Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call the meeting back to order.

On my speaking list for the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Bittle are Mr. Duncan, Monsieur Berthold, Ms. O'Connell and Ms. Goodridge.

We have Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am glad that our procedure and House affairs committee has moved into an open session for Canadians to see the debate, or the status of our debate, on the motion for document production.

We're here to try to get the necessary documents and the order of the production of the documents pertaining to foreign interference by the Communist Party of China and, specifically, the question of privilege by Mr. Chong. We have one party here that is not getting to a vote and not getting the production of documents completed, and that is the Liberal Party.

To give a quick summary for Canadians to understand where we are, Madam Chair, in ordering the production of the documents within three weeks, there are a couple of things I'll highlight that I think are very reasonable for this committee and Canadians to see. They are the July 2021 CSIS report entitled “People’s Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat” and the May 2021 CSIS issues management note sent to the then-minister of public safety and emergency preparedness respecting the Beijing regime’s intention to target members of this House, together with all records concerning the transmission to...and so forth.

These are two very key documents that this committee and Canadians deserve to see. The July 2021 CSIS report has been obtained and seen by The Globe and Mail reporters, who issued some bombshell information regarding this topic. It's reasonable for Canadians and us here at this committee to see that. The May 2021 CSIS issues management note was seen by Mr. David Johnston for his report. We deserve to see the same thing as we continue to study this issue.

We tried to get this passed earlier this year, in June and again in the fall. Here we are again now, thankfully in a public session...for Liberals to continue their cover-up and deny us the opportunity to see these documents.

I will say that's all for now, but I look forward to the debate or what Canadians can witness here from the Liberal Party on the other side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On May 10, 2023, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs received the order from the House of Commons to consider the question of privilege related to the intimidation campaign against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, Michael Chong, and other members. Since then, we have learned...

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I let it slide with Mr. Duncan, but we're debating the amendment and we're going wildly off in all directions. I was hoping that members could bring it back toward the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think that's relevant. Based on some of the conversations we had in camera about not necessarily wanting to comment on others and so forth, and being offended by it in camera, let's just remember we are in public and be mindful of the work we're doing.

We have Mr. Berthold on the amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Erin O'Toole, MP, has also raised a question of privilege, and the Speaker of the House referred Mr. O'Toole's case to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for us to consider. So we have been wanting since May 10 to obtain documents that will show how that campaign of intimidation was orchestrated.

In the motion requesting production of documents that we have before us, the things we are asking for are very simple. One of the things we are asking for is the July 2021 report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service entitled People's Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat.

We are also asking for the May 2021 CSIS issues management note that was sent to the then-minister of public safety and emergency preparedness and all other relevant information that might help us avoid such situations recurring in the future.

The Liberal Party amendment that we have before us concerning the motion, which I will not read because I do not want to take up too much time, is to strike point (a) from the motion, which says that the committee will “acknowledge the failure of officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the Liberal Party of Canada to provide relevant information to this Committee that they had indicated they would undertake to provide”.

In fact, the Prime Minister has made repeated public statements that he is very open to transparency. He has confirmed that he would work with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We have heard several similar statements from several Liberal government ministers that they would be transparent. At present, it seems that the Liberals do not want to acknowledge that the people in charge in the Prime Minister's Office and the Liberal Party of Canada have not sent the committee the relevant information they had undertaken to provide, despite the fact that we have had a motion to produce documents since June. That is what is unbelievable. This intention to conceal the information is now even more apparent with the amendment moved by my colleague Mr. Bittle.

Madam Chair, you will have gathered that I am opposed to this amendment. Canadians are entitled to know what happened and to see all the documents relating to this matter so that it does not happen again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

On my list, and just so we remember, when we did suspend, there were people who signalled to me to be on the list. I'm waiting for those signals again.

On my list I have Ms. O'Connell next. Then I had Ms. Goodridge.

Ms. Goodridge, I understand that you want to be removed from the list. I have removed you.

Then I have Mr. Turnbull.

That is my list on the amendment so far.

I have Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm glad, actually, to speak about this again because, as I have done so before at this committee, I've had an opportunity to speak about how reckless Conservatives are on matters of national security and, once again, we have another opportunity.

What we're discussing here today is an amendment to remove a section in terms of documents that the Conservatives are requesting, documents that the previous two speakers just acknowledged were of national security classification, and that they believe should be open to the public, and the public also consists of China and other foreign adversaries that would love to have our national security information. The opportunity, they said The Globe and Mail looked at some of this information and therefore they should too.

They believe that leaks of national security are a good way of securing our country, I guess. There were opportunities for all party leaders to see all of the relevant information, but it was only the Conservative leader who chose not to get the appropriate security clearance. What this means is that Conservatives don't want to handle documents of national security significance with the appropriate controls. They'd like that information to be available to Russia, to China and to whatever other adversary—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Cooper likes to heckle. I know he can't stand the sound of my voice schooling the Conservatives on their reckless behaviour, but he may want to keep his comments to himself for the purpose of this discussion, because he himself has been in serious hot water on a number of occasions.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order on relevance.

She should talk about the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's so cute because we all like to dance around it and then when we have the floor, we forget. I'm going to let her dance, but do try to come back to the amendment.

I would say, in general, let's just speak to the amendment and try to move this along. I encourage all of us to do that.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry for being distracted by Mr. Cooper losing it over there. He gets upset when I point out the Conservatives' record on national security matters and the embarrassing fact that their leader refuses to get security clearance to actually see these documents on behalf of Canadians, who he purports to want to represent.

With regard to the amendment, the issue at hand is to provide relevant information to this committee and that they would undertake to provide the removal, in the sense that when you go further in the motion, the relevant information being referred to is documents that are of national security significance. We heard witnesses describe what providing that in an open format would mean. It would mean a risk to our Canadian Armed Forces serving around the world.

Conservatives don't care about our Canadian Armed Forces serving. They don't care about the security risk of providing national security documents in an open format because they want to move forward on a study—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Duncan, go ahead on a point of order.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Chair, I just ask for reinforcement of relevance again. You made that comment probably two minutes ago. Maybe we could have the member reminded again of relevance and specifically about what Mr. Bittle just said a couple of minutes before that about their own subamendment.

Please speak to the relevance and repetition. We can get a ruling again on blatantly disrespecting the chair after you politely asked for relevance on the subamendment by Mr. Bittle and reinforced it.

This is complete disrespect for the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

If I want to talk about disrespect for the chair, then we can take turns and I could go around to everyone. I don't think that's the purpose here.

I am here to chair a meeting. I would like us to debate the amendment. I would like us to come to a conclusion and then try to find a way forward.

Once again, we're all honourable members, so please do speak to the amendment. I do think everyone can understand that there has to be leniency. I've also provided it for the other side, so let's just get along.

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's unfortunate, Madam Chair, that the Conservatives want to shut down my voice when I speak on this committee. It was Mr. Duncan himself who, in the debate on this amendment, brought up the issue of the documents in reference to The Globe and Mail. I'm simply responding. He opened that door and he's going to have to accept the counter-argument now, at this point.

It's fine if they.... Again, they wanted to move to debate this issue in public. Now the member opposite is upset that I am correcting the record on his testimony here and on what he spoke about. Unfortunately, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He opened the door by discussing the specific documents, and that's precisely what I am now debating.

Madam Chair, in regard to that specific relevant information, which is the subject of this amendment, the Conservatives once again have demonstrated they don't take care with the national security classification and the risk it poses. We're debating amending this motion because of what the testimony was at this very committee. We've had members of the national security community express concern when they released documents into the open source that, once again, our adversaries also access.

Let's talk about some of those adversaries and the warnings we heard about releasing some of the information the amendment on the floor is debating to remove.

What I find interesting in the last few days in this place, and even yesterday, is that the Conservatives have talked about national security. They used a potentially serious incident at our border with the U.S. The Leader of the Opposition took his national security direction from Fox News and other alt-right media calling an incident at the border a terrorist attack without any basis for that claim. He then wove into that his party's slogan to “bring it home”.

I find it very difficult to sit here debating this motion today. The reason it's crucial we make these amendments is that the Conservatives can't be trusted with national security. They don't have the relevant security clearance to receive information, and they are reckless with information being distributed to Canadians...to protect them. They would rather listen to alt-right media and fearmonger, instead of waiting for the national security community to come forward with the accurate information.

This amendment is needed because Conservatives can't be trusted with this level of information. They don't understand why some information must be kept classified for the safety of Canadians and for the safety of our armed forces serving around the world. Instead, they want to create a scenario where the adversaries of Canada who seek to influence our elections and harm Canadians.... The Conservatives want to hand those adversaries the combination to the safe. They want those adversaries to know the intelligence Canada has. They want to give them a blueprint of how to better influence our elections by giving them the information we have.

That's what the Conservative motion here today does, and that's why we've moved an amendment to exclude some of this information.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can take the word of the non-partisan national security community, which has testified here, time and again during this study, about the risk of putting classified information into the public domain without any care for or concern about what that information contains, or for the people serving around the world.

It is very damaging and, frankly, should have all Canadians concerned about the people who seek to lead this country, the people who seek to serve in the highest office of this land, who choose not to receive a security clearance, who choose not to have the information and instead would like to create a motion and a committee of searching for nothing. They'd rather allude to a scandal than get down to the work of making our elections, of making our democracy, stronger against attempts of influence. They'd like to create falsehoods that there is somehow information not being relayed to this committee. They have acknowledged that the information relayed was of national security significance.

It also reminds me of what we also saw the Conservatives do this week, which was pretty shocking and concerning, in regard to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

It's precisely why this amendment—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I am speaking to the amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Silence my voice. I get it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

On a point of order, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Once again, Madam Chair, I raise the question of relevance. It is not about silencing a colleague or doing anything like that.

I am simply saying clearly that we have an amendment, moved by the Liberal Party, that seeks to remove part of the motion seeking production of documents, the motion we are discussing, and that I would like my colleague to speak to that amendment.

I even invite her to read it aloud herself, so she sees what it is about, Madam Chair.