Canada-China Relations Committee on June 14th, 2021

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes, except that the government has not been forthcoming. Until June 3, this committee had been told repeatedly that the reason the documents weren't forthcoming was that it was a privacy and administrative matter. It was only suddenly, earlier this month, that it became a national security matter.

Given that you've not been forthcoming, why should Parliament, parliamentarians and Canadians be satisfied when you've not fulfilled the obligation to send documents to Parliament for oversight? The government is accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to Canadians through that Parliament. Instead, you've gone to a committee where members, as MP Chong pointed out, don't have the ability to hold the government accountable, as other committees do. No matter how hard they work, no matter their standing as parliamentarians, they simply do not have that ability to hold the government accountable.

It seems to me, and I think a lot of other Canadians, that this route has been chosen because you want to hide what's in those documents. You don't want to be forthcoming about the government's errors, the national security breach and possibly how you put our nation's security at risk.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

On the contrary, with due respect, I would suggest that your insistence on having documents presented in a way that would not protect national security is exactly that: putting Canada's national security at risk and putting privacy concerns to the side. I have confidence in the parliamentarians on that committee, all parliamentarians from all parties, to do that hard work and analyze those documents and come to their conclusions. That is the appropriate place for a matter of this sensitivity.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I know you weren't there, nor was I, but in the 40th Parliament, opposition members of Parliament ordered the Harper government to produce documents with respect to Afghan detainees. Were opposition members wrong to do that back then?

I'll point out that those documents were then subsequently released by the government. Was it wrong for parliamentarians to push for those documents? Was it wrong for the government to release those documents?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

You're right; I wasn't there.

I think part of the approach of this government—in participation, by the way, with your party—is to have a committee that has the appropriate security clearance to be able to do those sensitive reviews of documents that have a national security aspect or a privacy consideration. That's why those documents have been provided to the NSICOP committee.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Chair, do I have time for one more question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have 10 seconds.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

If this committee could prove to you that it could fulfill the security requirements you're concerned about, would you have any objection to releasing the documents you're holding back?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

MP Williamson, I'm not interested in trading in hypotheticals. We have a committee that has the appropriate clearance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Minister.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

We don't have a parliamentary committee, but okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

We'll now go on to Mr. Oliphant for five minutes, please.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you Minister, Mr. Stewart and Monsieur Poliquin, for being with us tonight.

While, you were not there in the 40th Parliament, Minister, I was. I think this may be a question you might have for me if you got to ask us questions—and I sometimes think you should be able to. It's this: why did I abstain on the opposition-day motion that has called you to be here?

I abstained because I believe fundamentally and profoundly that Parliament has the right to call for papers and persons. I also believe that parliamentarians and Parliament has the responsibility not to call for certain papers at certain times. That was the dilemma of the 40th Parliament when the Afghan detainee papers were considered. The Speaker did rule, but he did not give unfettered access to parliamentarians. Instead, he demanded a creative approach to review those papers carefully with certain criteria being placed on them.

That was the 40th Parliament. The 41st Parliament with Mr. Harper as the prime minister did nothing, despite the opposition's call then for a process in that situation. However, in the 42nd Parliament.... While I thank you for your presence here and I thank the former minister Ralph Goodale for his work in ensuring that, should a situation happen like that again, we would have a process by which a minister could refer these requests and papers. That is what we've done. We've set up that process. To honour Parliament, you have actually, in effect, done what Parliament has asked you to do. I want to thank you for that.

As I say, Parliament is supreme. I will argue that forever. I'll also argue that parliamentarians have to be responsible. In our wisdom, parliamentarians set up that committee. What the opposition is asking you today to do is to be in contempt of the previous Parliament that set up this committee.

I think that what you have been able to do is balance the need for information to go to parliamentarians to review—who are not hired and fired by the prime minister. That is incorrect and unparliamentary language. They are appointed as order in council appointments. Yes, they will dissolve when this Parliament dissolves, as will this committee. The argument that was made by Mr. Harris doesn't make sense either because both of these committees will dissolve.

Here we are in this situation in the 43rd Parliament where we're attempting to find out what happened. We're attempting to find out with privacy laws established by this Parliament, with a committee of parliamentarians established by a previous Parliament to do those things. I think it is absolutely appropriate for parliamentarians to be concerned about what happened in the lab in Winnipeg. We are absolutely concerned about that, but at the same time, we recognize that there is a place for that to be done. It is at the NSICOP, where we have one former member of this committee as a member of that committee.

When you're asked whether or not you have doubts about us and our abilities to handle this process, I would say that you don't have doubts—and I don't want to put words in your mouth. It's not about us as individuals. Could you clarify that? This is not about us as individuals. It is not about the parliamentary system. It's about honouring what Parliament has done to create an expert committee with security clearances that will do the work that we want done as Canadians.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

First of all, thank you, MP Oliphant, for a very valuable history lesson. I appreciate it.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm old.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I will also just say that, absolutely, my comments are in no way reflecting upon the capacity of this committee to review those documents, but rather the clearance for doing so. It is about the appropriate security clearance, of which the intent, I understand—and it was further elucidated by your comments—is the entire reason for a committee like the NSICOP. It's so that documents of this nature can be reviewed in a way that protects privacy and security concerns through obligations of the members, by the way, through that security clearance, to treat that information in a specific way. This is not a reflection of people's desires or capacities. It is a reflection of a particular security clearance.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to go back quickly to what Mr. Williamson said earlier.

Minister, why have the documents that initially could not be provided because of privacy suddenly become documents relating to national security?

What happened?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

The documents, as I have said, contain information that is sensitive. The documents this committee has received are redacted. However, to comply with the desire of this committee to have those documents turned over to parliamentarians.... In fact, a fully unredacted set of documents is with the NSICOP.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I asked you why the documents that initially could not be provided because of privacy have suddenly become documents relating to national security.

Why was that not stated at the outset? Why did it change?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I can't speak to the journey of how and at what time the documents have been shared. I've communicated with the NSICOP and informed the officials that the NSICOP is the appropriate committee to do this review.

Accordingly, President Stewart has provided a fully unredacted set of documents for that committee to do that review.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Minister, when did you first know that these were documents relating to national security?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, to the member, again, these documents are reviewed through the agency and with appropriate legal advice. It has been determined that these documents contain issues of privacy and national security. Therefore, they have been provided to a committee that has the appropriate clearance to review them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Minister, were you afraid that there would be leaks if these unredacted documents were provided to the committee? Were you afraid that this committee would make those documents public in some way?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

This is not about the character or capacity of parliamentarians to review documents, but rather the level of security clearance that they possess.