Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see that my Liberal colleagues aren't opposed to hearing from the minister, are they? So we have something in common.

Next, we have a motion before us, and you know very well that the Conservatives won't give up. You also know my position on this motion. You need only read this motion, which states that we will invite the minister within 14 days of the adoption of this motion regarding his priorities for the return of Parliament and his mandate. In my opinion, we've come back and the minister won't be coming to meet with us for anything else.

In addition, we already have Bill C‑65, and we already have to prepare the agenda. I can't vote against that.

I would like to hear what my colleague Ms. Mathyssen has to say about where she stands on that. I invite my colleagues to withdraw their request to speak and to call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Duncan.

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

Mr. Gerretsen tried there to make a case, but I think he made the case for supporting having the minister come here in the next 14 days. He's just passing all of his comments of what he said all over the place there. Well, let's just let the justice finish her work.

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

It's being impeded.

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

Yes, it's being impeded; that's absolutely correct. The reason the minister needs to come.... The minister was here at our last meeting and at the table because the commission is not getting all the documents it is requesting. Here we are again with “Oh, just let them finish.” They always do this. They stall and obstruct. They try to make it look innocent: “Oh, don't worry about it. We'll have them down later.” They always play these games. Canadians don't trust them.

It's another perfect example of what's happening right here. They are stalling and stalling. We had this meeting with the minister in June. Then what they did was that they quietly did an order in council and passed a few more documents on. They wouldn't even say how many documents there were.

However, at the end of the day, here's the part, Mr. Chair, that matters the most. Mr. Gerretsen just leaves out.... As for “let them finish their work,” we agree. Let them finish their work with all the documents they deserve, want and should have. Hearings are under way less than a kilometre away from this committee room—probably a few hundred feet away, if you're getting quite technical—as we speak. They still don't have....

It says it right in the article. They're going to quote journalists and what they're saying. I'm happy to do the same and make the same argument Mr. Gerretsen is making. We should have the minister here in two weeks because they should be finishing their work, and they should be finishing their work with everything they have.

It says right here:

The order does not specify how many additional documents will be released to the inquiry or how many redactions will be lifted.

It continues:

But four months after the publication of her report and even after the government's latest...release, Hogue is still pushing for more records.

In a statement, the PCO didn't even confirm all of this.

Again, supporting our argument to get the minister here immediately and with urgency, it says right from the same article in the National Post:

But national review agencies and observers are increasingly concerned that the government is constantly expanding its definition of what is a cabinet confidence to prevent the disclosure of certain information.

In interviews, two national security academics say the government's latest release order is very narrow and unlikely to provide all the information Hogue is seeking.

It says right in the same article:

What is being released now is “a very narrow window into a much broader range of intelligence reporting, and it's not the most important window either,”....

This is what they try to do. Kick the.... They say, “Oh, yes, we'll have the minister down at some point about Bill C-65 and the bill that's there, and we'll ask some general questions.” No. The minister needs to be here in the next two weeks, answering questions on this and getting this issue resolved. The integrity of the work that Justice Hogue is doing is on the line.

If, months after our last hearing in June in Parliament, it's still hanging over here not resolved and still not satisfied.... Here we have Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Gerretsen saying not to worry and to just let her do her work. We agree. Let her do her work by providing everything she deserves to have and needs to have, all the documents she deserves to have of what she deems reasonable to see and not what the government deems reasonable for her to see, to do a review of its very own actions—or, in many cases, inaction—when it comes to foreign interference.

Therefore, I appreciate Mr. Gerretsen's intervention. I hope he has more because every time he does, he makes the argument for why the minister should be here within two weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Turnbull is next, followed by Mr. Calkins.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

God, I have a lot to say about this, so I look forward to future conversations.

I think I've already made the case for why and how we know that Minister LeBlanc will be coming to committee already as a part of our studies that we have and of bills, including government legislation, which, as we know, should take priority.

We all know that Conservatives will always say that we're masters of our own domain, which we are. However, government legislation should take priority, in many cases, on committees. Minister LeBlanc will certainly, I'm sure, attend the study of Bill C-65, which is a great bill that deals with foreign interference and electoral integrity.

I'd like to propose an amendment to Mr. Cooper's motion. I'll read it into the record. It would be:

That the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs to appear before the committee for no less than one hour in relation to his priorities for the return of Parliament and his mandate, as part of the study of Bill C-65.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Just before we enter into debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull, did everybody catch that?

Were we able to understand it in French? Ms. Gaudreau, do you need a copy in French? Yes? Okay.

Colleagues, until Madame Gaudreau.... I'm not sure she was in her seat at exactly the moment this was introduced. She does have to have an opportunity to see this.

Ms. Gaudreau, would it be enough if Mr. Turnbull repeated his amendment in English? We could continue until the written translation is ready. Would that be okay?

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

In the interest of efficiency, if my colleague speaks very slowly and then we get the translation, that may suffice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

With that, Mr. Turnbull, if you can just....

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, Mr. Berthold.

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

I would also like you to ask me the question you asked Ms. Gaudreau. As a francophone member from Quebec, I also have the right to have access to documents in French and to motions in French. I would like you to take the time, if you want to consult francophone members, to consult not just Bloc Québécois members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Berthold.

The reason I consulted Ms. Gaudreau is that she had mentioned that there was a problem. You didn't flag a problem. I understand and respect the fact that there are a number of francophone members and, in future, we will make sure that everyone has what they need to do their work in both official languages. However, that's why I didn't ask you about it at that time.

With that, thank you for the reminder.

Mr. Turnbull, if you could, please slowly reread your amendment.

In the future, colleagues, I would ask, for all members, when we know we're going to propose an amendment, that as the amendment is being read in, somebody on your team do their best to translate it into the other language so that we don't lose efficiency at the table, just as a matter of general practice.

Mr. Turnbull, could you just repeat the amendment, please?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'd be happy to, and you have my apologies for reading it so quickly into the record.

I'll start from the top. I move:

That the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs to appear before the committee for no less than one hour in relation to his priorities for the return of Parliament and his mandate, as part of the study of Bill C-65.

Now, I would just maybe summarize. It's changing it from “two hours” to one hour, removing the “within 14 days” and adding “as part of the study of BillC-65”, which is consistent with the very first intervention I made on this motion. I think it's more than reasonable that we'll have him come as part of Bill C-65.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Colleagues, we now enter into debate on the motion as amended by Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Berthold, Ms. Gaudreau, is the interpretation good enough for the moment? It seems so, yes. We'll get the translation shortly.

Thank you.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you, and with greatest respect, Mr. Turnbull, the effect of this amendment is to gut the motion. It entirely guts the motion. The fact is that we're going to hear from the minister on Bill C‑65, otherwise more properly known as the loser Liberal pension protection act. We're going to hear from him on that. He has a lot to answer for on that bill with respect to inserting into a so-called elections bill a clause that protects the pensions of soon-to-be defeated Liberal MPs.

As Mr. Duncan stated, when I went home, Canadians were absolutely disgusted by this cynical and corrupt attempt to pad the pockets of soon-to-be defeated Liberal MPs. Boy, I can tell you, Canadians can't wait for a carbon tax election to throw out one of the most corrupt governments in Canadian history. Be that as it may, we're going to hear from the minister, and he has a lot to answer for on his cynical and corrupt loser Liberal pension protection act.

However, we also need to probe the minister on his obstruction and the Prime Minister's obstruction of Madam Justice Hogue's inquiry, the refusal of the minister to name the 11 compromised MPs and the refusal of the minister to clarify whether any of those compromised MPs sit in Justin Trudeau's cabinet, which, I think, says everything Canadians need to know.

The effect of Mr. Turnbull's motion would put us in a position where this motion wouldn't even need to be put forward, because we're going to hear from the minister on the loser Liberal pension protection act. The purpose of this motion is to hear from the minister on a much broader range of topics and to hear him for two hours in a separate meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, before I go to the next speakers, which would be Mr. Duncan and Mr. Calkins, this is what I'm going to do. If I don't hear, by the end of Mr. Calkins remarks, that there is any movement and that we're just going to continue debate, I'm going to suspend the meeting to offer the parties an opportunity to discuss how they want to move forward. We've used up 45 minutes of the meeting.

Understandably, it's legitimate, but we do have to emerge from this meeting with a path forward on committee business. There is ample opportunity for us to have conversations.

As I said, we'll have Mr. Duncan, followed by Mr. Calkins. If it still looks like we're at an impasse, I'm going to suspend and give parties an opportunity to talk and try to break through our impasse, so that we can make a decision on this and get to setting an agenda for committee business. We have legislated timelines on things. We have questions of privilege. We have a variety of other very important people to bring forward.

Obviously, it's within everybody's right to continue this conversation, but there's no point in continuing the conversation if we don't have an idea of how we're going to get to a solution. I'm simply offering this as a preface to where we're headed.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours.

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

We talk about an impasse and good faith to try to come to something. We have a motion from Mr. Cooper—a very reasonable two hours to have the minister here within 14 days. Forty-five minutes into the meeting, what does Mr. Turnbull do? He cuts it in half from two hours down to one. For Canadians who aren't experts in parliamentary hearings, the minister gets one hour. The minister gets 10 minutes for an opening statement with a couple of rounds, and now the 14 days are taken out so they can kick this can down the road.

It is not good faith what the government has done with this amendment, to take out the part about two hours down to one. It's not in good faith to completely remove the 14 days. The government is trying to spread everything out here and distract from the real, urgent issues at hand.

Mr. Chair, you've just talked about the many outstanding issues this committee has to deal with. The minister is responsible for many of those, and there are many questions on a wide range of topics. Again, I'll repeat the urgency of this. The government does all these things to kick the can down the road, obstruct, stonewall and try to look innocent and nice. It's just a good-faith effort on the government's part to put an amendment that's reasonable and fair—that's nonsense.

The minister should be here within two weeks for two hours and should be held accountable. The urgency of all this, again, is with respect to the integrity of the inquiry that Justice Hogue is undertaking right now. There are hearings under way of not having access to all the documents that she deems relevant and reasonable to have. The government keeps brushing it off and saying, “Oh, we'll do this or that.” The government members could ask questions in their rounds, but, again, the minister should be here for a full meeting of two hours and should be here within two weeks.

This is not in good faith. I'm not going to let the government get away by saying, “Oh, here's a reasonable amendment to try to move this along.” It's nonsense. It's further obstruction. It's further games. The minister can come for two hours within two weeks and answer the many outstanding questions that our committee and Canadians have for him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Calkins, the floor is yours.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the Canadians who will be watching this or who are watching and listening to this committee right now, the effect that this amendment has on the main motion moved by my colleague Mr. Cooper will be exactly what Mr. Duncan predicts. It will cut the amount of time that we have to question the minister more proportionally. It cuts the committee time in half and it actually cuts the time that the minister has to answer questions by significantly more than half because it doesn't alter the minister's time for opening remarks, which would leave a mere 50 minutes for questions from members of Parliament, rather than an hour and 50 minutes.

This is a frustrating bone of contention. It also removes the element of 14 days. Time is of the essence, given the scope and mandate of the Hogue commission. I certainly don't take any comfort in any good faith because I've seen this many times over the last nine years.

Then, of course, adding on the context at the end of the motion of “the return of Parliament and his mandate” in relation to the study of Bill C-65 means that any question that anybody asks that's not germane or pertinent to Bill C-65 will be interrupted with points of order by, I'm assuming, Liberal MPs, to try to further obstruct and provide cover and a place for the minister to hide in relation to other questions.

That is why the wording in the motion by my colleague, Mr. Cooper, leaves it broad. We could ask the minister questions about legislation. We could ask the minister questions about foreign interference. We could ask the minister about the integrity of our election institutions and election readiness by Elections Canada, but many of those questions would potentially be deemed out of order should we adopt this amendment.

It's frustrating, but this is the pattern. I remember the conversation that we had at this committee about whether or not it was actually this committee's role to continue to pursue foreign interference, and everybody said that we're going to push this off. I can't recall how many times we've had document production requests from this committee and the big argument around this table was that members of Parliament shouldn't be seeing these things because we don't have the security clearance and so on. The solution from the government—the coalition at the time—was that we're going to give this over to a commission and to a justice who will have the security clearance to see all of the documents.

Of course, that was just code for sending the justice only the documents that we think the justice should see and not the documents that we would have liked to have seen produced before this committee and before the law clerk. It's not even the documents that the commissioner herself and her team have suggested they need in order to fully ensure accuracy and the details necessary to carry out the mandate the commissioner has.

It's always about weasel words, saying they're going to try to make this look like they have nothing to hide. However, it really is that they're going to duck and cover and continue to provide cover for this government, which frankly does not have the confidence of Canadians and quite understandably should not have the support of this House.

It's frustrating for me to watch this continued charade where the government pretends to be acquiescing and to be open, honest and transparent with Canadians, and then its actions and behaviours are anything but.

I will not be voting in favour of this amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull. The minister can appear, as far as I am concerned, within the 14 days.

I would encourage my colleagues who actually care about the future of our country to vote against this amendment. Let's have a vote in favour of transparency. Let's have a vote in favour of democracy. Let's have a vote in favour of holding the government to account, which is what all of us ought to be doing at this table.

Say no to the amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull and get back to the main motion, which I think should be passed in its original form as presented by my colleague Mr. Cooper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, I did mention that I was ready to suspend, but only if there are folks who want to speak to this further. If there are not, then I'm going to call the question for a vote.

I have Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Berthold who would like to continue, so what I'm going to do is very briefly suspend and give us all a few minutes to breathe and talk to each other. Hopefully, when we come back and Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Berthold have the floor, we will get some movement on this.

We are briefly suspended, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Welcome back.

My understanding is that we made good use of our suspension. We've resumed debate on the motion as amended.

Ms. Mathyssen, I recognize you. You have the floor.

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

I would like to make a subamendment, if I may.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, you said, “on the motion as amended”. I don't think it's been amended yet.