Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief.

I think it is important that, at the start of this fall sitting, we hear from the minister. There are a number of matters before this committee that we are dealing with, so hearing from the minister would be important, including with respect to questions or issues around the elections bill, foreign interference and the implementation of the foreign influence registry, as well as the disclosure of documents to Madam Justice Hogue's inquiry and other matters.

With that, I hope members would be supportive of inviting the minister to come before our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Welcome back, everyone.

I hope the weather stays nice for a while yet, because I think we're going to have a pretty busy fall.

I'll tell you my position on this right now. I'm certainly in favour of hearing from the minister to find out where he stands, whether it be on elections, democratic vitality, the question of privilege or other topics.

However, we also have to be constructive. I won't give up. Today, I expect us to be able to deliberate like adults, vote again and plan for the weeks ahead. I'm a hard worker. If all my colleagues want to speak, they can all take two minutes to do so, but I would like us to get on with our work and plan what comes next.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome our new clerk. I'm thinking very much of her and the work that lies ahead. I hope she won't hesitate to interrupt if necessary, because things are really moving here. I'd like her to have some predictability for the work to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Calkins, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to echo the comments that were made by my colleague, Mr. Cooper.

We've all been back in our ridings. I only know what I've heard from talking with my constituents. There is some significant concern with the matter of foreign interference and the NSICOP report. I think this committee tried to wash its hands of the notion of having a conversation about whether or not this Parliament is compromised, and we shuffled that off to Madam Justice Hogue's commission. She has since come out very publicly suggesting it's not within her mandate to discuss this. I'm concerned. I'm not suggesting we're going to pursue this, but I think the Canadian public is going to pursue it whether we want to or not.

I would be very much interested in hearing what the minister has planned for reassuring the Canadian public about not only the integrity of this Parliament but also the integrity of our elections going forward to make sure we don't have these kinds of shadows rising over top of the next Parliament, whenever that happens to be. There are some important discussions we need to have in that vein.

That's what I've heard from my constituents, so I'll be supporting Mr. Cooper's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Calkins.

I have Mrs. Romanado, followed by Madame Fortier and by Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back in PROC.

When we last met, the minister was actually here at PROC. I know that coming up, we also have some legislation that we have to study: Bill C-65 and MP Ruff's Bill C-377, I believe. I would assume the minister will be invited to speak to those pieces of legislation. I know we're going to have to see him when we're doing that, so I'm wondering if, in addition, when he's here, we can have him speak to this motion. We have a lot on the schedule to do this fall, so I wonder if we can kill two birds with one stone when he appears for these pieces of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Ms. Fortier, you have the floor.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I don't want to repeat what my colleague said, but I really think that, given our busy schedule and all the work we have before us, it would probably be better to hear from the minister in other circumstances than to try to do it through this motion.

I'm already seeing that time is running out. We're probably going to have some hiccups along the way. I would prefer that we look at the committee's agenda, to make sure we do everything we need to do. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

That's how I would see the committee's work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Fortier.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Look, we have a lot to get done. This motion simply provides for the minister to appear for one meeting of two hours. That hardly pushes back our schedule. In fact, I would submit that it might help move our schedule forward by probing the minister on certain matters that the committee is seized with.

Yes, the minister will appear on Bill C-65, otherwise known as the “loser Liberal pension protection act”, but that might not be for several weeks from now. In the meantime, we have a minister who has a lot to answer for on matters relating to the government's continued obstruction of Madam Justice Hogue's inquiry by refusing to turn over documents. We have the steps the government has taken to counter foreign interference with the passage of Bill C-70, which we fully supported and called on the government long ago to pass in order to create a foreign influence registry. We have the failure or refusal of the minister to name the compromised members of Parliament, as well as his refusal to provide the assurance, when I put it to him at the public safety committee in June, that not one of those 11 sits on Justin Trudeau's cabinet. He refused to answer that straightforward question, which is very telling.

All of these issues are pressing and fall within the broader study we have been undertaking on foreign interference. This ties in as well to the question of privilege before this committee, which takes precedent over all other matters.

For all of those reasons, it is important that we have the opportunity as a committee to probe the minister, not just on the loser Liberal pension protection act, but on many of these other issues relating to foreign interference: the government's continued obstruction and efforts to cover up what the Prime Minister knew, and who is compromised in his caucus and in his cabinet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's really great to be back on PROC, Chair. I am very much enjoying the start to this fall session, and I am very grateful to my House leader and whip's office for inviting me back to my favourite committee in Parliament. It's good to see all my colleagues again.

I was here when we studied foreign interference for quite a number of months. I think it was about eight or nine months, if I'm not mistaken. I'm very interested in the topic and very concerned for our democracy, so I share some of the intentions and the commitment that other colleagues on this committee probably have in wanting to protect our democracy from any electoral interference.

That's specifically what Bill C-65 was written for. There are multiple purposes within the intentions of the bill, which is called electoral participation act, despite the sloganeering from the Conservatives. It is quite amusing sometimes. It's also a bit misleading to call it whatever term they used, which I don't care to repeat.

There's this whole section in the bill on electoral integrity—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The interpreter's button wasn't turned on.

You do such a good job, dear colleague, that I don't want to miss a single sentence. Can you start again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Do you want him to start from the beginning, Ms. Gaudreau, or do you want him to summarize?

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

I would like him to repeat what he said in the last 10 seconds of his remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Can you go back about 10 seconds or so, so that Madame Gaudreau and others listening in French can get an accurate review of what you said? Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll rewind and replay.

Electoral integrity and combatting foreign interference are part of Bill C-65. Assuming that, as is standard practice, ministers and their department officials come to committee at the outset of a study of a piece of government legislation, I'm making the argument that I don't see the need to have Minister LeBlanc. He's one of my favourite ministers, by the way. I think he's fantastic at committee. There's no attempt here for us to suggest that he wouldn't want to be here or wouldn't want to come to committee to answer questions. He's been here many times, as you know, and is more than capable of answering the tough questions from opposition members, which I fully expect will always be the case when a minister comes before a committee.

However, let's just be honest here. Bill C-65 deals with the very issues that the members have expressed interest in questioning the minister. Why don't we just focus on the fact that the minister will be appearing already at least once, if not twice, with the two pieces of legislation that relate to his portfolio. Let's be satisfied that all of us will have a chance to ask Minister LeBlanc the tough questions on electoral integrity and foreign interference that the opposition parties have expressed that they have.

That's more than fair. It makes sense, so I see no need for this particular motion, given what we know is likely the schedule for this fall.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

We will go to Madame Gaudreau, followed by Mr. Duncan and Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Mr. Chair, we're already talking about planning our work. Can we be constructive? We can smile all we want, but I won't let it go.

Let's find a way to get what the motion is asking for, which is a meeting of at least two hours and to incorporate Bill C‑65. We're going to have a big conversation, and the Chief Electoral Officer is going to have to be part of that conversation. Let's be efficient.

Personally, I have no problem voting in favour of the motion, as long as we're going to look at the agenda. We can propose an amendment to say that it can be included in our future study of Bill C‑65, regardless. I'm very open. However, I won't let it go. I think we should leave here today with a timeline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you for your comments, Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Duncan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll build on what's been said about Mr. Cooper's motion and refute some of the brushing off—frankly, the obstruction—of having the minister come back to committee urgently, as the motion states, not when we get to Bill C-65 and get into rounds about the bill. It is asking the minister to appear within the next two weeks.

This meeting is actually continuing, as you mentioned at the beginning, a suspension of the last meeting we had in June, when the minister was here. The minister was brought here to discuss document production for the commission and the work that Justice Hogue is doing. This is timely, this is urgent and this is necessary, because the very conversation we had on that topic about.... Don't take my word or our word for it, but the justice's words and those of her team on the inquiry—and this is just from last week—“Discussions with the Government on document production remain ongoing”.

The last part of the hearing just started again. We're in the midst of this. We can't sit and wait for some theoretical “let's get a full calendar and the minister will appear at some point”.

No. The minister must come to this committee within the next two weeks. It is urgent, because on this issue specifically, among others that have been already raised, time is of the essence. There should be no reason, when we have this inquiry going on, when we have Justice Hogue and her team saying that the document production is still not resolved and the latest round of hearings is ongoing.... This is not acceptable, what the Liberals are trying to do: “Oh, we'll have the minister at some point down the road, and we can ask him all different types of questions about Bill C-65.” I will note that Canadians know what Bill C-65 is, and that is a deliberate attempt to move back the election date a week so NDP and Liberal MPs who are going to lose their seats in the election can guarantee to get their pension vested.

Millions of Canadians were disgusted at that attempt to again go and say that this was going to be some wonderful legislation supported by Canadians. They're disgusted at the games that the NDP and Liberals tried to play by putting that in there. They saw right through it. We'll get to that at some point this fall, I know.

However, again, for the motion that's at hand and Mr. Turnbull's innocence of “Oh well, you know, the minister might come down at that point, and we can ask some broad questions”...no. Our motion has the minister appearing here within the next two weeks. It's necessary and again, it is timely, colleagues, and there should be no reason.... There's a major issue with the inquiry currently under way again this fall, the latest round of hearings. Justice Hogue does not have all the documents that they are requesting.

I support this motion. All colleagues should support this motion, so we can have the minister at the table to answer those questions. We asked in June. They said everything was fine, not to worry about it and that they gave everything they deemed to be necessary—in their own opinion, not in Justice Hogue's and the inquiry's work there. They deserve to have this. They deserve to have the minister here. We deserve to have the opportunity to ask questions and get to the bottom of this so that the integrity of what's happening in that work is maintained.

To have this large cloud hang over the work that's being done on this important topic, which is—to the Bloc, I agree—the vitality of our democracy, if the Liberal cabinet can hold back and make redactions of documents that Justice Hogue deems not appropriate, not right and not reasonable, and we have that overhang the work as it goes.... Let's have the minister here. Let's get to the bottom of this, and let's get full transparency in all of this.

With all the work over the course of the fall, the Minister of Public Safety being here to answer questions is reasonable and, I think, a very good start to answering the many questions he has to account for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

We have Mr. Gerretsen, followed by Madame Gaudreau.

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

The issue here is that there's new information that's evolving all the time that we want to be reactive to and ask questions about. Conservatives have some information now that they're reacting to because they want to be able to ask questions about this, but there are new details that are emerging every day.

For example, I will read to you from Sam Cooper, someone whom the Conservatives are really big fans of in terms of his reporting. This is what he reported yesterday:

In explosive testimony before the Hogue Commission, former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole revealed serious concerns about a Conservative Senator allegedly promoting the interests of a Chinese state-owned enterprise in Ontario.

O'Toole said a sitting MP had alerted him about the Senator’s lobbying for an economic interest linked to China, sparking concerns about potential foreign interference. O'Toole testified that he considered removing the Senator from caucus but faced significant challenges....

Later on, Mr. Cooper goes on to report:

A classified source has also alleged to The Bureau that the Senator in question was assessed by CSIS as a key actor in a Chinese election-interference network in Toronto, which allegedly implicated at least 11 federal candidates from both major parties in the 2019 election.

My point here is that, yes, I have a lot of questions too. I have questions about this. I don't want to jump the gun by calling the minister here when more information could come out. Hogue has to finish her work and the work is due by the end of this year. A lot more information could come forward, potentially explosive information like this, which I, too, would have questions about.

Do we want to call the minister here every time something like this comes to light, or do we want to let Hogue finish the work, let all of the details come to light and then have a conversation about it? I think the latter is the more appropriate way to do it. Let's get all the information so that everything can come to light before jumping the gun and calling the minister here to answer for a piece of testimony that happened to be heard on one day. As I just indicated, there's a lot of testimony, and I believe there's a lot more to come that we're going to learn about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

Madame Gaudreau.