Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to take a moment, and perhaps this will allow all of us to take a pause, to take a breath. I do believe that if certain comments are not helpful, then they perhaps don't need to be made. We are debating a motion, which means we need to advance relevant points.

I will also say that a lot of what we experience or believe might be founded in our own experiences, our own values, ideologies and so forth. For us to label others, I'm not sure that this is helpful. What one might perceive in what Mr. Cooper referred to as a tantrum and what somebody else might perceive is a debatable point.

Right now, the issue in front of us is an amendment that I understand you proposed, so let's stay focused on that and let's get this work done. If we're not able to, I will use my prerogative as chair to suspend this meeting, but I think we all want to get to work and get it done.

Mr. Cooper, I suggest we all—every single one of us—take a breath and stay focused. Let's get there.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor.

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

I've listened very patiently to Mr. Julian, despite much of what he stated on the record having very little relevance to the amendment and during which he made certain completely unsubstantiated insinuations. Be that as it may, it is absolutely imperative that, if there is an inquiry, the Prime Minister doesn't get to do a do-over of the Rosenberg commission.

We had, just a couple of days ago, a report that was released from the person tasked with reviewing the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol of the 2021 election. Mr. Rosenberg is someone who had a conflict. He had a conflict, real or perceived—certainly perceived—by virtue of his role as the former CEO of the Trudeau Foundation, as someone who was involved in facilitating a $200,000 contribution from a business person and political person affiliated with the Beijing Chinese Communist regime who was implicated in the Prime Minister's billionaire cash-for-access scandal in 2016. That individual, Mr. Rosenberg, whatever his credentials are, certainly should never have been tasked with undertaking such a review, given the circumstances and all of the questions around interference by the Beijing regime and his affiliation, association and closeness to the Prime Minister.

It undermines the credibility of the report. It undermines confidence in the report. We can't afford that in the case of an inquiry. We need to have confidence in the outcome of such an inquiry. That's why we're insistent that all parties, including the NDP, which I hope Mr. Julian would welcome, would have that opportunity.

I will leave it there. I may have other comments, but I will leave it there for now. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

I will now go to Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I’d like to propose a subamendment that will be fairly simple. I’m waiting for the official text, but it would essentially remove point (a) of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We've just sent it around. Everyone should be able to see that. It's the email that we received earlier. The amendment that Mr. Cooper proposed had paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). She's just removing paragraph (a). The subamendment that's come around will just strike paragraph (a), and debate—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Point of order, Madam Chair.

I would just like Ms. Normandin to confirm something. Does that mean the first paragraph would stay as I proposed earlier?

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

Yes, that’s right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Ms. Sahota, you have the floor.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I'm just looking over this new amendment now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's a subamendment.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay. The subamendment is removing the first part. It's the first part that I mostly have issues with.

Madam Chair, who is next on the speakers list? It really is the first part that I was speaking to, and I didn't foresee Madame Normandin's moving this subamendment at this point, so I want to know what the speakers list looks like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota, for that comment.

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Julian asked a really important question, and that was: Why are Conservatives only interested in 2019 and 2021?

I would direct everybody's attention back to another Globe and Mail report from February 28, just a couple of days ago, which said:

The source said the Canadian Security Intelligence Service captured a conversation in 2014 between an unnamed commercial attaché at one of China’s consulates in Canada and billionaire Zhang Bin, a political adviser to the government in Beijing and a senior official in China’s network of state promoters around the world.

They discussed the federal election that was expected to take place in 2015, and the possibility that the Liberals would defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and form the next government. The source said the diplomat instructed Mr. Zhang to donate $1-million to the Trudeau Foundation, and told him the Chinese government would reimburse him for the entire amount.

In other words, Madam Chair, while Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the Chinese government attempted to influence the leader of a national political party in the year before the election. The first time that the information that CSIS was tracking this donation came to light was two days ago.

It begs the question: Did Harper keep quiet for political reasons, either because of an upcoming election or because of his efforts to sign the secret foreign investment promotion and protection agreement? Conservatives make it sound like their work at the committee has forced a response on this issue, but they were in power when the alleged incident took place.

To Mr. Julian's question, and to the bigger issue of non-partisanship as it relates to trying to do this very important work, if we're supposed to take this report from one news outlet that is basically the foundation for everything that we're doing here today and everything that Mr. Cooper has been railing on about for the last little while.... If we're supposed to take that, why aren't we taking this other one from 2014? Why aren't we getting to the bottom of what Stephen Harper knew and what Conservatives knew at the time?

That could be the only reason to explain why Mr. Cooper is not interested in looking into the details of 2014. That could be the only reason Mr. Cooper would want to insist that we focus on just 2019 and 2021. I can't see any other reason.

To Mr. Julian's point, and to the point I've been trying to make the whole time, this is all politics for the Conservatives. They don't care about the report. They don't care about....

By the way, this commission or this public inquiry would take two to four years to complete. Another election will have likely taken place, especially if you go longer than the four years. They don't care about that. All the Conservatives are focused on is getting the little gotcha sound bite moments that happen to come along in the process of the inquiry. Trying to pick at one thing or another is all that they're interested in. In my opinion, if you really want to do this genuinely and in a non-partisan way, you would listen to the experts.

Although I agree with a lot of what Mr. Julian said, I guess we part ways in the venue by which this should be taking place. I don't believe that the appropriate venue is in the public forum, for the reasons that were outlined by just about every expert who's come before this committee already. A public inquiry is not going to have access to any more information than this committee would have access to. This committee is going to be limited, based on the security classifications of the various different documents.

Of course, that makes a great optic for the Leader of the Opposition when he strolls out into a hallway and waves around documents that have been redacted, because then he'll say, “The Liberals are trying to keep secrets from us. The Liberals went behind their party office doors and blacked out all the information in here,” like the Conservatives usually do. That's just their game. That's the game. Nobody here at this table and no Canadian should think that the motivation of the Conservative Party of Canada right now is to deal with foreign interference.

However, I don't feel that's the same situation coming from the NDP. I don't feel that's the same situation coming from the Bloc. I feel as though they genuinely think they're coming from a good place by having a public inquiry. Of course, a public inquiry and getting things out in the open with sunshine and transparency—as Mr. Cooper has said repeatedly in this meeting—are the best ways to expose information to the public, but sometimes information is so sensitive and classified that you just can't do that.

I asked the last panel that came here if there was a lot of information they couldn't share with us. They agreed with that. I said, can you share that at NSICOP? The response they gave was that, yes, they could. That's where the proper classifications are in place.

I don't need to go on and on. I think Mr. Cooper and his colleagues want to talk about this some more at great length. They're entitled to do so. I'm happy to sit here and listen to it.

At the end of the day, this just comes down to whether or not we believe this is genuinely about protecting our democracy or this is just taking cheap shots at the Prime Minister and trying to get a gotcha moment. I don't blame the Conservatives for wanting to do that. It's what their leader does repeatedly. That's all he cares about. It's very disingenuous, but it's the reality of the situation. Here we are.

I want to understand this more. Foreign interference goes on in many different parts of the world, especially where democracies are alive. As we heard today from a witness, by its very nature, a democracy is open and is much more subject to foreign interference. Foreign interference is not a new thing.

Since this committee was formed over a year ago, we've been talking about studying this. We've been talking about doing it. It's not new. Suddenly it has become this sensationalized issue for the Conservatives, so they're running around town trying to tout the fact that the Prime Minister was covering something up, or one thing or another. It's so disingenuous when members of Parliament actually think that we would allow, knowingly, anybody.... As much as I disagree with Conservatives, I do not actually believe that any Conservative who sits on the other side of the aisle would actually knowingly go along with something like allowing foreign interference to occur. I hope the same is reciprocated by the other side. Who would ever actually allow that?

Then we have Mr. Calkins, who, by the way, I believe it was yesterday, said he would sit here for as long as it took to make sure that his position was defended and hasn't been here since two hours into yesterday's meeting. He called a member of Parliament an agent of China.

I'm sorry—it was an agent of Beijing. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the correction.

Is that appropriate or is that just Conservative fundraising? That's all that it is. Calling another sitting member of Parliament an agent of Beijing, do you think that's completely appropriate and there's nothing wrong with that? The Twitter trolls will love it. They'll jump all over it. The Conservatives will raise a little bit more money. Don't worry about what it does to the foundations of our democracy in the process.

Here we are, once again just debating endlessly in circles about how Conservatives can get their gotcha moment on the Prime Minister. It's not serving any purpose. If you really want to serve a purpose, then let's listen to the experts and do what they say to do, which is to allow the people who have the clearances, who are charged by the House of Commons to be the oversight, to view this stuff. Let them do the work that they're supposed to do to safeguard against any kind of foreign interference and monitor any kind of foreign actors who are trying to get into our democracy one way or another.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor.

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

That was a very powerful statement.

I am pleased to see the subamendment to remove the overly restrictive aspects limiting Mr. Julian's study to just China, for all of the reasons that we have heard from our witnesses. I'm very supportive of that aspect of it. I thank Madame Normandin for making that change.

Where I still have discomfort with the changes proposed by Mr. Cooper, it's a matter of—I regret to say—good faith.

I already spoke with a few members yesterday about the idea of obtaining unanimous support from all political parties in the House of Commons. If a party were to decide, for partisan reasons, not to agree to the candidate selected by consensus to chair the inquiry, I’m afraid the inquiry would never see the light of day.

I think it would be much better for the candidate to need the support of three of the four recognized parties in the House of Commons. Nobody would have the right to veto the choice of a chair for the inquiry, not even the party in power. That would force people to compromise in order to get the best person for the job.

I think this is a very important, if not critical, issue. Since we have to deal with the current subamendment, I can’t put another one forward. I hope my colleagues will see the sense in this and find a way to compromise.

Madam Chair, just to make sure that all the folks at home who are watching us.... I expressed in French my concern that seeking a unanimous choice for the new president allows one party to perhaps delay the selection of the person who would be responsible for presiding over this commission of inquiry.

If so, for very partisan reasons, that does not serve the needs and interests of Canadians. I would propose...and I cannot formally because there is a subamendment already proposed. However, I had some discussions with members of the opposition, saying that if they were willing to make a change to, say, rather than all four parties in the House of Commons having to agree for the selection, that three of the four would have to agree, this gives no one a veto and allows everyone to come to the table with good sense and seeking out the interests of all Canadians.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold.

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

I think we are ready to vote, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold, you're just full of these great ideas in the last couple of interventions you've had. Thank you. I appreciate that.

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

I always have good ideas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are all ready for a vote. You were the end of my list, so that's perfect.

Madam Clerk, can you call the question on Madame Normandin's subamendment, please?

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

Can we have two minutes to talk about this, please?

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

You don't mean in public. You're talking about a two-minute break.

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

Yes. Can we just have two minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The vote's been called.

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

That's fine.