Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Gaudreau, sorry to interrupt, but you have only about 15 seconds left.

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

I'll make good use of my next two and a half minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. I'll give you an extra 20 seconds for your next turn.

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here today as well.

What has been clear through this whole situation is that there have been major gaps in government action in informing members of Parliament, whether it be in the case of MP Michael Chong, who was targeted—a leak was required to provide that information—or this instance of the cyber-attack on parliamentarians, when it took another source, the FBI, to inform them.

What's clear is that this is not a one-off in terms of miscommunication or poor communication, but rather a systemic issue. That's the way I see it. Over and over again, we are learning important information that members of Parliament should be informed of, and we're not.

In this instance, with the cyber-attacks, as it was indicated, we have had different agencies come before this committee, and everyone was pointing a finger at someone else to say, “They're responsible,” and that is not acceptable. I hope the government will accept that.

My first question is whether the government accepts responsibility. What's happened in this pattern of behaviour is simply not acceptable.

[Nathalie Drouin]

I think together, we need to take foreign interference and cyber-threats very seriously. We are all learning together. I said in my opening remarks that if something like that happened today, it would be handled differently, based on our collective experience and based on the ministerial directives.

We shouldn't forget that the traitor here is not us and is not you; it's the foreign actors. Together, we need to be stronger in order to respond appropriately to foreign actors.

Yes, we are taking those lessons. Yes, we can improve the system. Yes, we can handle things differently. We all need to do that in order to be stronger against those hostile state actors.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The question then is, how will things be done differently? The truth of the matter is that I don't believe the government has taken foreign interference activities very seriously, or at least not until this moment. In fact, we heard through the commissioner in the inquiry that Canada is actually way behind the eight ball. Through the witnesses at the inquiry, Canada is way behind the eight ball in comparison with our ally countries. Everyone else is miles ahead of us. We're only just starting to wake up to it.

I guess the question is this: When can parliamentarians receive documentation on how the government intends to proceed, if lessons are indeed learned going forward? Will there be adjustments, for example, with intelligence that's come through? There are instances where I think there is an overreach in the protection of information because of the notion of national security. When will that be adjusted?

There's a third question related to this. Even within the government's very many departments and different set-ups and agencies looking into this matter, there is actually not a coherent process coming out of that. We learned, for example, that the SITE task force did not inform Elections Canada in real time of information they had that a particular candidate may be subject to foreign interference activities. They were not informed of that in real time. Even when a complaint was made, that information was still not shared with Elections Canada.

How is this possible? What will be done to address this litany of mistakes? When will the government undertake an approach that actually connects the dots with all these activities to create a coherent picture?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Let me start with something that you as parliamentarians have just done. You have just adopted Bill C-70. Bill C-70 will give us new tools to address new realities—for example, being able to talk about foreign interference with other levels of government, the private sector and academics. That alone is a new tool that is very important.

Through the commission, we have also worked very hard in terms of trying to sanitize and do summaries when it comes to foreign intelligence documents. This is a new reality for us. We haven't done that before. This is in order to make those documents more accessible and transparent.

Other countries, yes, it's true, are doing declassification. We've heard many times the U.S. talking about the fact that they declassified information before the invasion of Russia in Ukraine. We can also learn from that and do that differently in a more regular manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Take a few last seconds to wrap up, please.

[Nathalie Drouin]

We've talked about the flow of information, which you've seen. It is something that the system has started to address. My predecessor has done tremendous work regarding that. I'm continuing it, because it's true that trying to find out who saw what and when is something that's very important for all of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Just before we go back to the Conservatives for the next question, I would like to say something.

Ms. Gaudreau, I gather that you'll need to leave us in a few minutes to take part in a celebration. I want to thank you for your contribution to this committee over the past few months. I hope that you have a wonderful summer. I would like to extend my congratulations to your family.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to seeing you again, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Welcome, Ms. Gill. You'll have the floor in a few minutes.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Madame Drouin, I want to follow up on some of the statements you've made today that, frankly, have not been true at all.

You said on the inquiry that “nothing...has been withheld”, and then you later said in an exchange that the commission has “everything” they've asked for. That's not true. If that were the case, why did the legal counsel for Madam Justice Hogue say to our committee, only within the last couple of weeks, that discussions between the commission and the government on the issue of disclosure of cabinet confidences are ongoing?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm just kind of confused. I don't know if Mr. Duncan knows that we're not on the same study. We're on the study about the cyber-attacks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

It is a fair reminder.

Mr. Duncan, let's finish the line of questioning. However, it is a fair reminder that we are here more specifically on the cyber-attacks. Finish the line of questioning. Let's see where it goes.

Madame Drouin, you'll have a moment to answer that question.

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

Where I'm going with this is to the pattern of cover-ups that are happening time and again on this issue. My question is.... I've mentioned the letter from the legal counsel. If they have everything they've asked for, why are they still going through a legal process with you to get the documents that they deem relevant and that they want to have?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I can answer that question. I'll try to be brief.

I'd like us to be clear. We are putting everything in the same basket, talking about information. There are different types of information. What I have said is that all intelligence information, relevant heavily classified information, relevant information to the mandate of the commission—everything—has been shared with the commission without exercising any kind of privilege.

The other part of your question is more related to, potentially, memoranda to cabinet. This is why I also shared with you that the most to-the-point documents, the four most relevant documents, were shared with the commission, and the ongoing conversation is about, potentially, supplementary memoranda to cabinet that may have been talked about.

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

Here's the problem, Madame Drouin. It's the most relevant deemed by you, deemed by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, making that determination of what is relevant. The terms of reference that were set say that it “authorize[s] the Commissioner to...receive and review any relevant classified or unclassified documents”.

Here's the thing for Canadians watching this and what is happening: This is like a courtroom trial where the accused who is on the stand gets to choose what evidence the judge gets to see. The reason this inquiry is going on and the reason there's been so much scrutiny is the action or, frankly, lack of action from the Prime Minister, the PMO and the PCO on combatting foreign interference. Will you explain to Canadians why the very groups I just mentioned, including yourself, under scrutiny get to select what evidence the justice gets to see? Why don't you provide everything, not that you deem relevant but that she deems relevant?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I like the comparison with the litigation. As you know, I've managed a lot of litigations and a lot of e-discoveries in my life, and this is how it works. We do proceed in terms of collecting, based on the questions we are receiving, all the materials. Then we disclose this assessment to the court, and this is based on good faith. There are consequences if we are not acting in good faith and are trying to hide things. This is at the core of the process.

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

I will just argue that there are consequences when Canadians look at this and see that documents are not being provided as requested by the justice leading this. We talk about consequences. It's the integrity of this commission and having the justice, Madam Justice Hogue, feeling like she has everything she needs to be able to do a proper investigation. When lawyers and legal counsel are meeting back and forth, they're clearly not happy.

I'm going to pass the remainder of my time over to Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Wait just one moment, Mr. Cooper. I will stop the clock.

Madame Drouin, I will offer you a brief opportunity to respond.

[Nathalie Drouin]

I just want to say that we will all benefit from the work of the commission and from its recommendations. It's not to the advantage of any of us to withhold information in order for her to be relevant in her conclusions.

Then, of course, we do have a responsibility as civil servants to strike the right balance in protecting...which is really important for you in terms of the cabinet confidence and making sure that she can do her job. However, we all want her to succeed, because we want Canada to succeed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madame Drouin.

Mr. Cooper, I'm going to restart the clock. There are 45 seconds remaining.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will move a motion that I had on notice. I'll read it.

I move:

That, given the large workload the committee is managing, the committee instruct the chair to schedule five meetings between July 8, 2024, and September 13, 2024, to address the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, entitled “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions”, tabled in Parliament on June 3, 2024, and to continue the committee’s ongoing work on foreign election interference.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will make very brief remarks.

This committee has a lot of work outstanding. That includes Bill C-65, which has passed second reading and is going to be referred to our committee. It's government legislation that takes priority. We have Scott Reid's motion, as well as Alex Ruff's private member's bill. We're continuing our work on this study with respect to the question of privilege arising from the cyber-attack directed against 18 parliamentarians; we are continuing work with respect to the broader issue of foreign interference, and there are a number of issues that have arisen out of the NSICOP report, the NSIRA report and the Hogue report.

Having regard for all of that, I think it is necessary that this committee meet over the summer for five meetings. I think that's a very reasonable compromise to try to get some of the work around foreign interference done so that we can move on in the fall to deal with government legislation, as well as the private member's motion and private member's bill that we must review.