvement by the Chinese consulate in Toronto.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'll cut you off there, Mr. Cooper.

We'll go to Madame Brière, please, for five minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Drouin, Commissioner Hogue's final report states that the work was carried out in two phases. The first phase concerned the interference activities that foreign actors may have engaged in, and the second phase concerned the flow of information within the federal government in relation to those activities and the measures taken in response to them.

How do you rate your work on this issue and the response rate?

[Nathalie Drouin]

In terms of the information flow, we have a system in place that allows us to better identify who is reading what. This is a responsibility that falls specifically on the national security advisors when it comes to briefing the Prime Minister. I have access to quite an incredible amount of intelligence. I'm not talking about the election period, but the period during which the government is in office.

Together with my teams, the heads of the intelligence agencies, as well as the officials responsible for public safety and foreign affairs, I determine what information the Prime Minister must receive in the course of his duties. It's an exercise that requires a lot of judgment and that must take into account what the Prime Minister needs to know when he undertakes certain activities. It must also take into account the Prime Minister's availability. We will send him the information we deem most relevant at the time he needs it.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

We agree that if the information deserves to reach the ears of the Prime Minister, he will find the time to listen to you.

[Nathalie Drouin]

Absolutely. When there is an emergency or information that the Prime Minister needs to know quickly, we always listen carefully and find a way to make ourselves available.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

I see two areas where you have to strike a balance. First, there is the information itself, which may be public or confidential. Second, you have to determine whether the disclosure of information could compromise national security.

Can you talk a little bit about those two things?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I would start by saying that the past few years and all the questions you asked before bring us to the basic principle that transparency must take precedence by default. Canadians need to be informed. It contributes to their resilience, and that resilience diminishes the effect of foreign interference activities. So, by default, transparency is paramount.

As I said earlier, we also have to learn to talk about realities without necessarily disclosing the sources, without putting them at risk and without cutting bridges, which could prevent us from obtaining future information. We've started learning how to do this, and we must continue.

To summarize my answer, I would say that there is always a need to communicate with Canadians, but the level of detail may differ depending on the circumstances.