Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

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

Did Bill Blair, his chief of staff or anyone in the minister's office tip off the former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister that he was a target of a CSIS warrant?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, I congratulate you, Mr. Cooper, on your fishing expedition. I was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans myself. I understand that kind of activity.

Again, Mr. Chair, I have no insight into that.

I would of course, Mr. Cooper—

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

I would note, Minister, that PMO officials were caught tipping off the member for Don Valley North, or at least he was tipped off and the only persons briefed were officials within the PMO who had national security clearance, so this has happened before.

I put it to you again. How can you be certain that the former Liberal cabinet minister was not tipped off, after a long 54-day delay, when you haven't even bothered to undertake a review?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, there's no evidence, Mr. Cooper, of what you just alleged around PMO officials tipping off MPs—

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

Then just undertake a review. Why not clear the air and undertake a review? Fifty-four days of delay to protect this Liberal kingpin....

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, Mr. Cooper, those are your suppositions. I get that you're doing this so that you can have nice clips for social media. It doesn't mean that what you're saying is in fact accurate or real.

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

It is accurate that there was an unprecedented 54-day delay involving a national security investigation that was slow-walked, that just happened to concern a former Liberal cabinet minister, a key organizer and fundraiser for the Prime Minister. Was this just a coincidence?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

What is a coincidence is that you keep making up things—for example, that somebody tipped off this particular individual—

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

No, I asked you if you have any information in that regard. Can you provide the assurance that it didn't happen?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Out of respect for the interpreters, it's incredibly difficult to have two people speaking at one time. The member opposite can ask his questions and then allow time for a response, or else we're not going to have interpretation and they'll lose their time altogether.

I think it would suit everyone to allow that respect here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, I would tend to agree with Ms. O'Connell. We do have to be respectful of the fact that we have interpreters who are trying to do work that serves us and the public interest.

I have tried to be very fair in pausing the clock here in order to not allow points of order to take away. However, at some point we'll to have to keep going; otherwise, the minister is going to have to go back to Montreal and get himself a Schwartz's sandwich for lunch.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours for 20 seconds.

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

Minister, again, why not undertake a review?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, the deputy informs me that there have never been reviews around the particular issue of a specific warrant. There's a well-known process by law in terms of how these warrants are handled. We think Justice Hogue, who has ventilated this issue in public hearings—perhaps also in in camera hearings, I don't know—would be in the best position to offer views on this.

Again, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to note that Mr. Cooper made a series of assertions about people potentially tipping off somebody who was—

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

Minister, you are mis-characterizing what I said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, you don't—

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

You're mis-characterizing what I said. I asked you whether you could provide assurance that this didn't happen—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Michael. Order.

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

—and you have been unable to provide an answer in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, you will be respectful of the role that I have to play as the chair of this committee to keep order. I have on three occasions this morning paused the clock, which is not common practice, in order to allow you to continue a line of questioning when you yourself have interrupted the minister. Your time was up. I provided the minister with an opportunity to respond, which is why we fought tooth and nail to have him here in the first place.

The clock has run on your opening line of questioning. The next time I open up the microphone, I would ask you to be respectful of my role as chair.

Mr. Duguid, the floor is yours.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you, Minister LeBlanc. I want to thank you and all the officials present for all you do to keep us safe and to keep our country safe. Thanks for being with us today.

Minister, it has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that obtaining a security clearance and getting briefed on possible foreign interference would muzzle him. I wonder if you would just share with us and those who are watching today why this is important for the Leader of the Opposition's party and for his MPs, particularly in light of the significant foreign interference that we are seeing going on in our country.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

One of the things our government has done, which preceding governments have not done, is specifically ask, in the context of an election, for example, for representatives of the recognized parties to be security cleared during the context of an election, so they are in a position to receive classified briefings from intelligence officials about potential threats during the context of a writ period.

We believe that should be an ongoing process, where intelligence officials in a non-partisan way can share appropriate information with political parties, so they can, in fact, be more resilient, and better prepared to counter threats of foreign interference in their democratic institutions.

The same thing would apply to the leader of a political party. It's well-known in the public domain that certain hostile state actors target parliamentarians, not only in our House but in the other place, as well. I am briefed regularly on these threats. I have a lot of confidence in the work done by the RCMP and CSIS.

A political leader who wants to be able to say to Canadians that he or she is confident that his or her political party, candidates and caucus, are the best persons to represent that party in an election or in the House of Commons, and that he or she has taken all the steps necessary to insulate, and protect them from the threat of foreign interference, would be well-advised to get that clearance.

For example, the leaders of the NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Green Party have received that clearance. It allows CSIS officials, in their judgment, to talk to these political leaders, so they can be best positioned to resist any particular threat.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thanks for that.

I sit behind you in the House of Commons, Minister, a few rows back. I have a pretty good view of the opposition in front of me. Any time the issue of security clearance for the Conservative leader comes up, I hear taunts about naming names in the NSICOP report.

You've been very clear on why you can't do that. You've made some humorous comments about the RCMP carting you away in handcuffs. Again, would you give a few reflections on that? I know you don't want to be carted away in handcuffs.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Well, at least it won't be for that, Mr. Chair. If I'm going to be arrested, it probably won't be for that.

As I said, it was a funny moment. Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn, who handles federal policing at the RCMP, was in a meeting with me in the days following the release of the NSICOP report. I think Tricia, who was then our associate deputy minister, was there, as well as a number of officials.

I was coming to question period, and I said to the group that was there with me, including the deputy commissioner, “What do we say, when we're asked about releasing names?” It's a silly sort of thing the opposition members can do. They know it's against the law, and I'm not going to use parliamentary privilege to violate national security legislation, or put the lives of people who do this work at risk.

The deputy commissioner very helpfully said to me, “I'll tell you what you can say, and you can quote me. You can say that if you were to release those names, I will personally start the criminal investigation into your behaviour, and it may very well end up in you being charged.” If you've spent any time with Mark Flynn, he's a pretty serious senior police officer. I took his intervention to be extremely helpful.

As you said, Mr. Duguid, I don't expect, or plan, to be arrested for violating national security legislation. A good place to start would be resisting the silly taunting, as you say, to release a series of names. It's irresponsible, it's reckless, and it's also illegal. Justice Hogue, interestingly enough, came to the same conclusion when she was asked about her report naming names as a follow-up to the NSICOP report. Again, I'd be governed by the judgment of a senior justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, welcome to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being with us. We are always very grateful for your presence at the committee.

You began your opening remarks by saying that democracies around the world are being put to the test. Since last Tuesday, I have the impression that many things will be tested in the United States, particularly the safety of people on American soil. Before being elected, Donald Trump promised to expel several million people. It would be mostly illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, which could be as many as 20 million.

We can imagine that many of them will want to come to Canada. The number of Google searches on how to immigrate to Canada has increased dramatically since Tuesday.

You will probably tell me that the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States provides that Canada can automatically deport people who arrive at the border if they have already claimed asylum in the United States. However, there's a loophole in this agreement, namely the 14-day rule. A person who enters Canada secretly without being detected within 14 days can make a proper asylum claim by presenting themselves to the authorities or making a refugee claim through the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada portal.

This rule is rather unique, because it means that, in order to comply with the law, people must first break it by travelling to Canada illegally, by hiding.

We're already seeing smugglers getting ready to hide people and getting ready to make a lot of money. We can think of young women who are hidden in apartments across Canada for 14 days. God knows what the smugglers will do with these women so that, 14 days later, they can claim asylum in Canada legally.

I know you've just been appointed vice-chair of the cabinet committee on Canada-U.S. relations, and I'd like to congratulate you on that.

In that role, what will you do to prevent a significant number of migrants from arriving in Canada not irregularly but outright illegally, since Canada's intake capacities have almost already been reached?