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

[Nathalie Drouin]

Yes, the threshold is set in the protocol itself. It's a cabinet directive. However, and we talked about this earlier, independent assessments, as well as a commission of inquiry, have analyzed the threshold and provided external feedback. As has been discussed, the goal was to avoid influencing the course of the election. Every time, the independent assessments and the commission of inquiry determined that the threshold should remain high so as not to influence the course of the election.

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

Nevertheless, a body for which the government is responsible has the final say, does it not?

[Nathalie Drouin]

With respect to where the threshold is set, we've received a tremendous amount of feedback, as I just said. The current threshold has undergone three rounds of assessment, if I can put it that way. I'm sure that any government would be willing to incorporate any new recommendations that were made.

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

Is it the same process for setting the threshold for political parties? Is it set before the election, or is it done in co-operation with the parties? I understand that external assessments are carried out. Do the parties have any say in setting the threshold that applies to them? How does the dynamic between the panel and the parties work?

[Nathalie Drouin]

In relation to the parties and what should or shouldn't be communicated to the individuals concerned, we are mainly guided by the thresholds set by the intelligence agencies. My colleague Ms. Geddes can give you more information on that.

When it comes to the rapid response mechanism, for instance, the dynamic is much more about co-operation and information validity.

Tricia, maybe you can add to that in terms of what the indicators are to share information.

[Tricia Geddes]

Thank you.

There are two things I would say, from my long career working in security and intelligence.

It is really difficult for us to be able to determine how much information we can share in an unclassified way, but the point I want to add is that this was a very continuous feedback conversation we were having during the election process. With those briefings to the political parties, to community groups and to others, this was a continual understanding being brought back to the panel. In the course of us seeing events as they were transpiring, it was an iteration, so we were having an ongoing discussion to better understand it.

I think there was even a very good sense of collaboration with the political parties about our understanding of the events as they were transpiring, and frankly, of the perspectives that those political parties might have had on those very same events. It was definitely a circular feedback loop that was instrumental to our contemplations.

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

I know you may not be able to tell us this, but I'm going to ask you anyway. Has there ever been a time when a party disagreed with the panel's decision on whether the threshold had been met for informing the public?

[Nathalie Drouin]

We haven't run into a situation like that, as far as informing the public is concerned. Your question does raise an interesting theoretical issue, though. If the panel determined that Canadians needed to be made aware of an incident but a party didn't agree with that decision, there could be some sort of discussion regarding how information is communicated to Canadians. Nevertheless, the panel decides whether to inform Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Next is Mr. Van Popta for five minutes, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I read the “Retrospective Report on the 45th General Election” from your panel. Thank you very much for that. Three of you are highlighted in the foreword by the Clerk of the Privy Council as having contributed a great deal to the work of that panel.

In it, John Hannaford writes, “I am...pleased to [inform] that none of the incidents reviewed by the Panel threatened Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election.”

Yet on the next page, it says, “Foreign interference activities in Canada continue to be pervasive, sophisticated, and persistent.” Now, those two sentences seem to contradict each other.

Later in the report, you quote Madam Justice Hogue as saying that foreign interference in Canada's elections, “is an existential threat.” Yet, you say that none of this had any impact at all on the outcome of our election. Perhaps you could explain that. It doesn't seem existential to me. It seems like foreign interference is a bit of a nuisance that we have to swat away.

[David Morrison]

I'll take a swing at that, if I might.

As Madame Drouin said in her introductory remarks, and as has been said around various tables and by our security agencies going back a decade or more, foreign interference is a fact of life in Canada. Your study—the “Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference”—and the other studies have, I think, very usefully helped to educate Canadians that foreign interference is an ongoing fact of life and that we need to be on guard for it.

What I think Madame Drouin tried to say in her introductory remarks was that this baseline is what we are paying attention to. We pay very close attention during a writ period, because our democratic institutions are by definition vulnerable during such a period. During general election 45, we did not see a spike in foreign interference from that ongoing baseline.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Without a spike, was it still an existential threat? I'm struggling with what seems to be a contradiction there.

[David Morrison]

I don't see the contradiction. I think that Madam Hogue wrote a very detailed report in which she chronicles all of the foreign interference we're aware of in the past number of elections, plus the ongoing foreign interference. She comes to the conclusion—and it's in her letter at the front of the summary—that there are two areas that Canadians need to pay very close attention to.

The first is foreign information manipulation and interference, FIMI. This a growing area, and it could get very scary with artificial intelligence and deepfakes. We did not see that in general election 45, but we need to be prepared for it.

The second area that Madam Justice Hogue warned about is transnational repression, and that's sort of a complicated term. It means countries pursuing former nationals or maybe dual citizens of their countries overseas on Canadian territory. That's off-limits, as far as we are concerned.

Also, if I might, what we did see in the Joe Tay exercise, which I know you've already talked about, was a kind of digital transnational repression; so it exists.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you very much. That was a good comprehensive answer.

I want to talk about the Joe Tay situation. My understanding is that your panel, at some point, did raise awareness with Joe Tay and/or his campaign, but you left it until quite late in the election. Election day was April 28. I think it wasn't until the middle of April that you actually raised it with him, claiming that before that time, there had been low engagement, and you didn't think it was necessary to raise the alert, yet it became a very existential issue for him later on. Why didn't you alert him sooner?

[David Morrison]

The activity that was featured in December 2024, the so-called “bounties” that had been associated with Mr. Tay from the Hong Kong government, did receive online traction in December 2024. That online engagement had died down considerably by the time he became a candidate and the writs had been issued. We did discuss it a lot as a panel.

I'll turn to my colleagues for the details.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We're well over. I'll cut you off here.

As a reminder to colleagues—and all sides are guilty—if you ask a question with five or 10 seconds left in your round, I have let it go, but it may be a shorter response, cut off by the chair.

We'll go to Ms. Kayabaga for five minutes, and then we'll take a short five-minute break after that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to congratulate Ms. Drouin on her new appointment as Canada's ambassador to France.

I'll direct my questions to Mr. Babou.

I want to talk about this rapid response mechanism that is currently housed at Global Affairs.

Can you elaborate on what it is, how it helps Canadians, its role and why it's sitting at Global Affairs?

[Saliou Babou, Executive Director, Rapid Response Mechanism, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you.

The rapid response mechanism sits at Global Affairs Canada. It's primary mandate is to identify, monitor and detect foreign information threats to Canada's national security and foreign policy priorities. It's a team of data analysts and data scientists who provide ongoing monitoring of these threats for the benefit of the Canadian government. We also work with other government departments in the security and intelligence community to share our findings and leverage the governance tables that we have in the federal government to provide options for response to these incidents. That is the primary mandate of the rapid response mechanism.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Can you touch on why it's housed at Global Affairs and not at any other department? How is this going to help Canada and its allies?

[Saliou Babou]

One of the reasons it's housed at Global Affairs Canada is that the rapid response mechanism is also part of the G7 rapid response mechanism, which is a body of G7 members, as well as associate members, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands and NATO. Leveraging that multilateral collaboration is very natural for a foreign ministry to do, and it facilitates engagement with partners to have a global picture, a mapping of the information threats that we are dealing with.

We also have the experience of communicating to Canadians, so we do release statements and public reports. Sitting in the foreign ministry allows a direct line to the political directors, the sherpas, and for the foreign minister to engage in this discussion at various levels for collective action.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Morrison, can you elaborate on some of the questions my colleagues have already asked about, on deepfakes and the impact that that has on our society, especially children and women, online?

Is there an appetite for the government to mandate the labelling of AI? I think AI is getting so good compared to a couple years ago, when it first started. You can't actually tell what's real and what's not real.

I am a millennial. I consider myself an Internet-savvy person, but lately, my gen Z teenager constantly tells me that I fall for the AI fakes all the time.

Is there an appetite to mandate labelling when someone is using an AI video so we can clearly identify what is AI and what is not?

[David Morrison]

To be completely honest, I don't know whether there's an appetite for labelling specifically.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Would you suggest it?

[David Morrison]

As a foreign ministry guy, I know that there are colleagues who are much more au fait with the various options.

I do know that the government is very concerned about AI and the potentially pernicious effects. As I said, we didn't see it. We looked for it and expected it, but did not see it in general election 45. However, as my colleague Tricia said recently, our adversaries in this space are continually evolving their tactics; it's only a matter of time, so we do need to be very vigilant.

Whether the ultimate solution comes through labelling or something else, this needs to be a whole-of-society effort. We're doing what we can via the foreign ministry, and it makes sense insofar as we're better joined up with our like-minded...and so on, but the role isn't to say whether something is true or not true. The role is to say whether it can be connected to a foreign state, because that's bad, and the role is to say whether it has been inauthentically amplified to make it look like a bigger deal than it is, because that's bad.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

When would you do that?