Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Duguid.
I am going to come back to some concrete examples that show how providing certain documents may jeopardize national security. A number of witnesses came to talk to us about that at this committee, including both former and present senior security officials.
I am going to quote Michael Duheme, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who was accompanied by Mark Flynn, then the deputy commissioner of the RCMP. He sent us some quite relevant information concerning the question we are considering today.
Mr. Duheme told us that Patrick McDonnell, sergeant‑at‑arms and corporate security officer for the House of Commons, had informed this committee that there were concerns associated with foreign interference involving a member of Parliament in particular, but that he was going to communicate directly with the MP or their staff instead of communicating with their office.
In the questions Mr. Blair was asked, much was said about the Five Eyes group, which obtains information from all over. Mr. Blair learned about relevant information relating to the situation when he read a newspaper article, at the same time as everyone else. He testified about this several times. Regarding foreign interference, protocols have been put in place by senior security officials, and they have been adhered to.
Some witnesses told us about the procedure they follow in their organization when they receive information. They explained clearly that information could come from all over, be it the media or a resource person, for example. They look for information on the web and by using the tools available to them to combat foreign interference. They are also supported by Global Affairs Canada. This is information that comes from all over. It may come from members of Parliament and people on the ground in other countries.
Ms. Denham said that the goal was to understand the information environment and be more familiar with the tactics used in that space. She stated that the information and disinformation campaigns carried on by foreign states were not necessarily significant enough in themselves to influence the outcome of an election.
Some witnesses also said that certain information had to be corroborated and that this committee therefore had checking to do before passing information on to anyone. The information must be not only screened, but also verified. That was clear in the testimony we received, at least from what I have read.
As well, they said that because the activities in question were not going to influence the outcome of the election, they did not pass certain information on, and what they did pass on was sent in such a way that it was not brought to the attention of Mr. Blair, the minister, before it became public. That could not be any clearer, to me.
So disclosure of all the documents in issue that were requested in point (iii), without redaction, could jeopardize national security.
That is why my colleague has proposed an amendment for the departments and agencies tasked with gathering all these documents to redact them according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act. There can be no exemptions.
When there was discussion of information concerning the foreign threat to democratic processes and the measures taken to neutralize it, Mr. Duheme informed the committee that the RCMP was going to investigate the allegations of intimidation against Michael Chong. That work has been done.
He added that he had not launched an investigation into the allegations of intimidation affecting Mr. O'Toole and Ms. Kwan, the member for Vancouver East. He said the RCMP had been informed of these cases through public disclosure mechanisms. That information was given. What more can we ask?
Mr. Flynn said he had signed a memorandum of agreement with the commissioner of Canada elections. The RCMP communicated with the commissioner. It offered her its assistance in connection with the investigation by her team into the allegations of intimidation against members of Parliament. Everything was done according to the rules.
Saying that the information we have today is not sufficient for writing the report and that we want more is just a way of not accepting the answer already received because it is not the one we wanted. That is how I understand it.
Asking that the departments and agencies redact all these documents according to the rules means respecting Canadian national security and the fight against election interference.
Election interference is a matter of extreme concern and extreme importance, particularly since we are getting reach for an upcoming election. We should finish what we are doing here as quickly as possible so that our recommendations can be implemented before the next election. We are asking no more than that. We have to complete this process and make good recommendations in order to achieve our objective.
Asking for documents that it is not possible to produce is irresponsible on the part of parliamentarians. You cannot ask the impossible. That is all this amendment is proposing.
In my opinion, all the measures taken to neutralize the threat of foreign interference in our democratic processes are extremely important.
I hope we can complete our work on this issue as quickly as possible, so we are able to write our report. There is still work to be done. All members of the committee know that the report will undoubtedly be read line by line, paragraph by paragraph. Information will be added while the report is being written. If a member is not happy about something, we will be able to discuss it and move the report forward. However, we have to get started as quickly as possible.
I really get the feeling that after Mr. Cooper's main motion, the Conservatives are going to propose more. I really get the feeling that this is not over yet. I really get the feeling that they are going to move amendments that will delay us once again.
What is important to understand from my message is that if we apply texts according to the rules of a committee and the rules of national security, the committee will be able to achieve a good result. For that, everyone has to agree to remove the parts where it asks for documents to be provided without redaction. At this stage, it makes no sense for parliamentarians to agree to language like that. If we want to be responsible members of Parliament, we cannot accept it.
Madam Chair, I strongly support my colleague's amendment proposing amendments to point (iii) of Mr. Cooper's motion.
You can put my name back on the list of speakers.
Thank you.