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.