Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2024

[Nathalie Drouin]

—talking about economic security, for example, that talk about the impacts of FI on our economy. Maybe there are some things that can be accessory to the main and relevant things. Those are the conversations we can continue to have, but nothing to this point has been withheld from the commission.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Even documents on just the issue of foreign interference related to the economy would be critical documents, because that could be a reason the government took certain actions or didn't take certain actions, Mr. Chair, and that's precisely the point. It should not be for the government to make that determination; rather, it should be for an independent commissioner to make that determination.

Ultimately, what we all want coming out of this inquiry is to have faith in the process, the inquiry and its outcome. If documents are withheld, you are going to undermine and undercut the work of the commissioner. I feel very strongly about that.

Canadians cannot afford it. The government cannot afford it. None of us can. That's why it's so important for the government to release all the documents the commissioner is requesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

We're quite a bit over, but I am going to permit the minister just for a moment.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Chair, just very briefly, I want to correct something Ms. Kwan said. The commission was set up to look at foreign interference in democratic institutions and democratic processes. We specifically did not set up a commission to look at economic interference.

To be very precise, that was a discussion we had with House leaders. The terms of reference are clear. To use the example that Madame Drouin properly used.... Then Ms. Kwan ran with the idea that documents around the Investment Canada Act.... Decisions that Mr. Champagne and I might make are specifically excluded by the terms of reference, because Madam Justice Hogue is focusing on democratic institutions and foreign interference. I just think we need to be very precise about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Kwan.

Thank you, Minister.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LeBlanc, the burden of proof is on the Prime Minister and your government. Why is that? Because you have been nonchalant on at least three occasions. The Prime Minister refused to listen to recommendations to release documents or provide information to parliamentarians. Then there were all sorts of attempts to refuse to answer questions. There was the appointment of a special rapporteur, whose mandate came to a fruitless end because nobody trusted him. Moreover, Judge Hogue's preliminary report shows us today that we were right not to have confidence in the special rapporteur.

We realize today that only the most appropriate documents will be given to Judge Hogue, according to the very words of the Prime Minister's national security advisor. As luck would have it, the documents in question have already been leaked to the media. Journalist Robert Fife had reported them. These four memoranda presented to cabinet were reported in the media.

Minister, do documents have to be leaked to the media in order to become appropriate for the Hogue commission?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

First of all, I would respond to my friend Mr. Berthold that this is not the case.

In fact, I want to correct something on this and Ms. Drouin will be able to give you more information. The leaks we saw were not related to the four cabinet documents we gave to the commission. So what has just been said is plain wrong.

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

No, it's not wrong.

There are four other documents. Other documents should have been delivered and were not delivered to Judge Hogue. How many documents were given to Judge Hogue and how many were not? You've been avoiding answering this question from the start.

I remind you that Ms. Drouin said earlier that, unfortunately, the leaks had enabled the commission of inquiry to be very specific in its requests for documents. So, on the one hand, Judge Hogue is making very specific requests for documents. On the other hand, we learn that Judge Hogue does not have access to all the documents.

Mr. LeBlanc, why is your government so opaque? Why does it refuse to be transparent, which would allow Canadians to regain confidence in the system?

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

Ha, ha!

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I see our colleagues are bursting out laughing after that comment by Mr. Berthold.

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

I'd like to point out that it was a Liberal colleague who laughed.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

He knows that we acted in good faith and showed a great deal of transparency with the Hogue commission.

Do you see the confusion, Mr. Chair? Mr. Berthold claimed that cabinet documents were leaked to the media. However, they were actually intelligence documents. Furthermore, 46,000 documents of this nature have already been sent to the Hogue commission.

There's a great deal of confusion between highly confidential intelligence documents and the few documents that, as Mr. Harper always maintained under his government—

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

This isn't the time to talk about Mr. Harper, Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

—are subject to cabinet confidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Just a moment, Minister.

I'll give the floor back to Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LeBlanc, this isn't the time to talk about Mr. Harper. We're talking about you right now. We're talking about the government that, from the start, has done everything to avoid shedding light on foreign interference. It hides names, conceals reports and avoids taking action.

You said that these documents weren't intended for cabinet. Unfortunately, the national security agencies wanted these documents read by cabinet, Mr. LeBlanc. Therein lies the confusion. How can we trust the Liberals these days?

We want to have faith in Justice Hogue's report. Why are you refusing to provide access to all the requested documents?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, here's another example of confusion. Our colleague, Mr. Berthold, says that we're hiding names. However, complying with Canada's criminal legislation isn't exactly the same thing as hiding names.

He also referred to the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. The Conservatives voted against the creation of this committee. The previous government didn't implement any measures to ensure transparency, as we can see right away in this conversation.

In closing, I have every confidence in Justice Hogue's work. I'm sure that her report will enlighten and reassure Canadians, and give the government—and hopefully Parliament—solutions to further strengthen our measures against foreign interference, which have been in place since our government was formed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Berthold, you have 10 seconds left.

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

I just want to make a clarification. The annual report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, released on June 5, clearly states that the Prime Minister and the government improperly cited cabinet confidence in order to withhold 1,000 documents, avoid handing them over to the committee of parliamentarians and thereby avoid making this information public. That's exactly what the committee said.

Mr. LeBlanc, the confusion is more on your end. Given all the foreign interference issues over the past two or three years, I think that it's time to get your own house in order and fully co‑operate with Justice Hogue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Ms. Drouin, you can respond briefly, if you wish.

[Nathalie Drouin]

Yes. Thank you.

This certainly doesn't concern 1,000 memoranda to cabinet. Keep in mind that, when we public servants prepare a memorandum to cabinet, the process will involve a number of emails, multiple versions of the memorandum and speaking notes for our respective ministers for their cabinet deliberations. A cabinet file can generate an astonishing array of documents. I can tell you with the utmost confidence this doesn't concern 1,000 cabinet files per se.

I also want to repeat, to maintain your trust—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Can you wrap up quickly, Ms. Drouin?

[Nathalie Drouin]

—in the commission of inquiry, that no documents from our intelligence agencies have been withheld. The commission has access to all the relevant documents concerning the work of our two main intelligence agencies.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to both Minister LeBlanc and Madame Drouin for being here today.

In answering these questions, the frustration that you're seeing from my Conservative colleagues across the table comes from the fact that they're not able to get you to help feed their narrative of secrecy. They're extremely frustrated by that, and I think it's evident, because you've answered the questions very clearly and directly today.

The reality is that if you were somebody who walked into this room, sat at the back of the room and just listened to what we listened to today, I think you would have heard very clearly Minister LeBlanc saying that the terms of reference for the Hogue commission and the documents we turned over were set up in collaboration with the House leaders, including Andrew Scheer, the House leader of the Conservative Party, last summer. The documents that were requested have been turned over, and the Privy Council Office continues to work with the Hogue commission to ensure that the documents Madam Justice Hogue needs and wants are provided.

My question actually goes to a topic that we haven't talked about today, which is the various party leaders and their willingness to get security clearance so that they can read the unredacted version of the Hogue commission's report.

Obviously, the Prime Minister has seen that, and we know that the leader of the NDP has. We now know that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is receiving his security clearance to do that. However, we also know that the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Poilievre, has chosen willingly to not receive the security clearance in order to see an unredacted version of the report.

Minister, can you provide some insight as to why that might be? If not, perhaps you can provide context as to why it's incredibly important for a leader of a political party to take the opportunity to look at that information.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, through you to our colleague Mr. Gerretsen, I think his question is an important one, because it goes to the very nature of what some people in the House of Commons continue to do: to create deliberately an exaggerated or misleading narrative while at the same time not benefiting from a government offer that stands again this morning—or I guess in early afternoon—for the Leader of the Opposition to receive the appropriate security clearance and then see the unredacted version.

The fact that Ms. May and the leader of the NDP took up the government offer, we think, is very constructive. You'll note that, having read the document, they seem to have a different view, one from the other. That perhaps tells us that it's important for people, having seen the unredacted report of the committee, to come to their own conclusions. Those redactions, as we noted earlier, were done by officials responsible for the protection of national security information, not done politically.

Why the Leader of the Opposition would refuse to, I can't speculate. I wondered the same thing myself, Mr. Gerretsen, but I do think it would be important for the credibility of his caucus colleagues, who continue to make outlandish and absurd allegations and assertions. They might have un petit moment de gêne, a little hesitation, about doing that if their boss said, “You know what, guys? Like, you're really making this stuff up.”

I don't know how their caucus would work. Neither would you, I assume, Mr. Gerretsen, but certainly I think there might be a little hesitancy about continuing to make stuff up all the time if your boss knew that what you were saying day after day may not be—