Publication Search

Thank you so much, Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today and for their important testimony.

I'm going to come to Mr. Perrault first. I'm really interested in what is happening around the work to open up the opportunity for people who face barriers in voting.

I'm really interested in some of the following groups. One is indigenous voters living on reserve. We've heard from different indigenous communities that they sometimes have struggles getting polling stations on their reserves and they know that there would be a far better turnout if those were there. There are also the residents and administrators of long-term care facilities, and students who live on their college and university campuses. I think you've spoken a bit about that and it's really important to get that vote out.

There are also persons with disabilities and voters living in poverty. I think I've talked in this place before about, in my first election, seeing a place in our riding that was very low income. They literally had a polling station down the hill, but they had to travel quite a great distance without any vehicles or bus system to a location where they couldn't get access to voting.

Making sure that people have access to voting is really important.

I'll tie into that, just because it resonates with me, the idea of the confidence and supply agreement that we have. Of course, one thing we've really been fighting for is that wherever you are in the riding, we want you to be able to access the poll. I have a large rural riding, so people travel. They're often still in the same riding, but because they're not in their polling station, they can't vote.

I'm just wondering if you could talk about those two things. I think there's some interconnection in that as well.

I'll ask this very quickly, because I only have a few seconds left. I know a lot of the folks who are working to run these elections are elderly.

What's the strategy around addressing that issue as we see people age out of the program? How are you attracting new people?

Thank you.

I don't think you got to answer my question fully about the elderly population and what the transition plan is. As we know, the population is smaller in the younger groups. How do we get a turnout for these things?

There's another aspect of the question that I'm interested in. Accessibility to voting matters a lot to me. I'm curious about any plans that you have, or currently implement, to attract people who work on both the elections side and the volunteer side who speak multiple languages just to provide information for people. I think that is definitely one of the challenges for newcomers or new citizens to Canada who may have okay English or French but may really need information provided in their first language to best understand.

I'm wondering if there are any recruitment strategies around that.

Thank you, Madam Chair,

Thank you very much to the witnesses. We're here today to talk about this really scary and very serious issue. I appreciate your taking the time.

I'm going to ask a question of both of you. Both of you talked about not feeling heard or not feeling that it was taken seriously. I'm wondering if you could expand on that a small amount.

The next part of that question is, once you've outlined some of the things, specifically, what are some of the things you were expecting to happen in the task force that might have been more helpful to you? How would you have liked to receive that information?

So you would like something that was actually like, “We're seeing this, what do we do next, how do we respond to this and what is the best thing to do?"

Mr. Soliman.

I think it's interesting what you're speaking of, because you mentioned, Mr. Soliman, in your introduction the need to have legislative tools. We know, especially with the example of Mr. Chong, that one of the challenges is legislative, that while the process in place right now allows for discussions to happen to the minister, the minister then basically gets to decide what happens after that.

When it comes to election time, I'm just wondering what outcomes of legislative tools do you think would be important moving forward. The other part of the question is about after the election is over, because I really hear what you're saying that when you're in the heat of an election, it's like you you have to respond as quickly as possible and move on because you're just doing exactly what you said, getting votes, raising money, connecting with the public. What would you recommend happen after the election to have that discussion about what worked, what didn't work and how can we move forward, because I think that can potentially be something that is also a legislative tool?

I think that is an important approach to look at, especially when we recognize that the rapidly changing reality of foreign interference is moving at such a pace that having people who are in those key roles both during and between elections would really allow for a conducive moving forward with elections.

Thank you.

Mr. Soliman, to come back to you, I appreciate that you said a couple of times that it wasn't just one country and that there was concern expressed about multiple countries. As we go forward, it is important that we recognize that this is an ever-changing, quickly changing reality, and there are multiple countries that we should be watching very carefully.

I also appreciate that you talked about this not being a partisan issue, because collectively we should all focus on making sure that our systems are as robust as possible to increase the confidence of Canadians. I appreciate that.

You have talked about the task force and the threshold. I heard both of you say very clearly that you went through a very robust process, so after that robust process, when you feel like you've really been checked out, you were expecting an open dialogue that would be helpful.

During the election process and when you were working with the task force, was there any guidance to you on how to work with the multiple campaigns across the country and that, if there were concerns coming from those different ridings across Canada, how that would be fed to the task force? Also, on the other side, if there were a concern, did they ever talk about how you would work with that particular region in addressing it?

Mr. Soliman, is there anything you'd like to add? You have about 25 seconds.

I'm just wondering because we currently are seeing some of the realities. We're not seeing people taking part in these systems. If I think of the current leader, he's not getting the CSIS briefings. I'm just concerned that if we don't use those systems, how do we critique them in a meaningful way?

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the member for bringing forward this motion. This is really concerning. I appreciate that in the motion he said, “the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members”. I think it's very clear that one of those other members is somebody whom I also have partnership with in our caucus.

This is really serious. Trying to navigate this very complex issue, knowing that we need to have clarity and accountability but also knowing that we have to honour national security, because we don't want any of those people who have already faced challenges to be put in an uncomfortable position.... We want to make sure that as we move forward we don't threaten any of the relationships we have with other countries that we share information with. These things are very concerning to me.

I also want to let the committee know that I am leaving today for a trip for the NATO Parliamentary Association. I do have a hard stop of 1:30. I will need to leave or I'll miss the plane. I'm sure I will not be in a happy reality then.

I have a couple of questions for the member. I read it closely. What I think I read is that there was an understanding that every piece of information coming to us would be translated prior to it getting to the law clerk. I have had a conversation with the law clerk. I've been fairly transparent that I'm trying to understand what this motion is, making sure that we are following the very best rules and acknowledging that we do need some information to help us go through this process.

I definitely heard that one of the holdups could be the translation. That concerns me because then, of course, the timelines that we're putting in this motion won't necessarily be effective, just because we don't have the resources to get that done as quickly as possible.

The other question I have is this. Other committees that have addressed some fairly confidential issues have followed certain processes whereby, for example, information was shared in a room. You could go into the room. You weren't allowed to bring your phone. You would review information, which often was redacted, and then you could leave from that place.

This one actually asks for—if I understand correctly—all of that information to be put online. These are issues of national security. I'm not trying to be a pain here. I am very concerned. We have a responsibility to our country. We have heard so many witnesses say repeatedly that this cannot be partisan. Those things really do concern me. I'm not taking this lightly. I am trying to understand so I can make the best decision for the security of our nation but also recognizing that MPs need to have the right to do their work. I'm also recognizing that there are many Canadians in this country who are facing challenges. When they go to police and the RCMP, they are not being heard at all. No further action is taken. It's not just at this level. It is at a broader level that we have to provide leadership.

I'm hoping we can get this done sooner rather than later but I also want to say, on the record, that I need time to do my work as a parliamentarian, because I take this very seriously. I hope we can have some questions.

Chair, I hope you will let us leave at the appropriate time, and we'll come back to this as soon as we possibly can.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair.

As always, everything is through the chair, but first I want to thank you so much, Mr. Chong, for coming here today.

I imagine it has been a very hard period of time in your life to wrestle with these realities. What you said earlier about living your life as a member of Parliament, as a human being, and just down the street there is somebody who is gathering information, to what intent you don't know.... It is very hard to fight a battle that you don't even know is happening.

At any time, did CSIS advise you or your family of harm or threat that could happen?

That is the challenge. You were told of the general battle but not of the specific people in the battle, and so it was hard for you to address it.

Since this has all come up, has there been any follow-up action around keeping you and your family safe?

You talked earlier about no longer having connections with family overseas. I'm wondering whether there has been any discussion about how that could be addressed in a more helpful way, as opposed to just cutting off ties.

That makes a lot of sense to me, because it allows for a response and a more coordinated effort in addressing those issues.

Do you have a sense of how long this has been happening, where that information was being gathered and how they were gathering that information? Did they give you any understanding of whether you were being wiretapped? How were they gathering the information?

I think your point is that national security shouldn't be going through the media.

You talked about having the release of documents. I see how important that is, but I also see how important it is that we maintain our level of national security. When those documents are released, should it just be to the member who's impacted, or do you feel there should be another process as well?