Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2023

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

Thank you.

For two elections now, SITE has existed. Does the intelligence community have the resources it needs to counter these examples or concerns of potential foreign interference?

[Alia Tayyeb]

I can start off, but then I'll turn to my colleagues, because we each have a number of tools and authorities available to us.

From a CSE perspective, we certainly have a foreign intelligence mandate, so we collect foreign intelligence. For our cyber-defence mandate, we have the ability to protect Canadian government systems and other critical infrastructure systems. We also have new authorities that allow us to take action to disrupt threat-related activities from foreign threat actors.

From a CSE perspective, we feel that we have the tools necessary to counteract this. We do utilize these authorities in all aspects of foreign interference. I want to affirm that to the committee.

[Adam Fisher]

Yes, and I can add to that from a service perspective. In terms of resources, I think we face the reality that any organization does: We have to operate within the resources we're allocated. As the threat environment changes, we need to respond to that, and we've done that to meet threats that are developing and evolving.

In terms of tools—and it has been said before, I think, in front of this committee—the technology is evolving faster than our act has been able to keep up. We need to be able to do more data-driven investigations, and that is a difficulty for us, so certainly in terms of tools and improvements for the service, that would make a difference.

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

I have about 40 seconds left, so we'll have to split this time pretty quickly.

In your answer to Mr. Calkins' question, you talked about problems that countries around the world are facing in terms of the intelligence-to-evidence problem. What types of legislative tools do you imagine could be useful, and have they been discussed with your colleagues around the world?

[Adam Fisher]

I'm sorry. That really is outside of my remit. I would probably refer you to the Department of Public Safety, where I have colleagues who have been looking at this issue for some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent.

With that, I would like to thank our witnesses and guests for taking the time to join us today. We would like to thank you for your service and for being available. If there is any additional information you would like to provide, please share it with the clerk. The clerk will ensure that all members receive that information.

Committee members, whether in person or online, I'm going to suspend for 10 minutes, and we will return to the conversation that was at the top of this meeting. We will see you back here at 5:22.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call the meeting back to order.

I understand, Mr. Cooper, that you would like the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I move:

That, given further media reports from Global News, revealing additional shocking revelations regarding Beijing’s strategy to interfere and influence Canada’s democratic institutions, the Committee, in relation to its study of foreign interference in elections,

(a) hold a third meeting during each House sitting week to accommodate this study, in addition to its meetings concerning its orders of reference related to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act;

(b) hold at least three meetings, each two hours in length, dedicated to this study, on each House adjournment week;

(c) invite Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, to appear alone for two hours by herself, within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, provided that she be sworn or affirmed;

(d) invite Jeremy Broadhurst, Liberal Party of Canada Campaign Director for the 2019 general election;

(e) invite Morris Rosenberg, author of the independent assessment of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol (CEIPP) for the 2021 general election, as mandated by the Cabinet Directive on the CEIPP; and

(f) order the production of all memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, including any drafts, which are in the possession of any government department or agency, including the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, the CEIPP, any Minister's Office, and the Prime Minister's Office, containing information concerning the efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to interfere in the 2019 and 2021 general elections, including the documents which were quoted in the various Globe and Mail and Global News reports on this subject-matter and, for greater certainty, those regarding Canadian Security Intelligence Service warnings to “senior Liberal Party staff” in September 2019 regarding Beijing's foreign interference in the Liberal nomination for the riding of Don Valley North, provided that

(i) these documents be deposited without redaction with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages and within three weeks of the adoption of this order,

(ii) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within three weeks of the adoption of this Order, with any proposed redaction of information which, in the government's opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise the identities of employees or sources or intelligence-collecting methods of Canadian or allied intelligence agencies,

(iii) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly notify the Committee whether the Office is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the Chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the Committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation,

(iv) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall assess the redactions proposed by the government, pursuant to subparagraph (ii), to determine whether the Office agrees that the proposed redactions conform with the criteria set out in subparagraph (ii) and

(A) if it agrees, it shall provide the documents, as redacted by the government pursuant to subparagraph (ii), to the Clerk of the Committee, or

(B) if it disagrees with some or all of the proposed redactions, it shall provide a copy of the documents, redacted in the manner the Office determines would conform with the criteria set out in paragraph (ii), together with a report indicating the number, extent and nature of the government's proposed redactions which were disagreed with, to the Clerk of the Committee, and

(v) the Clerk of the Committee shall cause the documents, provided by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to be distributed to the members of the Committee and to be published on the Committee's website forthwith upon receipt.

Madam Chair, I bring this motion forward given last Friday's Global News report by Sam Cooper, revealing additional shocking revelations about Beijing's interference in our democracy.

Given Global News reports that senior staff in the Prime Minister's Office were briefed about this interference and did nothing about it, it is all the more important that the Prime Minister's chief of staff Katie Telford testify before this committee, which this motion demands.

As we seek to get to the bottom of alarming reports of interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections, let me say at the outset what this is not about. This is not about Chinese Canadians who are, first and foremost, the victims of Beijing's interference activities.

What this is about is that under this Prime Minister's watch, there has been reportedly, based on a review of CSIS documents by Global News and The Globe and Mail, what has been characterized by both Global News and The Globe and Mail as a vast and sophisticated campaign of interference by Beijing in not one but two elections—again, under this Prime Minister's watch. Above all else, what this scandal is about is what the Prime Minister knows about this interference, when he first learned about it and what he did about it or failed to do about it.

So far, Madam Chair, there is absolutely no evidence that the Prime Minister has done anything meaningful in response to Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. By all indications, he has instead turned a blind eye to this interference in our elections and in our democracy.

CSIS advised the Prime Minister, including in a January 21, 2021, briefing, that the policy of the government in response to foreign interference be grounded in sunlight and transparency. In response to these troubling reports of election interference, the Prime Minister has done exactly the opposite of what CSIS advised. Instead of providing sunlight and transparency, the Prime Minister has refused to answer basic questions about what he knows.

Following the November 7 Global News report by Sam Cooper of a vast campaign of interference by the Chinese Communist regime in the 2019 election that, among other things, involved 11 candidates, the Prime Minister, following that, was silent for two weeks. He said nothing. Then, using carefully crafted language, he tried to mislead the Canadian public by saying that he was not briefed about candidates who received money from China, as if Beijing wrote a cheque to 11 candidates. No one alleged such a thing. Such a thing, on its face, is absurd.

If there's anything that's transparent about this Prime Minister, that was a transparent attempt on the part of the Prime Minister to hide, to misdirect, to cover up and to mislead the Canadian public about what he knows. When he was called out on that, the Prime Minister, despite repeated questions about whether he was briefed and what he knows, never provided a clear answer.

Following The Globe and Mail's recent report by Robert Fife and Steven Chase about Beijing's interference in the 2021 election, instead of being transparent about what he knows and instead of expressing concern about this reported interference, the Prime Minister's response was to shamefully go after whistle-blowers at CSIS for possibly shining a light and making the public aware of Beijing's interference, something that CSIS precisely advised the Prime Minister—transparency, shining a light, making the public aware. Yet he went after whistle-blowers.

He even went so far as to outrageously insinuate that those of us on this committee and others who want to get to the bottom of Beijing's election interference are somehow undermining democracy. I say that a prime minister who misleads, misdirects and covers up election interference is the one who is undermining democracy, not those who want to get to the bottom of foreign interference by Beijing.

He smugly attacked the accuracy of the Globe and Mail report of Robert Fife and Steven Chase, both well-respected journalists, only to backtrack the very next day and say that he was somehow misunderstood. The Prime Minister's non-answers, his repeated evasions and his attacks on whistle-blowers are not the actions of a transparent prime minister. They are not the actions of a prime minister who is interested in getting to the bottom of Beijing's interference. They are the actions of a prime minister who has failed to act, who turned a blind eye, and who is now trying to cover it up.

The need for the Prime Minister to come clean and tell Canadians what he knows is underscored by the shocking Global News report by Sam Cooper that was reported last Friday. In that report, it was stated that CSIS warned “senior aides from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office” that a Liberal candidate in the 2019 election—now a sitting Liberal MP—was assisted by Beijing's Toronto consulate in his nomination campaign.

Instead of taking the warnings of CSIS seriously, they—“they” being the senior aides in the Prime Minister's Office—did nothing about it. They turned a blind eye. When the Prime Minister was asked just an hour or two ago whether he had been informed and whether he had been briefed about CSIS's warning that a Liberal candidate, now a sitting Liberal MP, was assisted by Beijing's Toronto consulate in his nomination campaign, he refused to answer. He misdirected again. He tried to change the subject. He tried to attack those who were demanding answers and who were seeking to get to the bottom of this interference.

Again, these are the conduct and the actions of a prime minister who is not transparent. They are the actions and conduct of a prime minister who has something to hide and who has a lot to answer for.

Given the seriousness involving these latest allegations reported by Global News, it is imperative that, at the very least, the Prime Minister's top aide and the most powerful unelected official in government, his chief of staff Katie Telford, appear before this committee. The Prime Minister said in 2015 that, when you're talking to Katie Telford or Gerald Butts, it is like you're talking to him. This is someone who is a critical witness in terms of getting to the bottom of what I again stress is the heart of the scandal.

What did the Prime Minister know, when did he know it and what did he do about it or fail to do about it with respect to Beijing's interference in two elections, the 2019 election and the 2021 election, under his watch as Prime Minister?

Ms. Telford needs to come clean and tell this committee and tell Canadians about what she knows about this CSIS briefing; explain why senior PMO staff turned a blind eye to CSIS warnings about Beijing's interference in our democracy; and explain why she may be one of those senior PMO staff who turned a blind eye. We need to know.

For this committee to be able to do its work to get to the bottom of Beijing's interference, we need to see the production of relevant documents. The production process so far has been inept. At this committee's meeting last week, I highlighted the inadequacy of this, showing that we have received pages and pages of production that are blank pages. That's why I put forward a motion that the parliamentary law clerk, who is independent, undertake redactions having regard for national security considerations.

That motion was gutted last week by the Liberals. Why was it gutted? It was because, almost certainly doing the bidding of the Prime Minister's Office, the Liberals didn't want transparency. The Liberals were quite content to see pages and pages of blank pages. The Liberals wanted to do the redacting themselves, even though it's this Prime Minister who is implicated, along with his staff, in this interference scandal.

They, the Liberals, didn't trust, and don't trust, the parliamentary law clerk, because, again, they're not interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. They're interested in seeing the Prime Minister's inaction and what he knows covered up.

This motion does provide, once again, that the independent parliamentary law clerk undertake the redactions. That would ensure that national security considerations are protected while at the same time providing as much transparency as possible so that this committee can do its work.

With that, I'm hopeful that the Liberal members opposite will stop doing the bidding of this Prime Minister and his PMO and do what is right in shining a light on Beijing's interference in our elections. That starts with not shielding but bringing to committee PMO officials like the Prime Minister's chief of staff and seeing an independent and transparent production process.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Just so that everyone is on the same page, on the speaking list is Monsieur Berthold, followed by Mr. Calkins, Mrs. Romanado, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Julian, Madam Normandin and Mrs. Sahota.

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I won't speak for long. I would simply like to address some issues just raised by Mr. Cooper.

It's extremely important, especially following the meeting we had earlier today. Despite the incredible number of documents out there—I have some here, in my notes, but I won't use them—and everything that's been reported in the media on this issue in the last several weeks, both by Global News and in the Globe and Mail, there are still a number of worrying issues which lead us to believe that we need a more in‑depth study on the influence of the Chinese regime in our elections.

Every day, every hour, we are finding out new things. Canadians have the right to know what's really going on and to get to the bottom of things. That is what we want to do.

That is why the motion introduced today by my colleague in this regard calls for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to dig even deeper, to meet more often and draw up a more exhaustive list of witnesses so we can get to the bottom of things. As we have seen again today, despite all of the questions we are asking, we still can't get to the bottom of things. We still don't know when the Prime Minister was informed of potential Chinese interference, who would have told him, what he did when he was presented with the information and what he intends to do to protect the integrity of the next election. I would like to remind everyone that we are in a minority government and that an election could be triggered at any moment. It is therefore important that we move quickly so we can get to the bottom of the matter.

We are therefore requesting many more meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for this study and that the House provide the committee with the necessary resources to hold these meetings.

In particular, we are asking that Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, be called to testify on her own for two hours. I think that's the least we can do to get to the bottom of things. As Mr. Trudeau has said before, speaking to Ms. Telford is like speaking directly to him. So we would like to hear what Ms. Telford has to say, what she knows and especially what information she shared with the Prime Minister. We want to know what the Prime Minister knows, when he found out and why the government seems to have done nothing to counter foreign interference, when it obviously happened, based on the information we have today.

We are also asking for Mr. Rosenberg to appear, as he is the author of the independent assessment of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol for the 2021 federal election.

Lastly, we are asking for the production of a series of documents to shed light on this matter. These documents would obviously be redacted by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in the interest of protecting information.

In short, I support my colleague's motion. I hope that my colleagues from every party will support this motion so we can shed light on all of the articles that have appeared in the media. As I said, I'll soon run out of space in front of me to lay out all of these news articles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Calkins, go ahead.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Chair, if it's okay, could you just move my name to the bottom of the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's no problem.

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion today. I listened intently while he read the motion and explained the rationale for bringing it forward.

One of the concerns I have is that the focus is not on foreign interference. The focus is on the Prime Minister.

I'm very concerned about foreign interference in elections. The purpose of this study is whether, in fact, we have the proper mechanisms in place in terms of protocol and oversight, and in terms of what happened in the 2019 election and the 2021 election, and perhaps even in previous elections. Part of this motion doesn't refer to any of that.

With respect to the production of documents that was referred to, we just heard Ms. Jody Thomas, who was previously the deputy minister of national defence and is now the national security and intelligence adviser, explain very clearly that as guardians of “protected information”, obviously, the members of PROC do not have the security clearance to be able to see the documents that are classified as top secret. NSICOP, which has the necessary clearance, would be the appropriate place for parliamentarians to review documents in a non-redacted way.

When my colleague mentions blank pages, it's obvious he knows full well that none of us has the security clearance necessary to see unredacted documents of top secret clearance, and that releasing documents of top secret clearance would have major ramifications. While I understand where the member opposite is coming from, there are legislative prohibitions to releasing top secret documents. We have a mechanism in place to look at that, which is NSICOP.

We've just received a report from Mr. Rosenberg, the “Report on the assessment of the 2021 Critical Election Incident Public Protocol”, which has some recommendations in it that would be very worthwhile for this committee to dig into. That is something that I look forward to hearing more about.

With respect to this motion, quite frankly, it doesn't achieve what I thought PROC was looking for in understanding foreign interference and making sure that we have the tools in place. Are the tools in place robust enough to prevent this? There are questions still to be answered.

While I highly respect my colleague across the way, I think that this motion brings us away from the task at hand, which is to look at foreign interference in elections versus a focus on the Prime Minister. If that's his intent, that's his intent. My intent here is to look at foreign interference in elections to make sure that they are as robust as possible, and to make sure that the tools are in place so that we can protect our democracy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I wanted to weigh in on this important discussion as well. I appreciated all of the comments made by colleagues.

I take this matter very seriously. I take the allegations that are circulating in the media very seriously. I think we all really need to see this as a non-partisan issue and approach it in, I think, a very good-faith attempt to understand how we can continue to evolve the ecosystem our government has put in place as clearly documented by Morris Rosenberg's report, which I think really puts substance to some of the questions I had. I took the time to read that last night. I found it very enlightening as to how much has actually been done.

I think our focus really needs to be on how we evolve the ecosystem to keep up with the emerging and evolving threat environment. I think we've heard from security and intelligence professionals that this is really their concern. I think there are some good recommendations that this committee could make. I think what started with—I thought, anyway—a very good-faith attempt on all parties' sake to really undertake this work has now really shifted. I'm really uncomfortable with this shift. It's become about a partisan attack on the Prime Minister and a partisan attack on one of our MPs. I realize that there are allegations. We heard in testimony today—it was very clear early—that no investigation is under way by the RCMP. To me, this points to questions as to whether those allegations are true or not.

When I look at this motion, I think we should really be approaching it with a good-faith attempt to try to improve our democratic institutions and the ecosystem that really is necessary with a multiplicity of strategies that help reduce threats to our democratic institutions.

With all that said, I have very specific concerns in relation to the motion that Mr. Cooper put forward. Perhaps instead of going through all of those, I'll just introduce an amendment. I have an amendment here that I've drafted and I would like to put forward.

I'll read that into the record, Madam Chair, as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and replacing the words in paragraph (f) with the following “the committee order the production of all memoranda, briefing notes, and any other relevant documents, which are in the possession of government departments or agencies containing information concerning efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to interfere in the 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021 general elections, provided that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, do you have that in writing? Do you have it in both official languages?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes. I would be happy to provide that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay. Perhaps you can send that and we'll suspend for a second while we get it circulated around. That way people can follow it and interpretation can have access as well.

We look forward to receiving that, Mr. Turnbull, after which I'll give you back the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Please continue. We have all received a copy of it now. Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe I was at a point in a paragraph, and I'll start just before where I left off.

—foreign governments or other foreign state actors to interfere in the 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021 general elections provided that (i) the Departments and Agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act, (ii) these redacted documents be deposited as a complete package as soon as possible with the Clerk of the committee to be distributed to all members of the committee in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

We have an amendment that's been moved.

I would usually start a new list, but I do know that I had Mr. Julian and Madame Normandin on my list.

Mr. Julian, would you like the floor?

You would.

I will continue with the list I have.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will be voting against the amendment that was put forward by my colleague. However, you'll recall, Madam Chair, that much earlier today, we circulated the NDP approach on how these hearings should be conducted. Mr. Turnbull has taken one small element of that, but has not taken the overall, comprehensive approach. I hope that once this amendment is defeated, I'll be able to move my more extensive amendment.

What we believe needs to happen is to ensure, first off, that we have a national public inquiry. That is something I hope we will debate tomorrow. I moved the notice of motion today. It will be in order to move it tomorrow, and I certainly hope that the motion for a national public inquiry will be supported by all members of this committee.

Until the government indicates it is willing to do that, we will have work to do as a committee. The key element, to my mind—this is where I would disagree with my Conservative colleagues—is that we need to be looking comprehensively at the Chinese government and state actor interference, but also at Russian state actor interference.

I want to flag the University of Calgary's school of public policy. It came out with a study just last summer indicating that in the Canadian Twitter ecosystem, around 25% of the accounts were “spreading pro-Russian talking points”. These were accounts that were talking about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

An article reads:

The analysis—

This is from the University of Calgary's school of public policy.

—of the content of the tweets found similar pro-Russian views expressed among right-wing figures and their supporters in the U.S. and Canada, he said.

He said supporters of the “Freedom Convoy” and anti-vaccine movement, some of whom may not realize they have been digesting messaging originating from Russia, were also tweeting messages in support of the invasion of Ukraine.

Finally, one member of the team from the University of Calgary's school of public policy who examined the millions of tweets that were required for this very extensive study said in an interview:

...that the Russian "state apparatus" is associated with many accounts tweeting in Canada, and is influencing posts that are retweeted, liked or repeated by different accounts again and again.

There is a concern of Russian interference, as I mentioned earlier, in the United Kingdom with the Brexit referendum. The result is attributed to Russian interference. It's the same with Donald Trump's election and the allegations around the “freedom convoy”. The fact is, as we know from the report that the U.K. government finally issued after the 2019 election, that the Russian state actors were involved in heavily financing the United Kingdom's Conservative Party.

These are all of serious concern. If we do not have a public inquiry that examines all of those things, both Russian interference and Chinese interference.... As I mentioned earlier, Madam Chair, Chinese interference is to the extent that those allegations are serious enough that the electoral laws may have been broken. This requires the government and the Prime Minister to step up and call this public inquiry because of the seriousness of the allegations.

Violations of the Canada Elections Act are not something that should be taken lightly. I mentioned a couple of examples earlier today. We need to have the Prime Minister call this public inquiry. It needs to be comprehensive, on both Chinese state actor interference and Russian state actor interference, and there are a number of witnesses who need to be called.

As I've circulated to every member of this committee, in a way to be open and ensure that everyone is aware of what the NDP proposes in terms of a way forward, we will be proposing—and I'll move the amendment at the appropriate time—that Katie Telford and Tausha Michaud, chiefs of staff to the Prime Minister and former leader of the official opposition, come forward to this committee.

As well, we would be proposing that the national campaign directors for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2019 and 2021 federal election campaigns also be brought forward and that we have an extensive request for documents that includes rapidly getting documents through to this committee, but also relies upon an agreement that we already have among all parties.

You will recall, Madam Chair, that under the Harper government, documents were almost impossible to come by. I remember those dismal years in which parliamentarians had no rights to documents. What we have put in place coming out of that, signed by all recognized parties, is a way of treating top secret documents, documents that deal with national security, that involves referral to that committee. If there is disagreement among the four parties for any reason at all, the national security document would be referred to a special committee of judges who would rule on whether or not they would be admissible or subject to national security. This is a way of ensuring that all documents are available to the committee and that we can compare the redactions as well.

This is a way of moving forward, Madam Chair, that is ensuring that we as a committee are doing our work.

I'll have a chance to move this later when, I hope, we will have defeated the amendment and there will be space for a new amendment to be moved.

That's what I would like to do.

I think it's really important that we look closely at all of the allegations. These are serious allegations regarding Chinese interference in the last election campaign, but also of Russian interference in our democracy, and potentially in our elections, as well, as several studies and articles seem to indicate. We need to get to the bottom of this and get answers for Canadians.

The NDP amendment, which has been circulating for hours now, would allow the committee to fulfill its duty. If a national inquiry is launched, the committee could then move on to other things. If no inquiry is called, the committee will have to do the work. As far as I'm concerned, our amendment is the best way to deal with this serious matter in the interest of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak during this round of questions. I hope it won't prevent me from speaking during a subsequent round, after we have debated this amendment, because I'd like to move a minor amendment to Mr. Cooper's initial motion regarding dates.

As for Mr. Turnbull's amendment, I won't be able to support it.

While we were discussing with witnesses here how the government has handled the interference, and while we are raising more questions here than are being answered, the Prime Minister held a press conference during which he strongly asserted that there are already enough tools to protect against foreign interference. This is the complete opposite of what our witnesses have told us today.

To reiterate, beyond what we can do as a parliamentary committee, we absolutely need an independent public inquiry. As for our committee, we must ensure that we continue to hear from more witnesses, including Ms. Telford, as stated in Mr. Cooper's motion. Mr. Turnbull's amendment would among other things remove the part of the motion calling on the committee to invite certain witnesses. Yet we need to hear from them because there are still many unanswered questions. The confidence that Canadians have in their democratic institutions is at stake.

We need to hear witnesses who can tell us what happened, who knew what, when, and why this was not made public. The Prime Minister has said that the existing mechanisms are effective, but I have the impression that is not the case. We therefore need to keep hearing from witnesses who can tell us that these mechanisms do not in fact provide for the timely sharing of information about foreign interference with Canadians. Further, these mechanisms do not assure us that foreign interference was not concealed in cases where it was politically convenient for the government, for instance, when that interference favoured its own candidates.

In light of this, I cannot support Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment.

I hope we can now move to debate on the original motion. As I said, I have a very small amendment, which will be distributed to everyone in both official languages.