I'm just kidding.
With respect to public inquiries, as I mentioned, the government's webpage that discusses commissions of inquiry clearly states: “Commissions of Inquiry are established by the Governor in Council (Cabinet) to fully and impartially investigate issues of national importance.”
Some say that the person who will act as special rapporteur will not be impartial because he or she will be appointed by the Prime Minister. However, it will be the same in the case of a public inquiry.
If cabinet were to establish a public inquiry, it would be through an order in council. It is cabinet that decides this. The difference in the case of a public inquiry is that it would not be parliamentarians looking at the evidence. It would be someone named by cabinet who is not a sitting MP. Also, a public inquiry would not have access to secret or top secret documents. It would have the exact same access to information that PROC has, and that has been confirmed by CSIS, the RCMP, the CSE and the national security adviser. The only instrument in the tool box that would be able to see those documents would be NSICOP.
We heard a bit about a timeline for a public inquiry. If the special rapporteur decides to suggest that, the Prime Minister has said he will abide by it. However, a realistic timeline could be two to four years. We might be in another election or past another election by then.
I want to quote former senator Vern White, whom I have a lot of respect for and who spent his career in policing. He said:
But I think NSICOP will be quicker than a public inquiry—
Pardon me for the unparliamentary language, as I'm quoting the senator.
—[and] a hell of a lot cheaper than a public inquiry.... I think this team, both the secretariat and committee, are ready to run. It's too bad politics is becoming the player here in discussion around whether or not NSICOP should manage it. But you can go back and ask any member of NSICOP. Regardless of whether they were with the Conservative Party, the NDP party or the Liberal Party, they will all talk about the strength of that committee.
When I hear someone like Senator White, who has years of experience in the police domain, stating this, and when I look at the membership of NSICOP with someone of the calibre of Colonel Ruff, I have full confidence in NSICOP.
When I look back on PROC and the conversations we've had—and we've had a lot of members on PROC change over the last two years—we've been talking about foreign interference and looking into foreign interference for a while now. I ask myself what we want to achieve as a committee. If the goal of PROC is to determine whether there were attempts by the People's Republic of China to interfere in the 2019 and 2021 elections, whether the current processes in place were able to detect, deter and counter foreign interference, and whether there was an impact on the outcome of the general election or on the outcome of specific ridings, I think a lot of work can be done here in collaboration. I think everyone here would like to answer those questions. I would hope so.
However, is the goal of this committee or of members of this committee to fabricate some scandal that isn't here, to find a gotcha moment, as MP Vandenbeld kept saying?
When I listen to the language used by some members, it is clear—and former senator White said it himself—that this committee, this study, is becoming incredibly partisan. I really, truly hope that we can move back to where we were when we were working on other reports and other studies, because I truly think there are some issues that need to be addressed in terms of foreign interference. I would hope that we can get back to a place where we're not looking for gotcha moments but are actually working as a collective.
It makes me think a bit about a team Canada approach. I remember that, when we were negotiating NAFTA 2.0, we all came together to protect Canadian interests in that negotiation, and this should be the same. We have a foreign entity that is attempting to interfere in our democratic institutions, and we're fighting among ourselves versus having a united front to not only get to the bottom of it but also improve it.
I truly want to hear from colleagues around this table what recommendations they would have to strengthen it. There are a lot of questions, and my colleagues have asked in previous meetings why one of their candidates in the election, Mr. Chiu, was not advised during the campaign that there were attempts to interfere. If that were in fact correct, why was the candidate not informed? Whose responsibility was it to inform the candidate? Was it the responsibility of the party not only to flag it to SITE or the panel but also to flag it to the candidate? Are candidates briefed by Elections Canada when they run to be on the lookout and how to report such concerns? There are a lot of questions we need answers to.
Canadians watching probably have a lot of the same questions. What is the workflow in terms of necessary stakeholders? For instance, if a citizen in a specific riding were privy to information of concern, would they know who to flag that to and what information to flag? These are things we need to look at. Do we need to streamline those things? Those are things we need to look at. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, there is always room for improvement. That's why we review things. That is why NSICOP is going to look at what happened here.
Since 2016 tools have been put in place to deal with foreign interference. There has been the establishment of SITE, the establishment of the panel, the caretaker period and briefings provided to political parties. Also, as I said earlier, perhaps some training is required for all parliamentarians and their staff.
Have methods of interference changed? I assume they have. Before I was elected I didn't know very much about cybersecurity. We know that, compared to other jurisdictions, Canada has not had a very robust cybersecurity infrastructure in place. What are we seeing now in terms of cybersecurity, in terms of disinformation campaigns? Do we need to increase our capacity in that regard?
MP Vandenbeld spoke a little bit about our Five Eyes partners. Again, she referenced a document, a report done in Australia. It would be very interesting to hear what other Five Eyes partners are doing to detect, to deter and to counter foreign interference. Could we perhaps have parliamentarians from those jurisdictions provide us with their feedback as well?
I'd like to hear from other members of this committee, so I'll probably ask to be put back on the list a little later, once we've heard from others, but I just wanted to put some of those items out there.
One area of concern—and I know Ms. Blaney brought this up, I believe, at the last meeting and again at the top of this meeting—is news reports and validating media reports. As we've heard, information that is provided to journalists or news that can't be independently verified or that is taken in little tranches—little bits of intelligence versus understanding the bigger picture—is of concern. The question of leaks, the sources of which cannot be validated because it might be a matter of national security, is of concern.
I think there are a lot of questions that PROC could be focusing on that we're not. I doubt that any member of Parliament would want to put our intelligence assets at risk. I do not believe that for a moment. When members of Parliament are asking that classified information be made public, I would gently remind them that we cannot do that. We cannot put the relationships with our Five Eyes partners at risk, nor can we put the assets we have around the world at risk.
I want to reiterate what MP Vandenbeld mentioned. Words matter. When the tone and the choice of the language we use to refer to others are demeaning, it is important that we recognize that we are hurting not only that person but also those around them. We are all honourable members. We all put our names forward to represent the communities we come from, and I think we need to take the partisanship out of this. We've proven in the past that we can work together. We have.
Some folks here on PROC have worked with me on other committees, and they know that I have some of the same questions and the same concerns. I think we can work together in a non-partisan way.
Madam Chair, you have been incredibly patient with us in trying to bring us together to find a way forward. I do want to thank you for that.
I truly think we can come to a path forward. I know that, in the game of politics, when a camera is on it's all about the clips. It's all about the fundraising emails and things that go along with those. It's unfortunate because I'm pretty confident that if we shut the door, turned off the camera and got the members of PROC not to sit across from each other in this very adversarial way but to sit around the table together, we could probably actually come up with some really good ideas and some really good recommendations. It's not about trying to do things in private or secret or anything like that. When we take the partisanship away from this place, we can actually get stuff done. I'm a firm believer in that.
Again I ask this committee: What is it we want to achieve? Do we want to detect, deter and counter foreign interference, or do we want the clip for Facebook or Twitter? I ask my colleagues that because I know I would prefer to get stuff done versus playing games with national security and people's reputations.
With that, Madam Chair, I'll turn it over to the next colleague.
Thank you.