Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold, you will get to continue when I give you the floor.

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

I thought you did.

My apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would hope so.

Mr. Berthold, I give you the floor.

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

Okay, I will continue then.

Mr. Julian, if you are so convinced of what you are saying, you should find our proposal completely legitimate. You should not have any fear that a national commission of inquiry might also be interested in all the political parties. If we adopt the motion as presented today and it is supported by the majority of leaders in the House, we will then let the person chosen as commissioner decide what is appropriate in this situation. I think the investigation itself will show the same thing as what you are saying, Mr. Julian.

A lot has been left unsaid about what could or could not be made public. Sometimes what is unsaid is more important that what is said. If this inquiry is conducted behind closed doors and we are unfortunately unable to obtain information, that would seriously undermine the process of getting to the bottom of foreign interference by China. That is why the committee must definitely continue its study of foreign interference in the electoral process, concurrently with the public inquiry. We must also insist on our request to obtain certain documents. That is how we can get to the bottom of things.

In closing, I reiterate that we must focus on the role of the Chinese regime in the 2019 and 2021 elections. That way, our report will not cover too long a period of time and it will not be too watered down by an overabundance of information.

The allegations are clear, straightforward and specific: the Chinese communist regime devised a system to influence the election results in certain ridings in Canada and to change people's voting intentions. All kinds of methods and techniques were used to do this, ranging from intimidation to fear. That should not happen in Canada or in any other democracy.

That is why we must absolutely focus on these allegations, which have also been highlighted in various articles. We have seen many revelations in this regard in recent weeks.

We must also remember that the diaspora groups that are targeted by hostile foreign governments are the first victims in all of this. They are the first victims since their right to vote freely in our country has been restricted. For the sake of those people, we need to get to the bottom of this and get the full story on China's interference in our democratic process.

I appeal to all my colleagues to adopt our amendments, especially to my colleague from the NDP. Our amendments are simple and will enable us to achieve the same goal, namely, to get to the bottom of foreign interference. I hope my colleague will agree so that the opposition parties can speak unanimously. I remind you that the same thing could happen again in a future election, which could very well be sooner than we might expect since we have a minority government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

You have the floor, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment to Mr. Julian's motion.

Let me say first that I am still undecided about the main motion. I think it has some merits. It is indeed important to understand that foreign interference is not limited to a single country, as the witnesses who appeared yesterday and today have told us. Three or four countries in particular were mentioned. When we asked them to indicate the number of countries interfering in Canada, the witnesses were not prepared to limit it to four countries. So this is a strong feature of Mr. Julian's proposal.

His motion also has certain weaknesses, however. One of them is that a national public inquiry would be subject to the same limitations we are facing today. The issue is what kind of information can be disclosed to the general public without jeopardizing our ties with our allies' intelligence services, without jeopardizing the methods our services use to counter interference by other countries, and without risking the very lives of our agents in the field.

So the motion includes some important features which we can perhaps agree on. We have to find a non-partisan way to investigate this important matter, and I congratulate my colleague in that regard once again. Unfortunately, the MPs from a particular party have not yet shown that they are able to resist the temptation to engage in partisanship. I come to this sad conclusion because this amendment is intended to greatly reduce the scope of Mr. Julian's motion, without taking into account the evidence we have heard. As I said at the outset, this is regrettable.

As to Mr. Cooper's proposal, he is playing political games and targeting Ms. Telford in particular. In my opinion, that does not help matters at all.

Further, it is limited to two elections, when we know very well that this has been going on for longer that those two elections, as the evidence has shown.

Finally, based on what I have seen in more than the past 24 hours that we have been in committee and discussing these matters, I am afraid that the official opposition would exercise a veto in the selection of the person chairing the commission of inquiry. Perhaps the opposition MPs will prove me wrong, and I would be pleased if they do.

So I will definitely vote against your amendment because, for the reasons I have just mentioned, it would completely change the main motion.

I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say about the main motion. Perhaps they will make proposals that would improve the main motion.

I will stop here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

You have the floor, Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Further to my colleague's intervention, I'm looking at this amendment to the motion and I want to make it clear that the one reason that I can't support it, which is glaring to me, is the reference to including documents that are related to national security. I want to explain why.

We've heard over the course of the last two days that the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner of elections—

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

A point of order, Madam Chair. If I am not mistaken, Ms. Romanado is talking about something that is not part of the amendment, but instead part of the initial proposal.

I just want to make sure that we are still taking about the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are debating the amendment. I do think it's fair to provide some opportunity for her to come back to that point.

The way I was hearing it is that you are going to circle back. Is that correct?

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

I am, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado sometimes does start large and then.... I'm going to give her some time.

Mrs. Romanado, we'll go back to you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will get to my point.

We've heard multiple people who are experts in their field—whether it be the national security and intelligence officer, SITE, the director of CSIS today, the CSE or the RCMP—very clearly state that there would be no difference in the access to information that a public inquiry would have compared to what this committee would have.

The reason I'm bringing this up is in reference to the production of documents and calling of witnesses. For the purpose of national security, we cannot have information out there in a public forum that would have a direct impact on our Five Eyes intelligence partners. The impact of that, as we heard in the last panel, would be devastating, not only in terms of our alliance and our partnerships but also in terms of the intelligence assets that we have around the world, including Canadian Armed Forces members.

I know very well that Saint‑Jean Garrison and Saint‑Jean Royal Military College are in Ms. Normandin's riding, and I am sure she does not want to jeopardize the health and safety of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'm strictly against the fact that we keep having a conversation about our not wanting to provide this information. We cannot. This is not partisan. We cannot have this kind of information in the public domain. We can keep putting it out there to pretend and wave it around that we should get unredacted documents when we know full well that we cannot. Rather than playing games with respect to our national security, is there not another venue that has the proper clearance to look at that, whether it be NSICOP or something else?

This is the big beef that I'm having with this conversation. I'm not making this up. This is being told to us by the experts. We cannot have this information out there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will try to be brief. We have spent a lot of time together. It's not that I do not enjoy my colleagues' company, but I am sure they want to deal with this matter effectively as much as I do.

Regarding the proposed amendment, I will propose subamendments starting with the end of the amendment. Then I will call upon our clerk on a procedural matter, but that will be later on. There is no stress, no rush.

The end of the amendment suggests that holding an independent public inquiry, as the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party want, would not affect a study being conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think they should be conducted concurrently, as was the case with the Rouleau Commission. The joint parliamentary committee continued its work while the Rouleau Commission was ongoing. Each body might have different mandates, raise different questions, and make different recommendations. I think that is entirely appropriate. One does not prevent the other from existing.

As to the appointment of the person heading up the independent public inquiry, the Bloc Québécois has also insisted from the outset that all parties must agree upon the person selected. I completely agree with that part of the amendment. I would even say that is the most important part of the amendment. If we want to restore voters' confidence in their democratic institutions, it is absolutely essential to ensure from the outset that the person conducting the inquiry has credibility. I fully support that proposal.

It is also proposed that the inquiry also look into hostile foreign governments that violate the rights of diaspora groups. Something was just mentioned that I would like to see included in an independent public inquiry, without limiting the commissioner's mandate. I think this is relevant. We can easily stipulate at the outset that there are aspects that we want included in an inquiry. Given the various information we have seen in the media, in addition to what certain witnesses have said here, it is practically stating the obvious that foreign interference is affecting members of diaspora groups here. We cannot ignore this issue in our analysis of foreign interference.

Now for the portion of the amendment that would eliminate the stipulation that the witnesses would include, but not be limited to, ministers, former ministers and so forth. I am especially in favour of the idea of stipulating that the witnesses would be from the government and all political parties. The commissioner could then call upon a wide range of individuals to appear. If we insist on the commissioner being selected essentially jointly by all the parties so that we can have confidence in him, that would also give him a broad mandate. I think this amendment addresses this desire not to tie the commissioner's hands.

Now for the first part of the amendment. That is the problem, I think. Rather than giving the commissioner the greatest latitude possible, it stipulates instead that the issue is China's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. I am sure that a commissioner who has the freedom to conduct an inquiry into foreign interference would examine China's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. I have no doubt about that. We do not need to give that direction; the commissioner would do that, because it would be dictated by current events. On the other hand, I would not want to limit a commissioner from the outset by asking him to look at foreign interference by China only, and in those two elections only.

For these reasons, I am not as favourable to the part of the amendment pertaining to the first paragraph of the initial motion. This is where I would like the clerk's opinion. Rather than table a subamendment, would it be possible to divide the amendment into two parts, and let us vote on each part separately? I would really like to vote on the first part separately, and then vote on the rest of the amendment, rather than go through successive subamendments and ultimately return to what was initially proposed.

In that case, is it the type of motion that I need to move right now, or do I move it when we are about to vote on the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Madame Normandin, just to confirm, you basically want to divide the amendment into two parts and deal with the parts separately.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

It would be a motion to divide the amendment, which would allow us to vote on the two parts of the amendment separately. I would like us to be able to vote on the portion of the amendment on the first paragraph of the motion, and vote again on the rest of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Have you spoken with Mr. Cooper to see whether he agrees?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I suggested it to him, but it might be good to ask him again officially.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Actually, it would be better if he agreed with your suggestion. I’ll check a few things with the clerk. You have a few moments before the clerk gives us an answer about the rules.

I'm pausing for a couple of seconds.

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

Madam Chair, we could continue our discussion while we think about Ms. Normandin’s proposal. Members could continue to talk about the issue while waiting for the answer to my colleague’s question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Normandin, do you agree with Mr. Berthold’s suggestion?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

That’s fine.

Personally, I’ve covered everything I wanted to say. As I mentioned, I agree with the overall amendment, aside from the first portion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold, that’s a good idea. We will continue to hear from members, and the clerk can provide an answer as needed. It’s always helpful to find other ways to proceed.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been listening very intently to the debate on this amendment. I have a number of reflections to share. I think my colleagues have brought up some really important points.

We've heard from quite a number of witnesses that we're talking about highly sensitive intelligence information and data that go through a process of accumulation, validation and assessment. I think we've heard that it can be injurious to national security if it's disclosed. I share Ms. Romanado's position on the original motion and the amendment. The amendment keeps this section that relates to including documents that are related to national security, and I think that's problematic for a lot of reasons.

The other thing that strikes me about the public inquiry in general is that in my understanding, they take quite a long time on average. I don't know if members are comfortable with a two- to three-year process of some kind. That seems to be, in my understanding, what the standard is.

I know that recently there was an article by Wesley Wark, who recommended—in opposition to some others, who have called for a public inquiry—that it's not the best option. One reason is that it's quite lengthy. I think the other is that it encounters and runs into many of the same problems that PROC does, or other parliamentary committees do, in dealing with these highly sensitive and classified documents.

We've heard from every witness with expertise in this area that yes, we want to promote national security literacy and have more of the public be aware of the very real national security threats, which we all take seriously, but we can't do it in an irresponsible manner. We have to take these concerns about real threats and dangers in flippantly disclosing that information very seriously.

I certainly take them seriously. I think they can threaten relations with our international partners. I think they can cause harm to come to agents and others who are involved in the agencies that protect us every day. I wouldn't want to see any harm come to those individuals.

I would also say, based on my assessment of the amendment, that there seems to be quite a narrowing of what Mr. Julian had proposed. Beijing is not the only threat to our elections. We've heard that foreign interference is coming from a number of other countries. I know that our security agencies have specifically referenced, as I believe Mr. Rosenberg did in his report, Russia and Iran. I think there was some indication today with the CSIS director that there are others. If we're going to do something like this—which is important work—then there's no doubt we have to understand these threats.

Based on the facts in Mr. Rosenberg's report of all of the initiatives and things that the government has implemented since about 2018, I think our government has demonstrated very clearly that they have built up a robust ecosystem that approaches foreign election interference in a whole-of-government approach. I just don't think focusing on one set of allegations that have come through the media.... I think we've heard today that CSIS can neither confirm nor deny whether those are coming from CSIS or not.

I think it would do a disservice to the overall topic for us to narrow the scope down to focusing on one country, even though I recognize that all of our security agencies are resoundingly in agreement that Beijing presents the greatest threat. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be preparing ourselves for others and understanding what those very real threats are.

I don't think I would support.... I'm sort of mulling this over as I read through it, but there are other aspects of this amendment that Mr. Cooper has put forward that I think narrow the scope significantly from what Mr. Julian proposed, and I'm not quite all that comfortable with them.

Referring to just the 2019 and 2021 federal elections seems to be a narrowing of the scope as well. Although Mr. Julian's original motion has reference to those two elections, it seems that it has a breadth that would include other elections as well. I think we ought to consider a timeline that goes back a little bit further than just the last two elections, although I can say with full confidence that the last two elections have had processes and many structures and mechanisms in place to protect against foreign interference. I think that this information is very clearly laid out in Morris Rosenberg's recent report, and I have an overview of it that I would like to share. Maybe I'll save that for a little bit later, but I think there's quite a lot of evidence, and I referenced this in my question to Mr. Morrison when he came before our committee today. Those are some of my comments.

There is another thing I wanted to say. I think we had this come up in our debate last night, and I find it a bit troubling. The very last section in the amendment suggests that there are numerous committees studying this topic. I think Mr. Fergus spoke to this quite eloquently, as he always does. I notice that in Mr. Cooper's amendment, what is added here at the end is that this inquiry does not impede or stop the committee's study on foreign election interference, including the production of documents and the calling of witnesses. I'm assuming that's referring to this committee. Now in this motion we want to set up another body, in a sense, or a public inquiry, and then still study it in this committee. We have numerous other committees studying this topic as well, so is Mr. Cooper's intention to have every committee in the House of Commons study this topic, or would a public inquiry, if we were to support that, which I've obviously suggested I'm not convinced is the way to go...?

The fact that these things are stuck in there made no sense to me. They're contradictory to having a more comprehensive public inquiry that would really do justice to this topic. I thought that was the initial intention of Mr. Julian at least, so that's a significant deviation as well.

For all of those reasons, I'm struggling to feel supportive of this particular amendment, although I'm considering all the arguments and points that are made by my colleagues. This is an important topic, so whatever we decide as a committee, I hope we get it right. I hope that we don't end up embroiled in these partisan quarrels and games that we seem to be playing—at least today, from what I'm seeing—and that we take this matter really seriously and take a comprehensive approach to this important topic. I hope we can find a way forward.

One other thing I wanted to bring up that I neglected to cover in my remarks just a minute ago is that I think there was, at least from the article that Wesley Wark produced.... Maybe I'll quote him instead of paraphrasing. He says:

Judicial inquiries are meant to be fact-finding exercises. The “facts” in the case of Chinese election interference are thin on the ground, subject to media interpretation, and political brinkmanship.

That's a direct quote.

For me, if a judicial inquiry is trying to find the facts—and we've heard from our intelligence experts that it actually takes expertise to interpret intelligence—are we certain that the fact-finding exercise of a public inquiry would actually be the right approach? Certainly it would depend upon who leads that process and whether they have the expertise, but from what Wesley Wark has said, he at least feels that the facts are slightly thin on the ground.

Maybe I'll wrap up there for now, but I certainly think the debate will continue. I hope we'll find some path forward that we can reach consensus on soon.

Thank you.