0:00

You're listening to a frequency podcast.

0:03

Network production. Where's.

0:05

The line. Between. Election

0:08

Influence An election

0:10

Interference. What?

0:12

Did our prime minister know. And

0:15

when. And. What did he do about

0:17

it? Our

0:19

Canada's elections. Safe And

0:21

Secure. How Safe? How

0:24

secure? exactly? These

0:27

are all huge questions. Here's

0:29

one more. How.

0:31

Much should we be told

0:33

about all of that, If

0:35

telling us could compromise our

0:37

efforts to prevent that interference.

0:40

Or. Harm the ability of

0:42

our intelligence services to operate

0:44

in general. This

0:47

is the paradox we've been

0:49

confronting over the past few

0:51

weeks as an inquiry into

0:54

foreign election interference has attempted

0:56

to walk a tightrope. Between

0:59

public transparency and effective

1:01

intelligence gathering, The.

1:04

Penultimate example of that came

1:07

on Wednesday afternoon when Prime

1:09

Minister Justin Trudeau are tempted

1:11

to finesse both sides of

1:13

the equation for would do

1:15

say that the content of

1:18

this particular these notes these

1:20

briefing as accurately convey his

1:22

what you were told during

1:24

the briefing. Not

1:28

particularly. Today.

1:31

The inquiry will conclude with

1:34

the Director of Css who

1:36

may well recall those conversations

1:38

differently than the Prime Minister,

1:42

If that happens, it will

1:44

raise even more serious questions

1:46

about who exactly is telling

1:49

Canadians the truth and how

1:51

much of that. No

1:54

matter what happens though, The. Biggest

1:56

question remains. We

1:58

now know that for and. Vermont's are

2:01

trying to interfere and our

2:03

elections in increasingly brazen ways.

2:06

So. What are we doing about it?

2:12

And Jordan, he's Rawlings. This is the

2:14

big stories. Laura

2:18

Stevenson is a professor of

2:20

Political Science at Western University

2:22

and decoder rector of the

2:24

Consortium on Electoral Democracy. Say

2:26

Laura: Hi There I have

2:28

to ask you is somebody.

2:30

Who has paid attention to the

2:33

scandal in this inquiry? I wanna

2:35

know what's the questions that you

2:38

were had going into it? Were

2:40

What Were you hoping you'd learn

2:42

or from this inquiry? Yeah,

2:45

you know there's a number of aspects

2:47

that works and of size swimming around

2:49

in my mind. and most importantly, I

2:51

think it was actually the nature of

2:53

the interference that I was curious about.

2:56

All I've been paying a lot of

2:58

attention to other say that the previous

3:00

information that has come out and the

3:02

directive about not actually affecting the electoral

3:05

outcome switch parties had been affected or

3:07

which candidates had been targeted i guess

3:09

more directly but understanding little bit more

3:11

about the actual processes. Who did a

3:14

levers. That's our foreign bodies are

3:16

using to try any impact our elections

3:18

and an intern or democracy? sorry That

3:21

was what I was most interesting of

3:23

course. kind of focusing on. How

3:25

do we avoid the right? How do

3:28

we protect ourselves against this? And we'll

3:30

talk about the details in a minute.

3:32

But we often speak on his podcast

3:34

about transparency from governments or just ask

3:37

you for your overall impression. Did your

3:39

questions get? Answer them as process? Yes

3:41

and no. But. I think this

3:43

is an interesting point. Eight, Eight

3:45

Eight. We all want transparency. We

3:47

all wanna know what's going on,

3:49

how, why still houses impacting things,

3:51

and especially when it comes to

3:54

our alexa. right? As Six assists

3:56

the fundamentally important thing that we're

3:58

dealing mass and I've done work

4:00

with Elections can't and I know

4:02

how much effort they put into

4:04

upholding the integrity of our electoral

4:06

process, and yet would is so

4:08

fascinating about what has come out

4:10

of these hearings. Is. How.

4:13

That interest. Is. Kind of

4:15

at odds. With. Our intelligence.

4:18

Agencies. Rate and how the

4:20

might have these competing situations where

4:22

you know as to the public

4:24

hearings. Oh neat hail the electoral

4:26

oh come blizzard affected is one

4:28

thing that. Needs to be able to

4:31

trust that like that. The fundamental part. Of democracy

4:33

rates and for. Any of

4:35

these intelligence agencies to share their

4:38

information or for their information once

4:40

shared to be made public is

4:42

that puts at risk other elements.

4:45

Of Canadian Democracy or the Key

4:47

and State Road. This is a

4:50

and like uncharted territory right? Bullets.

4:52

Talk about some of the details

4:54

than and maybe before we get

4:56

to Prime Minister Trudeau his testimony

4:58

or follow up on your opening

5:00

statement which is just what did

5:03

we learn about. What

5:05

that attempt to interfere or those

5:07

attempts to interfere look like on

5:09

the ground? What I have not

5:11

heard. Is that there's anything like what we

5:13

made a scene. And old movies. There's

5:15

no ballot stuffing. Thorough see: No. Interference

5:18

with the actual mechanisms of a

5:20

less sense Instead what I've heard

5:22

Anyways, from the testimony and my

5:24

reading of them, it was very

5:26

fascinating to hear that you know

5:28

there could have been busloads of

5:30

international students that were going to

5:33

nomination contest to cast support for

5:35

individuals were seen as China friendly

5:37

are also that of the best

5:39

term But what is really interesting

5:41

about that is that are actually

5:43

nothing to prevent these people from

5:45

doing that right. There's nothing. In

5:47

the rules of the nomination contest

5:49

to say that the individuals were

5:52

allowed to be there, Snell that

5:54

it was a concerted effort by

5:56

a foreign body That's. A. Profit. What do

5:58

we know about that? Where they threat didn't

6:00

you doing it Where they call worst, where

6:02

they paid. Have we learned anything about like

6:05

how that happened? In the course of this

6:07

inquiry set those are open questions to me.

6:10

Is it suspicious? Yes, it

6:12

may be suspicious, but is it

6:14

know like how do we know

6:16

know know that it in fact

6:18

was a foreign interference? I mean

6:20

that would take a lot of

6:22

digging right? What we did hear

6:24

from a different instances was that

6:26

there were pressures going through different

6:28

types of media sources and social

6:30

media campaigns and things like that

6:32

that would be pressuring the asper

6:34

communities ensue casting ballots. So this

6:37

would be you know, people who

6:39

are eligible to vote. So these

6:41

are T. And citizens who would be

6:43

allowed to make up their mind to

6:45

vote however they'd so. I. We

6:47

don't a mandate how someone can

6:49

make up their mind and they

6:51

were being pressured. By

6:53

and side actors great

6:56

in ways to disadvantages

6:58

certain candidates. We. Also

7:00

heard there was like i'm misinformation that

7:02

was appearing on social media that with

7:04

us to be taken down about Trudeau

7:07

and we do know that they're very

7:09

attempt made to kind of regulate the

7:11

kind of electoral information that gets put

7:13

out there. We care about. What

7:16

would be called third party advertising. Night. So

7:18

non party advertise sex and something that's

7:20

been a concern for a long time

7:22

ago. so it makes sense that that's

7:24

kind of gone over into the social

7:27

media world trade but at the same

7:29

time when it's like unofficial channel like

7:31

it would be the same as the

7:33

are seeing anybody A on your block

7:35

hey you know what influence you. Vote

7:37

Road of course we don't know is their

7:40

coworkers it was their threats involves all these

7:42

things which as to take it into a

7:44

different level. But it's kind of

7:46

the amazing I guess. vulnerability. Of

7:49

the individual citizen decision that I

7:51

think as what I take away

7:54

the most from what I've been

7:56

hearing. And it's a question, I

7:58

guess of. We're that. Mine is

8:00

between you making up your own mind

8:02

based on everything you've heard and seen,

8:04

which. For. Sure could include stuff

8:06

from people who are obviously trying to

8:09

influence your vote and and the other

8:11

side of that line which is where

8:13

we talk about coercion and threats or

8:15

bribery or whatever. but it if you're

8:17

not talking to the people who passed

8:19

that ballot. I don't know how you

8:21

would find that out. I think that

8:24

in a Pena nailed it. How do

8:26

we figure out what's going on here?

8:28

And then some of the other testimony. That came

8:31

out gave me even more pause. Because

8:33

the hear the question would be well

8:35

why don't we tell people what's going

8:37

on Why don't we try to correct

8:39

misinformation like the disclaimers that we see

8:41

on x ray services things that get

8:44

posted But then what I was hearing

8:46

people say is that of see then

8:48

we're putting our intelligence gathering at risk.

8:51

So. It's a make public. What?

8:53

We're hearing sometimes it's not even

8:56

substantiated. It's not clear, there's tons

8:58

of evidence is just intel. So

9:00

the process is that we would

9:02

take to try and correct that.

9:05

In terms of a pursuing free and

9:07

fair elections. Me, in fact, be

9:09

hindered by we're the intel coming

9:11

from and what happens when you

9:14

share that he has? It's a

9:16

really complex. Environment that we

9:18

are now trying to navigate and

9:20

figure out how to we maintain

9:23

the integrity of our elections as

9:25

well as the integrity of our

9:27

you know of our state A

9:29

call it right the bigger picture

9:31

at the end. They kind of

9:33

international world and also of course

9:36

you know whose interests get played

9:38

out one right and so had

9:40

other political parties themselves play in.

9:42

And actually do We have transparency

9:44

Independence. And nonpartisanship going on to

9:46

as we are trying to navigate

9:48

what's happening where. Over. The

9:51

course of the inquiry. What did

9:53

we learn about? How

9:55

this information was handled

9:57

and communicated to senior.

10:00

Political staff or even the prime Minister. and

10:02

then. Where. Those decisions

10:04

were made to inform the

10:06

public or mostly to not

10:08

inform the public. In L

10:10

As has to say, I. Need a better

10:12

spreadsheet to keep track of every. Piece

10:14

of information because it appears that

10:17

some were communicated. And some

10:19

words most went to

10:21

not see minister. and

10:24

then with maybe filtered up in

10:26

some cases and a lot of

10:28

the decisions were made at the

10:30

level of you know did this

10:32

affect the outcome of the election

10:34

or is this having concrete a

10:36

sex said they would have to.

10:38

Push forward right? and How credible?

10:40

Is this information so that we make

10:43

a public. right? That's it. That's

10:45

a big thing and so how much can

10:47

we trust? Said Nice. It was really fascinating

10:49

to hear. You know how the the party

10:52

dealt with the idea that potentially one of

10:54

the nomination contest has been compromised? How do

10:56

they figure out what to do? In which

10:58

case? Ed and this is not immediately clear

11:00

Any the. But then we have a tool

11:03

saying up to nine seats were lost because

11:05

of that. Where would he get

11:07

that kind of information from? Or where does he

11:09

say he got it right? So what I mean.

11:11

all of the parties do a lot of

11:13

a polling. And on the ground work to try

11:15

and figure out where they think they're gonna get

11:18

seats. Price will. Likely what happens is

11:20

they found nine seats they thought they

11:22

were gonna win and in those nine

11:24

seats this is not at the level

11:26

of counting ballot. Like this

11:28

is that a situation of how many hanging

11:30

chads were there that you know whether we

11:32

have to figure out. Road In said it's

11:35

death eat out. There was pressure set and

11:37

we think that pressure caused us to lose

11:39

these many seats. But you know? here's the

11:41

thing. Unless you get into the mind of

11:44

those voters, you know. I

11:51

just one of the reasons I'm

11:53

talking to you right now is

11:55

because this is so confusing to

11:57

wrap my head around. And Friday.

12:00

Hum to a determination of.

12:03

How much I trust the government of

12:05

who needs to win the next election?

12:08

To. Tell me what's going on

12:10

behind the scenes in terms of

12:12

people trying to influence that very

12:14

election. I mean that's a a

12:16

really cheaply in. I have been

12:18

paying. A lot of attention to what

12:20

did Trudeau say he did and did

12:22

not care about. Like Serena Gold also

12:24

had some as her statements. what were

12:27

they paying attention to and not paying

12:29

attention to? and would they feel it

12:31

was their place to weigh in on

12:33

and not and to be fair a

12:35

lot of their information they received after

12:37

the. Election in. This.

12:40

Is where it gets tricky ib I

12:42

think that we want to have independent

12:44

and nonpartisan bodies and I would say

12:46

kinda as really lucky with a body

12:48

like elections Canada does over see things

12:50

in a very non partisan way but

12:53

still cool. Makes the determination of whether

12:55

something is in the foreign security well.

12:58

He. Sits in the electoral integrity realm.

13:00

That's a really tricky question and

13:02

I meta I would trust selections

13:04

kinda. I. Have to be

13:06

honest as to be a nonpartisan look,

13:09

but I'm guessing they don't have the

13:11

same clearance to talk about this of

13:13

foreign affairs that these other ministers do

13:15

raid and I know. Maybe

13:18

that's a way forward right to

13:20

better integrate these offices. To

13:22

have it coming from an official

13:24

non partisan office. Yeah. I

13:27

mean, we saw that in previous things,

13:29

right that weren't about foreign interference, but

13:31

they were more a domestic raised like

13:34

the Robo Call scandal and us like

13:36

that rates. We have a lot of

13:38

rules in place the domestically to make

13:40

sure all of our political actors are

13:43

behaving correctly. So it's just a question

13:45

of, you know, maybe he said those

13:47

same offices also be playing the role

13:50

here and here sometimes. As to be

13:52

honest, it's unclear to me that there

13:54

was any clear partisan bias like. I

13:56

did. I haven't heard anything that really

13:59

raise the alarm. For me, maybe

14:01

a what if I looked even

14:03

a greater detail split? Regardless,

14:05

Of whether. Something inappropriate occurred

14:08

or didn't. It enough

14:10

disappoint of transparency and of

14:12

the citizen trust in the

14:14

electoral process is so fundamentally

14:16

important that even the impression

14:18

that may. Foreign. Actors

14:21

were allowed to continue with

14:23

their behaviors because of partisan

14:25

preferences are incentives that is

14:28

very damning for the strength.

14:30

A tedious maxi. You.

14:33

Mention the Prime Minister he was

14:35

ah the quote unquote headliner this

14:37

week as the inquiry is almost

14:39

wrapped up what did you take

14:41

away from how is he communicated

14:43

or with comedians but also I

14:46

guess with with the inquiries about.

14:49

What he decided to tell Canadians and

14:51

not tell Canadians. And what Impression: As

14:53

somebody who cares about the health of

14:56

our democracy in our elections, what impression

14:58

did you take from that. Said.

15:00

The impression that I took

15:02

was that he prioritized our

15:04

intelligence gathering efforts. In

15:06

the sense that he didn't. Fuss. Further,

15:09

To. Go on the

15:11

side of transparency about the

15:14

electoral process, he was saying.

15:17

Since. We don't know for sure rate

15:19

as I think he said that a

15:21

number of times right? Like this is

15:23

intel it's not evidence of her and

15:26

so would do we put our of

15:28

intelligence gathering kind of have rules. For

15:31

intel rather than hard

15:33

facts. And. So I

15:35

think his toys came down on the

15:37

side of is. It wasn't fully substantiated

15:39

and I could point to the Ran

15:42

doing. Then we. Proceeded.

15:44

Over the past few weeks would have

15:46

you taken away. From. The

15:49

testimony about oh not a partisan

15:51

side of who told. The.

15:54

Public What and when but a boats

15:56

are the health of our electoral process.

15:58

Yes so A know this. The interesting part

16:01

of it or electoral process made

16:03

as it you know the the

16:05

way we cast ballots they get

16:07

counted it's address. you know I

16:09

think that it's from his mom.

16:11

The question I mean as we

16:13

outlined in years it's couple minutes

16:15

ago by it is about what

16:17

are the pressures being applied on

16:19

individuals who are working through what

16:21

would appear to be legal channels

16:23

but with these outside influences what

16:25

what we've and do about that

16:27

and I'm not sure what the.

16:30

Answer is. Exactly.

16:32

On this because. That. The

16:34

media I listen to or this ah

16:36

things I read or the opinion said

16:38

I'd take a all of these things

16:40

are says you're everyone's mind when it

16:42

comes to voting and I said he

16:44

voting behavior is a black box may

16:47

have since I think a good guess

16:49

but that's all I can do and

16:51

everyone has their. Own a specific

16:53

combination of factors. It's. Time

16:55

a tennis. Prevent. These

16:58

kinds of other influences is a

17:00

real head scratcher. And

17:02

certainly I will say that you know it

17:05

ties in with a lot of the great

17:07

research has been done on misinformation and this

17:09

information. and I do know that. That.

17:11

Might be one. Way to to

17:14

move forward. Was just more and more

17:16

information that is able to be provided

17:18

about what are the kids, it's senses,

17:20

etc. But I was even trying to

17:22

think like okay authors intel and it

17:24

says that a kid is being targeted

17:26

and this is the kind of information

17:28

campaign that goes forward. You know that

17:31

kid. It is now going to be

17:33

put in a difficult situation right? because

17:35

on the one hand he could say

17:37

okay, can you just discount that information

17:39

and per and correct it right You

17:41

can imagine someone doing that on the

17:43

other hand and I cared. It wants

17:45

to win rate and so they

17:47

have an incentive from whatever party

17:50

to be really open about what's

17:52

happening. Sue them night! If

17:54

you can say are it's a seat this

17:56

has been attacked you a dirty till you

17:58

see said you can't kill anyone. You're getting

18:00

your in for tell from maybe this is

18:02

what you said to and your campaign right

18:04

now there's a there's a lot as interesting

18:07

elements to at that I I was very

18:09

fast he had to hear the next parts.

18:11

Of the inquiry. Which I think

18:13

they're going to be trying to tackle. You know

18:15

what can be done? There. Is a

18:18

one more person. The Director of

18:20

Ceases to testify today on Friday.

18:22

What are you looking for? Ah

18:25

of from that testimony and. What?

18:28

Happens if he goes out there and just

18:30

contradicts everything the prime minister just set to

18:32

has become a huge mass. Well.

18:34

It's not as easy tidy thing right now.

18:36

It's kind of a mess. As yes,

18:38

a bigger mess. See, I

18:40

think it would be a huge mess

18:42

is that was to come up because

18:44

I think then any faith in our

18:46

government operating in a non partisan way

18:48

would go out the window. So.

18:51

We didn't. We should pay close attention to

18:53

that. Also, switched guidelines were

18:55

followed. I think that's something that

18:57

is important, right? Because it's such

18:59

as. that's the definition of what

19:01

counts as interference. And

19:03

what is the dividing line between giving

19:05

people information and not giving people? And

19:07

for me, since I think those are

19:09

things that we should be paying close

19:11

attention to. Spray? What's it? What a

19:13

someone think is worthy of communicating with

19:15

others and different offices? And what isn't.

19:17

Right? And the difference between opinions

19:20

that were sharing possibly to influence

19:22

somebody and more direct things like

19:24

bringing people in, chartering, buses, making

19:27

payments, etc. exactly. I mean I

19:29

don't know how much they would be ever

19:31

willing to share about every day of repeated

19:33

intel that yeah I do think this like

19:35

those kinds of this is the pieces in

19:37

parts right They make the payments same rate

19:40

as as one important elements and eat a

19:42

what are the activities that are involved and

19:44

so what do we have to be aware

19:46

of. You know Blake said

19:48

city we have to look to see

19:50

widow who is chartering buses. Around

19:52

election time Ceo is that something we need to

19:55

be looking out more closely. But you know the

19:57

as you think that this is that a lot

19:59

of. The targets because society evolved

20:01

than and people are great at

20:04

figuring out ways to get around

20:06

detection. And rules. Or even

20:08

follow the rules in in ways

20:11

that might be more nefarious. And

20:13

ah, it's not easy. So

20:15

last question and you mentioned the next

20:17

phase is about okay well what do

20:20

we do about this When and what

20:22

should we watch for them? And also

20:24

ah I'm how much my we even

20:26

learn about that because I presume that

20:29

our intelligence services don't want to advertise

20:31

what they're actually doing to try to

20:33

find this stuff. You know what?

20:35

I think, What? we're gonna see

20:37

his arm Lot of information about

20:40

the lines of communication rice and

20:42

I think that's where there's probably

20:44

the best opportunity to clarify. You

20:46

know again, what counts as important

20:48

information? Who does it need to

20:51

be given to Wed? How can

20:53

we deal with obvious partisan conflicts,

20:55

but also partisan interests across the

20:57

board in understanding how all of

20:59

the candidates may or may not

21:02

be affected? How can we. Bring

21:04

individuals kind of into the conversation as

21:06

sometimes it might be indeed to know

21:08

basis but you know when does it

21:10

count as they should. Be told.

21:12

basically. Smile because some of the timeline

21:15

issues are are concerned like if you

21:17

tell me after the fact when my

21:19

sister do about it right and it'll

21:21

and also I guess on also what

21:23

is the level of what someone would

21:25

take to be evidence rather than rumor?

21:27

These things are things that can be

21:30

affected or adjusted by the government's and

21:32

of course a by across partisan committee

21:34

spray because either about definitions and about

21:36

terminology and in a where's that where's

21:38

the line in the sand kind of

21:40

say and I think that they could

21:42

figure. Out how to agree on something

21:44

there because we know we do see

21:46

alternation and power. So the liberals. Are going

21:49

to be in power forever and eat out the

21:51

conservatives words and power forever and might not be

21:53

in the future to So Rashid oh. When that

21:55

happens the are they all have any interest

21:57

in making sure that these rules can get.

22:00

Right Because they don't know who's going to

22:02

be targeted by whom. Went. Laura.

22:04

Thank you so much for this and I

22:06

guess yeah we we just need some real

22:08

wines and not blurred. Once said say for

22:10

having me and it's a really interesting conversation.

22:15

Laura. Stevenson of Western University

22:18

and. A Consortium

22:20

on Electoral Democracy. That

22:23

was the big story. For more

22:25

you can add to the Big

22:27

Story Podcast.see a can of course

22:29

shoot us your suggestions or your

22:31

feedback. Positive negative doesn't matter, we

22:33

read every single one. The way

22:35

to get a to us is

22:37

through email hello at the Big

22:39

Story Podcast.cia or Phone for One

22:42

Six Nine Three Five Five Nine

22:44

Three Five. Joe

22:46

Fish as the lead producer of The

22:48

Big Story. Robin Simon is also a

22:50

producer with the show. Stephanie Philips is

22:52

our show runner married you Brin is

22:55

our digital editor or sound design. This

22:57

week was handled by Christian Pro Home,

22:59

Robin, Edgar, Ryan Clarke and Mark Anglia.

23:02

Cyan. A K as our Manager of

23:05

business Development. I I'm your

23:07

host an executive producer Jordan,

23:09

he's Rawlings together. we're the

23:11

Frequency Podcast Network, a division

23:13

of Rogers. Thanks

23:16

for listening we have in this economy

23:18

for you tomorrow but on Sunday. We

23:21

have a special sneak preview of our

23:23

next big project. just a little one,

23:25

but we've worked so hard on it.

23:27

Really excited to bring it to you.

23:30

It'll be on the feed Sunday morning

23:32

and we'll talk Monday.