Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

We've had nearly 21 hours of filibuster on this issue. It's quite straightforward: The majority of members on the committee have asked for the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to appear at this committee and testify on the briefings she received on foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections.

This request from opposition members was precipitated by reporting in Global News and The Globe and Mail, based on their sources with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, that detail the attempts of the Communist regime in Beijing to funnel money and influence and resources into specific ridings, ridings that were targeted to affect the outcomes of our democratic processes. It is obviously unacceptable that a foreign state would engage in that. Conservatives have called for an open, public, transparent inquiry. Concurrently with that, we are looking to have the most senior non-elected person who works in this place, the right hand to the Prime Minister, who received those briefings, his chief of staff—the same person about whom the Prime Minister is said to have told members of his caucus that, if they're talking to her, it's the same as talking to him.

We're likely going to eclipse the 24-hour mark in this filibuster today, and Canadians want that cover-up to end. They want the filibuster to end. We should vote on the subamendments and amendments and vote on the main motion. As I will often tell my children, just because you get your say doesn't mean you get your way. I think we've seen over 20-plus hours that everyone has had the opportunity to get their say.

I won't go over two minutes and 30 seconds with this intervention, because I think all that needs to be said has been said. Let's get to a vote here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Madame Normandin, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I, too, do not wish to speak for too long, because like others, I would like to get to a vote quickly. That said, I would nonetheless like to go over certain comments that were made today. I think it is useful to do so once in a while in order to re‑centre the debate.

I have been hearing something today that has raised questions in my mind. We have been told that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the NSICOP, is the best forum for this type of work. I get the impression that some people are trying to oppose the work of the NSICOP, which would entail an independent public inquiry, with that of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons. But there is no need to oppose all three entities, or even others, because their work can be complementary.

We are currently holding a debate to determine if we should invite Katie Telford to testify so that we may hear what she knew and what she did with the information that she had. Today, some people have rightly said that this will not be the first time that Ms. Telford has been called on to testify before a committee. She has indeed testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence during its study on sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, which dealt with the allegations made against Jonathan Vance, amongst other things.

We would do well to remember that at the time, Ms. Telford stated that she had not advised the Prime Minister that she had received certain information. Since my Liberal colleagues are talking about cabinet confidentiality, the following question comes to mind: How can we have cabinet confidentiality if the Prime Minister is not aware of the situation? That certainly raises questions and is a compelling reason to summon Ms. Telford as a witness.

So what has happened is that either the Prime Minister was aware of the situation and the measures that he took were wrong, which would bring up the issue of cabinet confidentiality, or that the Prime Minister was not aware, which raises questions about internal governance. In both cases, we have to find out what happened, so that we can change our way of doing things in the future. That would actually be the goal of any testimony heard through a public inquiry.

The aim is to reveal any problems with the decision-making process that cropped up in the past in order to avoid such a situation coming up again, and by that same token, increase Canadians' confidence in democratic institutions.

Unfortunately, as we see now, we have to get information through the media in order for anything to actually happen. We have seen this recently on the issue of Chinese police stations. The more information we receive about these police stations, the more the various levels of government take measures to ensure that any funding for these police stations is cut off.

It is in our interest to understand what has happened. In that way, we will be compelled to take certain measures. The impression that we are getting now is that if everything falls under cabinet confidentiality, no measures will be taken. This seems to have been the case during the 2019 and 2021 elections, according to the information that we have that still needs to be validated.

A lot of people have spoken about partisanship this evening. We have been told that the opposition is playing political games. Personally, I think that is the opposite is true. I would like to underscore the position of the Conservatives. I do not always agree with what they do and how they do it. Their approach is perhaps a tad more aggressive than mine, but at the end of the day, it's a question of preference.

It is nonetheless important to note that the Conservatives are seeking to hold a public inquiry. I will just say in passing that we have heard many opinions on a public inquiry. I will remind you all that the committee has already voted on this issue and we don't have to revisit it. The Conservatives voted in favour of a public inquiry even though the media has reported that certain Conservative candidates may well have gained an advantage because of foreign interference. The Conservatives are therefore ready to discover what happened in the past, even if it will hurt them. By the same token, they have accepted a friendly amendment requiring that their campaign director also be summoned to testify. If that does not show a lack of partisanship, I do not know what does.

In this context, the only ones who seem to be guilty of partisanship are the Liberals. By digging their heels in, they are running the risk of sullying their reputation further. Canadians' confidence in democratic institutions and the Liberal Party will be weakened. I get the impression that the Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot by drawing out proceedings.

We could now vote on the intent of the motion, which is simple: either to invite or not invite Katie Telford. Some people are saying that three hours would be too long. I would ask them to amend the motion so as to reduce the length of time, instead of simply saying that we shouldn't invite her. Otherwise, we get the impression that that is what is really intended. If ever we decide that three hours is too much time, we should suggest another timeframe.

We can debate the intent rather than talk about all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with summoning the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Let's just get on with it and make a decision as quickly as possible for the benefit of Canadians and more importantly, the democratic institutions that we are supposed to represent.

I've had my say. I will let the next person speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Over to you, Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. O'Connell, we haven't done a sound check. It's your first time speaking, so can we hear about how you're doing today?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yes, I've switched microphones. This is a House of Commons-compliant headset. The Internet's plugged in.

Is the sound coming through okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Can I get a hands-up or a thumbs-up? Are we hearing it okay, for the interpreters?

Yes, tell me a bit more about your day. You celebrated a birthday. Was it a good birthday?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Yes.

I will give a shout-out to the wonderful staff at Staples in Pickering who made sure that they had extra headsets available when mine were no longer on the approved list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We got a thumbs-up, probably for your team members, as well as for the sound.

With that, the floor is yours. Thank you.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm glad to be here and to be able to participate once again in this debate.

I've listened intently to the various conversations, and I find them interesting.

I would like to start off with Mr. Barrett with respect to his comment that he feels that everything that needs to be said has been said and therefore the debate is over. While he may speak to his children in that way, we are not children. We have every right and ability to raise our concerns as much as we feel is needed, as we all have earned the right in this place to speak.

I have sat through numerous filibusters from the Conservatives as they literally read out of a phone book or different literary novels. The fact is that the Conservatives are now criticizing Liberal members who are not, in fact, reading from a phone book but are raising very legitimate issues and concerns. To be chastised that they're heard enough doesn't really hold any water with me. I'm not surprised that they don't want to hear it, because, again, as I've said before, their minds are made up, and let's not be confused with the facts.

Madam Chair, I also heard throughout this debate some of the comments around having a public inquiry or not having a public inquiry. I understand those debates. I think it's fair that people would want to be talking about the merits. If you look in the media, you see, as my colleagues have pointed out, that many Conservatives have gone on the record on why a public inquiry isn't the right thing or why it would be. That's part of the public discourse. It's something that many people want to chat about and share their views on. For me, I don't have an issue with whether that is the appropriate debate. I think that's a very fair and reasonable thing that people want to debate the best way forward.

In fact, the Prime Minister has even said that nothing is off the table. The appointment of this special rapporteur means he will be able to look at those options to allow NSICOP and NSIRA to do their work, the work that PROC could put forward if we ever get down to talking about recommendations for this study. A special rapporteur could then say, “Here are the gaps. Here is where I think we should move forward or not”, etc., as an independent, impartial person. Something the Prime Minister acknowledges is that this debate is a fair and legitimate one.

The point I would like to raise, though, is that's not the motion on the floor that we're debating. We're debating whether staffers should be invited to this committee to answer for the government. We heard that time and time again, and Mr. Julian from the NDP was the first to raise the fact that it was Conservatives, when they were in government, who, time and time again, rallied against bringing staffers forward and insisted on the idea of ministerial responsibility.

We've had Ministers Joly and LeBlanc twice. We have opportunities to invite others, if that's the will of the committee, but that's not what this is. We're not debating, as I mentioned before, whether we bring in additional witnesses to look at how European Union countries are dealing with this or how Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. are dealing with foreign interference. We're not debating how to get the best information; we're debating bringing on one particular staffer, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, which is who the Conservatives seem to be most fixated on.

While I sit here and listen to the argument for or against the public inquiry, that's not what we're voting on.

Given the fact that this motion is about bringing in the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, the motion, by its very nature, is purely partisan. That's what we're debating here today. What I find so egregious is that we are not using committee time to move forward in the study, which we have all said is important. We have extended the study. We've agreed to additional witnesses and to bringing ministers back as new information becomes available. We've put forward ideas. Even the foreign registry was something this committee was starting to talk about. There are lots of opportunities to discuss various things dealing with the very serious issue of foreign interference.

That is not what's preoccupied this committee today or on the other days we've been talking. The discussion has been purely partisan, and that's what my comments are going to be reflecting, because it's the partisan nature of the motion that I find not helpful to Canadians. I don't find it helpful in dealing with foreign interference when there are opportunities for NSICOP and NSIRA and for a special rapporteur to look at all of the information and, if anything is sensitive in nature, to treat it through NSICOP in a manner that handles national security with the care and sensitivity it deserves, something that PROC just frankly can't do. As much as Conservatives have time and time again tried to access national security documents or tried to make them public, luckily cooler heads have prevailed on national security and the security those documents deserve has been taken into account.

I'll go back to the partisanship that is really what all of this is about. For any Canadians watching, make no mistake—that's really what this is. It is a motion to try to get the Prime Minister's chief of staff to come in, to try to get some clickbait for Conservatives and their followers. It's not about making democracy stronger. It's not about protecting from foreign interference in future elections. If it were, we'd have serious witnesses in to deal with, as I said, how other countries are dealing with this and how we are going to move forward in protecting our institutions to make sure they maintain the level of strength that they have had up to date.

The national security community has confirmed for us time and time again that it was Canadians and Canadians alone who determined the outcome of the 2019 and 2021 elections, but we have to continue to be diligent with that. We can't take that for granted, and so there is an opportunity for this committee to do that work and to make recommendations.

The threats around foreign interference and how foreign state actors engage in it are constantly changing, so what we are talking about today versus even five years from now could be totally different, and a future PROC committee could be seized with this issue and with how to change and adapt once again, but again, that's not what we're discussing. We're not discussing the forms of foreign interference. We're discussing one particular staffer the Conservatives are hell-bent on having appear on an issue of national security when they know that in a public forum there will be limitations on any sort of testimony that deals with national security. It would be irresponsible for someone to come forward and share national security information in a public manner.

I don't know what the Conservatives' ultimate goal is. I think it's just clickbait. Is it to try to release national security information? I don't understand why they think that would be a good idea for Canada or for Canadians or for the security of this country, but I don't try to or pretend to get into the heads of Conservative strategists, because I think those would be very dark and scary places.

Madam Chair, that being said, with respect to the issues around partisanship, I want to get back to something that the leader of the official opposition said to Minister LeBlanc during question period when we asked why the Conservatives, when the leader of the official opposition was the Minister of Democratic Reform, opted to do nothing about foreign interference issues when he was the minister responsible, even though there had been warnings from the national security community during the Harper government.

His response was—I'm paraphrasing here—that there was no partisan reason or advantage for them to do anything about it. I think that says it there about what all of this is about. The Conservatives seem to take national security and foreign interference seriously when they believe there is some sort of partisan benefit for themselves.

I want to dig deeper into this partisan rabbit hole that the Conservatives have been doing down for a number of years because, interestingly enough, it was actually Mr. O'Toole who first claimed that there was some sort of foreign interference after the 2021 election, and it was Conservatives who said no, that wasn't true.

In fact, a Conservative senator had to apologize to Mr. Hsu for calling him a liar over the issue of foreign interference. In 2021, Erin O'Toole was talking about how he lost eight ridings, and then it changed to nine ridings, and then 13 ridings, and they blamed foreign interference. Then Mr. Hsu said no, it was Conservatives and Erin O'Toole's stance. This is all documented in media reporting. What's so interesting to watch about this is that going back at least a year, if not two, there has been this infighting among Conservatives about the Erin O'Toole campaign strategy, and there were talks about how there was a whole press conference held by a group of Chinese-Canadian Conservatives who called on Erin O'Toole to step down as leader because they said—I'm reading here from an article about it—the reason for the loss in the 2021 election was that there was a shift towards the centre politically, a lack of outreach to the Chinese-Canadian voters and a failure to embrace Peter MacKay, who lost the Tories' last leadership race to O'Toole.

There was this feeling amongst even Chinese-Canadian Conservative members and politicians from Toronto, from B.C., who actually held a press conference asking for Mr. O'Toole to resign because they felt he did such a poor job of engaging with Chinese-Canadian members of the community that they didn't want him as leader anymore and they felt that as Chinese Canadians, they had a hard time within these communities to sell their Conservative message.

I find it interesting after all this—and again, this is all documented online—that now the Conservatives are coming out and saying no, no, no, it wasn't their messaging with the Chinese-Canadian community and it wasn't Erin O'Toole's failed leadership.

By the way, I would also like to point out that in B.C., part of the time when Mr. Hsu had been talking about seeing a decline in support in the election was also the time Erin O'Toole flip-flopped on gun control, which is a very important issue in many communities but it's significant in the greater Vancouver area as well.

The Conservatives, including Mr. Hsu, have changed their positions on whether it was Erin O'Toole's lack of leadership, and now you have Conservatives saying no, it's absolutely the result of foreign interference.

We actually had the non-partisan national security community testify before this committee a couple of weeks ago. They confirmed that although they saw a lot of chatter against the Conservatives, especially in the Chinese diaspora community, they couldn't determine that it was actually foreign state-based.

Why that's so important is that there can be groups, whether it's seniors, the Chinese community—as in this case—different diaspora groups or groups of individuals. Young people can come together and start campaigns on political issues that they don't agree with. It doesn't matter their cultural background, their religious beliefs or how they identify as a group; they are Canadians, and that's a Canadian-based, normal political activity.

We heard testimony that they could not find evidence that the increase in chatter or communications against the Conservative Party was foreign-based. It's not to say that foreign interference isn't real or that it wasn't attempted, but I think that if you're going to claim that a particular election was won or lost based on foreign interference, you really need to be able to back that up. That's a pretty serious accusation. It would be a very serious failing of our institutions. I don't think you can just say that without clear evidence. That's something that the national security community, who are non-partisan professionals, demonstrated: They couldn't find that connection to a foreign state.

I think that's really important, because making those accusations without being able to back them up undermines Canadians' trust in our institutions. If our institutions are failing, then we have to deal with that, but you can't just make that claim without evidence and create this fear.

I'll bring up an example of another kind of base of misinformation, and it was Canadian-based. A group of Conservatives got together in the last election and the 2019 election as well. I received their misinformation in my riding and I think Mr. Turnbull probably did in his as well. They sent mail to every single household in our ridings saying that a Liberal government was going to tax your primary residence. It wasn't true. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing had debunked it many times. It was an organized, coordinated effort to mislead and to create a political outcome.

Nobody said that it came from Russia. Nobody said that coordinated and targeted misinformation campaign came from China. That's a form of politics that I think most Canadians find really disappointing. It creates confusion. It might change some votes. It certainly causes local elections to have to quickly pivot and make sure that they are answering those questions and clarifying what the real position of the party is. Those things do happen.

I don't think there's any doubt that there were serious concerns from certain communities that were upset with the Conservative policies and agendas. As I said, there were Chinese-Canadian Conservative members who came out and said very clearly that Erin O'Toole failed to connect with the Chinese-Canadian community. If those members of the community shared information and Conservative policies that they were upset about, that's exactly what our national security community was alluding to when they testified. It was that there are campaigns locally, or Canadian-driven information sharing, in which many politicians, depending on where they stand or what their position is, may say, “Hey, that's not our position.”

It's just like when Conservatives or Canada Proud put out stuff or the Canadian gun lobby puts out misleading information. It's not pleasant to deal with, especially when you know it's not true in a local campaign, but those are Canadians expressing their views. I find it a bit rich that now the Conservatives—who can be some of the worst, I find, at putting this disinformation into local campaigns—are now, without evidence, suggesting that a similar sharing of displeasure towards Erin O'Toole and the Conservative policies of the time is now somehow not okay.

It wouldn't be okay if that were directly related to a foreign state action, full stop, but the national security community that monitors this was before our committee and saying that they couldn't make that connection. It's not the Liberals saying that. It's not the NDP, it's not the Bloc and it's not the Conservatives: It's the national security community saying that they couldn't make that connection.

It also reminds me of when the Conservatives in 2015 started the cultural barbaric practices hotline. Well, that really motivated the Muslim community across Canada to be outraged and organized—all very legitimate things to be upset about—and to organize against local Conservatives because those policies were outrageous. Again, that's part of the democratic process that the national security community does not engage, as long as they can't determine that it's foreign state-based. That is the sort of political discourse, whether you like it or not, in which communities can come together and say, “We don't like the direction of this policy or whatnot, and it impacts us.” Conservatives came together to oust Erin O'Toole because they didn't like the direction of his policies.

I have actually sat in question period and watched as Liberals pointed out that the Conservatives actually ran on a platform of pricing pollution and I watched how many members on the Conservative benches said, “I didn't, I didn't”, but you literally run on a platform, under the way the party system works, and the Conservatives literally ran on a platform of pricing pollution. Because now they don't like it and they got rid of that leader, they say, “No, I didn't; I didn't.” Members of the Conservative Party are disavowing their own platform from the last election, but yet they're surprised that maybe voters also disavowed their policy platform.

That's the partisan stuff that's really underneath all of this, because I think it's not about foreign interference for the Conservative Party. If it was, they would have been talking about it, as I said, in 2019 when NSICOP first tabled this report in the House of Commons. They didn't. They didn't talk about foreign interference then. They didn't talk about it in 2020 or 2021. It was in 2022 when I guess they started to wake up to the issue because they felt the partisan reasons for doing so now made sense, based on the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly demonstrated that until it was going to make partisan sense for them, they weren't really interested in the issues of foreign interference.

I also want to bring up now.... Again, if I thought this motion was about the merits or how we're going to move forward in dealing with the issues of foreign interference or what the best next steps are or what the recommendations are that are going to come out of this committee, I'd be talking about those, but since this is a purely partisan exercise to bring in partisan staffers instead of the ministers responsible, I'm going to continue to talk about the partisan nature and the partisan hypocrisy coming from the Conservative Party.

What I find interesting is that once again the Conservatives have woken up to foreign interference just now, even though it's something we've been really focused on and thinking about. It's funny, because when the SITE committee was created before the 2019 election and the critical election task force was in place for the 2019 and 2021 elections, I find it interesting that I didn't see any Conservatives raising their hands and saying, “Hey, what is this? Let's have some more scrutiny on this. Are there better recommendations for how these groups could operate?” No. They showed up to the foreign interference and the national security briefings and they didn't raise any flags there either. They took the briefings. They were fine moving forward with that process.

They didn't raise any issues in the past about how this structure existed. They didn't bring forward recommendations back then on how to deal with foreign interference either. Why now? Why are Conservatives only caring now? Well, it's because they think there is a partisan reason to do so.

It reminds me of the U.S., with then President Trump and the slow undermining of election results and political institutions. It started slowly with Republicans in the U.S.—not all Republicans, but certain Trump Republicans, I would say—undermining voting rights. One thing that the current Leader of the Opposition, formerly the democratic institutions minister, did was to just make it harder for Canadians to vote. We see those mirrors in the U.S. We see the “stop the steal” rhetoric out of the U.S., and then we start to see Conservatives here using similar language. I saw Mr. Cooper talking about collusion. Where is this language coming from, talking about “corrupt”, about how there's something to hide, suggesting that the elections were not determined by Canadians? Is it from our neighbours to the south?

Then, when they're directly asked—because I think Conservatives must have done some polling, or they know that being too closely aligned with Trump-style politics is probably not very favourable in this country—they say, “No, no, no; we trust the results of the election, but we think there was collusion. We think the Liberals are in partnership with China. We have no proof of that, but we'd just like to sow doubt in Canadians' minds.”

They're doing a good job, actually, of sowing doubt, but only among their own voters. I saw a poll today that said 48% of Conservatives think the election outcomes were not determined by Canadians. For Liberal voters, it was 7%. You're seeing an erosion in Conservative voters of the trust in our democratic institutions.

We watched that same erosion in the U.S. and then what eventually happened there. When you start building this vacuum of mistrust in our institutions, what happens is that a group of people will really believe that the democratic process is no longer fair and free. When confirmation or proof doesn't exist to back those things up, you start to think it's a giant conspiracy. When that vacuum of concern and anger has nowhere to go, look at what happened on January 6 in the U.S. A group of people just couldn't believe that the outcome of the U.S. election was what it was.

That's a dangerous game, going down this road. It's not to say that dealing with foreign interference isn't something that should be done—it absolutely is—but creating this mistrust without evidence is what the dangerous game is. It's not just in the U.S. We've seen it in other countries.

When we see numbers like 48% of Conservatives don't think the outcome of the election was free and fair, that is when every single Canadian should be concerned. There has not been an impartial, non-partisan person through Elections Canada, the national security community or CSIS.... Nobody in those impartial circles has said there's evidence to suggest that it wasn't Canadians who determined the outcome of our elections. Stoking this misinformation and disinformation means we are seeing that certain groups no longer believe the impartiality of our public service.

We saw that in the U.S. We saw how that played out.

While Conservatives might think this is funny clickbait or that this is fun and games, look at those numbers. Look at the base. I mean, look at Twitter—not that I think that's a very reliable source of information. Look at the extreme hate on this issue.

I was part of the group of parliamentarians who were actually banned from China, with Conservative Michael Chong. It was the same round. I was banned from China because I was on the study that condemned the treatment of Uighurs. I actually voted in favour of the Conservative motion to ban Huawei. I have made known my concerns and my positions on things.

By the way, being banned by China is a point of pride. I have absolutely no issue with that. I stand firmly in my stance on the treatment of Uighurs and how deplorable that is.

After all of this, there are calls that I'm an agent of China. The most ridiculous things are said because facts don't matter in this world anymore. Those are the dangerous games that....

As politicians, we can't control what goes out on social media. We can't control what is amplified by certain groups that think it's beneficial. What we can control is how we behave. In saying things like “collusion”, we know exactly what that dog whistle is because we've seen it. We've seen it play out. We've seen the violence play out.

Then we see that trend continue. We talk about the convoy that came to Ottawa. If the Conservatives were consistent in their outrage over foreign interference, then why was there no condemnation of the widely reported foreign funding for the convoy? I didn't see the members of the Conservative Party, who stood proudly with convoy members, say that this is a great movement, but no foreign funding, please; let's keep this Canadian. No, of course not. They didn't want to upset this angry base that they could tap into.

The funding of that convoy, for example, would never have actually passed Elections Canada election financing rules. It's interesting that I don't see condemnation for that behaviour, which wouldn't have passed the test for our own election rules and our financing rules. Conservatives seem to be silent on that.

The other partisan piece of this, once again, is that if Conservatives were truly worried about foreign interference in the Canadian democratic process, then why have I not seen any of the members sitting around here in the House condemn the Conservative caucus members who met with Christine Anderson, the far-right European Union politician who met with Dean Allison, Colin Carrie and Leslyn Lewis?

Ms. Anderson has been known for spreading anti-immigrant hate and anti-Muslim ideology. She has publicly tried to downplay Nazi crimes and the Holocaust. Her party, the Alternative for Germany Party, is under surveillance as an extremist group.

Why is it that when foreign state actors and foreign extremist groups come to Canada and share their political hate and views, the Conservatives are okay with that? If you really want to get to the bottom of foreign interference and ensure that misinformation and disinformation from foreign actors are not welcomed in this country, where's the condemnation for an alt-right hate group coming to Canada and meeting with Conservative members? Is it because Conservatives share those values that it's okay? I sure hope not.

I have a lot Muslim friends and neighbours in my community, and to see some of the hatred and vitriol coming from that party and to see it embraced here by Canadian Conservative members scares me. I have sat with members of my Muslim community when there have been attacks against Muslims in Canada and around the world. I've seen the fear they have. To see that hate embraced once again by the Conservative Party of Canada scares me for them. It scares me for our Jewish community. We are seeing anti-Semitism on the rise. To see that a person, a foreign actor, with these hateful views being embraced by the Conservative Party of Canada.... Why are we not calling that out? Well, we are. Why are the Conservatives not calling that out? I think there's an opportunity here.

By the way, CSIS has raised the alarm bells on alt-right hate groups for many years, domestic and foreign. If the Conservatives are going to say, “Well, we're talking about China right now, and foreign interference and what CSIS is reporting”, I can tell you that CSIS has raised the alarm bells on alt-right hate, domestic and foreign, and the Conservatives sit here and embrace a member of a foreign state who's under surveillance for extremist views.

I don't know how any member of the Conservative Party sits in this place and thinks that there isn't a giant hypocrisy in their positions. How can they let that go unchallenged? How can they let that meeting go unchallenged? One of the members who met still sits in the Conservative front benches. How can the Conservatives can sit here and say that they are solely focused on standing up for Canadian democracy when they themselves, within their own party, are welcoming extremist hate groups that are under surveillance from foreign states? It only suits the Conservatives to stand up for something if they feel there's some partisan advantage.

It was interesting that Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, condemned the views of Christine Anderson in a statement, but he didn't share it on his social media channels. Why was that? It's interesting.

Why was it that when he was asked, once the House resumed, if he'd be condemning those three members who met with her, he all of a sudden walked back his comments about how vile her views were? How do you think members of the Jewish or Muslim communities feel about his no longer calling her views vile?

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise from a party and from a leader who bury misogynistic hashtags in their social media views. This hate and mistrust in our democratic systems don't fulfill the goals of the Conservative Party these days. It's sad to watch. It's like watching the Republicans in the U.S.—I have never really shared Republican views—seeing members in their own party trying to get back to their morals and values and to get off this hate-filled mission, and I know there are probably members of the Conservative Party who feel very uncomfortable with this alt-right, hate-filled turn. We need them to stand up, frankly.

I keep going back to the 48% of Conservative voters who think that Canadians didn't steer the outcome of these elections. I'd be curious to see what their viewpoint was just a year ago or six months ago, before all of the Conservative rhetoric started spiking and going crazy. There seems to be, as Mr. Poilievre has said, a partisan advantage to it. There wasn't a partisan advantage to doing anything about foreign interference in the past.

I think it's incredibly scary to see the partisan nature of this motion that we're debating. We're not getting to the work of actual recommendations on how to protect our democratic institutions from foreign interference. We're not making those recommendations. We've been debating.

Conservatives will complain about how many hours we've been talking. We've not been talking about the merits of one recommendation over the other. We've been talking because Conservatives want to turn this into—as they do—a partisan hit job. They want nothing more than clickbait. If they were serious about getting to the bottom of this, we'd be talking about how we're moving forward, the recommendations that PROC could make, things we'd want to see with a special rapporteur, and how PROC can inform that process with our own recommendations, because we had started this work previously. We're not doing any of that.

As I said, Conservatives are focused solely on partisan points. If they weren't, then they'd be dealing with all of the things I already spoke about, like condemning Christine Anderson and the MPs who met with her for her vile views and her rhetoric as a foreign actor who's under surveillance since her party is an extremist group. The Conservatives would not be stirring up rhetoric about collusion and elections being stolen. It's only a matter of time, I feel, before the Conservatives are going to do their own “stop the steal” campaign.

They're ramping up their rhetoric to the point where 48% of Conservative voters have lost trust in democratic institutions. It's going to be really hard to undo it once you let that genie out of the bottle. As I said, look at January 6 and what happened in the U.S. and think very clearly before you start using rhetoric without being able to back it up with evidence.

I've talked about how Mr. O'Toole, as leader, was asked to step down by his own Chinese-Canadian Conservative caucus members or party members because of his lack of connection with the Chinese-Canadian community, and how those things seem to be completely under the radar now. Actually, Mr. Julian raised it numerous times too. The Conservatives, in their talking points, never seem to mention the media reporting that it was actually Conservative members who were identified as well.

I'm not going down the road of “Let's play that game”, but the point is that I find it interesting. The Conservatives stand on their soapboxes to say they're just trying to get to the bottom of it, but they leave out the fact that they too were named in all of this.

Again, if it was a genuine concern for democracy, a genuine concern for standing up for what's right, then why aren't they standing up for everything that's right? That's the problem I have with this motion. That's why, despite Mr. Barrett's uncomfortableness or feeling he's heard everything he needs to hear and there's nothing left to say, I'm going to keep using my voice, because there is such a hypocrisy. What's coming from the Conservative Party is so partisan that I can't sit here and pretend the motion that is being discussed is some way to improve our democratic institutions. If the Conservatives were genuinely concerned, they would have raised all the issues, all the things that were mentioned in the reporting, such as the accusations about their own party members. They would have raised the issues of Mr. O'Toole, and, again, the fact their own caucus abandoned the platform he ran on, but they seem to think that Canadians didn't. I find that to be the most interesting.

As well, there's the fact they don't even condemn foreign funding that wouldn't be acceptable under our Canada Elections Act and they don't condemn alt-right foreign actors coming to Canada to spread misinformation and hate. Until the Conservatives come to terms with their own hypocrisy and at least are honest with Canadians that this is nothing more than a partisan issue, then yes, I'm going to keep using my voice to highlight all of the hypocrisy and all of the ways we could be actually working to make our democratic institutions stronger.

I'm also going to continue to shine a light.... What is it that Mr. Cooper loves to say? Shine a light. Transparency. Sunshine. I am going to be the sunshine shining a light on the Conservative hypocrisy, the Conservative inability to condemn the foreign interference that seems to be happening within their own caucus and the inability to stand up for our Jewish communities here, for our Muslim communities, and condemn that vile rhetoric instead of welcoming those members with open arms.

Yes, I'm going to continue to shine a spotlight. I'm going to use a voice on Conservative hypocrisy, on the partisan nature of the road they've taken us down. When they are ready to deal with the real work of protecting our democratic institutions from foreign interference, I'll be right there, ready and willing to work.

Madam Chair, I think I'll leave it there for now. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell, for those comments. They are greatly appreciated.

I will now give the the floor to Mr. Fergus.

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

I am happy to be able to continue to express myself on the issue at hand.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Ms. O'Connell, who has brought up some useful points and who has gone to the heart of the problem. I am talking about what is called “psychological projection,” which is when we project our intentions on others.

My Conservative colleagues are saying that we are indulging in “petty politics.” That is not the case. We are defending our position based on well‑founded principles, such as the fact that we should not summon political staffers to testify before parliamentary committees. My Conservative colleagues have often stated that Ms. Telford has already testified twice before such a committee. Actually, it has happened three times in all of Canadian parliamentary history that someone who holds such a position has testified before a parliamentary committee, and in two of those three cases, it was Ms. Telford. That's it.

Why would we seek to establish a new tradition? Is it really to study the issue or to find out what the Prime Minister knew? There's another way for any MP to go about this, and that's to put the question directly to the Prime Minister. We have the privilege of being able to ask the Prime Minister questions many times a week during question period. The Prime Minister even spent a whole day answering all the questions put to him by MPs in the House of Commons. That is the best forum to do this.

If we would like our wonderful parliamentary traditions to be respected, we have to stop seeking the testimony of a political staffer. It makes no sense, and I won't tolerate it.

It is unfortunate that people have cobbled together a bunch of falsehoods to lead people astray. Once again, I will go back to this wonderful saying: “An out‑of‑context text is but a pretext.” People are claiming that because Ms. Telford has already testified twice, she can testify a third time.

The context is a political assistant has appeared twice before a House of Commons committee, which has never happened in the history of Canadian Parliament, and they may appear a third time.

Given the circumstances, you can understand—Canadians who are watching us do—that this is the exception that proves the rule. We're well aware that calling assistants to testify before a committee is not a parliamentary tradition.

In addition, my NDP colleague Ms. Blaney, for whom I have a great deal of respect, asked why the Liberals so dead set against holding a public inquiry and seem to believe that an independent special rapporteur will be able to reach the same conclusions as an inquiry. The reason I think it's important to let the independent special rapporteur do their job is that they may choose to hold a public inquiry. If they do, I would applaud that. We will support that, and I'm sure that individual will explain to Canadians how the inquiry would proceed.

I imagine that if a public inquiry were held, it would be very similar to the inquiry conducted by the commission under Justice Dennis O'Connor in the early 2000s. It would have the same type of guidelines.

I can already hear the comments from here, out of context: We want a transparent public inquiry, we'll want things cleared up, and so on.

However, what the people making those remarks will forget is that a public inquiry involves reviewing documents about national security matters. Yes, an inquiry may involve such documents, but it's wrong to think that it could be done in a completely transparent manner. It cannot. Part of the inquiry must be conducted in camera to allow for the review of certain documents. In fact, that is what Justice O'Connor did to produce his report on the Maher Arar case.

What we were able to read in his report was public information that he had the right to release. However, there was other information I didn't see. Perhaps members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians have seen the full version because they have the required security clearance. That's good what is out oh I'm good thank you.

If we're on the same page about this, that's great! I invite my colleagues in the official opposition to say so publicly. I know my colleague Ms. Normandin said she was prepared to do that and that's very good. When you're grounded in reality, you can have a discussion and negotiate. However, we can't continue to talk nonsense and mislead Canadians by saying that it's possible to get all the information when we know full well that it's not.

That's deceitful, and it would only make Canadians more cynical. I wish they could focus on one political party, but all political parties will suffer. There's a reason why airlines don't run attack ads against each other. It's because people don't distinguish between Air Canada and WestJet when it comes to safety. Only in politics do parties fight each other, and people are allowed to smear the reputation of politicians who aren't of the same stripe.

Some people believe that this has no impact on politicians. That's not true. Canadians can feel betrayed by all political parties. It's very important that we don't overstep the mark in terms of acceptability in political debate. If we do, we will ruin the system. We will taint that pool of good faith that all Canadians have in all politicians. So I urge my colleagues to come to their senses, if they can. Let's not overstep the mark and disappoint them in our political debates.

We've seen what happens when boundaries are crossed. We've seen it in other countries, including the United States, where anything goes now. As my colleague Mr. Turnbull has very clearly explained, we're only making Canadians more cynical of their own government, of their own representatives.

We really need to overcome this challenge and get back to what's reasonable. We need to provide Canadians with real options and have clear, genuine, reasonable discussions about what we can and cannot do.

If we do that, we can strengthen our democratic system. We mustn't subject it to undue stress. We need to make sure that we're always able to negotiate with our allies on sharing security-related information.

With respect to what we're discussing today, to get us out of this impasse, we could quickly decide that our discussions will be frank but difficult, and they will always remain reasonable.

Madam Chair, I will turn the floor back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Ms. Saks, you now have the floor.

It's your first time speaking at committee today, so I want to do a quick sound check, Ms. Saks. Can you tell me how you're doing?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Good evening, Madam Chair. I'm doing well. I'm home in my constituency in York Centre with my daughter and family, and I'm pleased to be here. Thumbs-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I will assume that the thumbs-up is for your sound as well as your being in your constituency.

Ms. Saks, the floor is yours. Welcome to PROC.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for taking the time. I know we've been in discussion for many hours.

At the crux of this, there are two things that really strike home for me.

I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. O'Connell. I'm a Jewish woman, and she really highlighted the impacts of misinformation and disinformation when they become the crucible for fostering and fomenting hate against the many communities that are a part of our diverse and inclusive Canada.

My colleague Mr. Fergus talked about the importance of being reasonable and the importance of measured and important discussions. We always have to remember why we are here. We are here to represent our communities. We are here to make sure that their voices are heard, that they have a sense of knowing we have their backs and that we will stand up for what is right.

What is right is that so many of us came from so many parts of the world to choose Canada because it is safe, it is a place of diversity and it is a democracy. Many of us came from different places, whether it's us or members of our families, who may be second-generation or third-generation Canadians, and we made a choice to be part of a country that is anchored in democratic principles. We have a sense of collective responsibility towards one another and our communities to ensure the institutions that were built.... We have the privilege and very acute and heavy responsibility to uphold the reflection of our communities and to uphold the principles we were put here to represent—those of our communities and our neighbourhoods.

Colleagues referenced the convoy of last year. They referenced several Conservative members who met with Christine Anderson from AfD, and my community members in York Centre were appalled by this. They were hurt last year. When I was walking through the convoy on a daily basis, I saw Jewish Stars of David as buttons. I saw swastikas flown. I know that, at the core, many of the speeches by the leadership of the convoy were really about marginalization and about distrust of minority and ethnic communities, which are part of the fabric of this country.

The fuel to the fire of the convoy, and what happened on January 6 the year prior, was really misinformation and disinformation spreading at warp speed. Where does it spread? It spreads online. It's the power of the platforms.

About 98% of Canadians are online on various platforms, and when we think of every age, every background and every community from coast to coast to coast, there's no doubt that digital platforms and social media platforms become lifelines for communication. They certainly were for many during the pandemic. They also keep our diverse communities informed and in touch with friends and family who live abroad. That's the nature of the world we live in today. It's also a place where misinformation and disinformation can fester, grow and create stereotypes, racist tropes and hatred toward communities. It moves at warp speed.

A perfect example of that was in a recent Toronto Star article. It said that concerns about foreign interference are based on speculative information. They're not based on facts. They're not based on clear markers of information that have been provided. It's a lot of talk, and it's moving at warp speed. I want to lean into what happens when misinformation and disinformation move at warp speed.

I've heard members of the Chinese community talk about the fear of anti-Asian hate against them, yet again. They just endured two years or more of that through the pandemic. We're now moving down into a rabbit hole rather than having constructive and clear discussions about how we ensure that all of our institutions are safe and secure and that Canadians know they are voting in a democratic process with as little influence as possible—or none, frankly.

We now have communities that are afraid of being questioned over their right to be here. I speak about that from a personal perspective. It's no secret that aside from being Jewish, I am Israeli, and I get accused of dual loyalties all the time as part of anti-Semitic tropes. It's one of the oldest forms of hate. We could go as far back as the Dreyfus trials, which were about dual loyalties.

Frankly, I cannot believe that in 2023, we are here, and this kind of hatred could potentially bubble to the surface. It already has for some communities, as Ms. O'Connell mentioned. Muslim communities, Jewish communities and many other communities are feeling marginalized and isolated right now because of the spread of misinformation and disinformation. This is no different.

Partisan foils are being thrown out without any sense of accountability by Conservatives in what they are putting into the Twitterverse and in how they speak. There's no apology either. I haven't heard the Leader of the Opposition be public and firm about members who dined with Christine Anderson. As a member of Parliament who represents a predominantly Jewish community, I find abhorrent and offensive, as do members of the Muslim community, her anti-Islam views, her Holocaust denial views and her lack of responsibility in understanding the facts of history.

We've seen the power of this in other forms. It was the Russian foreign minister who, in his disgusting justifications of the illegal war against Ukraine, claimed there were Nazis in Ukraine whom Russia was trying to foil, or that, alternatively, Russian soldiers will be enduring a Holocaust in fighting the war.

This kind of rhetoric, this type of use and abuse of language and this Holocaust denial seem to be free flowing through Twitter and other social media platforms. We see the same weaving and turning of language being used by colleagues across the way when it suits them, or they close their eyes to it when it suits them. Frankly, it doesn't suit Canadians. It doesn't suit our many communities, whether it be the Chinese community, the Muslim community, the Jewish community or any other community, to become weaponized by the type of partisan behaviour we're seeing from colleagues across the way. It makes me very sad.

When we talk about recreating trust, we must do it by what we model, what we do and the actions we take. To be fast and loose with language.... The Leader of the Opposition called NSICOP a secret committee, but it's far from being a secret committee. It was a committee put in place by this government, understanding full well that there are issues of national security impacting the daily lives of Canadians, whether they relate to espionage, cybersecurity, defending our borders or making sure we keep terrorism out.

I come from a country where terrorism is rife and where security is a paramount issue on a day-to-day basis. There's an understanding, at least where I come from, that there are things we can talk about with transparency but some things get talked about behind closed doors. In order for the good work to be done to protect state security, sometimes not everything can be public right away; it needs to be reviewed.

NSICOP was set up for exactly that purpose, and it's not a partisan committee by any sense of the imagination. It is a place where all members from every party are sworn in to have unfettered access to secure documents in this country to know what is happening in terms of surveillance and intelligence studies and to understand how we keep Canadians safe and keep our systems free of foreign interference.

There are no secrets in that committee. Everyone is free to ask the questions they need to ask. Everyone sees the same unredacted and clear documents they need to see so they can weigh in on some of the most serious matters of state security and safety. Sometimes that information can't come out right away, as it may be happening in real time. It may be that they are following a trail to understand where.... I lived overseas, and when tracking terrorist cells, it can take weeks, months or even years to understand the web of information that needs to be gathered to identify perpetrators and act proactively, either to prevent harm or to mitigate continued harm if some harm had been done already. How do we put cracks or a break into patterns of espionage and interference?

Some tell the public, really recklessly, that it is a secret committee and that only the Prime Minister can decide. Well, no, this is Parliament. We've all been elected to uphold the institutions of this place. Even Vern White, a former Conservative senator, acknowledged the fact that there's an entire structure around NSICOP to ensure the work being done there is done carefully and that it has the capacity to do important work, such as inquiring about and doing a study on foreign interference. To him, it's a good tool to use for this issue.

However, my Conservative colleagues continue to spread misinformation about this and to paint a picture of systems that, frankly, when they were in power.... When the leader was in power, he chose not to address this because it wasn't within his interests to do so. How denigrating is that? It wasn't in their interests to do this. As a governing minister, it wasn't in his interest.

Really? Our interests are the interests of Canadians. Our interest to uphold trust and a sense of belief that our institutions are free and clear of foreign interference, and to know that Canadians can choose their elected officials with their own convictions and without fear, intimidation, influence, misinformation and disinformation, is frankly an obligation. Each and every one us sitting in this Parliament has a role to play in ensuring that this system stays in place.

Time and time again, I see the Conservatives picking and choosing what works for them and what doesn't work. The Leader of the Opposition said so. He didn't work on this during his time because he chose not to.

I sit on the ethics committee, and the Conservatives, through Mr. Barrett, brought a motion there for a foreign interference study as well. Mr. Fergus, who is here, and I had lengthy discussions on it. Frankly, we weren't against doing the study. We said that would be fine. We just wanted to extend the scope. We wanted to make sure we weren't looking at just 2019 or 2021 but that we would go back, because we know this has been a growing issue for some time. It's no secret. The leader of the opposition said so himself. He knew about it; he just didn't deal with it. We decided to go back.

At this moment, it's about China. However, we also know there's foreign interference from other countries. While China may be the main perpetrator at this moment in time, we know that Russian foreign interference has had an impact, particularly when it came to U.S. elections. It spreads perniciously through these social media platforms at warp speed. It is difficult for us to track it, trace it and identify it.

That is why we have these discussions. As my colleague Mr. Fergus has said, they need to be responsible. They need to be reasonable. They need to take into account the real concerns that Canadians have and recognize that Canadians in this country come from everywhere. They come here with a sense that they've come to safety, that they've come to a place where they can participate openly in a democratic process that is fair and free. Then they see the language used by some of the members across the way, who describe this as secretive, as collusive, as evasive. I could go on. The point is, how are we building trust in Canadians?

I say this for all of us. I would caution my Conservative colleagues that it works both ways. It's not just about a Liberal government, and it's not just about members from the Bloc or the NDP. It is our Conservative colleagues as well. This type of mistrust gets sown equally among all politicians, among all parliamentarians, because it erodes trust in the system. I caution my colleagues about that, because they too are part of the system. However, they pick and choose when they are participants in it and when they are not.

We continue today to try to find the path forward on this motion, and if they are truly interested in working on behalf of Canadians to get to the bottom of this, I would remind them about my constituents in York Centre from the Chinese community who have come and asked me, “Do I belong here?” I would remind them of my own experience of being accused of having dual loyalties. I would remind them that we all have a responsibility, a deep and profound responsibility, to ensure that trust in our democratic institutions means that our communities can trust that the exploration and assessment of information in the work we do here in these committee rooms, whether it's at NSICOP, PROC or the ethics committee, is done in a way that gets to heart of the problem. The heart of this problem is the pernicious spread of misinformation and disinformation that is used to ratchet up emotions and ratchet up hate.

My colleague Mr. Fergus and I, when we were at the ethics committee, put forward a motion at one point, because we really did want to do an expansive study on foreign interference and go back. We wanted to include an amendment to the proposed study that would include the impacts of xenophobia and racism as a result of foreign interference. We actually had to wrestle and tug that out with colleagues across the way. For shame. We represent all of our communities here and a diverse and vibrant country with a strong democracy that we have a responsibility to uphold.

I would caution my colleagues across the way about the potential recklessness of using certain language or meeting with individuals who utilize that language, such as the member from the AfD, who quite a number of them felt comfortable dining with. Remember that we model what we see, and we know that Canadians are watching what we do. When they are so cavalier and so willing to use language that results in consequences that make our communities feel at risk, and when they say that it's done in the name of upholding our institutions without using the appropriate tools we have and are willing to discuss more, they are doing a gross disservice to Canadians, our democratic institutions and our systems.

I'll leave it there, Madam Chair. I've said my piece for the moment. I'm sure there are others who want time on the floor, so I will cede my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Saks, for those comments.

I have Mrs. Romanado, followed by Mr. Housefather, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Fergus.

Go ahead, Mrs. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank Ms. Blaney. She mentioned that she had an opportunity to meet with local firefighters and local fire chiefs. I know she's been a great supporter of my bill, and I want to thank her for that, because she has been advocating for her firefighters in her communities, and she has a lot of fire departments in her very large constituency.

Thank you, Ms. Blaney, for that.

She also brought up a really important point. She said two words: intention and impact. When we think of the word “impact”, we need to remember that everything we say and everything we do has consequences.

In my intervention earlier today, I asked a question: What is it we want to achieve and what is our objective? Well, depending on what we want to achieve, there are different tactics we can use.

With respect to the public inquiry, we didn't say it wasn't a good idea. The special rapporteur will establish the best way to proceed. On the other hand, we know that a public inquiry has its limits. It will be called an independent inquiry because those conducting it will not be parliamentarians, but will be appointed by the cabinet. The same thing goes for the rapporteur: The Prime Minister will appoint them. On the other hand, it's well known that those undertaking a public inquiry can't have access to secret documents.

So it has its limitations, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to go down that road.

Our committee is also validating the information. We've already heard from many witnesses. We want to call several more. Some key witnesses have clarified a lot of things, but we have others we could call. The Prime Minister announced today that he will appoint a special rapporteur as soon as possible, in the next few days. He announced it today at a press conference. So we'll find out who that person will be. As soon as we know, the committee can decide to pursue its studies. Otherwise, we don't know.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is also being asked to conduct a review to assess the state of foreign interference in federal electoral processes. The committee has stated that it will begin this review.

With respect to that committee, I want to make sure that everyone is aware of its mandate. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act authorizes the committee to review:

a) the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence; b) any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; and c) any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.

Madam Chair, it's very important to note that the committee members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament, all have top-secret security clearance and all are bound to secrecy in perpetuity under the Security of Information Act.

The committee members take an oath or solemnly declare that they will obey and comply with the laws of Canada, and that they will not disclose or misuse information obtained in confidence in the course of their responsibilities relating to the committee.

On this basis, the members of this committee are able to receive classified minutes and materials related to the committee's work, which is very important.

In fact, since 2017, the year the committee was formed, a number of members from all political parties have served on it. When we look at the committee members, they have clearly included some outstanding parliamentarians. Right now, someone I would call an expert sits on the committee. Ms. Normandin served on it from 2019 to 2020.

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

I only attended one meeting.

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

She only attended once, but she still can't tell me what she learned, because it's confidential.

Things have been said about the work of the committee. Its work is said to be secret, and apparently there have been secret deals, so there's a whiff of espionage to it all.

But that's not true. Every year, the committee must submit a report to the Prime Minister that includes the reviews conducted in the previous year. The committee may also issue a special report at any time on any matter within its mandate. That's important, because all Canadians can go to the committee's website and see the reports it has tabled. Of course, they're partially redacted, since the committee works on classified matters, but it is important.

Former senator the honourable Vernon White had given an interview in English.

As to the question on reports, people may mention that these are secret meetings, that secret committees meet and nobody knows what is happening and that nobody can question whether the members on this committee know anything about the subject matter. He said, in response to the work done at the NSICOP committee, that this committee works. He said:

If you haven't, I think you should go back in the India report. Read it. I don't think anybody read that report and left there saying, “I don't know what happened.” I think everybody left there saying, “I do know what happened and there are some things I'm not allowed to see.” That's life. You're never going to get it all. That's the way this is going to be, no matter who does it. But I think NSICOP will be quicker than a public inquiry [and] a hell of a lot cheaper than a public inquiry....

The reason I bring this up is there are many ways to go about getting information on foreign interference in our elections.

Again, I'm going back to Ms. Blaney's comment about intention and impact. If the intention is to strengthen our system to deter and counter foreign interference in our elections, there are many avenues to take. Maybe it is a combination of those tactics. Maybe it is the naming of a special rapporteur; the work this committee is doing; the work of NSICOP, SITE and the panel; or parliamentarians from across Canada providing their input, giving suggestions and flagging issues.

As I said, if candidates see things during an election and Canadians are aware of things, having those mechanisms in place makes this a team Canada effort. Canadians want to know they can be part of the solution. They take it as seriously as we all do. Rather than fighting among each other for a gotcha moment, we can combine all of these tools at our disposal to tap into what Canadians know, what candidates know and what political parties know.

That's where this amendment comes in. It's inviting the national campaign directors not just of two parties but of each recognized party. That also includes the NDP and the Bloc in the conversation. What are they seeing? What have they seen? What recommendations do they think we should put in place to combat this? That's why I think it's incredibly important for this to be a team Canada approach.

The involvement of the 2019 and 2021 national campaign managers from each party represented in the House of Commons was very clearly inclusive, as was the security clearance obtained for representatives of each party.

Earlier, I mentioned it was important to have the required security clearance to share information confidentially. I also talked about the importance of listening to members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the rapporteur, members of this committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, so that we have the information and recommendations we need to strengthen our system.

This is a bit like what we heard regarding what intelligence is. Intelligence isn't evidence, so we're going to take the pieces of those tools, and with them together, the rapporteur will be able to provide feedback.

I don't doubt that when we talk about intent and impact.... I like to believe in the good of parliamentarians and that everyone wants to...that the intent is in the right place. We want to make sure that our systems are in place so that foreign state actors do not cast doubt and do not make Canadians turn on their democratic institutions.

We also have to be mindful of the way that we do it, so that the impact does not amplify the anxiety that this issue can bring. It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to be mindful of that impact. Sure, I could say, “Bring everything out in the open and put everything out there.” Not only would the Government of China have access to information, but so would Russia, Iran and other state actors.

I had the pleasure of serving on the national defence committee for my first mandate. I had the chance to go to NORAD in Winnipeg and be briefed on issues of national security when it comes to NORAD and NATO. They weren't classified briefings, Madam Chair, so I can speak to this. I can attest that these conversations are happening with our Five Eyes partners. We need to trust that those who work in the field of intelligence-gathering know what they're doing. I have full trust in the parliamentarians who sit on NSICOP.

As I've said before, when we talk about impact, my concerns are that, if we were to do something that put at risk our relationship with Five Eyes and those who work in the intelligence community.... Who would want to work with Canada, knowing that we were very cavalier with issues of national security? Who would want to join the Canadian Armed Forces and work in a domain where national security was not taken seriously? The impact of what we do may have unintended consequences.

I don't think there is a cookie-cutter response to this. I really don't. It will be a combination of tools in the tool kit. I think we will know in the next couple of days—in fact, I don't think; I know we will know—who the special rapporteur will be.

As soon as we know who the rapporteur is, I hope we can continue this discussion in a respectful and collaborative manner. I also hope that we will show that we clearly understand the major consequences our decisions or actions can have.

I hope that the members of this committee will continue to think about recommendations to improve the system we currently have.

Complementing the work that NSICOP will do and complementing any other actions that are taken—whether it be from the rapporteur's recommendations, from the panel, from SITE, from Elections Canada or from the commissioner of elections—there are many actors around the table trying to reach that common objective.

As I said earlier today, if the common objective that we all claim we have is there and it is about detecting, deterring and countering foreign interference, many parliamentarians have been here longer than me. Many may have worked in the field of police or intelligence–gathering or international relations, as we heard from MP Vandenbeld earlier today, and have a wealth of expertise in that. I really, truly think and truly believe that, if we were to combine forces in terms of all these actions that we can take and information that we can gather and recommendations that can come forward, we can come to some really great recommendations on a united front.

The reality is that this is not going to diminish. Foreign interference or attempts at foreign interference will continue. We need to be proactive in this regard. We need to not fight amongst each other. Quite frankly, if I were the People's Republic of China, I'm sure I'd be giggling with glee right now, watching Canadian politicians and people fight about this rather than focus on them.

With that, Madam Chair, I know that quite a few people would like to get some words in. I do ask members to reflect on what Ms. Blaney said about intention and impact. I think those are two really important words, and we need to be mindful of them.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Mr. Housefather, I believe this is the first time you're speaking today. Can we just do a quick sound check? Let me know how your day is going. Tell me what you're up to.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Absolutely.

I was in my riding today. I was very happy to be part of a tribute to Marc Garneau, our former colleague here, who left the House last week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That must have been out of this world. Excellent.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Is the sound coming across okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes. Thank you. We got the thumbs-up.

The floor is yours, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

I want to thank my dear friend Ms. Romanado for the last speech. She used the term “secret handshake” when she was speaking French, and I've been desperately trying to remember what secret handshake is in French.

Our colleague Ms. Gaudreau can correct me.

I'm honoured to be attending the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meeting today.

Kelly McCauley often says, “The mighty OGGO”, when he opens up meetings of our committee, but I think I can just as easily say, “The mighty PROC”, because the role that PROC plays is so important to everything done in the House of Commons. This is definitely one of the most important discussions that PROC has: the question of how to avoid, how to remedy and how to stand up against foreign interference in Canadian elections. There's nothing more sacred to a democracy than knowing that each and every Canadian citizen over 18 who's qualified has the ability to vote and that they are the ones who make the decisions as to who their 338 representatives in Parliament are.

As Ms. Romanado said, I also believe that parliamentarians can work together for the greater good. I've always believed that. I don't think that most issues should be partisan, and this issue is probably the furthest away from what should be partisan. This is such an important job the committee is doing today, despite, as I know, how frustrating it must be for people who have spent hour after hour listening to this debate. Sometimes it feels like you're talking past each other.

At the same time, you're figuring out what the role of PROC is going to be as a part of a greater effort to tackle foreign interference. NSICOP is no doubt going to play a part. I was incredibly proud when our government introduced the NSICOP committee of parliamentarians after the 2015 election. It was one of the campaign promises I talked a lot about because it's something that's being done and has been done for a very long time in the United States and in the U.K., where politicians have top secret clearances and they're truly able to have supervision over the intelligence services.

There has to be political accountability for the intelligence community, not just at the executive branch but also at the legislative branch. I know, having spoken to colleagues from all parties who have served on NSICOP, how valuable they feel that work is. I do believe that the mandate the Prime Minister has given NSICOP is incredibly important.

I also look at the enhanced role given to the intelligence community, the question of how we deal with the security of elections and the elections task force that was set up to deal with threats to the 2019 and 2021 elections, and the fact that parties were briefed by that group when necessary.

I think there's a lot that has been done, but there's still a lot more to do. NSICOP will play a role and no doubt PROC will play a role. The witnesses who have already come to PROC have made some important statements, and I think the amendment that is before the committee, the question of who to call as further witnesses.... I'll remind everyone the amendment is to invite the 2019 and 2021 national campaign directors of each recognized party in the House of Commons and the security-cleared party representatives to the security and intelligence threats to elections task force during the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, to come testify before the committee.

I believe it's very important that we meet with these witnesses. It's very important that we hear from representatives of each political party represented in the House, so not only representatives of the Liberals and the Conservatives, but also those from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. It's really important that they appear before the committee, that they report what they've heard and that they make recommendations on how to improve the system in the future.

Perhaps it should include a clear duty to inform candidates in ridings where issues have been raised.

I think there's a lot that everybody here wants to do and accomplish when it comes to election interference. Again, I believe all parties want to see the greater good being done. Sometimes it's too bad that these debates go on and on, because, often, discussion among the parties, away from the cameras, would be more beneficial in trying to arrive at a solution where there is disagreement. However, I want to plead with my colleagues—when it comes to this issue—on two points that I think are very important, which my colleague Ms. Saks previously raised.

The first is the question that Canadians deserve to be able to believe in their election system. That doesn't mean we don't take the threat of foreign interference seriously. That doesn't mean we speak down the threat that exists, that we know exists and that has existed not only in the last couple of elections but also for many elections and cycles—not only from China but also from Russia, Iran and other foreign actors.

However, what we cannot do is make this into a political circus that causes Canadians not to believe in the fairness of their political system. We all saw what happened in the United States. We have all seen how one discredited former president has been able to convince millions and millions of Americans—indeed, the majority of people who support his party—that he won the 2020 election, which he lost by almost 10 million votes and by over 70 votes in the electoral college.

We have all heard of the court cases brought in the United States and the absurd claims that voting machines from Dominion changed votes from Trump to Biden, and that this company somehow developed their applications in Chavez's Venezuela, when nothing could be further from the truth. We heard allegations that, somehow, the machines didn't count ballots if they were made out to Trump; that people in Atlanta were stuffing ballots and only counting Biden ballots; that, somehow, something went wrong, because ballots were being counted after 11 p.m. or midnight of election night; and that mail-in ballots—which, by the way, were almost the totality of ballots in certain states that have gone to mail-in voting, many of which previously favoured Republicans—were somehow defective or tampered with.

It means that the words of politicians matter. We have to take this seriously and not overstate certain things. We have a right to be concerned. We have a right to fight for the integrity of elections, but we can't overstate facts to make Canadians believe that elections weren't fair or free, or that their votes didn't count. No evidence has come forward that allows people to make these general, absolute claims. Again, as we saw in the United States, when certain politicians make these claims, no matter how absurd they seem on their face....

We all knew the Democrats would use mail-in ballots more than the Republicans in the 2020 election. We knew it, because all polls showed that Democratic voters were more concerned about COVID and that Republicans were heavily influenced by Trump telling them not to vote mail-in. Therefore, we knew, in the states where election-day ballots were counted first, that a Trump lead would gradually go down, because the Democratic mail-in ballots and absentee ballots would be counted after the fact, such as in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. We knew that, in other states, where they counted the mail-in ballots before election day, like Ohio, a Biden lead would eventually turn into Trump votes from election-day votes coming in and surpassing them.

There was nothing unpredictable about this. What is scary is that this one man's belief that he had a right to tell everybody who won the election, with no evidence, got into so many people's minds that they distrust the system. They distrust mail-in voting. As a result, there is a lack of confidence in the system, which is one of the fairest and freest systems in the entire world.

Whatever we think about the United States, it is one of the strongest democracies in the world. Its Constitution was even able to overcome an insurrection on January 6, 2021. It is our closest ally. We need to hope and pray that Americans believe in their election system, which is fair and free, in the same way that we want Canadians to continue to believe in our election system, which is fair and free.

This is why the work that PROC is doing here is so important. It's in order to make sure that we look at election interference while maintaining the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our elections. This is the idea on which the permanent members of PROC and those who are replacing them can absolutely come together and arrive at a motion, whether taking this amendment or making a subamendment to this amendment, that everybody can agree to.

I want to give you an example of how politicians came together to support me on what was perhaps one of my worst days in Parliament, and it dealt with an issue like this one.

One day a few years ago, I believe it was 2017, I was accused, along with my colleague Michael Levitt, who used to represent York Centre, by a man who eventually ran for the leadership of the Green Party and came second. I will not give him the credit of mentioning his name, but he accused me and Michael Levitt of double loyalty, saying that we were more loyal to Israel than we were to Canada. There was no basis for this claim other than the fact that I and Michael Levitt supported the State of Israel, but it led to a flood of threats and nasty messages that I and my staff received that were hurtful, that were demeaning and that made me feel like nothing, like I didn't deserve to exist.

I fought back. I went back on social media and reminded everybody that this was a little bit crazy. I was born in Canada. I am a Canadian citizen only. I've never lived anywhere else in my life. My parents were born in Canada. They were Canadian citizens. They never lived anywhere else in their lives. My grandparents were born in Canada. They were Canadian citizens. They never lived anywhere else. My family has been in Canada since the 19th century. I've never lived in Israel. I've never been a citizen of Israel. The idea was far-fetched and with no basis, yet people believed it because it was said on social media.

We have to be so careful here not to accuse Canadians of double loyalty, because it is offensive not only to the elected officials who serve Canada and Parliament, no matter whether they're dual citizens, single citizens, born somewhere else or born, like me, here in Canada. It also hurts the many Canadians who identify with those ethnic groups that are being singled out in that way.

What happened at the time was that every leader of every party jumped in, stood up and supported me and Michael Levitt. Not only did the Prime Minister do it, but Andrew Scheer, the Conservative leader, did it. Jagmeet Singh, the NDP leader, did it, and Elizabeth May, the Green leader, did it as well. They all jumped in.

From the Bloc Québécois, my friend who represents the riding of Drummond also took part in the debate to defend me.

It meant the world to me when that happened, because it showed that, across political parties, Canadians and their leaders did not feel that such an allegation of dual loyalty was part of Canada's tradition, was part of Canada's politics or was any part of what any politician should go through in a democracy.

I plead with everybody, as we go through this debate and there are going to be a lot of discussions about China and Iran and other countries, that we make very clear that citizens of Canada who come from those countries are not the ones we are targeting when we talk about foreign governments meddling in elections. There cannot be one broad brush on any community. We have to be very careful about that, because there's nothing that makes someone feel less Canadian than when they're targeted in that way.

My colleague, Ms. Saks, dealt with it very eloquently, but I thought I would simply add a little bit about the personal experience that I had and the fear I have. This debate cannot disintegrate into blaming different cultural communities that live in this country that often feel stigmatized and vilified—

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Am I supposed to stop? I see a microphone went on somewhere.