Information & Ethics Committee on April 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that intervention, Mr. Gerretsen.

I did rule that the motion was in order for several reasons, not the least of which is what I consider to be the mandate of the committee, which is access to information, privacy and ethics. I also ruled on the basis that our committee did study foreign interference and presented a report to Parliament. I believe that this issue is within the mandate of the committee.

I appreciate your point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. You have the floor.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

For years—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I mentioned to you before that I may have something to supplement.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I did not hear that, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I had done that before, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I didn't hear that.

Are you rising on a point of order?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have just a small supplement to the point made by Mr. Gerretsen, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

There is no allegation of foreign interference in this motion, nor is there any allegation related to the ethical standards related to public office holders. If there is any ethical violation, it would be by a non-public office holder.

Again, Mr. Chair, I would respectfully request that you identify what within the mandate of the committee actually relates to the motion proposed by Mr. Cooper.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Again, I appreciate that.

I think I've stated, within the mandate of the committee and the history of the committee, my ruling on that. I have ruled on it, Mr. Housefather.

If you have an issue with that, I certainly invite you to challenge the ruling. In the absence of that, I'm going to go to Mr. Cooper. He has the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

For years, the Prime Minister has attempted to cover up his knowledge of Beijing's interference in our elections—interference that benefited him and the Liberal Party—and attempted to cover up and misstate the facts about what he knew and what Beijing did to support the candidacy of the now sitting member for Don Valley North, whom the Prime Minister touted as a member of his team. It was interference that Beijing engaged in to advance Beijing's interests that also benefited the Prime Minister.

It was confirmed, Mr. Chair, at the public inquiry last week that CSIS briefed senior Liberal officials that Beijing had, in fact, interfered in the Liberal nomination in Don Valley North in 2019 to benefit the now member for Don Valley North. We know the Prime Minister was informed about the contents of that CSIS briefing. We know, in the face of the knowledge that the Prime Minister had, that Beijing interfered to assist the now member for Don Valley North—then the Liberal candidate for Don Valley North.

What did the Prime Minister do? He effectively gave the green light to Beijing's interference. He didn't rescind the nomination. There's nothing to indicate that he made any further inquiries. Instead, he merely shrugged his shoulders, signed off on that compromised candidate and then attempted to cover it up. When allegations and intelligence came to light about the activities of Beijing in support of the member for Don Valley North, the Prime Minister called people names and attempted to misdirect and mislead. Now, of course, we know—it was reported on a year ago—that Beijing did in fact interfere in that nomination for the benefit of the member for Don Valley North.

Yesterday, The Globe and Mail reported that the classified information that was provided at that CSIS briefing was illegally leaked, and that resulted in the member for Don Valley North being tipped off that he was being monitored by CSIS. We know that only a handful of top Liberals were at that CSIS briefing. They are among the highest-ranking officials within the Liberal Party. All of them are closely connected to and associated with the Prime Minister.

There were three people—three top Liberals—at that CSIS briefing. They were the national director of the Liberal Party, Azam Ishmael, Braeden Caley and Mathieu Lafrance. According to the testimony of one of the Prime Minister's top advisers, Jeremy Broadhurst, when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee on April 25, 2023, Ishmael informed him about the CSIS briefing. Broadhurst had the “requisite security clearance”. We know there were only four people—three were directly briefed, and a fourth received the details of that briefing. We know that the following day, the Prime Minister was briefed by Jeremy Broadhurst.

There were five people—five top Liberals, including the very top Liberal himself, the Prime Minister—who were briefed and had the details of that classified information.

It is important to emphasize the seriousness of what happened, based upon the report in the Globe and Mail. Someone connected to the Prime Minister leaked classified information that consequently disrupted an ongoing CSIS intelligence operation. Someone connected to the Prime Minister, the top Liberal official, compromised the work of CSIS and put the partisan interests of the Liberal Party ahead of Canada's national security.

In so doing, they committed a serious criminal offence. They contravened section 4 of the Security of Information Act, which is punishable as an indictable offence with a term of imprisonment of up to 14 years. It is about as serious as it gets.

Someone—one of those four people, either the Prime Minister himself or one of a select number of chiefs of staff in the Liberal government who would have also had, at the time, the requisite security clearances—leaked classified information that then undermined and thwarted a CSIS intelligence operation, to advance the partisan interests of the Liberal Party, and that benefited a hostile foreign state: the Beijing-based Communist regime.

There are questions arising from this that Canadians deserve answers to, and we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility, on behalf of Canadians, to get those answers.

As I see it, there are at least four questions, in the wake of this shocking report, that need to be answered, and they are as follows: First, which top Liberal official illegally leaked the classified information? Who's the top Liberal who broke the law? What's the name of that person? Who's the criminal associated with the Prime Minister, and who compromised Canada's national security? Second, who tipped off the then Liberal candidate, now the member for Don Valley North, that he was a target of, or at least being monitored by, CSIS? Third, when did the Prime Minister first learn of this criminal leak? Fourth, once the Prime Minister knew—and he did know; he had to have known—did he refer this criminal leak and major national security breach by one of his top Liberal officials to the RCMP?

This incident, the latest piece in a massive scandal involving Beijing's interference and the Prime Minister's turning a blind eye and, in some ways, giving a green light to it when it benefited him, highlights the absolute rot and corruption of this Prime Minister and those around him. This is a serious matter. It's scandalous, and it is further evidence that, for this Prime Minister and those around him, it's all about advancing the Prime Minister's selfish, personal interests, and the partisan political interests of the Liberal Party, which he leads—national security be damned.

It's imperative that the ethics committee, which is the committee responsible for access to information—and here we have classified information and a massive illegal flow of classified information—get to work, commence hearings and bring in, as a starting point, and, I would submit, as a priority, the four people who we know received that classified information.

One of those four, either the Prime Minister or one of a select number of senior chiefs of staff in the Prime Minister's government, broke the law, and we need to find out who that person was.

We also need to hold the Prime Minister accountable, because whoever broke the law is one of his top officials. The Prime Minister knew about it. He was briefed about it, and we know he turned a blind eye to the evidence of Beijing's interference. If he did not report this criminal incident to the RCMP, then he effectively was complicit and worked to cover it up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor on the motion, please, followed by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bains.

Go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague Mr. Cooper for his excellent analysis and for putting into context the seriousness and the importance of this motion and quite clearly why it should be studied not only in other committees but also particularly here in the ethics committee.

This government—I have known all along, as have Canadians, literally for the last eight years—is the most ethically challenged, corrupt government this country has ever seen.

I think this public inquiry, the evidence we have heard through this public inquiry and the reports from a number of media giants really underscore and make abundantly clear to me as an opposition parliamentarian, but also, I'm sure, to my colleagues on the bench, as well as people across Canada, the rationale as to why the Prime Minister, his government and his backbench fought so hard to avoid this public scrutiny.

We always knew there was a fire to this raging smoke, this smokescreen. Actually, it really brings home to me personally, given all the work I've done on a number of committees, but particularly in relation to the foreign interference angle, why he hand-picked special rapporteur David Johnston, who had access to the same information that the justice is now receiving but clearly had a different focus as he was receiving the information, and a different focus in terms of his report: that, in his view, “irregularities” weren't sufficient to raise red flags. There was no mention at all about the leaks. He had access to that information. Canadians were denied the right to know that information. It brings it all home to me why they did everything they could to avoid public scrutiny.

I've had the ability to assess the cross-examination of our Prime Minister yesterday and contrast and compare that with his cross-examination, if you can call it that, when he testified at the Emergencies Act inquiry by Justice Rouleau. It was not a good day for the Prime Minister. There were so many significant differences in the evidence that he gave, as contrasted to that of his chief of staff, Katie Telford, when she testified over a year ago.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Yes. She lied.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Well, some could say she lied, and that's certainly an approach that you can take. However, the most glaring example was that she was adamant a year ago that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reads ferocious amounts of material, voluminous amounts of material. Everything that is put in front of him he reads, and he follows up. He takes his job as Prime Minister seriously, and he takes the job of Canada's national security seriously. What an absolute joke that is when you heard from the Prime Minister himself yesterday that he's too busy to read. He's too busy to read confidential briefs from CSIS that highlight incidents that could compromise our national security, the fairness of elections and the integrity of nominations. He's too busy to read that himself. He wants his yes-men and yes-women to do a summary for him. That is a very damning, conflicting piece of evidence, Mr. Chair.

Now we hear that there was a top Liberal staffer, who reported directly to the Prime Minister, who leaked classified, sensitive information compromising, as Mr. Cooper has indicated, the CSIS investigation. There is clearly an offence for that type of activity. Section 4 of the Security of Information Act spells it out in plain language that a person who holds confidential information and shares it with another individual—in this case, the member for Don Valley North—has committed an offence under that act. Section 27 outlines the punishment for that act.

What my colleague Mr. Cooper talked about was the indictable phase of the prosecution of that offence. It's actually a hybrid offence. You can proceed by indictment or summary conviction, but given that the limitation period for prosecuting by summary conviction has long passed, it has to be indictable. This person has a high probability not only of being convicted, but of spending the next decade in federal prison. That's how serious this matter is.

In the last six to twelve months, Mr. Chair, with all the scandals and all the rotten corruption from this Liberal government.... At one point I was sitting on four or five committees at the same time just keeping track of all the scandals. I remarked to myself, imagine all the referrals that the RCMP is getting just from the actions of this Prime Minister and his government and the federal public service. I just spoke to my friend Mr. Cooper, and I said I often wake up at night just thinking about all of the scandals and all of the potential investigations.

We finally had an opportunity, not too long ago, to question the commissioner of the RCMP regarding the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The only thing that I could conclude from that, notwithstanding their strong proclamations that nobody is above the law, including the Prime Minister.... The evidence was there. The evidence was very clear, based on the information that they had available from the Ethics Commissioner, that Justin Trudeau did commit the offence of obstruction of justice by attempting to interfere in the decision-making of his then attorney general.

The only thing I could conclude, like many Canadians reviewing that exchange, was that there was indeed a two-tier level of justice. Now, I'm hoping that the RCMP are watching this, following along with the inquiry, reading the press and gaining some suspicion. To launch any police investigation, Mr. Chair, there has to be some suspicion. To lay a criminal charge under the Security of Information Act is a low threshold. Does the RCMP have reasonable and probable grounds—a very low standard—to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction purposes and to believe that a top Liberal insider, a political staffer who reports directly to Justin Trudeau, leaked highly sensitive, classified information from CSIS?

I think, based on the evidence we have heard in this inquiry, that threshold has easily been met, so I would hope, given their reservations that no prime minister in the history of this country has ever been charged with a criminal offence, that they cast aside their reservations and their political reluctance to look at the Prime Minister as a suspect worthy of criminal prosecution and go after the sole person who is responsible for this leak.

My colleague Mr. Cooper stood up yesterday in the House, during QP, and quite pointedly asked the question that Canadians deserve to know and that all parliamentarians deserve to know: Who was that person? The parliamentary secretary stood up, completely ignored that question and talked about, as many Liberal members have talked about, how they respect the inquiry and welcome the inquiry. Again, that was not being completely truthful and honest with Canadians. They knew there was something to hide. They knew there was a smoking gun, and here it is. This is worthy of a full-blown investigation, Mr. Chair, and that is why I very proudly support this motion.

Before I give up the floor, I am asking for a brief amendment to the motion. There is a reference to a Mathieu Lafrance in the motion. Where his name is referenced, the amendment should read, “Senior Liberal staffer who received CSIS briefing, Mathieu Lafrance”.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Thank you for that correction. I'm going to accept that as an amendment. I don't anticipate we're going to have any discussion on the amendment because—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Is it on the amendment, Mr. Gerretsen?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

First, I would like to understand exactly where it is. I'm looking at the motion. I don't see.... How is it being amended?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Replace how it's stated with this: “Senior Liberal staffer who received CSIS briefing, Mathieu Lafrance”. He was not part of the SITE task force. That's why I'm seeking the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's an amendment for clarification of his role. Is that correct, Mr. Brock?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Mr. Gerretsen, does that answer your question?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I just wanted to know where it was.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't see any discussion on the amendment.

I'm going to accept the amendment as a clarification without any further discussion. Is it agreed?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

I'm asking that all members, as a courtesy, put their phones on silent, with no vibrating or tones, because I have been informed it's affecting our interpreters. Phones have been going off quite regularly.

We're going to continue with the discussion on the motion as amended. We agreed to the amendment.

I have Mr. Fisher, Mr. Bains and Mr. Gerretsen after that.

Mr. Fisher, you have the floor on the motion as amended.

Go ahead, please.