Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure to be back on PROC. As some of you will remember, I was on this committee in the 42nd Parliament. This is a committee that, certainly in the time I was on it, did some really good work. Part of the reason for that is that this committee has always been full of members who really put the institution first. I think there's a bit of a lack of that right now. We as legislators are the front line of democracy. We are the ones who have to look at safeguarding the institution and the processes.

Many of you know that before I got into politics I was working internationally on democratic development and parliamentary strengthening. I worked with UNDP's global program on parliamentary strengthening. I worked with OSCE in very difficult places, where legislative oversight of the security sector was very difficult, such as Bosnia and Kosovo. We developed some best practices.

What I'm concerned about today is the way in which and the venues through which this kind of oversight is happening, where it should happen and where it shouldn't. We anticipated things like this election interference or, might I even say, interference in our democratic processes writ large. As many of you know, I'm a member of SDIR, of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I was chair of that committee when we studied the Uighurs, and, as many of you know, China has sanctioned not only the members of that subcommittee, because of the report saying that what was happening to the Uighurs was a genocide, but also the entire committee.

Yes, I want the committee to know where I'm coming from. This is a very serious issue, and I don't think there's anybody here who doesn't take this issue very seriously, whether we're talking about interference by China, by Russia, by Iran or by anybody else, or interference in our entire democratic process, including our own committees and our own committee processes. That's just to tell you where I'm coming from as someone who has been sanctioned by China.

Having said that, I think we need to look at where the best place is to have these conversations. Obviously the Canadian public, everybody, would love to know what our intelligence institutions, our executive branch of government and our cabinet knew, when they knew it, how they knew it and what they did about it. Do you know who else would like to know that? China. China would love to know what we knew, what we didn't know, how we found that out and, more importantly, what we did about it. These are not things that can be talked about in a public and open forum.

However, this is a dilemma that legislatures all around the world have. You can go online and find numerous reports of the United Nations development program of OSCE, or of DCAF, the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, that talk about best practices with respect to where the best place is for legislative branches, for people like you and me, for members of Parliament to oversee these kinds of things. If in a public committee like this one, or in a public inquiry, we call, let's say, Katie Telford or any other government official and ask them about classified materials, we know ahead of time that they won't be able to answer about anything that's classified.

Then the answer has to be, “I can't discuss that. I'm not at liberty to say. That is classified.” We know ahead of time that we're putting them in that position. I can't imagine why as parliamentarians we would want to put officials into a position where they have to either break the law or be in contempt of Parliament or look like they're obfuscating.

The only reason to do that is if you want it to look as though they're obfuscating, if you want it to look as though they're covering up something. Even if those people who testify have all the answers that could explain everything and would actually make them look very good, they can't talk about it, so why, if it were about the institution, as I know this committee has always been—if it were really about protecting our democratic processes—would we put officials in that kind of position, unless it was to try to make them look bad and to try to make it look as though there is something to hide?

In that case, trying to make it look as though there's something to hide and casting doubt on people's faith in the processes, in the integrity of our democratic system—I'll be very honest—is something that would probably make China very happy. Then the question becomes what we do about it. If not here, if not in public, how is it that we as legislators...? It is very legitimate for legislators to have the right to oversee everything the government does.

Even more importantly, I've worked in very fragile states. I've worked in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the president has his own republican guard that has absolutely no oversight by any civilian or other body, and I know how important it is that legislative branches are able to do this. There are entire reports of DCAF and UNDP that cite NSICOP as a global best practice as to how legislators can oversee the security sector. That's why I feel as though, yes, we anticipated this, and, yes, we know.... I don't think there's anybody who doesn't believe that other countries make attempts to undermine democratic processes. We are in a world today where the split is not east-west as it was in the Cold War, or right-left. The split is not north-south. The real divide in the world today is democracy and authoritarianism. Authoritarian states are learning from one another. They are working together. I see colleagues here who are on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. We know that full well, because we hear testimony day in and day out.

Right now, we're hearing from women in Iran and we're hearing about what authoritarian states do to their citizens. That divide is something about which we have to be very, very careful. Canada has always been a bit protected in history because of our geographic boundaries. We have a democratic country to the south and essentially oceans around the rest, so in a world where the dangers are geographic, where wars happen through physical contact across borders, Canada has always been a bit protected. The problem today is that while warfare is happening, obviously, physically, the real danger right now is hybrid warfare. The real danger is cyberwarfare.

The problem with that—I heard just last week that China has an entire military wing on cognitive domain operations—is that it is something and it's not new. Russia has always had propaganda. If you talk to people in places like Estonia and Lithuania, they say they've always known; they've had that critical thinking because they've always known that was there.

Our problem, because we have been somewhat innocent throughout our history and because Canada hasn't been subject to having nefarious actors on its borders, is that we don't live along a geopolitical fault line like the Balkans, which is a place, as I said, I've spent several years working in. Therefore, we haven't necessarily anticipated it enough over the last number of decades, but the fact is that they can get right into our living room. They can get right into our child's device or our phones. This is a real threat, and I want the public who might be listening today to know that absolutely, we take that threat very, very seriously.

Having sat now for seven and a half years on the government side, I have seen how seriously we have taken that threat. As someone who has been sanctioned by both China and Russia, I know personally that this is something we should not take lightly, but I'm not seeing this being taken seriously as a threat in the discourse that has been happening over the last few weeks. What I'm seeing is—and you've seen it—even today, former senator Hugh Segal talking about “gotcha” politics. There seems to be an interest in trying to make it look as though one party over another is not taking it seriously.

Frankly, I found it really difficult to sit in the House the last few weeks and hear suggestions that as legislators, as Canadians, we're not acting in the best interests of our country, because I believe fully—and I've always been an MP who has worked very closely across party lines—that if we sit and work together, we can have the processes that allow for legislative oversight.

NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, was created for exactly this kind of situation—so that it can be depoliticized, so that opposition members can have secret clearances that will allow them to get access to things that, in almost every other country, only the executive branch would have access to. You have members from both houses, from the House of Commons and the Senate. You have members of all the recognized opposition parties and government members present who work in the way that, I think, Parliament should always work, where you are looking at the national interest first and where you put aside your party hat and actually work to make sure that, where there are changes that need to be made, you can make those changes.

Are the processes perfect? No. In fact, NSICOP itself has put together a number of recommendations over the years about how these processes can be improved. The fact is that you have a place where you can ask those questions, where you can get the secret information, where somebody who comes to testify can actually offer what they know and can offer that secret information in an environment where even the opposition is present.

That committee can then make reports that are ultimately made public. That committee can make reports that will not say, “This is what the government knew and this is how they knew it and this is the person who told them,” because this could put a lot of people in danger. Instead, it makes reports that say, “We've had access to the materials. The government gave us full access—or didn't give us full access. The government acted—or didn't act—on the materials that it was given,” and then it makes that available to the public.

In fact, what that does is make it so that you have incentives for the government to ensure that it is providing those materials. This is a committee that is actually almost unique in the world. A number of reports have used Canada and our NSICOP as a case study, because, as you can imagine, there are a lot of governments out there that don't want to give secret information to opposition members. This is something that we probably would have put in place if we could have seen ahead exactly what's happening right now with these allegations of election interference. If we had actually looked ahead and said, “We need to create something that will involve a process whereby we can actually respond to this,” NSICOP would be precisely the committee we would have created.

The U.K. has intelligence and security agencies. The U.K. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament can scrutinize other bodies that form part of the management and structure of the U.K. intelligence community, including things like the Joint Intelligence Organisation, the National Security Secretariat, the Cabinet Office, the office for security and counterintelligence and the Home Office. It's not quite structured in the same way ours is. In fact, it's more like our Liaison Committee. It has the chairs of other parliamentary committees on it.

If you look, for instance, at Spain, they have a commission on the Congress of Deputies. I won't go into details about all of that, but I can just give some examples of what other countries have. In France, for instance, they have the Parliamentary Delegation for Intelligence, which also is a bicameral parliamentary committee. It has eight members. It's responsible for monitoring the performance of the French intelligence agencies, and it can take testimony from the Prime Minister, ministers and heads of agencies, and call for papers.

In the U.S., they have the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In fact, in Australia, in 2017, they did an entire report on the Five Eyes, and they actually said what the Five Eyes, including Canada, do when it comes to legislative oversight of the security sector. That was right after NSICOP was first formed, and they listed what Canada was doing in a very positive light and had some recommendations for going forward.

We talked already about the U.S. and the U.K., but it also talks about New Zealand and Australia.

In Australia, the six agencies that comprise the intelligence community are overseen by a parliamentary committee that examines their administration and expenditure. That's a bit of a different role, because of course we have different mechanisms in committees that oversee expenditures of the intelligence, security and defence sectors.

I'll probably come back to this a bit later, but as you can see, there are a number of different examples around the world of this kind of thing. New Zealand, in 2017, created something whereby the security agencies are overseen by a parliamentary committee that can look at policy, administration and expenditure. If you look at some of these international examples, every one of them talks about Canada and says why Canada has one of the best practices.

Looking at the permanent members of this committee, I just don't understand why, when we have one of the best mechanisms to do exactly what needs to be done right now, which is legislative oversight in a space that does not put at risk any of our security agencies or any of our intelligence operatives—that does not reveal to adversaries in the world exactly what we know, how we know it and what we don't know—we are having this almost deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic kind of debate about whether it should be a public inquiry or whether it should be here at PROC. The fact is that we have the mechanism.

That's one of the reasons I wanted to come today. Many of you know that I did work internationally. There are numerous reports that I could talk about, but what many people don't know is that, in between, I also worked in the House leader's office under the Paul Martin government. In 2004, one of the things many of you might know is that Paul Martin gave a speech at Osgoode Hall, when he was running for leadership.

At that time, one of the key platforms in his leadership campaign was democratic reform, strengthening the legislative branch vis-à-vis the executive branch. As we have all seen and as is now well documented, over decades the executive branch and the Prime Minister's Office in Canada have gained more power vis-à-vis the legislative branch. One of the things Paul Martin wanted to do was to create a democratic reform action plan that would rebalance and give more power to the legislative branch.

At that time, I was in the Liberal research bureau, and I happened to be the researcher for the Liberal democracy caucus. A lot of the ideas in that Osgoode Hall speech actually came from the democracy caucus.

One of those ideas was to create a national security oversight committee of parliamentarians. That's something we were talking about already in 2002, and then, in 2003 and 2004, when Paul Martin first became prime minister, he established the first-ever minister of democratic reform. It happened at that time that it was also the House leader. We've had some phenomenal ministers of democratic reform and House leaders since then.

I was then brought in. I was director of parliamentary affairs in that office of the House leader and minister of democratic reform. Specifically, my role was to work with the Senate, with the House of Commons, with PROC at the time, with parliamentarians and with civil society experts to help to turn those ideas that he had put forward during his leadership campaign into an actual action plan. We worked with PCO and actually did get through cabinet and table in the House of Commons a democratic reform action plan. This was in February 2004. It included the national security committee.

I will read you the bullet of what the recommendation was. It stated, “The government will seek the support of Parliament to create a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians. Members would be sworn-in as Privy Councillors so they could be briefed on national security issues.” The one thing we haven't done is swear in members as privy councillors, which is something we can all maybe have a conversation about, because there is always room for improvement. The fact is, though, that was in February 2004. I have been working on this file for 20 years.

We started working on this when I was in LRB in 2002, and then in 2004 we created this democratic reform action plan. Unfortunately, there was an election shortly after, and when we went into a minority government, a lot of these things didn't actually happen, but what is the first thing we did in 2015 when we formed government? We created NSICOP. We created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and in the interim I was working overseas, working specifically on parliamentary oversight, on strengthening legislative branches.

This is precisely the kind of work that I have literally been doing for 20 years, and so I guess I'm a little disappointed, because I was very proud when we created NSICOP. I was actually very proud that Canada created something like that, because this issue of interference is not going away.

I know that for a lot of Canadians it's something they're only reading about in the newspapers right now, but for those of us who have been working in this sector—and also when I was parliamentary secretary for defence, which includes oversight of CSE—for 20 years or more, this is not something that is new. It's not something that is not anticipated, and it's something that we—certainly I, both in Canada and in countries around the world—have been working very hard for decades to find processes whereby we can resolve that dilemma of how to have oversight of things that are secret.

How do you have the legislative branch of elected parliamentarians—who are responsible for overseeing the government and representing citizens—have that at the same time as knowing that certain things have to be classified and certain processes cannot be made public?

I have more to say, Madam Chair, and I might get on the list for later, because what I'd like to do is actually talk about some of the recommendations from some of these reports over the years that, in fact, have exactly what Canada has done. We have the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, which says it must have the authority to conduct inquiries and interrogate members and senior officials of the security sector, to be able to deal with a specialized committee, preferably a permanent or standing committee that is resourced, that has members who demonstrate strong commitment and expertise—which I actually think our NSICOP does—which has sufficient resources, which has adequate time and personnel, logistical support, technical support, expertise among the members and membership that is balanced so that their responsibilities are not overextended and they can dedicate sufficient time.

Maybe some of my colleagues will elaborate on this, but I can go through a number of these recommendations over the years and, in fact, that's exactly what Canada is doing. We are recognized globally as being a leader in this.

I guess what I would leave with is that I don't know why—and I haven't been on the committee to follow the debates that led up to this, but when I look at the motion and the amendments, I don't really understand why we are not using NSICOP. In fact, we've gone beyond that, because the Prime Minister has even said, beyond what is the international best practice, that we're going to have a special rapporteur.

People make fun of the word “rapporteur”, which is a little juvenile, to be honest, because it is used everywhere internationally. When the Secretary General of the United Nations wants to send somebody who is going to be independent and who is going to look at all the facts and have access to everything and report back to the Secretary General, they are called a rapporteur. That is the name.

A special rapporteur will then look at all of the reports, including the work being done on NSICOP—the security committee of parliamentarians—and look at NSIRA, which is a different kind of review—an expert review by independent experts who are able to look at the security sector, which is another thing that has been put into place—and then say, “Okay, I've looked at it all and I don't believe that NSICOP is able to do this. I don't believe that NSIRA is able to do this. I think there's more here. I think we do need a public inquiry, because the government isn't doing what it's meant to do. The processes that are in place aren't working.”

The Prime Minister has said that in that case, he would be open to a public inquiry, but the fact is I don't think it's going to come to that. Maybe I have a little more faith in some of these processes, and certainly I have faith in the members of NSICOP. We get elected to this place, and one of the things.... I'm a process person, and when I did democratic development overseas, when I worked in Parliament, I was a senior adviser to the Parliament of Kosovo when it became a Parliament. When Kosovo became independent it had a small rubber-stamp assembly that was essentially under the authority of the United Nations mission in Kosovo, so it didn't have any real authority. It was an advisory body that could recommend what to do to the UN mission, which had executive and legislative authority at the time.

When they declared independence, overnight that small rubber-stamp assembly had to become a national Parliament. I was the senior adviser with OSCE to the Parliament of Kosovo when it became a Parliament. When I look at those sorts of things and I look at what we put in place in terms of best practices, I would say that the Kosovo assembly probably still has a ways to go. In fact, it could use Canada's model, but the fact is these are the kinds of things that Canadians are going around the world and working on.

I will go through some of the international best practices, because I think it it is important that Canadians understand that nothing is perfect.

We can always learn and improve on the processes we have in place. When I look at NSICOP, I truly think the result of the rapporteur is going to be that we have processes in place, that NSICOP does it. We as MPs want to make the country better. Certainly, when I got elected, I believed very firmly in Canadian democracy. I believe it is resilient. Yes, of course there are many others; there are authoritarians out there who don't want Canada to be strong and resilient in its democratic institutions, and it is our institutions that make us resilient.

When I got elected, I came here with the idea of making this place more democratic, making it function better. One of the first things I did, partly because of the work that I did overseas, but also having been a staff member in the House leader's office, having been a staff member who did all the research for MPs and gave them materials that they could then use and make decisions from—and, by the way, let me tell you the staff of our committees are phenomenal. I don't think any of us would be here and able to do what we do if it weren't for our staff. Having been in that position, after getting elected I wanted to use the voice and incredible privilege of being a parliamentarian to make this place better, and that is something that I still feel very strongly. I see members even on the other side who actually became members of the all-party democracy caucus in the 42nd Parliament.

The reason I reached out across the aisle to create a democracy caucus was specifically that I know there are members, some of whom are process-oriented like me, who really see the institutions and the limitations of the institutions and oversight of the executive and see the threat over decades that has been widely documented, where executive power has grown in comparison to legislative power. I reached out and we created this all-party democracy caucus which still exists—Elizabeth May is the chair this time, but at that time I was the chair—so we could talk about how to make this place better, so that we could work across party lines and put our parties and hats aside, and the incentives in this place.

If I were coming in as OSCE or UNDP and looking at the way our Parliament functions, our Parliament is actually very top-down compared to some of the ones like Kosovo, where we were able to learn from all over the world and benefit from what works well and doesn't work well. The people of Kosovo created their Parliament, but when we as advisers were able to bring to them some of these practices from around the world, they were able to put some of those in right at the outset.

The fact is that the Canadian Parliament has been here for over 150 years, and some of the things we do are still the way they were 150 years ago, when you had a number of, usually, older white men who would take the train, come here to Ottawa—I'm talking about in the 19th century—and decide amongst themselves what was best for the plebeians across the country. There was very little discussion with constituents. There was very little dialogue. Most of it was people who came here, and they wouldn't be able to go back and forth, given the nature of travel at that time. It was a very centralized Parliament. It was in fact a very masculine and adversarial Parliament, which over the years we've been able to change somewhat, but the fact remains that our Parliament needs to work on that.

The incentives here are more about a “gotcha”. They're more about making the other guy look bad than reaching across the aisle and talking to each other.

Even the physical space in this place.... When I want to talk to a member of the opposition, there's almost nowhere we can go. It used to be that the lobbies where we ate were combined. Peter Milliken will tell you about this. We had our own lobbies, but when we went for our meals, we had to talk to each other. Peter Milliken has said...and I firmly believe we should go back to that, because I can tell you, if I'm going....

Certainly, when I was chair of SDIR, I always tried to fight for consensus. This space right now is not a place where we're fighting for consensus. NSICOP is a place where that can happen. Sadly, in part, it's because the cameras are off. I think a lot of us would say that we're able to talk to each other much better and come to common solutions sometimes, when those cameras are off.

It's not because we're not transparent, but it's because there's such an incentive.... If I'm saying something today, there's a sense of, “We're going to get her, we're going to quote that and we're going to make sure that particular thing she said goes on Facebook or YouTube and makes her look bad.” That's the problem with this place. It is about making the other guy look bad.

I've seen that. The motion that's here today.... A lot of this is about making the other party look bad, but the fact is that's not why we got elected. I don't think that's why any of us got elected in the first place. I think we want to work together.

By the way, if you want to look at models of committees that work well together, look at the status of women committee. I'm not an essentialist. I don't think women are by nature somehow better, but the fact is that the status of women committee has had almost entirely consensus reports. It's a committee in which sometimes, when we're talking and asking questions, you wouldn't know who is in what party.

The other one is the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I think it's because the members of that subcommittee, when we're looking at these kinds of global threats, are looking at them from one place, which is that we are all Canadian. We're looking at them as Canadians and where our place is vis-à-vis other countries that want to do harm to our democratic processes and, frankly, to human rights defenders who find sanctuary here in Canada.

I believe that this particular discussion is better off happening in a place where you're not always talking to the camera and you're not always trying to do “gotchas”. If a good idea comes forward, but it comes from another party, you have to shoot it down just because it's coming from another party.

Sadly, the incentive structure in this place.... There are things we can do, and I could go on about what we can do to make that a bit better, but I think looking at something like NSICOP is precisely the way we can do that.

I'll give you an example. When I was parliamentary secretary for national defence, and covering the CSE as well, I naively saw an NSICOP report that was rather critical.

By the way, look at the NSICOP reports, because a lot of them are actually very critical of the government.

I was getting briefs. I looked at this report, and my first instinct was to go to one of our Liberal members who was on the NSICOP committee and say, “What are you doing? Why didn't you come and talk to us?” She got very defensive and said, “That's not what NSICOP is about. We don't take our direction from the minister's office, or from the parliamentary secretary for that matter. We are an independent committee. We do our work very much according to the evidence and across party lines, but we don't have a parliamentary secretary sitting on the committee, asking us questions about why we're doing it.” She was very resentful that I even did that. I learned my lesson at that time, because I realized that this is something they guard very well.

It's the reason NSICOP is powerful and that it works. It's because the members of the committee take it very seriously that they are independent and that they do not work on behalf of the government or their party. Frankly, I think it would be better if more committees were like that in this place.

I am going to go through some of the things in some of these international recommendations, because I actually think Canadians need to know. Canadians need to know that we have put in place—and it took us a long time, as I said. We put it forward in 2004, and we didn't put it in place until...I think it was 2016, when NSICOP was first created, but the fact is we put in place a mechanism for this kind of discussion, to hear these kinds of witnesses.

I'll say, for instance, in 2021, the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, which is colloquially referred to as DCAF—I know many people who think DCAF is funny—

[An hon. member]

Like decaf coffee?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Decaf coffee—right. I can assure members that this is not decaf. I don't think I could talk this long if I had decaf.

I know many people who have worked for DCAF. When I was in Kosovo, they relied very significantly on the Balkans in that period of time, when there was a transition, not only post-conflict, after the war in Yugoslavia, but also post-communist, because these were countries that were going through a transition from communism. It wasn't a matter of restoring a democracy; the democracy had never existed. When I was in Kosovo and trying to ensure that the parliament of Kosovo became a national parliament, it wasn't to recreate something that had existed before the war, but to build it from scratch.

DCAF is known around the world, with some of the best security experts, intelligence experts and parliamentary experts. Many of the people I worked with when I was in Kosovo had either worked at DCAF or went to work with DCAF afterward, and a lot of the best practices that we had were taken from this institute. I would encourage members to go on its website and look at some of the reports from over the years, because I'm not here just trying to say NSICOP is perfect and it's the only mechanism we need. The fact is there are ways we could improve NSICOP significantly, and we need to look at some of these comparative reports, look at what's worked in other countries, look at what hasn't worked in other countries and look at unintended consequences of creating certain processes and institutions, especially among the Five Eyes, because we have very similar security interests.

Might I say that we're in a position, in Canada, where we are asking for classified information in public settings. It's going to be harmful, not only in terms of some of the people out there who work in the security sector, who risk their lives for Canada, but also in terms of danger to other members of the Five Eyes. We need to think about what it is that we want to air publicly when we are a member of the Five Eyes. We have an alliance. When we're sworn in, when somebody is sworn to secrecy.... There is a list of people who are allowed to get information from the Five Eyes, and there are parliamentarians on that list, and I worry about the impact that might have.

Again, going to international best practices, I'm not saying that we can't oversee it. I would be the first to say that, because I've seen countries in which the security sector, behind the veil of secrecy, does tremendous overreach, and I've seen places where people can disappear.

I have a very, very good friend now, someone who at the time was a constituent, who was picked up in the Democratic Republic of Congo by the Republican Guard. He was at the airport. This was before I was elected. I was working at that time with the National Democratic Institute, which is another organization that does incredible work on parliaments and parliamentary strengthening. When I was in the Democratic Republic of Congo, this person from my riding, whom I knew well, who had been working with the opposition at the time, was on his way back to Canada. He was a Canadian citizen.

He went through security at the airport, and he was on the phone with his family. All of a sudden they heard something that sounded like he was being physically grabbed or taken, and then his phone went off. They checked on the flight, and he wasn't on the flight. That was, it turns out, the Republican Guard, which responds only to the president, at that time President Kabila. My friend had been picked up, and there was absolutely no oversight in this case. Because I knew him when I ran in 2011 and I had also been the head of NDI, I got a call from his family in my riding. At that time—and I have to give him credit—I called John Baird, because he was the MP. I had run against him in 2011, and he had won.

Again, here's an example. When it comes to things that matter in terms of the security and safety of Canadians, you can work across party lines. To his credit, John Baird immediately contacted our embassy, which put in a query to find out what had happened to this young man.

The first 24 hours are always absolutely critical. When I was working in Congo, we all knew that if people disappeared, after the first 24 hours you wouldn't see them again. Because the government at the time, which was the Conservative government, acted so quickly and John Baird acted so quickly, they did produce him. They put him in a prison. There's a book about this, by the way, Noël en prison, if you want to read it. They put him in prison and they charged him with insulting a general or something like that. Fortunately, because of the Canadian government's pushing, several weeks later, after a horrible experience, he was able to come back home to Canada.

The reason I'm talking about this is that I have seen first-hand what happens in countries where the security sector doesn't have oversight, where you don't have mechanisms and where, for those that represent the public, members of Parliament and security oversight agencies, there is a secret veil. I am the last person on earth, having seen this first-hand, having been sanctioned by China and Russia, who would ever say that we want to bury these things or that we don't want processes that are going to protect against the overreach of the security sector.

Look at everything I've done, not just as a parliamentarian but in my career, right from when I was a student. I was in the civil liberties association of Alberta when I was a grad student at the University of Calgary. I have been talking about the potential for overreach under the veil of secrecy and national security throughout my career. I feel comfortable, as somebody who is coming from that position, that NSICOP right now is the best place. It has the tools and the mechanisms to get access to secret materials. It has opposition members on it. That is the best place.

I would also say that we probably could improve it. I'm not here wearing a partisan hat. I'm here wearing the hat of what is best for our country. Back in 2002 and 2004, we suggested—in fact it was approved by cabinet at the time—that members of NSICOP be sworn in to the Privy Council and that they have access to cabinet materials. I would probably be the first to say that's something we may want to look at in order to strengthen the process. I'm not here because I'm parroting the government line or because I'm a Liberal member. There's a lot of cynicism out there. I hope my constituents at least know, and I think opposition members know, at least those whom I've worked with on committees, that if something's good for Canada, I don't care who gets credit.

I'm willing to push the envelope a bit on what our government is doing, put forward good ideas and fight for those good ideas in order to make the processes better, because at the end of the day I'm a process person. I firmly believe if the processes and the institutions function well, then you will end up with good results. I still firmly believe that our processes and our institutions function well. I have no doubt about the resilience and the strength of Canadian democracy. I think that we can maybe improve it. Like I said, if NSICOP were able to be sworn in and get access to those kinds of cabinet materials, to be sworn in as privy councillors, again, that would be unprecedented in the world.

First of all, we have a committee through which we allow top secret information to get to committee members and to members of the opposition unfettered. I can tell you, having worked in many places in the world, that if I had suggested as an international expert that they create a committee and allow members from the opposition access, I probably would have been kicked out of the country persona non grata, because they would have said there was absolutely no way they could ever do this, let alone swear them in and give them access to cabinet materials.

It comes down to trust a bit, and our government has trusted the opposition members who are on that committee. You saw some of the former members of the committee. Vern White was in the newspaper this week. I have exactly what he said. He said it is “BS”—that was the term in the newspaper—to say this isn't a committee that works well. He told CBC's The House, “Our work was done unfettered, totally unfettered.”

Here you have a senator from the opposition who is saying exactly the same thing that my colleague said to me when I was the parliamentary secretary. I tried to talk to her, as a parliamentary secretary, and she pushed back.

I would venture that all of the members of that committee want to make sure they are using the committee responsibly. We are trusting opposition members with top secret information, and I think we could use a bit of trust back.

We, as members of the government side, are fighting every day for Canada. We are putting in everything we have to do what is in the best interests of Canada. The fact that we've created that committee, which allows the opposition to have that kind of information, to be able to ask those kinds of questions and get those answers, suggests that we also believe that the opposition members are fighting in the interests of Canada as well.

Like I said, I meant to go through some of these international best practices. I care so much about this issue that I haven't even gotten to that, but let me go through one of the reports. It's called “The Contribution of Parliaments to Sustainable Development Goal 16 Through Security Sector Governance and Reform”, linking good security sector governance to SDG16.

For those of you who don't know what SDG16 is.... As many of you know, I'm the parliamentary secretary for international development now, so the SDGs are fundamental. However, I was also working at the UN when they called them millennium development goals, because we hoped we would achieve some of these by the millennium, or by 2015. The SDGs are the sustainable development goals, and these are things that, hopefully, we'll be able to achieve by 2030, although with COVID.... I call them the three Cs: conflict, COVID and climate.

There's a crisis happening in the world that is making it much harder to achieve those sustainable development goals, but the one that's relevant to the discussion today is SDG16, which says that we “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels”.

This is the one that specifically addresses what I've been talking about today, which is those institutional processes. This report from 2021 talks about a number of recommendations. It's a long report, so I'm going to talk only briefly about the key recommendations, but some of my colleagues can elaborate on that a bit later.

The first recommendation is to:

Ensure that committees possess sufficient authority to fulfil their SSG/R—

That is the security sector governance and reform, but I'll say “SSG/R” because it's easier.

—oversight functions, to contribute to SDG 16. This includes the authority to conduct inquiries, interrogate members of the executive and senior officials in the security sector, and conduct site inspections; and implies broad access to information, with any exceptions based on national security concerns limited as much as possible.

That last bit about the exceptions that are based on national security being limited as much as possible, I think, is really the crux of the division that we have today. Are those exceptions limited too much, or are those exceptions reasonable? I would say that in an environment like this, those exceptions have to be in place.

We cannot have discussions about classified materials in an open setting like this. To a certain extent we can, but as it says here, those exceptions have to be based on national security concerns and have to be limited, whereas having a committee like NSICOP does allow for those.

In fact I don't know if there are exceptions as to which materials NSICOP can access. I think they're able to summon papers and all of the things it says here. They're able to conduct inquiries. They're able to interrogate members of the executive and senior officials in the security sector. I'm not sure if they've ever done site inspections. That's something I would have to ask the members, or maybe they wouldn't tell me because they really guard the process.

I would imagine if they wanted to do a site inspection, I know for a fact that as members of Parliament we can go to any military base in Canada and we're allowed access, something that actually, during the Harper years, was denied to members of Parliament. When we came to power, we actually said that as members of Parliament we should be allowed to go to a military base and, within reason, visit it and see it. Again I think our government has actually opened things up significantly from what was the case under the previous Harper government. I might go into some of those details later, but I really want to stick to the crux of the motion here today. Maybe on another day I can elaborate on some of those things. Conducting site inspections is something MPs have a right to do, and I would imagine NSICOP does too—although I don't know of any examples of where they have done that—and that implies broad access to information.

That is precisely NSICOP. That is precisely what that National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is there to do. I would say that for the most part, recommendation number one is something that we have here in Canada. One of the things, as I said before, is that they don't have access to cabinet documents. Again I think there are pros and cons to that, but certainly if this committee, by the way, were to take on an issue that would actually have tremendous impact.... If I were still on the committee, I might suggest that we talk about how we can make committees like NSICOP stronger. It might be by hearing from other countries around the world about their processes. Also, maybe there's room to hear from experts on what might be the intended and unintended consequences of swearing in the members of NSICOP to the Privy Council and giving them access to cabinet materials. That's something I would say would be a good role for this committee, whereas what's being discussed in this committee now would be better done in NSICOP, which might even be strengthened based on the recommendations from this committee. As I said, when I was on this committee, we did tremendous work.

We did the entire family-friendly Parliament study. Once again, we weren't trying to make the other side look bad. When a good idea came from others—and I remember it was David Christopherson who was on the committee for the NDP and there were times when we clashed a bit, but the fact is he had a good idea—we weren't going to turn it down just because it came from the opposition. Frankly he had a lot of good ideas. He had been here a long time and he had a lot of good ideas as to how to make this place work better. If you look at the history of what our Prime Minister has done and what our government has done since 2015, we have consistently tried to open up and consistently tried to make the processes better, but I think that if PROC were to study anything right now, it might be whether or not there are models out there in the world that would be better or improve what we have in NSICOP. The fact is the rest of the world is looking to our model.

We might be a bit hard pressed to find models that are better, but as I said, the members of the U.K. Parliament are all committee chairs. I think that would be more difficult, because one of the recommendations is that members have the time and are able to dedicate themselves to that kind of work. As any of you who know some of our colleagues who are on NSICOP know, it takes so much of their time. It is all-consuming. In fact, sometimes, given the number of hours they sit and the materials and the briefs they have to read through, the members have to have the capacity and the time and not be pulled by being on other committees and certainly not by chairing other committees. I think that would be a little more difficult. In fact in that respect I think we're better than the U.K.

That's recommendation number one.

Then we have the second recommendation here, which is this:

Establish standing committees to oversee the implementation of the [sustainable development goals]. In order to prevent a siloed approach to implementation of the SDGs, parliaments should create specialized committees, preferably permanent or standing committees....

That's exactly what NSICOP is. In fact, we went one further. It's not even a standing committee. It is a specialized committee of parliamentarians, and it's not just the House; it's also the Senate. Because there are senators there, they aren't always looking at how to score a point for the next election. Yes, absolutely, having accountability is vitally important, and we are thinking about how things are going to reflect on us in our constituencies—at least I hope we're all thinking about that—but senators have a bit more of an ability to take a much longer-term approach.

Rather than looking to the next election, senators can look 10, 20 or 30 years ahead. In fact, if we look 10, 20 or 30 years ahead, I think what we're talking about today is going to be the greatest threat. It's not just the hybrid warfare, the interference, the cyber-interference, the influence mechanisms, the cognitive domain and the attempts to undermine democratic processes and pluralism and, I would say, to undermine the very openness of democratic countries that means there is inclusion and that means we have pluralism.

We heard in the SDIR committee just this week that there is a global anti-feminist, anti-human rights, anti-gender narrative that is happening right now, which is being put out there by countries like China, Russia, Iran and many other authoritarian countries. I think that if we look at the long-term view, as the senators on this committee do.... Hopefully we do too. I wouldn't say that none of us are looking 20 or 30 years down the road. I think most of us want to create a better place for our children and grandchildren. If we look at that, I'm very concerned, because I think the hybrid warfare and the threats we face right now aren't just to the elections and aren't just to committees—like I said, our committee was sanctioned by China, so talk about interference in a democratic process. The threats are also to our infrastructure, to our grid, to our communications, to our banking systems, to....

I have the old Nortel campus in my riding. It's now DND, but before DND could move in—and I'm citing media sources; I don't know this first-hand—it was reported that they found all kinds of listening and spyware devices on that campus, because someone was stealing intellectual property.

What we need right now is not this really partisan attack, saying, “That party tried to work with China to manipulate elections.” What we need is a very serious, non-partisan view of what the threats are.

It's not to overstate them, either, because one thing I know, having been the parliamentary secretary for defence, under which the CSE falls, is that I have tremendous respect for the work of our intelligence institutions. Our intelligence agencies, certainly the signals intelligence, are incredibly capable—some of the best in the world.

Yes, we need oversight. Yes, we need to make sure we guard against overreach, but not just overreach. Sometimes it isn't overreach. Sometimes it's that you're so focused on a task that you want to see that task accomplished, so you're not thinking about the transparency.

The fact is that's not the job of our intelligence agents. That's our job as parliamentarians. It's our job as people who obviously care deeply about our democracy, because we ran for office in this democracy. It's our job to make sure we set those limits and the criteria, that we create the balance between transparency and secrecy, so that, to the extent possible, we can ensure there is not overreach on rights.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to bring my mom to the hospital shortly for a minor procedure. She's okay. It's a minor procedure, but it's been almost a year that she's been waiting to get this procedure, so I have to take her to the hospital.

I have to leave in a few minutes, but I want to leave with one last piece. Hopefully, I'll be able to come back and maybe elaborate more, or some of my colleagues can talk more about some of these other recommendations.

I am really concerned about the tone and the nature of what's happening. I think, frankly, that if China was trying to cause people in Canada to lose faith in democracy and in our processes, to turn on each other and to become polarized.... This is what we're doing. I came here today because I really wanted to put on the record that I think we can do better. I think we can work together as parliamentarians, put aside this pointing of fingers and saying.... God, none of us are working with China. Please.

I think that when you take intelligence, which.... By its nature, intelligence is partial. That's why you have to keep on gathering more. With intelligence, if it's partial, it's overheard and it's bits and pieces, you can come to the wrong conclusion, which is why people who work in intelligence rarely come to conclusions. They present it and then it's something that we can look into, try to find evidence and try to find.... When intelligence in its partiality and in its raw form is made public, it can utterly destroy lives.

Just look at Maher Arar. I've worked closely with Monia Mazigh, his wife, over the years. Look at what happens when assumptions are made about an individual person based on intelligence that was not gathered to make that assumption. It was gathered to show...and it continues to be gathered.

When those things happen, as soon as you say that someone is disloyal to this country and as soon as you say that someone is working with foreign agents for a foreign interest—not just that individual, but their families and their communities—their life is ruined, because once you say that about someone, how do you prove a negative? How do you prove that you're not?

I am fortunate. I can go back to my constituency and tell people, first of all, that I am white; I'm of Dutch descent and I am sanctioned by China. I can go back and I can say that, obviously, I'm not working for China, as I've been out there on the Uighurs. However, what if I was Chinese? What if my parents were Chinese? I think people should look at what Minister Ng said in the press conference this week, because the impact on communities in our ridings, when you start taking intelligence and treating it as if it's fact, can be extremely dangerous.

I have spent my life on human rights. This is one of the ways that human rights defenders are discredited. When I worked in other countries, sometimes if I went to the office of a member of Parliament or an elected member there, because I am Canadian they would be accused of operating with Canadians or with foreigners. One time I was accused, when I was with NDI, of being a member of the CIA.

There's distrust. They would say, “Please, let's meet in your office,” because they didn't want the perception that they were meeting with foreigners. This is what is used by authoritarian states to discredit civil society, feminists and LGBTQ activists. They discredit them by saying, “You are are a foreign agent and you're working in the interests of the other.” I don't want Canada to get into a situation in which we're saying those sorts of things.

Again, my mom's appointment is in half an hour.

Frankly, if this committee were to go down that road and start asking questions in public, or if there's an inquiry where these questions.... Sometimes a person might say something, not realizing. It seems like an innocent, small fact, but it might be the little piece that a foreign government was waiting to get that puts everything else together and allows them to clue in to what the whole picture is.

We don't know what is useful to another government. That's why I am exceptionally concerned about the tone and about the nature of the way this debate has been playing out in the House of Commons, in this committee and in the motions before this committee right now.

I think we all need to take a step back. I'm looking at my opposition friends now. Let's remember why we ran. Let's remember what it was that made us want to be members of Parliament. If we do that, we will get to a place where we can work together and get to a place where perhaps this committee can look at how we strengthen the processes that we have, but we'll still use the processes that we have. That's exactly why the NSICOP committee was put in place.

I think this discussion would be much better if it were to happen in a place like NSICOP. That's why we have a rapporteur who will come back to the public to say whether that process is working well or not. He'll come back to the Prime Minister. At that point, if he says it isn't, then we have to look at that again very carefully, but I don't think he will say that.

I think Canadians should have comfort and faith that all of us, as elected members, are working very hard to make sure that our democracy is protected. I can tell you that it's my life's work. It's almost my religion. It is what I'm here for.

Again, I'm getting messages that my mom is waiting for me to take her to the hospital, so I have to go, but I hope that I'll be able to come back. I'm going to also make sure that some of my colleagues have a chance to elaborate on some of these international best practices, because I think it is important that Canadians know that our institutions are strong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Reluctantly, I have to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Vandenbeld, I thank you for your comments, and I wish your mom a good appointment.

Go ahead, Mrs. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Good morning to my colleagues.

I have to say how impressive it was to have my colleague, MP Vandenbeld, here to share her experience in this regard and bring forward such good information on where PROC could look with respect to foreign interference.

I want to touch on something that I've talked a bit about, because, as I mentioned, it's very near and dear to me. I'm looking at the amendment to the motion as amended—the reference to “security-cleared party representatives”—and the importance of security-cleared party representatives. There's been reference that there is no willingness to share information, versus the capacity to share information, and there is a difference. When information is classified, it's not a question of whether we are willing to share it; it's a question of whether it can be shared. There is a very big distinction.

As MP Vandenbeld said, a committee of all parliamentarians was set up a few years back. It has representatives from all parties, as well as senators. As I said previously, I'm incredibly impressed with the calibre of expertise that the members who sit on NSICOP hold. MP Alex Ruff, for instance, served as a colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 25 years and understands intimately the importance of national security and the importance of working with our allies. He is a member of NSICOP. I have no doubts whatsoever that a study of foreign interference held at NSICOP would be taken very seriously and with the utmost of care.

My colleague Mr. Bergeron, from the Montarville riding, which is next to mine, has worked in international affairs. He has my respect and I have great confidence in his abilities.

When we asked the director of CSIS, when he was here, what the impact of classified information being made public would be, he testified that to do so would not only put our relationship with the Five Eyes at risk but put the safety of our intelligence assets around the world at risk.

MP Vandenbeld spoke of that. She referenced a report done by Australia. It's a Five Eyes report. I think it would be helpful if it could be provided to the members of this committee, because I think there's a lot of referenced material that could be beneficial for us in there.

No member of this committee has the necessary clearance to look at classified documents, that I'm aware of. I'm looking around the table, and I don't think any of us has that necessary clearance but that could be one of the questions. Could members of PROC be given the necessary clearance? If the members of this committee were adamant that they wanted to see classified briefings, could members of PROC receive them?

Of course, what would happen is that any briefings that were provided would be in a secure location. Obviously the staff who support us would not be eligible to be in the room, and of course any information provided to us could never be made public. We already have a group of parliamentarians who have the necessary clearance looking into this. I think that is beneficial. I understand that, in the Prime Minister's announcement, he asked NSICOP to look into it, and a press release was issued last week by the chair of NSICOP stating that they will look into it.

There's another area to note when we talk about top secret clearance and the concerns that members of Parliament on this committee have talked about. It is briefings on best practices with respect to cybersecurity and mitigation measures for foreign interference. Could that be something all members of Parliament, including their staff, receive? For instance, obviously all of our devices, which we have a habit of carrying with us everywhere, could be hacked. There could be tracking on them or access to the microphones and cameras. Some people in this room might have a compromised phone with them right now. Have people who work in MPs' offices or senators' offices, or the MPs themselves, received the necessary training on mitigating such interference? Is that something PROC should look into?

When we go in camera to discuss conversations here or even reports, we all have our devices with us. We are putting that information at risk because anyone of us could be a target of foreign interference. I don't know if other parties or other MPs have had training or briefings on cyber safety and what tools are at their disposal, but I received a special bag—I don't know if other MPs did—in which to put my devices when I'm in a meeting. It's a special bag that will prevent communication of my device. I know that when we go into caucus meetings, we put our devices in a little locked box and do not bring them into the room.

This is an opportunity for members of Parliament and their staff, who are probably more likely to be the target than the MPs themselves...and the reason is that often they are the gatekeepers to MPs. When someone wants to meet with an MP or speak to an MP, they go through the office. They want to speak to the staff member who is handling the agenda of the MP. My staff probably know a bit more about my agenda and where I'm supposed to be than I do. Do our staff members have the necessary training to be mindful of and be prepared and on the lookout for possible attempts?

Talking about training and briefings, I have questions about official party leaders. Do they receive briefings on potential threats and attempts? In the case of the 2019 and 2021 elections, were party leaders provided briefings during the election on what to do and how to flag anything they were seeing or hearing on the ground? Those are things PROC could be looking at.

I know that this committee put forth a report in the House with respect to a public inquiry, and I think it's important that people understand what a public inquiry is.

We have heard repeated calls that there needs to be an independent inquiry, not an investigation by parliamentarians, to verify what happened. However—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Good morning, Madam Chair. I have a point of order.

My interpretation wasn't working. Is it working right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Long, let's confirm that the interpretation is working.

Can you hear me now?

Is it working?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Long. It's good to have you here.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I'm happy to be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado, we'll go back to you.

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

Madam Chair, should I start over?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I'm just kidding.

With respect to public inquiries, as I mentioned, the government's webpage that discusses commissions of inquiry clearly states: “Commissions of Inquiry are established by the Governor in Council (Cabinet) to fully and impartially investigate issues of national importance.”

Some say that the person who will act as special rapporteur will not be impartial because he or she will be appointed by the Prime Minister. However, it will be the same in the case of a public inquiry.

If cabinet were to establish a public inquiry, it would be through an order in council. It is cabinet that decides this. The difference in the case of a public inquiry is that it would not be parliamentarians looking at the evidence. It would be someone named by cabinet who is not a sitting MP. Also, a public inquiry would not have access to secret or top secret documents. It would have the exact same access to information that PROC has, and that has been confirmed by CSIS, the RCMP, the CSE and the national security adviser. The only instrument in the tool box that would be able to see those documents would be NSICOP.

We heard a bit about a timeline for a public inquiry. If the special rapporteur decides to suggest that, the Prime Minister has said he will abide by it. However, a realistic timeline could be two to four years. We might be in another election or past another election by then.

I want to quote former senator Vern White, whom I have a lot of respect for and who spent his career in policing. He said:

But I think NSICOP will be quicker than a public inquiry—

Pardon me for the unparliamentary language, as I'm quoting the senator.

—[and] a hell of a lot cheaper than a public inquiry.... I think this team, both the secretariat and committee, are ready to run. It's too bad politics is becoming the player here in discussion around whether or not NSICOP should manage it. But you can go back and ask any member of NSICOP. Regardless of whether they were with the Conservative Party, the NDP party or the Liberal Party, they will all talk about the strength of that committee.

When I hear someone like Senator White, who has years of experience in the police domain, stating this, and when I look at the membership of NSICOP with someone of the calibre of Colonel Ruff, I have full confidence in NSICOP.

When I look back on PROC and the conversations we've had—and we've had a lot of members on PROC change over the last two years—we've been talking about foreign interference and looking into foreign interference for a while now. I ask myself what we want to achieve as a committee. If the goal of PROC is to determine whether there were attempts by the People's Republic of China to interfere in the 2019 and 2021 elections, whether the current processes in place were able to detect, deter and counter foreign interference, and whether there was an impact on the outcome of the general election or on the outcome of specific ridings, I think a lot of work can be done here in collaboration. I think everyone here would like to answer those questions. I would hope so.

However, is the goal of this committee or of members of this committee to fabricate some scandal that isn't here, to find a gotcha moment, as MP Vandenbeld kept saying?

When I listen to the language used by some members, it is clear—and former senator White said it himself—that this committee, this study, is becoming incredibly partisan. I really, truly hope that we can move back to where we were when we were working on other reports and other studies, because I truly think there are some issues that need to be addressed in terms of foreign interference. I would hope that we can get back to a place where we're not looking for gotcha moments but are actually working as a collective.

It makes me think a bit about a team Canada approach. I remember that, when we were negotiating NAFTA 2.0, we all came together to protect Canadian interests in that negotiation, and this should be the same. We have a foreign entity that is attempting to interfere in our democratic institutions, and we're fighting among ourselves versus having a united front to not only get to the bottom of it but also improve it.

I truly want to hear from colleagues around this table what recommendations they would have to strengthen it. There are a lot of questions, and my colleagues have asked in previous meetings why one of their candidates in the election, Mr. Chiu, was not advised during the campaign that there were attempts to interfere. If that were in fact correct, why was the candidate not informed? Whose responsibility was it to inform the candidate? Was it the responsibility of the party not only to flag it to SITE or the panel but also to flag it to the candidate? Are candidates briefed by Elections Canada when they run to be on the lookout and how to report such concerns? There are a lot of questions we need answers to.

Canadians watching probably have a lot of the same questions. What is the workflow in terms of necessary stakeholders? For instance, if a citizen in a specific riding were privy to information of concern, would they know who to flag that to and what information to flag? These are things we need to look at. Do we need to streamline those things? Those are things we need to look at. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, there is always room for improvement. That's why we review things. That is why NSICOP is going to look at what happened here.

Since 2016 tools have been put in place to deal with foreign interference. There has been the establishment of SITE, the establishment of the panel, the caretaker period and briefings provided to political parties. Also, as I said earlier, perhaps some training is required for all parliamentarians and their staff.

Have methods of interference changed? I assume they have. Before I was elected I didn't know very much about cybersecurity. We know that, compared to other jurisdictions, Canada has not had a very robust cybersecurity infrastructure in place. What are we seeing now in terms of cybersecurity, in terms of disinformation campaigns? Do we need to increase our capacity in that regard?

MP Vandenbeld spoke a little bit about our Five Eyes partners. Again, she referenced a document, a report done in Australia. It would be very interesting to hear what other Five Eyes partners are doing to detect, to deter and to counter foreign interference. Could we perhaps have parliamentarians from those jurisdictions provide us with their feedback as well?

I'd like to hear from other members of this committee, so I'll probably ask to be put back on the list a little later, once we've heard from others, but I just wanted to put some of those items out there.

One area of concern—and I know Ms. Blaney brought this up, I believe, at the last meeting and again at the top of this meeting—is news reports and validating media reports. As we've heard, information that is provided to journalists or news that can't be independently verified or that is taken in little tranches—little bits of intelligence versus understanding the bigger picture—is of concern. The question of leaks, the sources of which cannot be validated because it might be a matter of national security, is of concern.

I think there are a lot of questions that PROC could be focusing on that we're not. I doubt that any member of Parliament would want to put our intelligence assets at risk. I do not believe that for a moment. When members of Parliament are asking that classified information be made public, I would gently remind them that we cannot do that. We cannot put the relationships with our Five Eyes partners at risk, nor can we put the assets we have around the world at risk.

I want to reiterate what MP Vandenbeld mentioned. Words matter. When the tone and the choice of the language we use to refer to others are demeaning, it is important that we recognize that we are hurting not only that person but also those around them. We are all honourable members. We all put our names forward to represent the communities we come from, and I think we need to take the partisanship out of this. We've proven in the past that we can work together. We have.

Some folks here on PROC have worked with me on other committees, and they know that I have some of the same questions and the same concerns. I think we can work together in a non-partisan way.

Madam Chair, you have been incredibly patient with us in trying to bring us together to find a way forward. I do want to thank you for that.

I truly think we can come to a path forward. I know that, in the game of politics, when a camera is on it's all about the clips. It's all about the fundraising emails and things that go along with those. It's unfortunate because I'm pretty confident that if we shut the door, turned off the camera and got the members of PROC not to sit across from each other in this very adversarial way but to sit around the table together, we could probably actually come up with some really good ideas and some really good recommendations. It's not about trying to do things in private or secret or anything like that. When we take the partisanship away from this place, we can actually get stuff done. I'm a firm believer in that.

Again I ask this committee: What is it we want to achieve? Do we want to detect, deter and counter foreign interference, or do we want the clip for Facebook or Twitter? I ask my colleagues that because I know I would prefer to get stuff done versus playing games with national security and people's reputations.

With that, Madam Chair, I'll turn it over to the next colleague.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, I would like you to remove my name from the list of those wishing to speak, at this time, and add it at the end.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Gerretsen, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, I'll pass for now, and you can add me to the bottom of the list, if that's okay.

Wait. I think Mr. Barrett wants to hear from me.

Do you want to hear from me? You always do.

Madam Chair, you can put my name on the list. I'm still formulating my thoughts. I have a lot to talk about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think you were overwhelmed by Mrs. Romanado's comments about the chair trying to get us all together, so I understand that's on division.

Mr. Long, I think you have already spoken. Because you had the technical issue, I would like to do a sound check with you before you speak. Tell me either how your day is going or what the weather is like wherever you are.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair. It's great to be here in PROC.

My day is going great, and the weather is a little overcast. We're very clearly out of winter here in beautiful Saint John—Rothesay, but we have 25 centimetres of snow coming tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent. We always appreciate the snow.

I got some thumbs up. I'm not sure if that's in reference to your weather or your sound, but I'm hoping it's for the sound.

Mr. Long, welcome to PROC. The floor is yours.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Just let me start by saying I'm happy to be here, on the one side. On the other side, I'm disappointed that we're actually here doing what we're doing today.

Let me start with this. I'm going to read this out. A solution in search of a problem is “A proposal that does not solve any problem or provide any value; or one that is intended to fill a need which does not really exist.”

I appreciate what PROC has debated over the last week or so. I've listened in with great interest. We're certainly in a different world. We know that. We see what's happening in Europe, Ukraine and China. We have challenging times in front of us. We all know that. I'll be honest. It's difficult to see us, as parliamentarians, doing what we're doing right now.

There's no question that we have foreign entities that want to interfere, that want to interfere in democracies all over the world, as we all know, and certainly not just in Canada. The objective of these foreign entities is to sow chaos, to sow fear and to interfere. That's what they want to do. Obviously, social media reigns supreme. All of us, as MPs, are very active on social media. We see the posts. We see the comments. We see the algorithms. We recognize absolutely that it's much easier to try to get in and interfere or influence through social media. It's sad, what we do see. Does any of us around the table or on this Zoom think that there are entities that are trying to do this to us? Absolutely. I think we all agree on that. They've tried. They've tried in the past and they'll try again. That's their objective. Their objective is to sow doubt.

I live in a riding, Saint John—Rothesay, in which, I will say, when I entered politics, back in late 2014 as a candidate—and I ran in 2015, 2019 and 2021—there was a lot of skepticism about politics, politicians and government. It wasn't just on the Conservative and Stephen Harper side. There was, I think, skepticism about politics in general. People were tired of what they were seeing at the federal-provincial level and there was skepticism.

One thing I wanted to do as a member of Parliament...and I can remember it like it was yesterday. Actually last week I posted a picture on my Facebook page of me in November of 2015, so obviously it was shortly after the election.

I believe, Madam Chair, we came up for some training or maybe we came up to get sworn in or what have you.

I remember those days and I'm starting to fully realize how big a responsibility we all had. My objective with respect to Parliament was certainly to bring a breath of fresh air to politics to show people that we don't all have agendas. We want to do good. We want to represent our constituencies. We want to represent our provinces. We want to be good representatives. We want to work together and we want to show Canadians—I was certainly determined to show the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay that I could do politics differently—we could do politics differently. We started to replace the apathy, distrust and what have you that so many Canadians had for politicians in general, and you can see that in voter turnout at times.

There have been bright spots where I think there have been bipartisan or team Canada approaches to things. I think, when we need to, we've shown we can work together. We can advance the interests of our constituents. We can do good things.

One of the main reasons I ran.... My background before that was hockey, and I know you're all probably going to cringe saying, “Oh no, he's not going to mention the Saint John Sea Dogs again.” Well, I just did.

We want to work together and do good things. I know I'm proud of what we've done, obviously, very quickly—things that make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That's why we're there. We're not there to play partisan games and do things for the clip on the news or the gotcha moment. We're there to enhance and better the lives of Canadians, to come up with transformational programming, such as with the Canada child benefit, the child care program, the dental program or the support for Canadians, and to help Canadians.

That's why they send us to Ottawa. Don't ever forget that. They send us there to work together, to get things done and to better their lives. What they're seeing now is, in my opinion, a Leader of the Opposition who loves to join in on this chaos, who loves to sow fear and who loves to rile people up. You'll say, “That's his job.” Sure it's the job of the loyal opposition to challenge government, and as my colleague MP Romanado just said, we need to be challenged. We don't always get it right. We don't. We're learning. Good government is understanding that, when you make a mistake, you move forward, address it and work with other parliamentarians to do the best for our country.

From what I've been hearing over the last while, you would think that NSICOP is a group of Liberal parliamentarians, period. The last time I checked, it was all parties. Why is there skepticism? Why are there objections to letting NSICOP do its job? Its members receive top security clearances. They're bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. Let them review it.

Actually, Madam Chair, it took me about an hour to say that correctly, but the rapporteur.... Hopefully I did say it right.

I think those who know me know that I'm not afraid to speak up and speak my mind. I'll be blunt: Do I wish we had come forward and said we were going to appoint a rapporteur a little sooner? Sure, but guess what—we didn't. That rapporteur is going to be an independent person who's going to have the ability to recommend an inquiry. What am I missing here? Why is it, again, as I said, a solution in search of a problem? Let's let the rapporteur do their job.

Let's see who's appointed. Maybe we're going to be surprised. Maybe members of the other party will say, “Oh, geez, okay”, but let that happen. We've watched inquiries on TV for years. Obviously we've just gotten through watching an inquiry with respect to the “freedom convoy” in Ottawa. We know how much time, organization and planning it's going to take. It could take a year easily. We don't need that. We don't need that right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the leaders of every party have said that they recognize that there was nothing that changed the election result. Why is there the continued “we need an inquiry”? Obviously we're debating the amendment, but I see the main motion here that the committee, in relation to its study of foreign election interference, “invite Katie Telford, Chief of Staff”. If you want to replace that with “invite the 2019 and 2021 National Campaign Directors of each recognized party of the House of Commons and the security-cleared party representatives to the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force during the 2019 and 2021 federal elections”, what's wrong with that? Why are we debating this?

My constituents understand about the rapporteur and understand that's the way forward. Maybe my office is in some kind of a bubble, but my phone isn't ringing off the hook here. They see what's happening now. They see what the Prime Minister has done. They see what the Prime Minister is recommending. I'm not being overwhelmed with people saying, “We need more. We want an inquiry.” I'm not getting that at all. I dare say that none of you is getting that either, if you'd be honest about it.

I have obviously sat in my seat and watched question period and watched the dynamic back and forth. Again, I respect fully that the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, has a job to do, but the way he is going about it, the way it's happening, is not fair. It's not proper. It's not parliamentary. Think about it: He has all but accused the Prime Minister of Canada of treason. It's shameful.

If anybody thinks that there's a foreign entity that's controlling the Prime Minister, that is really disheartening to me. It's sad to think that, as parliamentarians, we have digressed to that level. It's just disappointing to me. Again, I ran and I wanted to be a parliamentarian my constituents could be proud of. I have great relationships with MPs from all parties, and I enjoy working with them. The first committee I was on was actually HUMA. I'm still on HUMA. We got to travel the country. We were very instrumental in the poverty reduction strategy and the housing strategy. I worked alongside great MPs, and we got some good stuff done.

Madam Chair, that's always where I'm most proud, when I sit side by side with people with different ideologies, different ways to approach things or different thoughts on this or that, and in the end, we can work together to get things done for Canadians.

That's why we're here. I had a constituent come into the office the last time I was in my riding, a week and a half ago, and ask me straight up, “Is it really like we see in question period? Is that what it's like every day?” I said, “Yes and no.” Yes, question period is intense. I always think about the Bugs Bunny cartoon in which the sheepdog and the wolf go in and they punch their cards and they say hi to each other, and then they go through their routine; they leave and they chat, and it's all good. That's what I explained a little to this constituent. I said you see the show; you see the parties trying to get on the five o'clock news, or The National or what have you; you see the clips, but what you don't see is the camaraderie, the great work that happens on behalf of all Canadians when we work together.

I want the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay—and I know every MP would say this—to be proud of the work I'm doing. I'm saddened by what I've seen over the last several weeks, to think that's where we are. I know politics has changed. I know all of us would say there's a very different tone. I am part of the “Class of 2015”, and I think a lot of you around the table are too. It's hard to believe we're in our eighth year, but, man, what a change we've seen in the discourse from 2015 until now. It's like night and day, but we have work to do. We have a job to do.

To continue to want this person called and that person called....

Look, I'd be the first to say, well, let's shine more light, but we're appointing a rapporteur. Let that process work. Let NSICOP work. Has there been interference? Have there been countries that want to interfere in our democracy? Absolutely. Let's not forget that Canada is one of the greatest democracies in the world. It's one of the most stable democracies in the world. We show that time and time again around the world and on the world stage. This is exactly what foreign entities want. It's exactly what they want, Madam Chair. They want to sow the seeds of doubt, sow the idea that maybe the election was “stolen”. Let's be careful with what we know is not true. Let's be careful on that.

We see first-hand what happened and what's happening to the south of us with respect to disinformation, with respect to doubt being sown in America and in democracy. We cannot allow that to happen here, Madam Chair. We cannot. We are better than this. We are much better than this.

Madam Chair, I know we're debating the amendment to the main motion. I'm obviously coming in halfway through this. I haven't heard everybody's speech, so I'm not sure if there's support for the amendment, but let me appeal to other parties on this amendment: Support it. Let's move forward. The rapporteur has the power to appoint...or to recommend a full public inquiry. Call a spade a spade. In every public inquiry I have ever seen, one side will say, “Oh, look, here's the result of the public inquiry.” The other side will be like, “Well, the brother's uncle's mother's cousin's son of the chair of that public inquiry, the guy who was appointed, drove by Joe Biden's house once three years ago, so there has to be bias there.” Where are we going here? Where are we going with this? Let the rapporteur do their job. Let's see what happens.

If you're not happy—if people aren't happy when the rapporteur is appointed—somebody may scream, “Oh my gosh—there's unbelievable bias here!” We know that's not going to be the case here. Anyone would be crazy to appoint somebody who is going to be in conflict here. Of course not. I think we should let this process unfold and do the right thing.

I want to contribute to this debate. I want to speak more. I want to express my feelings, but I do sincerely hope that at the very least, people around the horseshoe, the table, or on Zoom want to do the right thing and want to work together and move this forward. Let's see what the rapporteur says. It's somebody whom everybody respects. Can you imagine? Let them do their job. Let them check it out. Why are we so hard and fast with, “Well, no, just because the Prime Minister suggested this, it can't be a good idea. No, we can't do that”?

Again, I get that this side wants this and that side wants that. I get that, and I understand the questioning, but the suggestion that there's manipulation or that somebody is under the control of a foreign entity is just not right. It's not right, and that's why we need to move forward, in my opinion.

Madam Chair, let me say this: Does it surprise me that a foreign entity has an agenda to try to sow chaos in western democracies? Absolutely not. I'm not surprised at all. They've always talked about China potentially. China can play the long game. Western democracy has changed. Every so many years, am I surprised to think that China or Russia would love to see democracies fall in the west, in Europe? Absolutely not.

Can they try to manipulate and influence voter intentions through disinformation and Facebook posts and false names and so on? Yes, I can see that. Am I surprised? No. Let's be clear: This certainly isn't something that's new to 2015, 2019 and 2021—come on. No, we all know that. We all know that existed in 2015 and whenever the election was before that, in 2011 or what have you. We know that.

Before politics, I was in aquaculture, which I love to talk about at length, but not on this committee, and I was in hockey. Did I really pay a lot of attention to what was going on in Ottawa? No. To be transparent, no, I didn't. To think, though, that the Leader of the Opposition was the minister of democratic institutions—I think I said that right—and clearly he was the minister of, probably, families and children, because I still remember him handing out cheques with his Conservative golf shirt on. I remember that much. At that time, though, when he was the minister of democratic institutions, what did he do? Where was all the proactive movement at that point? Well, of course there wasn't any. He was briefed. We know he was briefed. What did he do?

Now, all of a sudden, it's a massive scandal. My colleague before me asked if we have done everything right. No. Are we perfect? Do we make mistakes? Yes, but do I for one second or do my constituents for one second think that there's some gross behind-the-scenes manipulative agenda? Come on. No, my constituents don't think that. They don't.

Can I just caution all of us, and on our side too, to cut down on the rhetoric? Let's not turn more Canadians off. Let's show Canadians. This should be a team Canada thing. This should be all parliamentarians standing side by side saying, “You're trying to interfere in our country? We're going to show you we're united. We're going to show you we're going to do the right thing and put the right checks and balances and procedures and policies in place to make sure we have control of the situation,” because they're going to try again and again and again. I will guarantee you, Madam Chair, that there is some entity in some backroom somewhere just laughing at this and saying, “Look at what we did. Look—this is perfect. We've got everybody disagreeing. We've got parliamentarians tied up. We've got question period in the House of Commons 90% consumed with the idea that there's some foreign plot, when they should be talking about the challenges Canadians face.” That's what our constituents, what Canadians, want to see out of every one of us. They want to see us debating.

They want to see us talking about, as the Conservatives like to say, the price on pollution. They call it “scrap the tax”. Just as a funny aside, really quickly, Chair, I'm going to talk about the price on pollution here really quickly. I had a constituent who came in and was like, “On this price on pollution you guys are doing nothing for Canadians.” I sat down with them and we went through their gas bill and stuff. I said, “How many litres of gas do you use a week?” He said, “About 40.” I said, “Okay, that's $4.75 a week for the so-called crippling carbon tax—$4.75 a week and $230 or $250 a year.” I said to the constituent, “Do you realize you are going to get a rebate that's basically going to cover that, if not more?” He said, “We are?” I said, “Yes, in New Brunswick.”

Mr. Williamson at one point wanted us to get back to the federal backstop. We got back. He's my colleague here, and we have a good back and forth all the time. That's what Mr. Williamson wanted. Straight up, he said, “Too bad New Brunswick didn't have the federal backstop, so constituents could get their money back.” I was actually sitting in the House of Commons at that point, and I said, “Yes, he's right that that's probably not going to happen.” Premier Higgs was keeping the rebate for the province to do things with. The premier himself came out here about a month ago and said, “No, the best way to get Canadians back money is to go back to the federal backstop.” I said, “Oh, wow—that's great.” Anyway, I'll go back to the story.

This constituent was basically going to be in for $20 or $30. I said, “Do you understand this?” He said, “Oh, I understand it better now,” and I said, “By the way, Mr. Constituent, you said we're not doing anything for Canadians and that the Conservative Party would fix all of that.” I said, “Do you realize that we just came through with a child care program that's going to save the average family about $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 a month? Do you realize we just came through with dental care that's going to save thousands of dollars, in particular for kids and those in need? You know, the Conservatives voted against those.”

Yes, I know they're trying to save you $230, but you're going to get $250 back, and they voted against the thing that's going to save the average family $20,000 or $15,000 a year. How does that square?

That was just a sidebar. That's what constituents want to talk about. They want to see us being challenged by the Conservatives and the NDP and the Bloc and my new seat colleague, Elizabeth May. I was on one side of the House. Now I'm on the other side of the House. I have a different view, Madam Chair. I think actually I'm behind you a bit now. I think you're down my side too, but I'm down that side. That's what Canadians want to see. They want to see us as government being held to the fire, as we should be. Absolutely—I like holding us to the fire at times too. It makes for good government.

Madam Chair, what they don't want to see is this. I watched last week when you had some words for what occurred there, and I won't repeat those, but I saw a sitting minister basically challenged. That's not what Canadians want to see. They want to see us working together.

I will be honest: I've learned a lot through this process too. Now I know what NSICOP is. Now I know how it works. Again, sometimes you hear this talk that NSICOP is some kind of influenced partisan group. Geez—it wasn't the last time I saw it or the last time I read about it. I will quote:

The committee was set up in 2017.

No—it was set up under us. Okay, it was because we saw a problem. Clearly the leader of the opposition didn't when he was in charge of democratic institutions.

The committee was set up in 2017 to provide parliamentary oversight of Ottawa's intelligence operations. It completed a report on foreign interference back in 2019, which called on the government to “do better”.

Why all of a sudden is this not adequate? Why? I don't get it. I don't understand. Maybe somebody who speaks in the future can clarify that for me. Why isn't it good enough now? Why isn't the rapporteur good enough, especially when they can recommend a full inquiry, Madam Chair?

That's what bothers me. I just don't like to see what I'm seeing. I don't like trying to create a scandal where a scandal doesn't exist. I'm not naive enough to say there's nothing, that this never happened or not to worry. I know there are foreign entities. I get it. I get that there's foreign interference. If as parliamentarians we open that Pandora's box, if we start to show Canadians that even we can't stand together on this and we start to sow seeds of doubt, that will not be a good thing. It's not a good thing. Here in Saint John—Rothesay, I hold these things regularly called AMAs, and I think you all do too. They're not wrestling events or boxing events. They're called AMA—“ask me anything”.

I have actually gone back and done my first live one. I hadn't done them live in a few years, but I did them live, obviously, on Facebook. When I do them, I always get the skeptics who do not really understand Ottawa or understand the role of the MPs or trust. What we're doing now, Madam Chair, sadly, is confirming a lot of the doubts and distrust of Ottawa, of the Ottawa machine, of the Ottawa bubble.

I know some people bristle when I say “the Ottawa bubble”. Obviously you can't answer this, Chair, but around the table and on this screen, are any of us, if we're honest with ourselves, totally seized in our constituency offices with this foreign entity controlling our...? Are we really there? No, we're not. No, we are not, and if people think we are, I would challenge them. I'm in my constituency office. I've gotten the odd email. I get hundreds of emails on other issues. I receive thousands of emails. Let's not create a problem, or let's not create a scandal where a scandal doesn't exist. It doesn't exist.

Let the rapporteur do their work. Truthfully I can't wait to see who is appointed, because I'll bet you it's going to be somebody, hopefully—I'm knocking on wood here—about whom all parties are going to be able to say, “Oh, okay, we respect them.” We've just wasted a week and a half of PROC here. Let's try to move forward and let the rapporteur do their work.

Chair, I have a lot to say. I have a lot of thoughts in my mind about this, but to be fair to my colleagues and to everyone around the table, I can start to close up with some closing thoughts.

We take our democracy for granted. I need to remind myself every day how fortunate we are to live in a free country, a wonderful democracy, a country that's regarded around the world as a beacon of democracy. We're fortunate, but it's fragile. I wouldn't have used the word “fragile”, to be perfectly honest, until I saw over the last year what's happened or what almost happened and what continues to happen in the United States.

Let's not take it for granted. Let's not sow those seeds of doubt where no doubt exists. Yes, again, we can be challenged. The opposition party should be saying, “What have you guys done? What are you doing? We're not comfortable with what we've seen.” I get it, but whether it's NSICOP or the rapporteur, let's work together and let them do their jobs.

If a rapporteur calls for an inquiry, well, guess what, we're going to have an inquiry. To be perfectly honest, I don't know enough to say whether there should be or shouldn't be. How do we know? The rapporteur is going to have the ability to investigate. They're going to have the credentials to make the right decision. Let that person do their work.

Again, just let me say this to be clear: I trust our Prime Minister. I trust our ministers. I trust CSIS and officials. I trust NSICOP to do the right thing, and I trust that the rapporteur, once appointed, will come to the right conclusion and make the right decision.

Beyond that, what I'm saying and what other MPs are saying is conjecture and what they think and innuendo and this and that. We're just making noise. That's what we're doing. Let the process unfold. Let it work, because I believe passionately that's what Canadians want. They want to see us work together. They don't want to see us continue this way.

Really quickly, as I said before, I get the back and forth. I get the question period. I understand it. I wasn't in opposition. I came in 2015, but I understand that the opposition has a job to do. I get that. We would do the same if we were in opposition—and obviously we haven't been since 2015—so I get it. I get the back and forth. I get the challenging, but this is a whole different level, Madam Chair. This is a whole different level. This isn't what will solve this. This isn't what, Madam Chair, will give Canadians the answers they've wanted or they want or they need. Our going on in PROC, going around in circles like this, isn't what they want to see. No, they want to see us move forward.

The Prime Minister has come out, and maybe he should have done it a bit earlier or whatever. He has come out and said this is what we're going to do. This is how we're going to give confidence back to Canadians. We're going to appoint somebody who is going to be respected and who is going to investigate. Then, if they deem it necessary, they will appoint or call for a public inquiry.

In closing, Madam Chair, I appeal. I do, sincerely. I know there are good MPs right around the table there. I can't see everybody, but I know there are. I know them, and they're good MPs, good constituency MPs. Let's do the right thing here. Let's do the right thing and let the process unfold. That's what we want to do, Madam Chair. That's what Canadians want. That's certainly what my constituents want. They don't want to see a logjam. They don't want to see back and forth. They tune it out. We tune it out. Come on—call a spade a spade. They want to see us work together as team Canada on this. This isn't us against the Conservative Party or the NDP or the Bloc or the Greens or the independents. No, it's not. This is us as Canadians. This is us as parliamentarians standing against foreign interference, foreign entities that want to sow chaos. They hate our democracy. They want to end our democracy. That's their agenda.

Madam Chair, through you, I implore you—and, again, I'm just a visitor here—who do great work on PROC. That's the committee. I get it. That's the big one. All of you are on there for a reason. You're on PROC for a reason: because you have the depth, the experience, the oversight. That's what PROC is for, so use that depth and use that experience to say, okay, enough is enough. Let's move on. Let's move forward.

Let's move on. Let's move forward.

Listen, the Conservatives have every right to say after a week or two, “Whoa, time out here. Hold on. We gave you confidence. We're not seeing this.” Let's let the process unfold. Let's not get into a logjam here. It's not productive. It's not productive for me or you or anyone around the horseshoe.

Madam Chair, I thank you for letting me come in and state how I feel. I am passionate about this. I just hate to see it happen. I've seen it in other countries, I've seen it in other committees, I've seen it in the States and I've seen it back and forth.

If any one person on PROC thinks this is what their constituents want them to be doing, what Canadians want them to be doing, it's not and you know it. You may not admit it, but you know it. Let's do the right thing.

Madam Chair, I thank you, and I wish everybody a wonderful afternoon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

I note something you've been pondering for quite a while and that you've just announced today is that you won't be re-offering. I want to say thank you for coming to spend some time with PROC and for the work you do.

With that, I will pass the floor over to Mr. Cooper.

Just so everyone knows, the speaking list is Mr. Cooper, followed by Mr. Gerretsen and then Monsieur Fergus.

If there is an appetite to pause for five or 10 minutes for a health break, I would encourage that. If there's interest right now, I can offer that or not offer that.

I see that some people would like a health break. Is there appetite for a health break?

Let's just do that really quickly right now.

Does this suit you or not?

[A voice]

We can take a break afterwards, too. It's not a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay. Let's do that. Let's go with Mr. Cooper now, and then right after Mr. Cooper we'll do a 10-minute health break. Is that fair? Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.