Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Sure. I appreciate the intervention. I think I made my point.

I would really like to hear the Conservatives—maybe one of the people filling in for Mr. Calkins today—at least inform us of whether or not he regrets making the comment that the Prime Minister openly had a candidate who is an agent of Beijing and whether or not they think that's appropriate. Quite frankly, I don't.

For Mr. Calkins to say that and then to not address the issue in committee, in the House or anywhere for that matter, is extremely troubling. I would like to ask him questions about that. What does he base that information on? Why does he thinks that claim is accurate? I think there's a lot of explaining to do. I just note the conspicuous absence of Mr. Calkins in this committee and that he is not addressing the issue. That would be my first thing.

I do know that Mr. Berthold is interested in ensuring that Conservative MPs' reputations are upheld. Perhaps he wants to weigh in, through a point of order at any time, on Mr. Calkins's comments. I would be more than anxious to hear what he has to say about that. Nobody from the Conservative bench has brought up or addressed that. They're even very skeptical of calling me out on a point of order in regard to my discussion about it. Nobody wants to touch that one with a 10-foot pole. Quite frankly, I don't blame them.

Let's get back to Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I think the amendment is very germane. I think it is the proper amendment because it's asking people who were on the ground during the election to weigh in. The reason you can have an open, frank and honest discussion about this with those particular individuals—the campaign directors—is they would not have been privy to any information other than what they obtained publicly. You can have an open and public conversation with them.

I heard what Ms. Blaney had to say a few moments ago. I respect her position on this, and I will address some of her concerns in a few moments, specifically those about how to go about dealing with classified information and where the proper venue is. I'll express why I don't think the public forum, through a public inquiry, is the best venue. Although I totally empathize here and totally agree and understand that Canadians are charged with wanting to understand this—and they have the right to—I just don't think the vehicle or venue being proposed by the NDP and the opposition is the right one.

I'll go back to the individuals Mr. Turnbull is asking to come forward through his amendment. These are people who know specifically about what they witnessed on the ground during the election. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that the Conservative MPs here would not be interested in listening to what any of them have to say, including Mr. Fred DeLorey, who ran their campaign in the last election. He said, “I can confirm, without a shadow of a doubt, that the outcome of the election, which resulted in the Liberals forming government, was not influenced by any external meddling.”

There are a number of Conservatives who would also say they believe that, although the rhetoric they use in other conversations certainly doesn't support the fact that they agree with that position. I think this is where the rest of the Conservative MPs on this committee depart from Mr. DeLorey. He says, “public inquiries can be highly politicized and become more focused on scoring points and blaming...parties, rather than finding solutions.”

That's what Mr. Fred DeLorey, the Conservative campaign manager in the 2021 election, had to say about where this particular issue should be dealt with. It should come as no surprise to anybody that the Conservatives would be against listening to their own campaign manager from the election less than two years ago and having him sit at the end of this table to basically repeat those words to their faces.

He also went on to say—because that's not where it ended—in a CBC Power & Politics interview that it feels like opposition parties are only interested in “political theatre”. This is Mr. Fred DeLorey. This is the Conservative campaign manager who said this on Power & Politics. He said the opposition parties are only interested in political theatre.

I mean, I can understand why it's tough to swallow that when it's coming from one of your own, from literally the individual who led the Conservatives through the last election. That's a hard pill to swallow. You certainly wouldn't want him sitting at the end of this table repeating that to your face.

He also said that he has concerns with security issues being treated like this. He rightly should. But Mr. DeLorey wasn't only critical of his own MPs in his statements in both his op-ed and his discussions in the various interviews he's had. He was also very constructive. I'll give you a constructive quote from him. Again, this is Mr. Fred DeLorey, the Conservative campaign manager for the 2021 election. He said that “one committee that is well-suited to fulfill this role is Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Committee”.

Once again, the Conservative campaign manager would have been responsible for funnelling any information regarding what was going on in foreign interference that their team, the Conservatives, witnessed during the last election back to the panel of experts who were monitoring the election. He has first-hand knowledge. He should have the complete picture of what any Conservative candidate witnessed in the last election. This individual, who has access to that, who would have been able to see the public part of it and who would have been able to compile and report that back to the expert panel, is the one saying the best place for this is in NSICOP.

Just for the record, the Conservative campaign manager, who would have seen all that and relayed all public foreign interference actions the Conservative Party recorded back to the panel monitoring this during the election, is saying the Conservatives are playing politics, they shouldn't be doing that and this issue should be dealt with at NSICOP. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody sitting around this table right now that the Conservatives would be against Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Why on earth would they want to have such damning testimony come from one of their own at this table, sitting right here?

Having said that, the Conservative Party continues to go down a road further and further to the right. It's a little more extreme every day. They appear to be even too extreme for Mr. DeLorey, who ran their last campaign. It should tell Canadians something about the Conservative movement in Canada, and how it's really taken on the role of getting further and further into the extremes, that an individual who ran their campaign less than two years ago is already really concerned with how those who were elected are acting.

I want to read something else to you that I found very, very interesting, Madam Chair. This came out of question period on Monday. There was an exchange, and I don't know if people really caught this. I do know there's some video circulating right now about it. I think it's very telling of the Leader of the Opposition's position and how he treats his role now, and indeed how he would have treated his role when he was minister. I think it also provides a bit of insight into how he would treat his role if he were to become the Prime Minister.

There was an exchange between Minister LeBlanc and Mr. Poilievre. Can I say his name?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, you can.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I can say his name, but I can't reference his absence, so some parliamentary rules extend here but not all. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, so I can say his name—“Mr. Poilievre” is okay—but I just can't reference.... I just want to make sure I understand where I am here.

In response to a question, Minister LeBlanc said:

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you that I disagree with the opposition leader's false claims that the government did nothing. As soon as we came to power, we took action against foreign interference in our elections. Ours is the only government ever to have done so.

When my friend, the opposition leader, was the minister responsible for democratic institutions, he did nothing when intelligence agencies raised the issue over 10 years ago.

That's what Mr, LeBlanc said. What is so telling—and I almost fell out of my seat when I heard him say this—is the way the Leader of the Opposition replied. He's under no obligation to answer questions. One would think he would have just jumped into another question. Instead, because he's too tempted to reply, he said, “Mr. Speaker, we did not have to, because the Communist dictatorship in Beijing was not helping the Conservative Party to get elected.

Mr. Poilievre, the Leader of the Opposition, said that when he was in government, he didn't have to bother trying to deal with interference because others weren't trying to help them. Is that what the Leader of the Opposition thinks his job is? His job is only to be there. His job is only to protect from foreign interference when it's related to the Conservative Party. Who says that?

It provides such great insight into the Conservative Party of Canada and its leadership, and obviously what trickles down to the MPs, when the leader fully discloses that he didn't think—and he said this in question period, on the record eternally in Hansard—they had to worry about foreign interference because it wasn't affecting the Conservative Party. That was what he was saying.

To think that any representative doesn't realize that when they form government, their responsibility is to Canadians and the whole entire system, not just Conservatives, is absolutely mind-boggling. It's a great tell, because it provides great insight into Mr. Poilievre and how he sees the role of government.

I don't think that will fade away lightly. I don't think that's something people will quite easily forget. I think it really is a tell into his character and his personality and what he views the role of government to be.

With this whole issue, I find that I can't help but think back to what I quoted Mr. DeLorey as saying, which is that Conservatives are just playing politics and this is about “political theatre”. Quite frankly, I can't think of an issue that requires more attention to being as non-partisan as possible and as collaborative as possible than protecting the fundamental institution that provides for everything else that we value so deeply in our country, and that's democracy.

The Prime Minister said something in his press conference. I believe it was on Tuesday night, but maybe it was Wednesday. Was it Monday?

[Voices]

It was Monday.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, it was Monday, and he was 45 minutes late. Now I remember. We have to do something about that.

On Monday, at one point in his press conference, the Prime Minister said that the institution needs to outlast every single member of Parliament. That needs to be the focus of everything we do when it comes to analyzing, assessing and making recommendations about how to protect our democracy.

We have to remember that the institution absolutely must outlast every single one of us, so when we play politics—as Mr. DeLorey, the campaign manager for the Conservatives, is suggesting the opposition party is doing—and when we spend so much time going down that road, quite frankly, in my opinion, we're not doing that service. We're not doing everything we can to ensure that our democracy will outlast every member of Parliament.

I like to think that everybody here agrees with that. I would never cast aspersions otherwise and suggest they don't. I don't think it's in our best interest to be having these heated exchanges to try to score political points. It's much more incumbent upon us to find solutions and to work together.

This brings me to why I support Mr. Turnbull's amendment, as opposed to the motion. We're respecting the domain in which the conversation can be had. We can have a conversation in this room about public information and what was known to the public.

Mr. Cooper and others from the Conservatives are hell-bent on trying to drag staff before this committee, but even if those staffers, whomever they are, have various levels of clearance and are able to discuss information, they will not be able to say anything more than what we heard from Jody Thomas, which was it's important that we respect the fact that different pieces of information have to be treated differently, and we can't have open conversations in a forum like this about classified information. Her main concern when she came before this committee was about having similar open conversations in a public inquiry.

When we talk about ensuring there is an opportunity to have these conversations, I think what we should be having in this room are conversations that have more to do with the public aspect of this. What did those campaign managers experience? Those conversations are the ones we need to have in this room.

I would like to hear from Mr. DeLorey. I'd like to hear from the campaign managers of all political parties about what they experienced. That's public information. To Ms. Blaney's point, if we want to try to strengthen our institutions, we can get real recommendations from these individuals, which we can then relay back through a report to the House and to the government on how they can make changes. I think that is what we can do in this venue. We can't drag staff before this venue, even if they are in a position to answer the questions, and ask them to answer questions that Ms. Thomas has said are outside the scope of what can be discussed in a committee like this and in a public forum like this.

I want to find ways that we can further strengthen the institution. I want to hear from Mr. DeLorey. I want to hear from the campaign managers of all the political parties so they can make recommendations to us.

I also think this was very interesting. Ms. Thomas made a point, and this is what I wanted to address after what I heard Ms. Blaney speak about a few moments ago. These were Ms. Thomas's words; I wrote them down. She said that intel often doesn't convert into evidence. I think that's very important.

We heard from Mr. Morrison, the deputy minister of foreign affairs, a couple of weeks ago as well. I'll get into what he said about this. He specifically went on about it. He was trying, in any way he could, to caution the committee about going down this road and being careful about information that is received. He made very clear the difference between intel and evidence. More importantly, all of them made very clear how you get from intel to evidence and how you get from intel to arresting somebody for doing something.

I want to read to you what Mr. Morrison said in committee. I think this is very important and that it has been glossed over by the committee. He said:

...I will not be commenting on any individual media reports, but I wish to acknowledge—as members of the committee are well aware—that there is an active debate going on right now about how reputable media organizations could be reporting that highly classified intelligence documents describe how a foreign power did this or that to influence the most recent Canadian elections, including by engaging in patently illegal activity, such as funnelling money to candidates. How could that be going on while, at the same time, others, including me, maintain there was no foreign interference detected in 2019 or 2021 that threatened Canada's ability to have a free and fair election nationally or at the level of individual ridings? How can these two sides of this ongoing debate be reconciled?

I believe much of the answer lies in the questions recently addressed on social media by professor Stephanie Carvin of Carleton University. These same questions form the crux of a recent interview given by former clerk of the Privy Council Ian Shugart, who, as you know, was a member of this panel in 2019.

This is where it really gets interesting. He said:

The key questions are these: What is intelligence, and how is it used? Without repeating all the points made by Dr. Carvin and Mr. Shugart, let me simply say that intelligence rarely paints a full, concrete or actionable picture. Intelligence almost always comes heavily caveated and qualified in ways designed to caution consumers such as me from jumping to conclusions, while at the same time helping us at least to gain a little more awareness.

An example would be a report based on “an uncorroborated source of unknown reliability”. In layman's terms, I would call this a report based on rumour.

Those were Mr. Morrison's words, and I found them really interesting because, during my opportunity to question him at that meeting, I specifically asked him about his thoughts on that. I remember painting an example. I said that he might have various reports based on “intel”—for what that's worth—come across his desk. Then he assesses that intel and makes the decision on what to move forward, what not to move forward, what to act on and what the proper course of action on each piece of intel is. He said to us that some pieces of intel end right there.

To Ms. Blaney's point earlier in the debate when she was talking about intel, I think it's really important to remember that, first of all, not all intel is real, not all intel is true, not all intel converts into evidence and not all intel even goes anywhere beyond a report about intel. As he said, there are many caveats. You have to look at the source. You have to look at the context in which it's being said. You have to look at the reliability of the information, and then they make decisions and move them on.

One thing we also heard them say repeatedly.... The RCMP said this when they were here at the same meeting: It has no active investigations going on right now. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read between the lines that intel comes in, decisions are made with respect to that intel and then action is taken. We heard that no action was being taken. To me that says that any intel that may have been picked up through a leak by Global or somewhere else was not actionable. I'm making those assumptions because they can't even confirm or deny any of that, but I'm at least able to read between the lines.

From my position, this doesn't in any way suggest that Canadians shouldn't be concerned. That's not the case at all. I think Canadians should be concerned. A certain part of me is glad to see that we are having these conversations—although not necessarily that we're running around in circles—and, more importantly, that Canadians are having these conversations on this very important issue. That says to me that Canadians are aware of this, they're paying attention to it and they care about it. I think that's very important.

What I'm looking to get out of this is how we ensure that Canadians are getting what they want and what they need. How do we ensure that they get information in a public forum, that they get feedback and that they get the confidence they need while still respecting the classification and highly sensitive nature of the work that CSIS and the other agencies do? That's where the line gets drawn. All members are concerned about foreign interference. I think the line is between those who want to actually do something about it and those who want to use it for political opportunity.

I genuinely feel as though the NDP and the Bloc want to use this opportunity to do what's best, so I'm not against the idea of having the public weigh in and making sure the public is aware of what's going on. I just don't think a public inquiry into a Global News article is the right way to do it. I think the right way to do this is by putting the information in the hands of those who are tasked to do it.

To that end, I'll go back to Minister LeBlanc's comment, which I referenced earlier. He said that we've done a number of things, and indeed we have. I think it's important to reflect upon them in the context of this discussion.

The first is that we established the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. This is a committee of parliamentarians—Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc and NDP—and some senators who have the opportunity to review information that has come forward, review all intelligence and work hand in hand with CSIS and NSIRA to get to the bottom of this and get questions answered. They do have to do this in a manner that respects the confidentiality of the information.

The unfortunate part about it is that it has to be done in a way that respects the classification of the information, but NSICOP does report to Parliament. I'm sure my colleagues sitting around the table have taken the opportunity to read all of the NSICOP reports that have come forward from the committee and made sure that they're fully aware of everything that's contained within them, because there's a lot of good information. Just because NSICOP has to evaluate information behind closed doors does not mean that it cannot make recommendations. It does not mean that it cannot report to Parliament and provide insight into what it has come to conclusions on. NSICOP does do that.

To suggest that NSICOP is not the right venue because the information just goes into a black hole that nobody ever gets to see isn't true. What happens is NSICOP and its members—in particular the parliamentarians and senators who sit on that committee—will review the information. They get to ask questions of those who gathered the information. They get to dive deep into it. Mrs. Romanado mentioned that Mr. Ruff is one of the members on that committee. I believe Mr. Motz, a Conservative, is too—or at least he was previously.

These are individuals who had the opportunity to put their eyes on this information and then, working with the committee, make recommendations back to Parliament. They've done that and have reported to Parliament already based on what they have been able to gather through that intelligence-gathering exercise.

That's a perfect venue for this information to be analyzed. That's why Mr. Fred DeLorey, the Conservative campaign manager from 2021, agrees with that assessment. He agrees with the fact that that's the best place to assess the information. I'm inclined to support him on that. I never thought that I would have such a close alignment on what we should do with the Conservative campaign manager, but I do. That's the one thing we established.

I will remind members of this committee that NSICOP, which was created by the government and which Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, was not interested in, is unfortunately a committee that the Conservatives have a history of playing politics with. Look back to the previous leader, the member for Durham, who by all accounts looks like a centrist now. What did he do? He pulled his members from that committee out of defiance, in order to somehow suggest that they were not going to keep their membership on that committee because it doesn't serve Canadians.

Conservatives have a history of playing politics with NSICOP, and unfortunately we're seeing that again. As I indicated in a previous intervention, maybe a week ago, it's unfortunate, but Conservatives seem most interested through this exercise in just ensuring that they have sound bites and opportunities to continually bring up this issue through a public inquiry. In my opinion, they're more interested in the politics of it than in genuinely coming to any kind of solution. That's why I find it very troubling that they would treat this committee in such a partisan way.

The other thing this government did, which I think is really important to point out, and this was in time for the 2019 election, was to establish a group of independent experts who would review in real time and have the authority to respond in real time to foreign interference that was occurring during a writ period. I think this is very important, despite the fact that Mr. Cooper, when the witnesses of the panel were before this committee, was berating them at length and treating them as though they had done something that in my opinion they hadn't. I think we're very lucky to have a group of experts in the field of foreign interference who include bureaucrats, top civil servants, who by nature of their employment are non-partisan and whose interest is in ensuring that our democracy remains free, fair and transparent during election periods. It always makes me worried about foreign interference specifically in an election period, because the policy-makers, the members of Parliament, are busy in the election campaign, working on connecting with constituents in their ridings, running around doing the incredibly time-consuming work and, by default, they don't have the ability to also be monitoring this stuff very closely.

Knowing that we have this panel monitoring this in the background, a panel that Mr. DeLorey and other campaign managers could funnel what they're seeing on the ground back to and reply if necessary, knowing that this is going on, I think, is something that all members of Parliament should take great pride in, namely, that we have individuals who are trying to safeguard our elections while the elections are ongoing. Having that panel in place, something that this government brought in, is extremely important.

What's more important is that after the election is over, a third party works with the panel and provides a report. That won't stop Mr. Poilievre from making comments, as he recently did, that the only thing we did was hire somebody to write a report and, at the same time, making disparaging comments with regard to these dedicated public servants who have worked for decades, suggesting they're somehow corrupt or politically motivated. It doesn't stop him from attacking them, but the reality is that we do have individuals who care deeply about our democracy and through their work and through the work that's being reported back, we were able to learn that no interference occurred that jeopardized our election and that our election and its results were free and open and occurred properly.

It's incumbent upon us to reflect on the fact that they do incredible work and that we're obligated to ensure that we give them the supports they need moving forward. Rather than dragging in and trying to dig up dirt and making more unsubstantiated claims, why aren't we focusing on that? Why aren't we focusing on talking to the panel and asking what we can recommend to the government to allow them to do a better job? That, in my opinion, is what our job as policy-makers is.

I talked about NSICOP and about the special panel that was set up for the writ period, but we even did something before that, and that was Bill C-76. Even before any of that, we brought in Bill C-76. One of the things that Bill C-76 did right off the bat was to make it easier for individuals to vote. This was in response to the minister at the time, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition now, who, when he was the minister of democratic institutions, brought in legislation that made it more difficult for Canadian citizens to vote. When you try to limit the ability of people to participate in democracy, I think Canadians should be taking great notice of that as well. I think many of them did, and perhaps that contributed to why the Conservative Party lost the trust of Canadians and Mr. Harper wasn't re-elected.

However, the reality is that Bill C-76 did more than just undo some of what Mr. Poilievre did through his legislation when he was democratic institutions minister. Bill C-76 also tightened up rules around financing and, in particular, foreign interference and foreign financing, to make sure that we could limit that to the best of our ability, because we don't want individuals funding our elections who are not from within this country. What I find really interesting about Bill C-76 is that the Conservatives voted against it in 2018, despite the fact that they sit at the table, throw their arms up in the air and raise all hell about foreign funding in elections. We had a bill, parts of which made it more difficult for foreign actors to participate in the funding of our elections, and the Conservatives voted against it, yet they sit here today from a place of all high and mighty suggesting that they are the authority when it comes to looking out for democracy.

It really goes back to my point, and Mr. DeLorey's point too, about how Conservatives are just using this as political theatre. They're using the opportunity here just to try to ensure that, at all costs, they can do whatever they can to try to smear the government. They don't appear to care about what the genuine impact is on our democracy—at least not from my perspective.

Madam Chair, I talked about the three main things that we have done since we came to power: Bill C-76 with respect to foreign funding, NSICOP, and the expert panel we established for the writ period. These are three major things this government has done when it comes to combatting foreign interference.

I find it very rich, as I think I read from Mr. Poilievre's intervention a couple of days ago, that he says we haven't done anything. That's simply not the case. We've done more than what I've just indicated, and we're proposing to do even more, because there is a legitimate concern out there right now, whether it's fuelled by Conservative rhetoric or by unsubstantiated reports or by Global News articles based on what could be just rumours. As a witness before this committee said, there is genuine concern out there. As Canadians, if there's anything to be concerned about, we should obviously take concern.

I'm actually really happy in some regards about the Conservatives, who have finally come on board and said, “Hey, maybe we want to have something to say about foreign interference too, because we voted against Bill C-76, we stripped our committee members from NSICOP and haven't really shown an interest in this”—and now they do. That's great. They're here. They're here at the table, better late than never, and it's great to see Conservatives interested in foreign interference.

The question is, how do we make it better? How do we change the processes we have in place, because we always have to be changing, as the threats are always going to change? Is a public inquiry the best way to do it? Are we going to get out of the public inquiry anything of substance, according to Mr. DeLorey? No. According to all the experts who came before this committee, we won't. But what we can do is work with NSICOP and with the legislation that's already in place. We can identify where we can improve it.

One thing I forgot to mention about the public inquiry, and I think Mr. DeLorey said this himself.... Gosh, I never imagined that I would say the name of a Conservative campaign manager so many times in this speech, but here we are. He hit all the points and hit the nail right on the head. The other issue that I heard him bring up, and I've heard others bring it up, is with respect to the time a public inquiry would take. If there were to be a public inquiry—which Ms. Blaney seems to be in favour of—the average public inquiry takes two to four years. What are we going to get in terms of recommendations? Will it even report before the next election, if the NDP stays true to its word on working with this government? I guess if we're on the short end of those two years, we would get that just before the election, but if we are on the long end of that, it would be after the next election.

Notwithstanding that fact, Madam Chair, so much can happen between now and then. New threats come along and suddenly this public inquiry is almost out of date because it's not even addressing the threats of the day. There's the issue of time, which I think is something we need to be very concerned about.

These aren't my words; I didn't come up with that. I didn't go and research how long the average public inquiry takes and what the pros and cons are. I'm genuinely listening to the experts. As a matter of fact, if I'm being totally honest with you, Madam Chair, because I do like to do that, I'm going to come clean with you. It's time to do that. When the idea of a public inquiry first started floating around, there was a part of me that said, “Hey, why wouldn't we do this?” It kind of made sense. I really had an open mind about it. I thought it might be something that would put a lot of.... Why wouldn't you do that, if it's so easy and if it would provide Canadians the comfort they're looking for?

Then I started listening to the experts, and expert after expert—and top security advisers, NSICOP, the people who had been on the panel, the people who are tasked with holding this information and gathering this information—started to say, “No, no, you can't do this in a public forum because we can't give the information to the public as it would jeopardize our sources.” I started to think to myself that maybe that does make sense. It's never an easy position to take, because you want to be as open and transparent as possible, but the reality is that, according to what they were saying, you have to be careful with that information. Quite frankly, they even said.... I think Ms. Thomas said at this committee that she couldn't share any information with a public inquiry that she couldn't share with this committee, because this is an open forum. That makes sense. Then I started to change my mind. I thought that makes sense—it's obviously not going to be the most comforting thing for people to hear, but it does make sense.

Then I started to hear people like Mr. Fred DeLorey, the former campaign manager for the Conservatives, say exactly the same thing. I thought it kind of makes sense and I understand. I know it doesn't put Canadians' minds at ease with respect to what's going on with the entire situation, but it certainly does make a lot of sense. It made a lot of sense to me when I heard them talk about that. I very quickly came to agree with what the experts were saying.

I find it interesting that expert after expert will come before the committee and tell us that, yet there are members of the committee who are just so blatantly willing to disregard it, with all due respect to my NDP and Bloc colleagues, and just toss aside the information. You have people coming before you saying, “This is vitally critical information.” This is me reading between the lines. “If we share the information with the public, we can burn our sources; we can reveal our sources; we can jeopardize the integrity of being able to work with our allies.” Can you imagine if our allies knew that we would hold a public inquiry and just share all of the information? Our allies would say they are not sharing anything else with us ever again, and that kind of makes sense.

Ms. Blaney brought up the point when she was speaking earlier—and I heard her colleague Mr. Boulerice say this as well when we were on a panel together—that you can put some information in closed session, and some information in public, and you can operate it like that. The problem is that the vast majority of the information you need to hear, notwithstanding the fact that people don't have the proper security clearance to hear the information, would have to be held in such a manner. So what's the point of having a public inquiry if the majority of the information that's being shared and talked about in that inquiry is not accessible to the public? This is where it goes back to the comments from Mr. DeLorey and from the experts and from all of those before about why it's so important that the information be treated and used in the right venue.

I think it's very important for us to reflect on that, and I think it's also important for us to reflect on this concept of interference not being new. Perhaps the manner in which interference occurs now is changing; it's evolving. It has probably changed a lot in the last 20 or 30 years with the Internet and the ability to influence situations and influence public opinion. It's something that has certainly been talked about a lot more and in different venues, but it is not something that is brand new. Foreign interference is something that has been going on in one form or another for a long time, and governments have been seized with this for a long time, both Liberal and Conservative governments throughout our history.

The part of this that becomes very alarming is more specifically with respect to how we can allow it to happen in a way that perhaps is much more covert and therefore so much easier to hide. That's why we have put in place the mechanisms we have, the mechanisms of allowing the members of NSICOP to look at all of the intel so they can see it themselves in an unclassified manner and, for the first time ever, a panel that monitors in real time.

This is the point I was trying to make. With the advent of technology, we see the ability to interfere more quickly and in a much more covert manner. That's why we need rapid response mechanisms that are able to deal with this in real time. That's where the panel comes in, but the panel has to review the information. Quite often it's in a classified manner. Then the panel has to report back to the public after the election. That's what we see them do when they bring that information forward later on, and they can provide it to us in a manner that does not jeopardize the classification of the information that went into making it. It is important to reflect on the fact that foreign interference in some capacity or another is not something that is brand new.

I will now turn, Madam Speaker, to the last meeting we had, at which we did have the individuals who came forward to the committee—we had Foreign Affairs, and before that we had CSIS, and it started off with Elections Canada. I think it is important to reflect on the number of times Elections Canada has come to this committee. They are interested in working with us in an open and transparent way. That's a vehicle for us to give recommendations as to how we can make changes and how we should suggest changes. We need to be doing more of that.

To Mr. Turnbull's amendment here, what he's basically trying to do, in my opinion, is to say let's strip the politics out of this. Let's put aside the political rhetoric, let's have the individuals who were receiving the information, any who were on the ground in the last election and who would have been subject to receiving information from their candidates in terms of foreign interference, and let's hear what they have to say. It's actually a really good group to listen to, not to hear their partisan spins on everything but just to hear about what they were experiencing at the time. That's what Mr. Turnbull's motion is attempting to do, Madam Chair.

We know the Conservatives want to bring forward every staffer they think they can get a sound bite out of. They want to drag them before the end of this table and subject them to the same aggressive attack style that Mr. Cooper had with government officials. If he is willing to do that to non-partisan public servants, we can only imagine how he would treat an individual who came before the committee who actually worked in the office of a minister or of the Prime Minister.

We're not going to gather much intel and much information from them in order to make recommendations. We would be better off if we were to have information about what was going on in the last election on the ground. His amendment specifically says 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 national intelligence threats election task force during the 2019-21 federal elections. That would provide more insight for this committee if the objective of the committee really is to get down to understanding what was going on and how we can provide meaningful input into ensuring that there are substantial recommendations that we can make through a report back to Parliament and to the government on what they can do.

When we reflect on how we've gotten to this point, Madam Chair, I know I talked about NSICOP and the special panel and Bill C-76. We've also heard from a number of experts at this committee. We've heard from Global Affairs and CSIS, who came before the committee and provided us with as much information as they could. They confirmed that there were no active investigations going on, or at least the RCMP in the same panel did.

We also heard from the RCMP and CSIS in their panel, specifically that their job is to collect secrets and keep secrets. They are very interested in protecting their sources. I think it is very easy for us to point fingers and try to suggest that there's some kind of nefarious activity going on. I know that the opposition wants to try to suggest that the Prime Minister is covering something up. But the reality is that any information that has been relayed back to us, at this end of the table, by the experts who have come before has been that they have no information that suggests there was any foreign interference. That's what we heard Ms. Thomas and others say at this end of the table.

Madam Chair, I think I have made the majority of the points that I wanted to contribute to Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I think that he brings forward a good amendment in terms of trying to gather information that we can genuinely use and that can be useful to us in order to provide our recommendations.

I will perhaps end my discussion today where I began, and that is with respect to the manner in which I've been witnessing members of Parliament treat other members of Parliament and disparaging their character. Specifically, I reference Mr. Calkins' attack on Mr. Dong and the manner in which he treated him, the manner in which he attempted to stir political division—or to fundraise or to do whatever he was doing—by suggesting that a sitting member of Parliament is an agent of Beijing. I think it's extremely unfortunate.

I think Mr. Berthold can defend Mr. Poilievre's claims and what Mr. Poilievre said of the Prime Minister. I think he can do that. I think he can skate around and try to explain away what Mr. Poilievre said—which he already did in this committee—but I don't think he can explain away what Mr. Calkins said. I think it's extremely unfortunate when we go down that road of accusing other members of Parliament, basically, of treason, of working on behalf of another entity by calling them an agent of Beijing. They're saying that their loyalty is not to Canada, their loyalty is not to their constituents, but rather their loyalty is to a foreign country. And that's exactly what Mr. Calkins did.

I think it's extremely unfortunate that we would tolerate this. I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Calkins has not come forward and explained that, apologized for it, retracted it and deleted the video that he posted regarding that. I think it's extremely unfortunate that his colleagues who sit at this table don't try to, at the very least, say that it was wrong for him to have said that. I think that if they're genuinely in this, not for the political gain of this, they would do that, unless of course they felt the same way and therefore felt as though they didn't need to say that.

I really hope that when my Conservative colleagues contribute to the conversation today they could address that point. They could address why, according to the minutes of the agenda, Mr. Calkins' name doesn't appear to be on any of them since a number of meetings ago. Is that in order, Madam Chair? It's a printed document. His name wasn't on the document from the minutes, so I think that's in order.

I think it's very telling. I think the Conservatives are nervous about the fact that he said that. I don't think it's appropriate. They need to own up to it. It would be great if one Conservative colleague on that side of the table could actually do that. I think it's important for us to respect the fact that we are all honourable members. To suggest that somebody is working for another country, I think, is extremely unfortunate.

With that, Madam Chair, I've said my bit for now. I do have more to add, but I think for now that may be all I have to say. Were members expecting a little bit more? Is everybody good? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

Ms. Sahota, go ahead.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was really nice to hear what I think was my colleague's preamble to the full speech that we'll hear later on when we reconvene this meeting or continue this meeting. I know he's just getting started. That's like the famous words of David Christopherson at PROC back in the day. I always used to admire his ability to bring passion and a lot of insight to any debate. He would also say, “I'm just getting started” after we had heard from him for countless hours at times. That was very interesting.

I'm going to focus some of my initial comments around some of the things my colleague said and some of the things I've been hearing from various sources, whether the Conservatives or the media, as the debate grows about having a public inquiry versus what the Prime Minister has announced and the misinterpretation as to what a public inquiry might result in and what a special rapporteur is and the jokes and all the stuff we've been hearing lately.

First, we've been hearing the demands for a public inquiry. I've stated here before, and I'll state it here again, that I'm not fully convinced but I'm not fully against the idea either. I think we have been given a great opportunity at this committee to continue to hear from our experts on public safety and security in this country—the agencies and ministers who might come forward today and in various other meetings—as to what the best course forward might be. We will also be hearing about a special rapporteur; that will be decided on and announced in the coming days as well. He or she will have free rein to decide whether a public inquiry is the right route to go or not. I'm not fully convinced, but I'm still open to the idea.

One of the arguments I've been hearing coming from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Poilievre, is about the many mechanisms that Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Gerretsen have highlighted—and I'll highlight in the second portion of my talk the misinterpretation that's been happening as to all the steps, or the misinformation that's been put out there. The criticism has been, “Oh, well, NSICOP is not a parliamentary committee. How dare some people call it an actual committee?” I've been hearing those remarks in question period quite a bit. Well, it is a committee of parliamentarians. It may not be a standing committee of the House of Commons. However, it is a committee of all parties. Members from all parties are on this committee—the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals—and they have top secret clearance so they're able to take a look at these documents.

I was looking on the Government of Canada's website to really understand better how a public inquiry would be created. What I've heard is that NSICOP is created by cabinet, appointed by the Prime Minister through an order in council, and therefore maybe what they are alluding to, and outright saying at times as well, is that this committee is not independent. For some reason, we are seeing the Conservatives especially question the integrity of the chair, who has a lot of integrity. I think most people across party lines would say that Mr. McGuinty, who has served here for many years, has a lot of credibility as a parliamentarian. David McGuinty, who is the chair of NSICOP, and the other members take their work very seriously.

What's very interesting is that, in order to set up a public inquiry, a commission would be established by the Governor in Council, which is cabinet. Cabinet would be establishing this public inquiry. Of course, they would be giving this public inquiry a mandate to fully and impartially investigate issues of national importance, in this case one that is of extreme importance to me and I'm sure to all members of this committee, and especially the Prime Minister: foreign interference. It has had a great deal of importance to us since we formed government in 2015, immediately, having learned from even that election and from previous elections that it was already out in the public that interference is a real thing, not just in Canada. We saw shortly after, in the 2016 elections in France and the U.S., that this was a growing problem in the world.

That's the first point: that this inquiry would be created in the same way, through an order in council, as was NSICOP, that committee. Does that now make this public inquiry that we may have impartial? Or does it make it partial? I don't know. The Conservatives have been implying that somehow NSICOP is partial and not fully independent because it's created in a similar fashion. We would hope, of course, that this inquiry would be led by an expert judge who, just like the special rapporteur, would have the ability to bring forward witnesses and bring forward testimony and all those things that a special rapporteur is also given the ability to do in his or her investigation.

I'll get a little bit into the definition of a special rapporteur, because I know the Conservatives find it very humorous and have been laughing quite a bit because of the lack of understanding as to what it means. I think it's only fair to educate all parliamentarians and the public as to what the difference might be—what a special rapporteur is and what a public inquiry is—and actually how similar those two things could be, especially given this context.

I know that in some contexts we've had people come before us and give public testimony on a lot of issues, but when you're dealing with an issue that is of a sensitive nature like this, I don't think the public inquiry would end up being the great revelation that most people would expect of a public inquiry. That's my one concern: that perhaps we are over-promising Canadians in some way that this public inquiry will be the answer to all the questions they have. They have good questions and they have a right to have those questions. Many of us have those questions as well.

However, I think many responsible parliamentarians do understand the different committees and the protocol that has been set and put in place in order to evaluate these sensitive issues. We have respect for those who have served as public servants for a long time and we know they would be impartial in deliberating and giving us advice, just like our analysts and our clerk. We have great respect for them as well—to be able to guide us through our committee reports and to give us good procedural advice and make it impartial—and I don't think any of us, as long as I've been here, have ever questioned that. That's the first thing.

I also came across a study as to what the public perception is of public inquiries and what the expectations are of public inquiries. The study is really interesting. It took a broad sample size of about a thousand people or so and really delved into what the public's expectations are of a public inquiry. This study was done in 2022. We have seen a growing number of public inquiries being done in the U.K. and the U.S. Here, we've had many public inquiries. We just had one not too long ago, which was legislated that we must have, after the protests and the convoy that took place here on Parliament Hill. That was a must. We had to have a public inquiry after the use of the Emergencies Act.

We've seen in other inquiries before—and the survey makes it quite clear as well—that many people have expectations that a public inquiry is somehow a trial of some sort, where the judge or the person presiding over the public inquiry would have great powers to subpoena and also to maybe criminalize and punish those who are wrongdoers or actors through this public inquiry. At times, we have seen that public inquiries, although they can vindicate some people, can also be disappointing to others who thought that once the information was out in the public they were going to get some kind of criminal justice out of the public inquiry. That's not always the case. We've also heard, as my colleagues have mentioned in some of the testimony that has come before our committee, that oftentimes—and actually always, until it gets to a certain point—it's not evidence and it would not necessarily lead to investigations or charges.

We've also seen times when charges are laid based on intel received through CSIS and through American intelligence agencies as well. We had an example here before of weapons of mass destruction. All the intelligence was pointing towards weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, after all of the intelligence that was being fed in by Five Eyes partners. I think many of us have a lot of respect for the amount of resources and tools that the U.S. has at its disposal and especially that its federal agencies have. Even they got it wrong. Even they got it wrong with the amount of resources and the sources they have to be able to get something right. They got it wrong, and they advised the government in the wrong way at the time.

When people have looked at stuff like this, it doesn't surprise me that the results of the survey are such that there are a lot of questions around what a public inquiry would end up resulting in. It says that over 45% of the public doesn't know if a public inquiry would actually explain the issues to them as the inquiry unfolds, so there are always questions left.

I think you heard what the Prime Minister said, and some comments about what the Prime Minister said yesterday, some critiques, fair or unfair, about some of the words he said around the issue of how there may still be questions, no matter what he may or may not say about this issue. There may always be questions surrounding foreign interference and the security of our democracy. I have to agree with him. No matter who the Prime Minister is, whether it's a Conservative prime minister, perhaps an NDP prime minister or a Liberal prime minister, these issues will continue to exist, and there will always be questions around the top secret work that these agencies do.

I think it's always been intriguing. I think that's why so many movies are made about these types of issues: because the public wants to know. The Conservatives have done no favours in the area of sensationalizing this issue. They've made it into a movie of some sort so that the public can digest and feed its curiosity and intrigue, but that's a dangerous game to play. This is not for entertainment. This is a serious matter, the risk to our democracy.

The survey did result in a large sample of the public saying that they weren't sure what public inquires necessarily result in. Another thing that was very interesting in the survey was whether they believed or didn't believe certain elements of a public inquiry. They were asked whether a public inquiry has a jury: 35% didn't know whether a public inquiry had a jury and 25% thought it was true. Those are high numbers of people who don't even know, people who think it's actually true that this is some type of trial or jury that is going to take place. Forty per cent knew that wasn't true. The majority either didn't know or thought it was true that a public inquiry has a jury.

Some other questions were asked as true-or-false questions: “Does a public inquiry have the power to award people compensation?” Did you know that 45% of the respondents in the survey answered “yes”, that a public inquiry had the power to award compensation, and 32% didn't know? Only 23% said that was false. I think that's really interesting, because the expectation and what's being built up to be consumed by the public right now, I would contend, is a false narrative that is being built up.

There are some good things that can come out of a public inquiry, but I think there are some good things that could come out of NSICOP and some great things that have come out of Mr. Rosenberg's report, which, by the way, was informed by our top intelligence officers. The committee that took a look at the issue of the 2021 election and whether it was free and fair had the clearance to go through all of that information, and those people are top public officials, non-partisan public officials. They obviously received that information in private or in secret. As the Conservatives keep saying, so many of these things are being done in secret. Well, they're being done in secret because they are looking at top secret documents, so it's no surprise that those things are being done in secret.

What the public may not be aware of, however—as some of our witnesses have informed us here, and as I think, on many panels, experts have come forward and also said—is that in a public inquiry the person who would be presiding over that inquiry would also see these things in secret. NSICOP sees things in secret. The protocol committee saw things in secret. The rapporteur will probably have to see some things. He will see them all himself—sorry, I should say “he or she”. We just had International Women's Day. I feel like I've been programmed since I was a young child myself to constantly say “he”. I have to un-program myself. I really hope that it would be a prominent female to lead this investigation.

On the inquiry as well, that stuff would be in secret. We're hearing the words “in camera” being used. Our committee goes in camera at times as well. When we go in camera, that stuff is a secret. That's a parliamentary committee, a standing committee of the House of Commons that has members of all parties and that, at times, due to sensitive reasons, has to go in secret. That doesn't mean you're up to something dubious or nefarious or whatnot, as the opposition parties have tried to imply and even outright state in many of the press conferences I've been seeing. They are letting Canadians know that somehow, because there's sensitive material that's being viewed and it gets viewed behind closed doors or in secret, that's a bad thing. Well, that's not a bad thing. That is done in order to protect all of us and to protect our country.

The very fact that the opposition parties sometimes want to.... I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes I think that maybe they just want to see this place burn; maybe they don't. Maybe they're not interested in the truth. Maybe they just really want to see the world burn, and I'm not interested in that. I honestly want to figure out how we can get the best result.

We'll hear from ministers today and other witnesses at this committee. If somebody convinces me that a public inquiry is the way to go because somehow we will have a better result or outcome, or Canadians won't be left with any questions after a public inquiry and all their questions will be solved, even though a lot of the stuff that is going to be presented at a public inquiry will be done in secret—at a public inquiry, in secret—then I'm for it.

I've heard some things about the special rapporteur: that this could take years, until the next election, that it could take all the time in the world to have a special rapporteur look into this matter. Well, I was looking at the UN. The UN is most popularly known for appointing special rapporteurs for many different things, and I'll get into having that discussion and making sure that everybody is aware of all the different human rights categories that they appoint special rapporteurs for. I think I counted 60 or 70 different areas and 13 different countries that currently have special rapporteurs appointed for extremely heavy investigations surrounding human rights concerns, war crimes and many things.

They're generally appointed for a year in a term. There are public inquiries that have gone on for much longer than that. I think my colleague also mentioned in a previous meeting that the average public inquiry could go on for four years or so. Is the public ready for an inquiry of four years? That's a possibility. It's not necessary, but I'm going to put it out there because I think the public deserves to know the other side of this. We deserve to know all the pros and cons to this issue, because the Conservatives are definitely getting out there and talking about all the cons to having a special rapporteur. Therefore, I think we should weigh it and make sure that we give all the pros and cons to both. There are cons to both, and there are pros to both as well.

The average amount of time could be four years or more for a public inquiry. That's the type of stuff they've been implying. I've even heard the media mention that the special rapporteur could go on forever and we may not have a result. Well, it's the same thing for a public inquiry, so let's just make it clear so the public understands that they may be in the same position.

I was also looking at costs, Madam Chair, the costs of what a public inquiry can be. I'm not against—especially when it comes to the security of our institutions in this country—putting our money where our mouth is to make sure that we have robust, safe measures in place and that we have a good system that would alert us and indicate to us when there is a foreign threat—or an internal threat. I think I've mentioned before misrepresentation and disinformation campaigns. I'm going to get to an issue that happened to me in the 2015 election, which was quite concerning, regarding some things that were very parallel to what happened to Kenny Chiu. Stay tuned for that. That's an interesting story that I'll share with all of you today.

I was talking about the cost of a public inquiry. The cost for just the public inquiry that's being done regarding the Ottawa LRT.... The LRT for Ottawa is a small issue in comparison to foreign interference. Some Ottawa members of Parliament might disagree. They might think that's the end-all and be-all issue of importance, but the LRT doesn't even run, from my knowledge of it, in all that large of a geography.

However, the last time I could find a calculation—last November, in November of 2022—the public inquiry that is being done for the Ottawa LRT has cost $14.5 million. That's $14.5 million. I think that's going to make it hard for the Conservatives to sleep tonight. I really do. That's because I know they are fiscally responsible, or they at least claim to be fiscally responsible. They claim to be fiscally responsible, but they're saying that there is no option that could be a viable or good option other than a public inquiry. That could be costly, could be done in secret and could result in Canadians still being dissatisfied at the end of the day, because there are so many secrets in a public inquiry.

A really extremely tragic event that shook our nation was the 2020 mass shooting. That public inquiry cost $25.6 million. It was $25.6 million. I can only believe the numbers for the LRT inquiry and the mass shooting inquiry. A lot of the issues were not the top secret intelligence type of information, so they were able to share a lot of information in the public inquiry for the mass shooting. That cost $25.6 million, so I can only imagine what this public inquiry is going to cost the taxpayer. This public inquiry will definitely cost the taxpayer a lot more than that, because it's going to take a lot of work to start from scratch again.

Why start from scratch? That's the other thing that I've mentioned before, and as I get into talking a bit about the proposal the Prime Minister outlined a few days ago, I think the proposal is complementary to a lot of the work that's being done. Also, it's a step further, and it gives the special rapporteur power to make the final decision on how this should be dealt with and the best avenue and course of action.

I think this committee is going to do something similar as well. This has become such a big issue that we are having to replicate a lot of processes, and the public inquiry also will be another replication of a lot of processes, in part, because NSICOP is doing the work they're doing and we have the critical protocol for the work that's done during election time. We've heard testimony regarding the limitations of that work. We've also had the critical election incident public protocol report recommend that the scope be widened so that we're not just looking at the writ period but beyond the writ period. I think that's important, and it's important for us to also give Elections Canada more powers so that they can look at things beyond the writ period.

Those are some things that I think are very important to highlight: the cost, the fact that a lot of things might still be in secret, the duplication of so many processes and the dissatisfaction that the public may still be left with.

You also know, according to this study that was done about public inquiries, that when people were asked whether they can send people to prison—whether a public inquiry, themselves, as a result of the public inquiry, can actually send people to prison—28% of those answering thought that this was true and 32% didn't know. Only 40% of the people thought that was false.

Once again, with the majority, a lot of disillusionment and a lot of questions still surround what a public inquiry would or would not do. It sounds good. A lot of things often sound good, but that's why we've been elected and put here in Parliament. When I talk to my constituents about a lot of issues, sometimes I get really great feedback and other times I get comments that we need to delve into those issues because “that's why we elected you and put you in Parliament”.

Yes, overall, we have a duty, I guess I would say. We have a role and responsibility in our democratic system for things to go both ways. We do have a huge role to play at election time, but I would also say throughout as well, especially in an open democratic system of the kind we have, to consult and to talk to our constituents. Oftentimes I've heard them say, “Ruby, this is a very serious matter, and we expect that parliamentarians are going to study it and come out with the right conclusion. They're going to determine, and government will make the right decision.” A mandate is given to a government to really investigate, and they put trust in parliamentarians to look out for Canadians' best interests and make those decisions on behalf of Canadians.

What was really disturbing, as my colleague Mr. Gerretsen was talking about just a little while ago, were the outright assertions made that the Prime Minister somehow does not have Canadians' best interests at heart, and I would say any prime minister. I'm not just saying that because this prime minister is a Liberal prime minister, but I do think that most people come here for the right reasons, I really do.

Every time I'm asked this question.... I was just at CIVIX the other day, doing a video. I think that about 70 parliamentarians went to CIVIX to talk about the things that people don't know about politics that we'd like to share with Canadians. Well, I will share that again today here. One of the things that a lot of people don't know, I feel, is that we generally work really well around the committee table. What you see in question period is not necessarily always what happens in committee. Here there is a lot of collaboration, and we do deliver really good insights and reports into very heavy topics at times, and always in treating topics.

For most people.... Before getting into politics—although I've always loved politics since I was young and I was fascinated by government and how it makes decisions for Canadians—I was also definitely a bit of a political activist for many of my young years. Most of my time was spent protesting things, but eventually I wanted to be on the People want to be at that decision-making table.

What I was surprised about was that politics wasn't necessarily like a lot of the movies I had seen. You come in with your guard up, thinking, “Oh, my God; everyone here is going to....” You think you have to really watch out for yourself because everyone is going to be evil, as depicted in the movies and all of that stuff.

We do get carried away at times, and I think the Leader of the Opposition has definitely gotten carried away lately, especially when he has made comments that are so dangerous about the trust people would have as to whether their Prime Minister and their government are working in collaboration with foreign actors or whether members here are foreign agents. All these types of assertions that are being made are really disgusting. It is extremely disgusting and disappointing, but still, on average, we go through these times. Those who have been here for a while see that there are ups and downs in government, even in Parliament and even in this PROC committee.

I've been here since 2015 in this committee, and I'm so lucky, but I've seen a lot of ups and downs about issues that sometimes we really have to talk through to work out. We do usually get to a good place at the end of the day. There are issues that come very quickly and naturally to us, and we can agree on. I have seen those.

I would still conclude, having seen all these things and being disappointed right now in the Leader of the Opposition, that most people come here to do the right thing. They come here to do the right thing, and I've met a lot of really wonderful people in politics. I think they are some of the best people I've ever met. I thought I met a lot of cool people in law as well, but more questionable people there too. Some of the best people I have met have been here.

For the most part, I think the public trusts us to make the right decisions for them, because people can't understand a lot of these words. They wonder what they are going to get out of a public inquiry, what they're going to get from a special rapporteur. That is important for us to really delve into and to take a look at.

I'm going to finish up with one more thing, but I do want to be put on the list again for this, because I didn't get into the second part of my talk. My second part of my talk is really on what the Prime Minister has proposed, what a special rapporteur does and what special rapporteurs in the UN have done. I really want to delve into a lot of that, but my colleagues are eager to also get their thoughts in. Because they're eager to get their thoughts in, I think I should give them that, and I'll return to my comments later.

What I will leave you with is that—and I think my other colleague shed some light on this—many Canadians, as we know, do believe that Chinese interference had a role to play in our institutions. No one is denying that. We are all saying yes, that's absolutely true. The only thing that we also all agree on is that it didn't have the impact that we think and that our last elections in 2021 and 2019 were free and fair.

What's really interesting is that even the national campaign manager for the Conservative Party has said, “If people lose faith in the fairness of our elections, they will lose faith in the legitimacy of our government as well.” He stated:

...it’s important to clarify one critical issue. I can confirm, without a shadow of a doubt, that the outcome of the election, which resulted in the Liberals forming government, was not influenced by any external meddling.

I think that's really important. He too believes that it could be extremely dangerous for our institutions to be going down this line. He also said that he has “watched with interest the growing calls for a public inquiry”, and while he understands “the concerns behind these calls”, he said:

...I must say that I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of such an inquiry.

Election interference is a complex issue, involving national security and intelligence, and a public inquiry would likely result in much of the information being redacted, rendering it useless to the public and the likely outcome will be everyone wondering why we wasted so much time and money on an inquiry in the first place.

Secondly, a public inquiry will be slow and bureaucratic, and by the time the inquiry is over, the situation may have changed and the solutions found may no longer be relevant.

Additionally, public inquiries can be highly politicized and become more focused on scoring points and blaming individuals or political parties, rather than finding solutions.

That really sums up a lot of what I was trying to get to.

My first point that I wanted to get out and on the record is that we may be selling a false narrative to Canadians that they are going to get what they are looking for out of a public inquiry. It's going to be costly. There's still going to be dissatisfaction. I think we should just do the right thing at the right time, and that is something I will delve into the next time I make my comments: what the right thing is and what that timing is.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

Are you asking to be added to the list again?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper is next.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will be very brief.

First of all, I want to correct the record of what you said, respectfully, Madam Chair, about what happened on Tuesday after question period, when this committee did not reconvene.

You said, at 9:46 today, “It was never the intention to not find resources, but we have to work with people to find resources.” That's a direct quote from you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to clarify for the record that all opposition whips agreed to make resources available. All opposition MPs returned to committee. Resources were available. There were interpreters in the booths, waiting for Liberal members to show up. The only reason that the committee did not return on Tuesday is that after Liberal members filibustered for three hours, they then changed tactics to simply not show up, so that there would not be a quorum and therefore the meeting would be suspended until today.

It's an illustration of the Liberals using every tactic in the book to block the Prime Minister's chief of staff from having to testify before committee.

With respect to Ms. Telford appearing before the committee, in listening to my Liberal colleagues speak about this matter, you would think that this was completely unprecedented. First of all, they refer to her as “just some staff member”. For heaven's sake, she's the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. She's the top adviser to the Prime Minister. She's one of the most powerful people in this government.

Further to that, it's hardly without precedent. Ms. Telford has appeared before a committee before. She appeared at the finance committee—I was a member of the finance committee at that time—on July 30, 2020, with regard to the Liberal government's WE Charity scandal. She also appeared before the national defence committee on May 7, 2021, with respect to sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Ms. Telford has appeared twice at committee. There's absolutely no reason that she can't appear before this committee.

Really, the motion before us is quite clear. The amendment put forward by Mr. Turnbull to gut my motion to have Ms. Telford appear is straightforward. All the arguments have been made. There is no reason for this debate to continue. All opposition parties are united in wanting to see Ms. Telford appear before our committee, of course with Ms. Blaney's amendment to my motion, which all opposition MPs are united in support of. The Liberals oppose my motion amended by Ms. Blaney.

Let's get on with it. Let's get to a vote on Mr. Turnbull's amendment and then let's vote on my motion and get back to business and hear from the ministers and from Ms. Telford next week.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. It's not.... With respect for my colleague, I wanted to mention that the screen here is blinking like crazy. I don't know if we should turn it off or something, because it's blinking on this side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

We'll get on that.

Mr. Cooper, was that your point?

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

Let's get to a vote and stop the filibustering.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Before I go to Madame Gaudreau, Ms. Blaney, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Turnbull, I would just say, Mr. Cooper, that you're welcome to do.... What you're doing is taking my one sentence out of context. I did also go further on to explain.

I understand that you believe that when you want me to be here, whether it's in my constituency week or whatever else, I have to be here. I get it. I do my best, but I have obligations to my constituents. I also take my responsibilities to Canadians seriously, and I have to fulfill all of them.

I have often agreed to disagree with you. Sometimes we can find a way forward. On this, I would say that your interpretation versus what I said are not the same. I'll leave that with you, because you're not the first person who has put words in my mouth. I guess it's just part of the job, which is unfortunate.

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know me by now. I always preface my remarks to explain what's happening.

I know that people in Laurentides—Labelle are following these proceedings, including some of my friends and family. Many of them are wondering what's going on. A lot of language keeps coming up: “obstruction”, “need to understand”, “confidence”, “we have to do something”, “people are worried”, “people want to know” and so on.

This is a fine example of a filibuster. I should even applaud because I'm learning so much. I think I know the right people to call now if I ever want to do any filibustering. Some members are accusing us of filibustering, but I would tell them to look in the mirror before they make such a claim. It's too bad, actually, that they're not here.

People asked what constituted a filibuster. It's almost noon and we started at nine o'clock. When someone takes more than 10 minutes to argue their position before returning to the subject in hand and going off on long tangents about the past but isn't even able to put forward an argument on the current situation or make useful suggestions for the future, that's what you call a filibuster.

I can say that, because those who saw how I handled myself during the WE Organization study know this is true: there is one person here who can actually say that they are truly acting in the best interests of the people they represent. Allow me to explain. Two things are still true. We all have good intentions. We want to get to the bottom of certain things, find solutions and protect our democracy. We all agree on that. How to go about it is another story.

The people I think about are the people following these proceedings and my children. Why is this taking so long, they wonder. The reason is that we have a rule permitting members to waste time, and over the course of the next few minutes, perhaps they will surprise us and pull a rabbit out of their hat. Will we get to hear from the ministers and officials between noon and one o'clock? Will the committee take a break and come back in better form? There's question period. We have commitments. Members have been beating around the bush for three hours. I find that hard to swallow, and I would even say I've lost respect for the people who are doing it. I realize it's posturing, which I consider to be a game. What's happening here, though, is no game.

That was an aside. It only took two minutes, when it could've taken 40.

My views regarding the motions on the table are based on many things.

First of all, why are we so adamant that an independent public inquiry be held? To my mind, “independent” is synonymous with “100% impartial”. That means the person leading the inquiry would be mutually agreed upon. We've spent days demonstrating—and this was even a recommendation—that, together, we can all choose a person to lead the inquiry, an impartial person who can conduct a thorough investigation in order to reassure the public. People are really worried.

In the public space, much has been said about the Rouleau commission and the impact of its findings. Some have questioned whether there is really a desire to crack down on the issue. I think the question we should be asking is this: Ultimately, what are the benefits of a public commission when part of the proceedings take place in camera? That was the case, after all.

What happens in that situation? It creates legislative pressure, and that's what we need. Right now, we have to present our argument to the fullest. I realize it can be quite a lot, but how do we get something that's currently stalled moving again?

The government has shown that measures were taken. I made that point yesterday during question period. That's good, but at this point, today, are those measures enough? Are they appropriate? No. Once you've done everything you can with what you have, it's time to change strategies. You have to go further.

In softball, you get a few tries before you strike out. One strike, two strikes or three strikes. I won't go into everything that's happened since the government has been in power, but it's not as though this is the first time this has happened and the government has been open and transparent thus far. Now the government is saying that it's time to move forward and that it's appointing a rapporteur. We're past that point now. The trust is broken. The government had every means at its disposal but opted for the power to choose.

The government needs to show real leadership. It needs to follow the recommendations. That means coming at the issue with the right attitude. As I've often heard said, it's time for the government to step up to the plate. Yes, it can apologize, as it does every time, but it has to show that it is making things right.

Right now, on this committee, government members are making arguments I don't always understand. I'll explain. We keep hearing—and the previous member just said this—that we shouldn't involve political staffers, that they should be protected. I won't repeat everything that was said because these are very honourable people.

On the table, we currently have an amendment to bring staff before the committee. National campaign directors are not elected representatives, so I'm at somewhat of a loss. You could say that it's due to the interpretation, but I'm really trying to wrap my head around this. Then again, this is normal. I tell people back home this is normal.

The government needs to protect our democracy because the situation is critical. We need to get to the truth, and we will. I am telling you, we will.

We have asked Katie Telford to appear before the committee four times. I was there when she appeared in 2020. I heard her statement and the answers she gave. I wasn't aware that she had also appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence, but it happened. The members keep bringing up tradition. The idea is to drag this out, and that would be in line with our customs.

In this case, however, this isn't about tradition. It's about something very serious. In the next few minutes, I'm eager to see whether all of the members here today will stand up and show some humility.

I may be going too fast for the interpreter, but half the members aren't even listening.

You are listening, Madam Chair, and what's more, you're looking at me, so thank you.

Unfortunately, this is what we are having to deal with: members talking, dragging things out and filibustering. Then they say there are important matters we should be dealing with. They're right, so what are we waiting for?

It's going to take some strong arguments to convince me why I should agree to bringing national campaign directors before the committee, instead of Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. If my fellow members really want to waste time like this, we will meet with all of those people, but I'm going to need a strong case. This is a little discouraging, to put it mildly. Obviously, “little” is an understatement.

We have 11 minutes left. I'm going to do as I said. Earlier, I said that, when a member goes on for more than 10 minutes, they are beating around the bush. I've been speaking for about 10 minutes.

Hopefully, members will give serious thought to the important points I made and my comments will be good for something. By something, I mean our democracy and confidence in our institutions.

I'm eager to see what happens next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

If I understood correctly, Ms. Gaudreau, we need to hear from ministers and we also need to make a decision on the matter in hand. We can do all that.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think what would probably be helpful to you and to this committee is for me to outline what I'm hoping to see today. First of all, I hope that today we will actually get to a vote. I would be very excited to do that, and if at any point the other side is prepared for that, I am here for it.

I would like to hear from the ministers, but I have a bit of a concern. I want to make sure we continue because I want to get to a vote, so we may need to continue to discuss this. I hope we get to hear from the ministers. I hope we continue to stand in this committee until question period. I have heard a lot of kind words from members around this table about the fact that I have a very important meeting with constituents from North Island—Powell River. As you can imagine, that is a big trip, and it's a community facing significant challenges.

What I would like to see is that we return at 4:30 to continue this work. I do have another committee at 6:30 that I would like to go to. I am very hopeful that we'll get to a place where we can have the vote done and be wrapped up so that I can get to the veterans affairs committee.

I also recognize that if the vote does not happen, we'll be continuing this next week more than likely. I think that's very concerning. I really appreciate what the chair has said about paying attention to constituents and having time with constituents. I live a far way from my constituents. I have a rather large riding, so I can't always get to a computer to do this work, as much as I would like to, because I'm with the people I serve.

I hope that around this table, all of us remember our accountability to Canadians. I am a little disheartened to hear some of the comments I've heard on the Liberal side today. One of the things I heard Mr. Gerretsen talk about—I don't know if I'm allowed to talk about it if he's not here, but hopefully he will hear what I'm saying—was recommendations. He kept talking about how we should be working hard on recommendations so we can give them to the government. I've been on a lot of committees in this House for a lot of years. I've done a lot of really important work and I respect the people I sit at the table with, but very often we do not see recommendations go anywhere meaningful.

I believe in this work and think it's really important, and I will always encourage government to look at hard work with multiple parties coming together, but I want to be really clear. Mr. Gerretsen is implying that us doing our work here is going to somehow fundamentally change what the government is doing and how they're accountable, but I don't think it will. If that were the case, then in veterans affairs we'd have things like the marriage-after-60 clause revoked. We would have the disability benefits being delivered and the backlogs would be dealt with. Those things have not been done in my other committees, so I'm not in any way persuaded that the important work of this committee is going to fundamentally change what the government does.

I was also really disappointed to hear on the other side this intention to undermine the importance of a public inquiry. The reality is—and I will keep saying this—the information coming out in the media is really what is guiding Canadians to lose faith in our institutions. As parliamentarians, we have the job to try to build that faith, because those institutions really do matter. If we want a strong democracy, having faith in those institutions is absolutely fundamental and key.

I heard from Mr. Gerretsen that it might take too long, that we might not get anything done and that everything is changing so rapidly. Of course it's changing so rapidly. I spent time yesterday, on International Women's Day, talking about how women leaders are targeted in social media and how to respond to that. One of the challenges, of course, is that things keep changing so quickly in technology that it makes it hard to do that work. I respect that. I respect that things change quickly, but it doesn't mean we do nothing as a result, and that's what it feels like. It feels as though there's been an implication. Ms. Sahota talked about it being too expensive and things taking too long.

We just recently had the public inquiry on the Emergencies Act. That was a very important piece of that legislation. It allowed Canadians to feel and see there was a process happening that addressed their concerns. They knew that was happening, and they could observe part of it and get some sort of response back. The Mass Casualty Commission is happening too. Those things matter. People just need to know that the work is being done.

We keep coming back to this assumption that there's a carelessness around national security. I'll say, from the NDP's perspective, that I don't feel that at all. We care very much. We respect the role of NSICOP. We know there is key work that needs to be done. We understand their processes and how they communicate with Parliament, but the public has been concerned with this issue. The media would not be reporting on it if people weren't asking for more information. We know that as leaks continue, they build a lack of faith in our systems.

We need to make sure that this is addressed, and I believe the public inquiry will do it. It's important to remind everyone around this table of what the Prime Minister said: If the special rapporteur says we need a public inquiry, he will fully support that. Why don't we just get to that? Why don't we get to a system that Canadians understand?

I understand there are always misconceptions. We could talk about misconceptions here in the committee if you want. As politicians, we always understand that there are a lot of misconceptions and confusion, but here we are.

We should be having this discussion. I see some excitement in the room, so maybe ministers are coming, but what I need to hear from the chair, if these ministers are coming, is that we'll be able to return to our work. That is because if this side of the table does not want to get to a vote, we need more time to converse about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would say, Ms. Blaney, based on everything I've heard from everyone, that we need to continue this work. As the person at the front of this room, I am committed to saying that we can get to this business and then return to this conversation.

When it comes to the resources for this afternoon, it's no secret that whips have the ability to cancel a meeting or return a meeting. We've also been meeting during constituency weeks, so I would put it out there that if we want to meet next week and the motion signals we want to meet next week, we can ask for resources and have a meeting next week if it passes. I am open to any opportunity or any ability to make this committee function. It is a very important topic, and I don't know how many more times I can say that. I actually think we can do it all.

As I said to Madame Gaudreau, we can find a way forward and go with the ministers who are appearing now, and then return to it. I'm also pushing for a vote, because we're currently on an amendment and we still need to get to the motion as amended already. I will continue doing whatever I can do, but I don't hear anybody opposing continuing this conservation or this discussion, whatever you call it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Chair, can you explain to us when we're going to hear about that? I am the whip for the NDP. I've been very clear and my team has been clear that we are open to having this committee continue. When will we know that?

I am feeling a lot of pressure to somehow magically allow the ministers to do the thing we're here to do, but we're also asking in good faith for a process to make sure that we get to continue this committee and continue this work. How are we to say that we're comfortable having the ministers here if right after that, this meeting will be adjourned, we'll all go to the House and next week we'll be back at this again? I'm hoping that before the ministers come to this table, we have some answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

What I would say, to reply back, is that the ministers are here for an hour. I said earlier that I think we can keep this room functioning until 1:30. It makes the clerk very anxious in that half hour. I think we can then determine a way forward.

As to resources we can receive or ask for from the House of Commons, we received them this morning. Anything else, as you've also mentioned.... Choosing between committees is for whips to do. The clerk does not have that ability, and I don't have that ability. If we want to change around the committee schedule this afternoon, that's what I'm saying about the whips. We have already received the resources we could get without having an impact. Next week, the House is not sitting. If there is agreement that we want to meet next week, the clerk and I are more than willing to ask when it would be suitable to have all the resources we need. We can work with schedules and make that happen.

I'm putting that out there to say I can find a way forward. What's in my hands right now as of this moment is setting up a meeting next week, because next week we're not competing with other committees, unless there's something going on that I don't know about. This afternoon is out of our hands right now.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Can we get any idea of when we would have an update on that? Maybe the ministers could come for half an hour. Then we need to move on, because we haven't had this assurance. I don't want to disrupt the ministers. I want answers. I think we've been very clear at this part of the table that I'm here to find solutions. I'm not here to grandstand or to make some sort of political drama. Canadians need answers.

I'm worried, Madam Chair, and I think I've been very clear about this since the very beginning this morning when I spoke. We need an assurance that if we allow the ministers this space, we are not losing our space to do the work we are here and tasked to do. Will you be able to give us an update during the middle...? I need some sort of assurance that we can continue this work after question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

As soon as I know, I will tell you. That's what I'm hearing from the clerk.

Is there anybody at the table who is concerned about us coming back to this? I think we have agreement that we have to come back to this.