Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I will just remind all members that it's important that we stay relevant. I do believe Mr. Fergus will be wrapping up at some point.

Madame Gaudreau has asked a question of Mr. Fergus. Mr. Fergus, I will also just share that I do have other people on the speaking list, and perhaps you can take another opportunity to speak later, if there is still debate to be had.

Mind you, the last points that you made in regard to your children and so forth actually are relevant to me. These are like some of the conversations we've also had as to what you do and not do. I think when it comes to interference infiltrating our elections and so forth, it is a heavy topic. It does involve a lot of different factors, and I do think we're having a very serious conversation.

I'm not sensing that Mr. Fergus is not being sincere, so if there are other concerns people want to raise, I welcome them, but based on what I'm hearing—and I am listening—I do feel that he is raising his concerns and I do believe that this is the time to do that.

The agenda we had today was on redistribution. We had members coming from Alberta and from Quebec who are concerned about their ridings, but they are not with us today because opposition members wanted to have a Standing Order 106(4) emergency meeting on this—Madame Gaudreau, you were part of the signatories—and I think it's important that if we change the agenda because it's such an important topic, then members should be given the time to talk on it, because it is obviously important.

With that, I thank you.

Mr. Fergus, I'm sure you've heard my reminders within my comments. I will pass the floor back to you.

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

Madam Chair, allow me to explain to the honourable member the reason I brought that up.

The use of exaggeration is an old political strategy in debate. I was talking about confidence and countries whose aim is to undermine Canadians' confidence in their elections and democratic institutions. That's the connection I was trying to make.

I see the honourable member nodding, so her understanding is greatly appreciated.

That's the end of my digression on the issue of confidence.

I was referring to that because the Prime Minister said yesterday that he was aware of the situation. As confirmed last week in an independent report, the Chinese government and regimes such as Iran and Russia have attempted to interfere not only in Canada's democracy, but also in other spheres of Canadian life, from our institutions and businesses to our research labs and even the day-to-day lives of Canadians. That is why I digressed in the first place.

As I've said, this isn't a new issue. It was around before this government's election in 2015. However, no other government had put any mechanisms in place specifically to counter this threat. We created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which gave members, themselves, access to unredacted information in real time on matters of national security, as is the case in other countries.

In addition, during the 2019 and 2021 elections, we established a non-partisan task force made up of senior officials, responsible for examining all the foreign interference attempts and reporting to Canadians on the integrity of our elections. The task force determined that the interference attempts had not affected the election results.

Be that as it may, the important thing is that we established those bodies. The task force is part of a mechanism, a protocol we created in 2019 to bring independent experts and senior officials together to communicate with Canadians at election time, in a clear and impartial way, in the event of an incident that threatened the integrity of the election.

Madam Chair, I see that other members would like the floor in order to participate in the debate, as you mentioned. I'm prepared to yield the floor, but I do want to point out that I haven't said everything I was going to say. My opposition to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton's fourth attempt at this motion is for good reason, so it is highly likely that I will have more to say in the course of this debate. For the moment, though, I will yield the floor to others so they can contribute as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

You just said that you would have more to say later. Would you like me to add your name to the list now, or will you let me know later when you would like to speak?

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

You can add me to the list now, Madam Chair. If I would like to respond to other members' comments, I will refrain so as not to repeat myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

All right.

Just so everyone is aware, here's who I have on the list: Ms. O'Connell, Ms. Blaney, Ms. Gaudreau, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Fergus.

I will just say that I've asked the clerk to find a relevant standing order, as you requested. There are comments in regard to repetition and relevance and so forth, but you had asked for a specific standing order, so the clerk is searching for one for you, and I will then share it with you at that time.

Ms. O'Connell is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do have a comment on this and I want to make that very clear, but before I get to these comments, I have some technical questions about the procedure that just happened.

In regard to the original motion tabled by Mr. Cooper and then the amendments that were accepted as friendly amendments, in my experience, some will argue that friendly amendments are allowed. I have seen an amendment changing “four hours” to “two hours” in the committee, but I have never seen a friendly amendment that is this substantive accepted without a vote. There is no such thing as that.

First of all, Madam Chair, I'd like to see what we are actually debating, because you can't argue relevance to a motion if we don't know what we're actually speaking to. Are we on the main motion or the amendment? Will the amendment have a vote? You can't accept that amendment as friendly. It needs to have unanimous consent, which you do not have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Wait. Hold on. Every person gets the floor. We don't need to provide commentary. We've demonstrated we can function.

Ms. O'Connell, I asked if the words “friendly amendment” are in that book, and the clerk quickly said no. I'm just going to have a quick conversation with the clerk and I'm going to return to all of you, so perhaps take a moment to stretch and take a breath. I'll be right back.

I'm going to come back.

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell, for the points you've raised. I'm just going to make sure we have the attention of all members.

You've raised a lot of valid points in regard to objections. What would usually happen is there would be a motion, a friendly amendment, as there was. Once it was raised, because Mr. Cooper did accept it, members could then object, but I also know that members do recognize how I run a meeting, and so most members do tend to wait for their time on the floor.

There are multiple ways we can deal with this. First of all, we could suspend and have some of those fruitful conversations we have and see if there's a way forward. We could also ask for unanimous consent. If it's not there, Mrs. Blaney could move an amendment to the motion, and that would follow more of the rules and the book.

I'm going to go to Mrs. Blaney.

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

I'm happy to move that amendment. I would love to see a vote on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Let's go to a vote.

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

Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

This is good, because I actually had asked for clarification myself, and there was some conversation.

What we will do is the debate will continue. I do feel like Mr. Fergus was dealing with it as an amendment too. I know that Madame Gaudreau had mentioned a subamendment, so I think we're maybe more or less all on the same page.

We are going to continue the debate on the amendment.

Ms. O'Connell, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's important, because there are points of order being thrown out about what to speak to when the members opposite didn't even actually know what we were talking about procedurally. As much as I appreciate the friendliness, that's not how Parliament works and that's certainly not how committee works. Some of the others may want to open those books from time to time.

Madam Chair, now that we are clear on what we've actually speaking on, I'd like to speak about a few of the points and where we're at. It is like Groundhog Day. We have dealt with this, as Mr. Cooper himself has said, four times.

With that said, one of the things that is being talked about time and time again as we're trying to deal with the very serious issue of foreign interference in our democratic institutions, and what keeps getting thrown out is.... Yesterday we saw that the Prime Minister was again addressing it and taking further steps, and the Conservatives continuously referred to it as a “secret committee with secret evidence” redacted by the PMO. Once again, just like their approach to procedure in this committee, the Conservatives speak to things they know nothing about. They keep referring to NSICOP as the secret committee, yet they have their own members sitting on it. They talk about evidence in NSICOP, yet none of them served on that committee and know anything about the quality of evidence that is there.

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

We can't talk about that.

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

None of them sat on NSICOP and understand how redactions work, yet they speak about that with certainty.

I, on the other hand, sat on NSICOP. I had my security clearance. I respect the work that committee does. I understand how redactions work. I understand the severity of national security. That's what our government understands.

While Conservatives want to make political attacks and speak about secret evidence and secret committees, they are treating Canadians as if they don't understand the significance of and the seriousness with which national security is guarded in the way that it is in this country and why creating committees of parliamentarians, through which they can actually access this information in a way that is done securely, matters. Conservatives may not care why that matters. Canadians do.

We had significant debate about the creation of NSICOP. Our Five Eyes partners have similar versions, through which parliamentarians or elected officials can access this information but in a way that is done securely.

Something I would always hear during my council days was that Conservatives don't want to be confused with the truth. And the truth is that you have to handle national security with the security that it deserves. Conservatives are playing partisan games with it time and time again, and for what? Because they want to bring some staffers in here? For what? What's the end goal? To make national security or our democratic institutions stronger? Why?

They don't seem to care about how secure documents are being handled. They don't care to know the precautions that are taken through NSICOP. They don't care to know that NSICOP is actually well regarded by international partners and that actually their reports have received accolades from around the world.

They don't care that there are recommendations tabled on a regular basis. And they certainly don't care that it was NSICOP's 2019 report tabled in the House of Commons that actually raised foreign interference and the seriousness of it years ago. It seems the Conservatives never bothered to read those reports. If they close their eyes and cover their ears, then they think it doesn't exist.

But the fact is that the members on NSICOP do an incredible amount of work. The secretariat is incredibly professional and non-partisan. You have representatives from all parties and from the Senate.

Because of my experience on NSICOP, I take very personally the suggestion that it's some secret committee controlled by the PMO. That's absolutely ridiculous, and it is insulting to the hours' and hours' worth of work that committee and that secretariat do.

They do so in a way that is so professional, to provide the information so the committee can make legitimate reports and recommendations to make our institutions better. They do so with Canadians in mind to ensure the safety and security of our national security officials, the information we have or the information and partnerships we have with our Five Eyes partners and our national security partners around the world.

So I take great offence to the Conservatives playing Spy Kids over there on things they know absolutely nothing about. They do not take the security of what this government does seriously. And I hear them chattering that this is why they need an inquiry.

I urge you to ask your leader. Sit on NSICOP. If you're so concerned about national security, do it in the right way. Madam Chair, they should do it in the right way. They should get their national security clearance, serve on this committee, see the evidence, make the recommendations and spend the hours and hours in a secure room reading documents. If they sat in those secure rooms reading documents for the number of hours that these members do, they would learn a thing or two.

If they had picked up that 2019 annual report that was tabled in the House of Commons, even with the redactions, they would have learned about foreign interference two years ago. They would have been able to track and see the recommendations from NSICOP. They could have seen the work that was being done. They could have talked about the SITE committee. They could have talked about the critical election task force, but they didn't. They scroll through Twitter feeds waiting for a partisan opportunity, but the opportunities for this have been here for over seven years.

I take great offence to Conservatives' all of a sudden waking up to the seriousness of national security under the guise that they are the serious stewards, and they are the ones who want to make sure that Canadians know what's happening, but Canadians see through this. Canadians see how reckless and irresponsible Conservatives continue to be. Conservatives don't care that there is a reason all of this information cannot be public. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with PMO.

Madam Chair, it has to do with the fact that this is Canada's most sensitive top secret information about adversaries trying to undermine our democracy. Conservatives want this information, but so does Beijing. Conservatives don't seem to care that that's a problem. Conservatives don't seem to care about the division that they're trying to sow in making Canadians think that our elections are not secure. They don't seem to think that's exactly what China would want. That's exactly what Russia would want. You don't have to believe me. That's what witness testimony concluded.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: this undermining of our elections is an import from the south. The Conservatives are trying to emulate this Trump style of politics, saying that it's not them. It's not their bad policies that Canadians rejected; it must have been somebody else's. Well, our institutions do need protecting, but what we need protecting from is foreign interference, absolutely. What we need is for Conservative members and parliamentarians to grow up and take this stuff seriously, to be mature about an issue this serious and come to the table with solutions.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Why are we not having witnesses from New Zealand, Australia and the U.K.? Estonia had massive interference from Russia, and France.... I can go on and on. The U.S. 2016 presidential election faced these issues. Instead, we've had four times talking about trying to bring in a chief of staff instead of bringing in witnesses to say that their country is experiencing these issues. It is ever-changing. It is fast-paced. It's easier for other countries to try to sow division and fear.

How are they doing it in these other countries? What are they putting in place that Canada isn't? What have they seen that's working that we should emulate?

No. Instead, we're going to get into more of bringing in this staffer or that staffer about what happened years ago instead of how we are moving forward to strengthen our democratic institutions. Canadians are going to see through this. The Conservatives have tried this game before, and it did not work for them. They are going to repeat their same mistakes. That's on them.

If Conservatives, again, truly cared about foreign interference and protecting our democratic institutions.... Again, you don't have to believe me. I'm partisan, no question. What about their own leader who was the Minister of Democratic Institutions and did absolutely nothing on this? Maybe we should bring him in. Maybe we should have asked the Conservatives about all the things that they did for 10 years to strengthen our democratic institutions. Crickets. You will hear crickets.

If we want to be serious and if we want Canadians to see that we can put partisan politics aside to do right by them, to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected into the future, then let's use this opportunity in a public forum to bring in witnesses, to bring in officials, to bring in that experience to make recommendations to the government.

At the same time, allow NSICOP to do the work in a secure manner, which again I point out they already had, and brought forward these things. It seems that members of the Conservative Party never bothered to read it. Now that they're paying attention, let's have them do that work again. I have a lot of trust in the secretariat. They're incredibly professional. They're extremely well regarded around the world. I think even our intelligence community respects the work that NSICOP does and trusts that the information can be handled securely.

What I do fear in this country is that, if national security is played with in a partisan way, the national security community will become fearful to release information, will become fearful that it is going to be played with, that lives will be at risk, that our Five Eyes partners will say that Canada is a joke on national security and that they can't share information with Canada because parties want unredacted versions and open sessions.

Then who suffers? It's Canadians. Our security gets weaker, our reputation gets weaker, our institutions don't get stronger. Russia is cheering. China is cheering. Other adversaries are cheering. Then what happens? Conservatives put out a tweet.

Are we really willing to risk the grand issues at stake here when we have the ability for NSICOP, as I said, to do their work in a way that is well respected and secure, where the information is handled with extreme caution and care, but it is provided. NSICOP is incredibly professional. They have representatives from every party, the Senate, so it is not a partisan thing. They have a very clear and separate mandate—I'm not sure if anyone's read that—about how the recommendations are handled in that process, because it is not controlled by the PM or the PMO. That was built into legislation.

You can do that work, have a special rapporteur who will also look at it. NSIRA can also be involved.

I was in the House last night when the Prime Minister was making his announcement of these new measures, and the Conservatives came running in, papers going...talking about how this is ridiculous, that they don't even know what a rapporteur is.

Well, Madam Chair, I think it's absolutely crazy, because the Conservatives didn't know what a rapporteur was. They said it was too fancy, this fancy word, and that was somehow why it was a bad idea.

The point is, you can say “special” seven more times, but it doesn't make you look smarter.

Madam Chair—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, I just want to know what it is.

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

Madam Chair, the point is that there are opportunities here through NSICOP to handle these documents with care and to get that report. There's a special rapporteur who will ensure that NSICOP and NSIRA have the information and can make the recommendations. At the same time—don't worry, I'm not forgetting about the importance of this committee—there is a lot of work that this committee can actually do to make our institutions stronger and inform Canadians about the seriousness of foreign interference.

We can learn a lot from allies who have been experiencing this for years. We can be hearing that testimony. We can be learning about what works, what hasn't worked, how the threat is changing and who some of these bad actors are. We could actually be putting forward recommendations to the government from this committee.

We can take the work of this committee, and the work of NSIRA, NSICOP and the special rapporteur and make a fulsome document that the government can consider. It will have all parties' ideas and viewpoints represented. It will take the care and caution with sensitive national security information that Canadians expect a mature and responsible government to take.

Or, Madam Chair, we can go down the road of silly games and a kangaroo court, playing partisan politics with one of the most serious things that any government should be worried about and thinking about and taking precautions on. Whenever the next election is, I think Canadians are going to see that it's not leadership when you're willing to throw every principle and value you can have as a country out the window because it's....

You get some giggles over on the other side because they're having some fun over there. They think this is going to be something to talk about, but they are once again providing no solutions. I think Canadians are going to see through this. I know that Canadians are smart enough to know that playing games with national security only weakens our country. Playing partisan politics with national security, with the independence of our elections—just turn on the news to the south to see the division that's causing.

I'm willing to bet that Canadians do not support the division of questioning elections without significant evidence and the idea of rationalizing a loss and trying to suggest that the elections were not held by Canadians, or that the decisions were not upheld by Canadians, when we have heard time and time again from non-partisan experts that it was Canadians who decided the outcome of elections. Time and time again, it was determined that they were free and fair.

If Conservative members want to keep playing games and create division and confusion instead of solutions and strengthening our institutions, then I don't think Canadians are going to see that there's a responsible, mature alternative. I think it's really sad for our democracy that we would actually run the risk of going down the path of democracies around the world that have fallen into this trap.

I think PROC has a very real and unique opportunity here. There are other things on the PROC agenda that I know are important to many members and should also be handled, but I do think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think even on this study there is a lot of meat on this bone that this committee can deal with, but by calling in staff and trying to create a political circus instead of trying to actually contribute to the conversation on how we make our institutions stronger and how we ensure that although our elections were free and fair, they continue to be....

Madam Chair, I think there's a lot we can do. I think there are a lot of recommendations we can take. But if the Conservatives want to continue to play this game.... They've done it before. Before the last election, the Conservative one who was....

I always lose of track of which leader they were on.

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

Madam Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry, Ms. O'Connell; one second.

You have a point of order, Mr. Cooper.

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to make it clear that you do not have the implied consent of the official opposition to adjourn at one o'clock.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper, I will state that it's one thing during constituency weeks. We will know what resources are available and so forth, and we will follow the process. I do appreciate your assistance in my chair duties at all times. I thank you for that.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I was saying is that I always forget which leader they were on—there were so many.

In the last attempt to play games with foreign interference, the Conservatives, under Mr. O'Toole, decided that their solution would be to take their toys and go home. Instead of having more information, they pulled their members off NSICOP. How did that work out for them? Did Canadians view them as noble, value-based members? No. They saw it for what it was: a cheap trick because they didn't get what they wanted, because they couldn't use national security as a partisan weapon in an election.

Then the next leader comes in and puts the members back on. That would be the mature thing to do. Well, now the lack of respect for and knowledge of the incredibly hard work that NSICOP does—incredibly hard—is very clear.

You should read some of the accolades, Madam Chair. I would encourage all members of this committee to actually read some of the accolades that NSICOP has received from around the world on its work and on its reports.

We've heard from officials here time and time again that it's always a tough balance between what you share with Canadians—because you do want that transparency and want people to know so they can be on the lookout for the issues and be aware of what's going on in the world—and protecting national security, whether it's our personnel in the field doing this work or whether it's protecting those relationships we have with our allies. All of that is incredibly important. That is why that balance is sometimes hard to strike, I'll be honest.

It would be wonderful if we could just share everything and know that it's not going to fall into the wrong hands. As mature parliamentarians and as any responsible government would say, we have to make decisions that are going to be right for Canadians but also ensure that those consequences don't do a greater harm. That's what is on the line when it comes to the care of national security documents.

When Conservatives put their members back on NSICOP, it was an acknowledgement that this committee does important work. Now they won't even say the name NSICOP. They don't refer to it. They refer to it as “a secret committee...with secret evidence...controlled by the Prime Minister.” How scary sounding when, in fact, it is an incredibly professional committee that works well beyond partisan lines. I'm willing to bet that if they spoke to their own members on this committee, they would say how hard the committee works and how non-partisan it is.

But, you know, again, don't be confused by the facts. That's the mantra that I'm seeing with the Conservative Party these days.

We can keep coming back, as my colleague Mr. Fergus pointed out, four times and probably more to debate the same motion, to spend committee time debating the same motion, or we could actually get to work, come together and acknowledge that we have work to do to continue to strengthen our institutions.

We have a lot of professionals within the Canadian public service. Academia would be incredibly helpful. We've had witnesses from all walks of life. Again, I think there are more opportunities for additional witnesses, and there are more opportunities for this work. We could actually come together to determine what some of the objectives are that we want to see here.

We've heard about a foreign registry. I would love to have more conversations about how that looks. The Prime Minister has indicated that it is something he is tasking ministers to look at.

We could provide insight. All members of this committee could provide some insight into that work. Instead, we're going to keep having 106(4)s. We're going to keep having the same debate on the same motion.

What's it for? It's because Conservatives want to bring staff in. They think it will be some winnable moment for them. Maybe there will be a partisan hit.

Madam Chair, through you, maybe the Conservatives will land a punch. I don't know. Does that help Canadians in the long run? Does it strengthen our institutions?

The Conservatives will get a tweet, a photo or a headline they like. Maybe. Does it make our democratic institutions stronger? Does it make the next election stronger? Does it ward off foreign interference? Does it keep Beijing at bay? Does it stop Russia from trying again? No, absolutely not.

You can sell your morals and values to play a game. Listen, I'm the first to get up in the House and take a partisan swipe. I have no problem.

There are certain things that I think.... If you really care about this job and our democratic institutions, there should be some red lines. I think sharing our national security information in the public realm should be a red line that we all agree to.

If you think that dragging staffers in for a day of headlines or a few good tweets at the expense of a meeting in which we could actually do work to make sure that future elections are protected.... If members think that's valuable, and that's what their constituents sent them here to do, that's between them and their constituents.

I would like to be able to look at myself in the mirror, go to my constituents and say that I want to do this work, but I'm going to do so in a way that I think is going to be optimal to make this situation better. That's how serious national security is. That's how serious it is when Canadians no longer determine elections.

Conservative members, get your tweets. Get your headlines. If they don't make our institutions stronger, what have you actually done for Canada?

Will this testimony make our institutions stronger? Will it protect the next election? Will putting unredacted national security secrets in an open forum, because some members are curious about what they say, instead of being able to read them in a very secure manner...? It's not that members don't have access. It's that it's done in a secure manner.

They're trying to make that information public. Would members opposite be comfortable if an agent in the field or someone collected that information and that was eventually used to harm someone serving our country? You got a tweet out of it. Maybe the Toronto Sun wrote a nice column about you. That would be cool.

If our national security community could no longer collect information because our allies didn't feel comfortable sharing it and, therefore, we became a little less safe...? However, some members got to giggle in this committee. Some members got to tweet in this committee.

Is that a trade-off that Conservatives are willing to make? I'm certainly not.

We have a choice. Be serious. Let's continue our meetings on foreign interference. Let's continue to bring in experts and talk about very real ways that we can deal with the next elections, such as how to make SITE better, how to make the critical election protocol better and how to learn from other jurisdictions that are going through this.

Or, we can keep debating the same amendment, the same motion, go down that road and achieve nothing of substance.

Then Canadians can judge who the leaders are and who is going to take their safety and security seriously. How will our Canadian Armed Forces and our intelligence community view how members act with their lives on the line? We're sitting in here in a cushy committee room while there are people out doing the very real work for which irresponsible motions have consequences.

I'm not prepared to throw the national security, Canada's reputation and the safety of those who actually serve this community and do this work out the window because Conservatives want to play games and take very anti-partisan shots at the very real work we are going to do and can do.

Madam Chair, I've said it before but I'm just going to conclude on this point. We have an opportunity to do very real work in this committee in conjunction with the very real work that NSICOP, NSIRA and a special rapporteur can do to provide recommendations and a report in such a way that the information is handled in a secure manner, is classified and takes our safety and security seriously, something that a mature and responsible government would do, something we can all work together on to provide a report. Then Canadians can determine if it's enough, if it's being taken seriously enough, and that is all fair game, or we can continue on for however many meetings as we've done now. We can continue on the road of playing partisan games with no real solutions coming forward and using committee time for headlines and for tweets and really offer no solutions.

Madam Chair, I would like to get to work on this. I would like this committee to provide very real recommendations and I would be very willing to keep that study going, to hear that witness testimony, to actually write a report, to hear all perspectives from all members of this committee and to do the work that Canadians expect us to do in a mature, responsible manner.

As long as motions keep coming forward, which I don't think build toward actually making our next election more secure, to actually hold off foreign interference, then I'm inclined not to support them. If a motion comes forward that will actually produce recommendations and results that will help us move in that forum, then I'm happy to consider it and I'm happy to advocate that we actually come forward with a very real report with recommendations that might be tough for any government to have to implement, but at least we're doing that work.

As long as we're going to play partisan games with national security, I'm going to fight really hard to make sure that mature, responsible and reasonable decisions are made instead of reckless, irresponsible, partisan games with something that is so incredibly important and has such serious consequences if handled incorrectly.

I'll leave it there, Madam Chair, and depending on the rest of the debate, I may add my name again, but I'll let you know.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that clarification.

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I thank everybody for this very interesting conversation.

I just have a few things that I feel are really important to say.

First of all, I will say that it has—and I talked about this earlier—been my practice and that of the NDP not to support bringing staff. I appreciate Mr. Fergus' quoting the amazing MP, Peter Julian, and the work he did in this committee and the things he said. That is largely the position the NDP takes. People are elected, they make decisions, staff implement those decisions.

However, we cannot pretend that those statements that Mr. Julian said happened, and then the next day be opening the papers with more leaks coming out of CSIS. I just feel frustrated right now.

Our leader was very clear. He said we should have a public inquiry. This place and this committee have supported the NDP motion to have a public inquiry, and it will be tabled in the House very soon, I'm sure. That is a transparent process.

Canadians are now worried. I'm not doing this because I like to tweet and get a good headline. I will take the punches. I have been in this room and I've said, “No, I will not support having documents looked at that way,” because I care about national security and because I represent a base in my community, 19 Wing, where people are called on to serve this country. I take that very seriously because their lives are literally on the line when we ask them to do that. I don't want information coming out in a way that is going to jeopardize Canadians or the people who serve this country. That matters to me.

I don't want an immature process, but I also cannot take away the reality of how many leaks have been coming out that have said things directly related to a person we have named in this motion.

Until there's a transparent process through a public inquiry where there can be processes put in place to make sure that all of our security is addressed, and that we're not leaking information out that is going to be harmful to the people who serve our country, I just don't see how we can do anything but go through this process in PROC.

It's really unfortunate that we're here. We've been very clear about what we want to see, but those things are not happening. The Prime Minister had an opportunity yesterday to have that be a part of the announcement. He chose not to, so here we are today having this discussion.

The other reality for me is that Canadians care about this. Canadians are emailing my office. They are worried that our systems are not strong enough, that our institutions are not strong enough. You know what? I agree. I agree that the Conservatives often use information in a way that I would not use it. There are a lot of political points they're trying to make that are very harmful, and I will say this publicly—and I just have—that they can use it in whatever way they want. They do that.

The other part is that this government left a void. If you've got people concerned and you've got people bringing up information in a way that is not appropriate, then it's not really on the government to create a response that is meaningful, because the more fear we have in our communities, in our institutions—and I've said this throughout this whole study.... How many times in this study have I prefaced everything I said by, “How do we make sure that Canadians have faith in our institutions?” Everything that we do around this table should be around this.

This has become partisan. It's a committee. There are different parties that are represented here and we're all going to have our partisan perspective, which is exactly why our leader said to take this out of that partisan realm and put this in a public inquiry so that there will be an accountability measure for Canadians. That is why this is so important.

I appreciate and I deeply respect the work of NSICOP. I absolutely do. They do important work and I appreciate it.

The problem is, at this point, so much misinformation and so many leaks have come out that Canadians don't have security. If we have NSICOP do the work, it will not be public enough. I'm not talking about the details behind it; I'm talking about the process where the public is included in the system. This is where we're at.

I will fight every single time to make sure that we don't have documents used in a way that could be harmful to the people of this country. The fact is, when the Conservatives put forward things around the legal clerk or the law clerk, they do not have specific training in national security.

We cannot allow information to be out there in that way. We have to make sure that we're protecting our institutions, Canadians and our elections.

However, today the motion that we're talking about does not have anything about documents. It's about how we figure out what was happening at a time, how we address the issue that this information is being leaked repeatedly and to whom it is being leaked, these journalists with certain ethics and requirements. So we have to trust that when they're saying this is happening, there's something behind it that we have to look into.

Speculation creates fear and that's what we're seeing. We're seeing more and more fear. I'm hearing about it in my riding. People are talking to me about it as I'm out doing the things that I do to spend time with my constituents. That means that we need to have something, and that's why the NDP brought forward the idea of a public inquiry. That's why we fought so hard in this place to make sure that we had a motion that said so, and that's why our leader called for it.

So I agree. We need to depoliticize this situation. I think my friend Mr. Fergus talked about that. I agree that in this room it is getting really politicized. So again, let's see the Prime Minister step up and not just make the announcement that he made, but actually see that investment in a public inquiry so that we have something to hold on to.

You know, every opposition party yesterday called for a public inquiry, so let's see what we can do to make that happen.

This was not easy for me. I struggled with this as I struggle with everything. As an elected official, I believe fundamentally that if you are not struggling most of the time, you're not doing your job well. When we have hard situations we have to think about them. We have to ponder them and have to consider the implications of every decision we make, not only for our careers, but most importantly for the lives of Canadians.

So I think this is quite frustrating to be here. I know that we're getting close to one o'clock. I don't know if we're going to continue. I do want to say to the committee that I'm not interested in seeing other committees shut down. So that's just some food for thought. Our work is really important here, but I don't think any committee's work is less important and we need to be mindful of that. Maybe the clerk could let us know, if we were to extend, how many other committees would be cancelled. I guess the other thing is that I see in our meeting notice for Thursday that this will be the issue that we'll be talking about again. So I would just like that confirmed, that one Thursday we will continue on this.

I also want to just speak to the fact that we do have important work to be doing in this committee. We're talking about the election boundaries for future federal elections. We have people who want to talk about the concerns they have about the ridings they represent or ridings they feel connected to. We need to be doing that work. So I hope we can get through this part to the next step.

I am not trying to make a big play. I think everybody at this table knows that I am not a person who comes here to play partisan politics, Superman-like. We definitely all have people like that. I am not that person. I want a reasonable solution to a very complex and hard question and issue and situation. I also want there to be some sort of transparency so that Canadians can be assured. They need to know that their institutions work for them. They need to know that when there are comments about the institutions not working for them, we will make sure that they do work for them. We all know that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that misinformation being used by foreign entities that want to undermine our democratic ability to govern ourselves and to break down fundamentally the well-being and connection of our communities is happening. We've heard of it many times where false groups are made up on different forms of social media. They engage people who have particular fears. They ramp up those fears and then bad things happen in the community as a result of that.

We need to take this seriously because if we have people coming into our communities and talking to folks and making them more afraid so that they don't participate in our democratic situation...which is why I will also remind this table that I brought up again and again that we want to make sure that rural and remote communities have access to good information. We know that papers, local papers, are struggling profoundly across this country and they provide good information, as opposed to just social media posts with unknown sources.

We know that ethnic communities are targeted. We know that indigenous communities are targeted. We need to make sure that those issues are dealt with. I stood in the House and asked for unanimous consent to get that happening. I didn't get that unanimous consent. I'm hoping in this committee we can be talking about that.

These things all matter. It is our democracy, and our democracy is reflective of how our communities are doing. If our communities are being ripped apart by false information, by foreign interference, we have an obligation as members of Parliament to take that seriously. Unfortunately, we're put in a situation where there are so many leaks that we have to do something.

I don't want to be here. I don't want to be bringing staff in. But we must take action. We cannot sit here and not take action, when Canadians are saying to us very clearly, “We don't believe these systems are strong enough. We don't believe the government is being transparent. We want action and we want answers”.

I will do my job, and I hope that everyone around this table will also do their job.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I want to answer a couple of things.

This morning at 9:33, I received a message to say that they had received the report on the motion that was passed last week and could I be in the House at 10 a.m.? I acknowledged that message at 9:45 a.m. It's unrealistic for me to be in the House to present a report with that kind of notice. I take my role very seriously, and I think you can tell by my decorum in this meeting in keeping people moving along that I do.

That report will be presented tomorrow. As I have always done, the people on the subcommittee will know when I'm presenting the reports. I have always provided that courtesy. It's happened up until now and it will continue to happen unless I provide notice otherwise. Stay tuned for the report. It will be presented in the House tomorrow if everything goes well.

On the concept of resources, I have been given a signal that we have resources until about two o'clock today. There's agreement from all members, all parties in the House, that we are adjourning the day after question period because we have a guest speaker tonight in the House of Commons. That's the agreement of the House. You can speak to them. There's an address at 6:30 p.m. tonight. You need to be in your seats by 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Cooper, I'm going to finish speaking because that's how it works here.

Because there is an appetite for this conversation, if need be, we will continue this conversation. It's important that we have the space for it. I think I've demonstrated that. On Thursday, we have a minister confirmed, but we will try to find a way that will work best with all members. I will have those conversations to figure it out.

Members have to remember that, as chair, I do have some abilities. I have not tried to abuse them. I have used them very respectfully, and I will continue to do that. At some point, there needs to be an understanding that there might be some women in this House who also know the rules. To the women in the House following me today, I'm sorry you don't get to have lunch with me, but you will get lunch. I look forward to spending some time with you later because we need.... Committees sometimes have to continue, and when we have resources, we need them to continue. It's really important work. I'm sure you're noticing that with the tone and temperament of this conversation.

Mrs. Blaney, I just wanted to answer your questions.

With that, Madame Gaudreau has been waiting very patiently. We will be going past one o'clock clearly.

The floor is yours, Madame Gaudreau.

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

Chair, if I may speak before Madame Gaudreau begins, we've been advised that as far as—