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

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Minister, it's good to see you.

The Conservative leader is the only federal party leader who has been unwilling to get his security clearance. I would describe it as if he's doing a bit of the “wiggle worm” trying to get out of it.

First, we heard the Conservatives say he can't because he would be muzzled. We know that's not true, because every other party leader has gotten the security clearance and has received the briefings.

We also know the next excuse that was given was he already had the clearance from back when he was in the Harper cabinet. We know that's not true, because I asked the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, when he was here many months ago, and he said that if there's a change in life circumstances, a change in job or it has been five years, those background checks have to be redone.

Can we quickly clarify that the current Conservative leader does not have a top secret security clearance?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That is my understanding, Mr. Turnbull, for the reasons you just enunciated.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

The other thing we've heard from the Conservatives recently is the background check is too intrusive for them, which is kind of hilarious considering every other person who takes national security seriously would go through the same intrusive background check to be able to get those briefings.

Now the latest version of this is that the Conservatives say, “Oh, we need to use the threat reduction measure”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Turnbull, I'm sorry, but there is a point of order.

Thank you.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

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

What is the relevance of those remarks, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, this is just a reminder that we are here on Bill C-65 specifically.

Mr. Turnbull, if you can try to direct your question to how it is relevant to Bill C-65, I would appreciate that.

I'll turn the floor back over to you.

Thank you.

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

I'd like to speak to the same point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, Ms. O'Connell. Go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I recognize the meeting is on Bill C-65; however, this is directly related to foreign interference, which is part of the bill.

I would also argue that Mr. Duncan brought up party officials of the NDP. Part of this bill is also talking about—

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

They are part of the bill.

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

Sorry, did I interrupt you? I was able to maintain my composure. I would suggest you do the same.

Mr. Chair, without being interrupted, Mr. Duncan brought up party officials. Mr. Turnbull is discussing the Conservative Party and, I suspect, the leadership race that has been called into question with foreign interference, so I think it's relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you for your insight, Ms. O'Connell.

Mr. Turnbull, I'll turn the floor back over to you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Now we have the Conservatives saying that, “Oh, we should just use a threat reduction measure,” but wouldn't that be subject to the same limitations in terms of the Security of Information Act?

In a way, it doesn't get around this idea that somehow the Conservative leader could get a briefing through a threat reduction measure, which would allow him maybe a briefing that is more narrow in scope, but it would still be subject to the Security of Information Act, would it not?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Turnbull, you're absolutely right. The threat reduction measures—and we talked about that earlier in the meeting—allow CSIS officials to brief somebody because of an imminent or an ongoing threat to national security. The information they would share in a threat reduction measure, for example, with the Leader of the Opposition, whether or not he obtained a security clearance, would absolutely be subject to the Security of Information Act.

What that means in more simple terms is that a person who received highly sensitive information as part of an authorized threat reduction measure would legally be bound to keep that information secret. As you know, Mr. Turnbull, in fact, the Security of Information Act is a criminal statute. Violation of it brings a criminal prosecution.

It's done very specifically to protect the ability of CSIS to protect human sources. It's to protect their investigative capacities.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

My understanding is the briefing for a threat reduction measure would be only on the need-to-know information. It would be limited in scope and specific to a personal threat against, perhaps, a member in the Conservative caucus, in this particular case. It wouldn't be equivalent to a broader intelligence briefing that one could receive if they had the top secret security clearance.

Is that correct?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You're absolutely right.

That briefing, as I understood from the director of CSIS, would reveal the minimum information necessary, in the CSIS director's judgment—none of this is decided by a partisan person—for that particular leader to take measures to reduce the threat. That's why it's called a threat reduction measure. However, it would not provide, in that particular threat reduction measure interview, a broader threat landscape briefing or a broader briefing about certain threat vectors than one would get if one were to have the top secret security clearance.

Again, Mr. Turnbull, what's important is that all of that information that would be shared, whatever instrument was used to legally share that information, would bind the person receiving the information to the provisions of the criminal statute known as the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

This is the last question.

We had the Conservative MP who is actually on NSICOP, which is the committee of all parliamentarians, come to this committee where he presented a private member's bill. He said that he wants all members of Parliament to be able to get a security clearance. When he was here, he actually said that he thought, if he had his way, he would make it mandatory for all MPs to have a security clearance.

I find that slightly ironic, given the fact that the Conservative leader is the only leader in the House of Commons who has not been willing to get his security clearance.

Minister LeBlanc, do you find that slightly ironic?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Of course I find it ironic, and I'm happy to discuss Mr. Ruff's bill at another point. However, it does lay bare, I think, the hypocrisy, Mr. Turnbull, of what that particular Conservative member's leader is doing.

Thank you for raising that important point.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The Conservatives have always talked down our government's efforts on combatting foreign interference, yet when I look at the facts and when I read all the reports, which I have done for many months as we studied it on this committee, it seems as though what they're claiming is patently false. Our government is actually a leader in stepping up and providing an ecosystem approach that really looks at how we can combat and prevent any interference in our democracy.

Minister LeBlanc, can you please talk about how Bill C-65 adds to the tool box and gives us an even stronger ecosystem for preventing foreign interference?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull. We don't have time for the response. We're well over time.

Ms. Gill, welcome back again.

You have six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank Minister LeBlanc for being with us, as well as Ms. Khanna, Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Pereira, who are with him today.

I would like to discuss a matter with you, which certain witnesses even mentioned several times. Bill C‑65 would indeed lead to greater accessibility and, ideally, voter turnout. What worries us, at the Bloc Québécois, is the overlap between the federal election and Quebec’s municipal elections.

During your opening remarks or various other statements, you said several times you were taking this matter into account, particularly in Alberta’s case. However, I did not hear you say if you were taking into account Quebec’s municipal elections. Representatives from the Union of Quebec Municipalities, the UMQ, reached out to us at the committee. They told us they were worried about it.

In order to keep them informed on this issue, could you tell us what you think of the situation?

In a very brief letter, they expressed their concerns about a specific measure in section 5. It indicates that an overlap will occur on October 27, 2025. According to the UMQ’s representatives, it would have a negative impact on voter turnout in Quebec.

I would like to know what your response is to them.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for your question, Mrs. Gill. I am very pleased to see you at the committee today.

I really took note of the concerns raised by the Union of Quebec Municipalities. When I was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, I think the mayor of Gaspé was the president of the organization. I know the quality of its work and the importance of ensuring, as much as possible, that a federal election does not coincide with another fixed-date election. It applies to a large number of municipalities. However, based on my understanding—although you know better than I do—in the case of your province, it has to do with advance polls.

I would imagine your committee is going to look into the issue of the date. That is in fact the challenge with a fixed-date election. The fall is a very busy electoral period. There were four provincial elections this season. Political parties want our government to fall and to call an election right now.

We can talk about Nova Scotia’s case.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I do not want to interrupt you, Minister, but you are actually not quite answering my question. I understand, however, that you noted it, that you acknowledge it. You’ve taken note of the UMQ’s concerns, but I am asking you to respond to them as well.

To put everything back in context, it is not just about the actual day of the election. It’s often a matter of needing the locations and election staff. They are often the same, be it for a federal, municipal or provincial election, or for one in Quebec. The difficulty is perhaps greater in this respect. That is one thing.

Furthermore, I would also have liked for you to talk about another aspect that worries us for several reasons. We talked again about accessibility, about the idea of increasing voter turnout. Last week or at the beginning of this week, unless I’m mistaken, I had the opportunity to talk with Mr. Sutherland. We talked about accessibility, which gives people the opportunity to vote; even those celebrating Diwali, for example. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but, mathematically speaking, everyone could vote without having to delay the election, given the current changes.

I was therefore wondering why we are maintaining a date no one here wants, because everyone could vote, whether or not they are celebrating Diwali. Everyone could celebrate and vote at the same time.

Why keep this date if, mathematically, everyone can vote?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That is a very good question.

My comments on keeping the date were perhaps not clear enough. We are fully aware of public commentary from several MPs, as well as the suggestion or intention of possibly changing the date. We would be completely fine if the committee decides it must change the date.

You are right. In theory, everyone can organize to vote by mail, and that in fact applies to Quebec’s municipal elections. Everyone can vote at advance polls. However, it remains that election day is still very interesting for millions of Canadians. We saw proof of that in the United States, two days ago. Tens of millions of people went to the polls.

Listen—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I will interrupt you once more.

I understand, but I want to clarify something. We keep coming back to election day. As I was saying, people can, of course, go vote, but resources need to be allocated. It is not just one election day. For it to be more accessible, it is necessary to have more resources and locations for a greater span of time. In fact, right now, we don’t even know what the impact will be of the overlap between two elections. If people want to vote at any time, that is one thing. But to be able to hold two elections at the same time and have enough resources, be they human or material, that is another thing.

I understand that the committee will study the matter, but I wanted us to talk about it because, obviously, you are the one who worked on this bill. I would imagine these kinds of questions are likely to interest you.