Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 11th, 2024

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

That's what I was getting at. It's interesting. You made that comment at another committee, and this came up in a CTV exchange on June 9, just a couple of days ago.

The interviewer said—they were talking about the leader of the Conservative Party—“just because your leader is briefed on this intelligence does not mean that he can't act,” which is what you've just said here. The interviewer went on to say, “In fact, it means he could act on that information. You had thought last week when we did an interview then”—the interview was with Mr. Chong—“that would not be the case.”

Mr. Chong then went on to say, “I think they're not correct”—referring to you—“in saying that. Here's why: What the Prime Minister is asking Mr. Poilievre to do is to essentially tie his hands behind his back. Here's why. The Prime Minister is asking Mr. Poilievre to go through the Treasury Board Secretariat's policy on government security. That's the same process that other individuals, for example, on NSICOP, have gone through. That process would require Mr. Poilievre to sign an undertaking and to swear an oath of secrecy not to divulge this information to anyone else and, therefore, not be able to tell anybody else to act on this information to hold individuals accountable.”

The host of the show then said, “Respectfully though, am I supposed to believe you over the director of CSIS?”

Michael Chong replied, “Yes, you are.”

I'm not going to ask you to comment on that, because I know you're not going to want to weigh in on this, but you have made it very clear today that if you do receive information, even if it is classified information, you can use that information to make decisions, even if you're not allowed to reveal that information.

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, that is my understanding.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Chong and his remarks. I would welcome a discussion with him to maybe have a chance to better understand his point of view.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Gerretsen.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Vigneault, let's get back to what you said you would like to see.

I was just thinking about a parliamentary committee with oversight, and just enough power to be non-partisan and prevent things like leaks to newspapers.

Do you have any more comments on that?

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, while pondering the member's question, I've thought of a few different models.

One example comes from our partners in Australia who, at regular intervals of just a few years, has a non-governmental third party review of all agreements and statutes governing national security. Their purpose is to ensure that, depending on the status of the threat, the tools in the tool box are the right ones and kept up to date. The aim of this kind of exercise is to take stock of the situation outside of electoral periods.

I've said several times over the past few years that Canada has been lucky, and that the threats it has faced were different from what other countries have experienced. Our geography, the three oceans bordering the country, and the fact that we have the United States as an economic and military partner, have enabled us to avoid the severe threat level that other countries have had to deal with.

So Canadians haven't had—and I'm delighted about this—to think about these questions in the same manner and with the same urgency as others. However, the world has changed and all the trends that have made Canada a prosperous, safe and sovereign country have been headed in the wrong direction for a few years now. I firmly believe that a different way has to be found to discuss these threats, including in Parliament, and that it has to be well-thought-out.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In short, you mean that you really have to do an analysis of the Five Eyes' models in order to come up with one for us to be prepared to deal with the threats.

I've run out of speaking time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Following up on Mr. Gerretsen's question, has the Prime Minister had the full unredacted NSICOP report for 11 weeks now?

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, I would take the words of the MP, but for a period of time for sure.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

There's no action. Okay. I was just double-checking.

I would like to give notice of a motion, Mr. Chair, in the time that I have. It's just notice, and we'll be sending it around shortly:

Given the recent findings of the NSICOP Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs order the production of all relevant memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, from departments and agencies, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Communications Security Establishment Canada, concerning interactions with Conservative Party of Canada officials and representatives on the topic of foreign interference; and its impact on the outcome of the 2020 and 2022 leadership races, provided that:

(i) both agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act;

(ii) these redacted documents be deposited as soon as possible, but not later than Sunday, June 23, 2024, with the clerk of the committee to be distributed to all members of the committee in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

We've got it.

I understand you're not choosing to move that motion, Ms. Mathyssen, so there remain—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'm giving notice. I have to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, absolutely. There remain 45 seconds in your questioning, if you'd like it.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Actually, I wouldn't mind building off what Madam Gaudreau was asking.

When I was in Taiwan on a trip, there was a great deal of discussion, of course, about what they face in terms of bombardment, foreign interference and the education of their own public that they move forward with. Have there been workings with the Government of Taiwan to learn from that, to educate their own public, even the idea of a minister of digital affairs?

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, very quickly, I would not comment specifically on the interactions of CSIS with partners, but I can reassure the member that there have been indeed a number of partners in government who have engaged specifically on these issues with partners in Taiwan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor now for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find it very ironic, yet again, to see the NDP jumping to the government's defence even though we've moved several motions to produce documents over a period of several weeks. Each time, the NDP voted with the government to prevent the production of documents. I therefore find it rather ironic that my NDP colleague should be introducing a motion today.

Mr. Vigneault, in your opening remarks, you mentioned the importance of not politicizing national security issues. I will return to that, because it's important to point out that politicizing national security issues doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about them; it doesn't mean that the opposition can't discuss them or ask difficult questions. What it really means is that certain information is being used to promote partisan interests.

Is that what you meant when you talked about politicizing national security issues?

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, by and large, that's exactly what I wanted to say.

Allow me to reiterate that my current position involves a duty of confidentiality. Nonetheless, when partisan interests are taken into consideration, which is normal in a democracy—and we're lucky enough to live in a democracy—the fundamental questions can be somewhat blurred. From my standpoint, things do indeed become more complicated when they are politicized.

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

If the government turns a blind eye to some information, if it refuses to look at classified information to avoid embarrassing its party, if it refuses to act when it has information about a candidate who may have received support from a powerful hostile power, if it blames another association or simply refuses to shoulder its responsibilities, that amounts to politicizing debate on national security.

Would you agree?

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that I won't be commenting on what the member said.

On the other hand, I can say that the discussion being held right now and the work being done by this committee are essential if Canadians are to be better protected against foreign interference and numerous other threats.

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

Please, Mr. Vigneault, it's important.

I wouldn't want people to think that the political debate surrounding the issues we are currently talking about is limited to the work of the committee or that it is only the result of some leaks. Decisions that might be made by a government that has partisan interests could also politicize the national security issue. It's undeniable.

[David Vigneault]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to exercise my duty of confidentiality with respect to these comments, but I appreciate the member's question.

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

Mr. Vigneault, who, within the machinery of government, can decide to declassify information considered confidential or top secret? I don't know how it works, but who can decide that information previously considered secret is now public?

[David Vigneault]

That's a very good question, Mr. Chair, but it's one to which there is unfortunately not a very good answer, insofar as there is no policy on declassification.

Let's take the Canadian Security Intelligence Service as an example. Information from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is subject not only to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Security of Information Act, but also to our practices and commitments. So the government does not have a policy on this, and there is no authority that can order a declassification.