She only attended once, but she still can't tell me what she learned, because it's confidential.
Things have been said about the work of the committee. Its work is said to be secret, and apparently there have been secret deals, so there's a whiff of espionage to it all.
But that's not true. Every year, the committee must submit a report to the Prime Minister that includes the reviews conducted in the previous year. The committee may also issue a special report at any time on any matter within its mandate. That's important, because all Canadians can go to the committee's website and see the reports it has tabled. Of course, they're partially redacted, since the committee works on classified matters, but it is important.
Former senator the honourable Vernon White had given an interview in English.
As to the question on reports, people may mention that these are secret meetings, that secret committees meet and nobody knows what is happening and that nobody can question whether the members on this committee know anything about the subject matter. He said, in response to the work done at the NSICOP committee, that this committee works. He said:
If you haven't, I think you should go back in the India report. Read it. I don't think anybody read that report and left there saying, “I don't know what happened.” I think everybody left there saying, “I do know what happened and there are some things I'm not allowed to see.” That's life. You're never going to get it all. That's the way this is going to be, no matter who does it. But I think NSICOP will be quicker than a public inquiry [and] a hell of a lot cheaper than a public inquiry....
The reason I bring this up is there are many ways to go about getting information on foreign interference in our elections.
Again, I'm going back to Ms. Blaney's comment about intention and impact. If the intention is to strengthen our system to deter and counter foreign interference in our elections, there are many avenues to take. Maybe it is a combination of those tactics. Maybe it is the naming of a special rapporteur; the work this committee is doing; the work of NSICOP, SITE and the panel; or parliamentarians from across Canada providing their input, giving suggestions and flagging issues.
As I said, if candidates see things during an election and Canadians are aware of things, having those mechanisms in place makes this a team Canada effort. Canadians want to know they can be part of the solution. They take it as seriously as we all do. Rather than fighting among each other for a gotcha moment, we can combine all of these tools at our disposal to tap into what Canadians know, what candidates know and what political parties know.
That's where this amendment comes in. It's inviting the national campaign directors not just of two parties but of each recognized party. That also includes the NDP and the Bloc in the conversation. What are they seeing? What have they seen? What recommendations do they think we should put in place to combat this? That's why I think it's incredibly important for this to be a team Canada approach.
The involvement of the 2019 and 2021 national campaign managers from each party represented in the House of Commons was very clearly inclusive, as was the security clearance obtained for representatives of each party.
Earlier, I mentioned it was important to have the required security clearance to share information confidentially. I also talked about the importance of listening to members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the rapporteur, members of this committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, so that we have the information and recommendations we need to strengthen our system.
This is a bit like what we heard regarding what intelligence is. Intelligence isn't evidence, so we're going to take the pieces of those tools, and with them together, the rapporteur will be able to provide feedback.
I don't doubt that when we talk about intent and impact.... I like to believe in the good of parliamentarians and that everyone wants to...that the intent is in the right place. We want to make sure that our systems are in place so that foreign state actors do not cast doubt and do not make Canadians turn on their democratic institutions.
We also have to be mindful of the way that we do it, so that the impact does not amplify the anxiety that this issue can bring. It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to be mindful of that impact. Sure, I could say, “Bring everything out in the open and put everything out there.” Not only would the Government of China have access to information, but so would Russia, Iran and other state actors.
I had the pleasure of serving on the national defence committee for my first mandate. I had the chance to go to NORAD in Winnipeg and be briefed on issues of national security when it comes to NORAD and NATO. They weren't classified briefings, Madam Chair, so I can speak to this. I can attest that these conversations are happening with our Five Eyes partners. We need to trust that those who work in the field of intelligence-gathering know what they're doing. I have full trust in the parliamentarians who sit on NSICOP.
As I've said before, when we talk about impact, my concerns are that, if we were to do something that put at risk our relationship with Five Eyes and those who work in the intelligence community.... Who would want to work with Canada, knowing that we were very cavalier with issues of national security? Who would want to join the Canadian Armed Forces and work in a domain where national security was not taken seriously? The impact of what we do may have unintended consequences.
I don't think there is a cookie-cutter response to this. I really don't. It will be a combination of tools in the tool kit. I think we will know in the next couple of days—in fact, I don't think; I know we will know—who the special rapporteur will be.
As soon as we know who the rapporteur is, I hope we can continue this discussion in a respectful and collaborative manner. I also hope that we will show that we clearly understand the major consequences our decisions or actions can have.
I hope that the members of this committee will continue to think about recommendations to improve the system we currently have.
Complementing the work that NSICOP will do and complementing any other actions that are taken—whether it be from the rapporteur's recommendations, from the panel, from SITE, from Elections Canada or from the commissioner of elections—there are many actors around the table trying to reach that common objective.
As I said earlier today, if the common objective that we all claim we have is there and it is about detecting, deterring and countering foreign interference, many parliamentarians have been here longer than me. Many may have worked in the field of police or intelligence–gathering or international relations, as we heard from MP Vandenbeld earlier today, and have a wealth of expertise in that. I really, truly think and truly believe that, if we were to combine forces in terms of all these actions that we can take and information that we can gather and recommendations that can come forward, we can come to some really great recommendations on a united front.
The reality is that this is not going to diminish. Foreign interference or attempts at foreign interference will continue. We need to be proactive in this regard. We need to not fight amongst each other. Quite frankly, if I were the People's Republic of China, I'm sure I'd be giggling with glee right now, watching Canadian politicians and people fight about this rather than focus on them.
With that, Madam Chair, I know that quite a few people would like to get some words in. I do ask members to reflect on what Ms. Blaney said about intention and impact. I think those are two really important words, and we need to be mindful of them.
Thank you very much.