Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to my fellow members.

I will endeavour to frame my thoughts and remarks on Mr. Turnbull's amendment similar to him.

I commend him on showing such restraint and moderation in his comments. I have to tell you how deeply frustrating and disappointing I have found the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition day in and day out.

Yesterday, during question period, when I heard the leader of the official opposition say in the House of Commons that he thought the Prime Minister was working for a foreign government, I was disgusted. There's no other way to put it.

Last week, during the committee's 16 hours of meetings, I provided a brief history of the Bloc Québécois and its place in the House of Commons. I was very respectful. I recognized the Bloc Québécois members, and even though I fundamentally disagree with them on a core issue, I would never have had the gall to say such disdainful things about them. The Bloc Québécois is a legitimate political party, and I assume that it is genuinely pursuing its policy objective. Never would I accuse its members of working for a foreign government, even though they would prefer to legitimately form another country.

Nor would I dare think such a thing about the Prime Minister. To say such a things falls far short of what is reasonable or acceptable. Here's what I think when I hear remarks like that: we've come to a point where it's clear to the average Canadian that certain people are incapable of putting the responsibility we all have as members ahead of their partisan interests. That responsibility is to get to the truth.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

On a point of order, I see Mr. Berthold.

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

Madam Chair, I would like the honourable member to retract his comments regarding the so-called statements made by the leader of the official opposition yesterday during question period.

Nothing that the member is insinuating comes from the comments made yesterday bythe leader of the official opposition. I have the transcript. Never did he use the language the Liberal member mentioned to refer to the Prime Minister.

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

I have a point of order.

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

This is what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, Madam Chair:

“the Prime Minister is not interested in protecting the safety of the people serving this country. He is interested in protecting the Liberal Party of Canada.”

None of the rest of the member's claims are true, so I would ask that he withdraw his remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold. I consider that a point of debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Gerretsen, do you have a point of order or can we move on?

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

I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

Go ahead, Monsieur Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, the Prime Minister of Canada's first responsibility is the safety of all Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition questioned the Prime Minister's loyalty to Canada and Canadians in the House of Commons. For that reason, I will not retract my remarks.

Across all news outlets, columnists described Mr. Poilievre's comments as inappropriate at best. It's obvious that he is completely out of control. Given his important role in Canada's parliamentary system, it's necessary to find a non-partisan solution, a politically neutral person to examine what happened during the 2019 and 2021 elections—as well as during the 2011 and 2015 elections—and to make recommendations to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister publicly committed to implementing the recommendations issued by that important person, the special rapporteur. From there, we can get to the bottom of things. Unfortunately, when a key player in our parliamentary system makes such idiotic statements, the whole system stops working. Until the leader of the official opposition withdraws his remarks and apologizes to Canadians, he is proving that he cannot play his key role in getting to the truth. That's one of the reasons I appreciate Mr. Turnbull's amendment so much.

Everyone here knows that I'm not known for being overly partisan. I think I'm a good sport, even though I can certainly dish it out from time to time. Maybe I'm being idealistic or a dreamer, but I would say I'm like 99% of members of Parliament: I want to work hard with the genuine goal of making life easier and more enjoyable for our constituents, and helping them succeed. As a good Quebecker, I want Quebeckers to be successful. As a good Canadian, I want all Canadians to be successful as well.

This doesn't happen often, but I thought the Leader of the Opposition went too far in his remarks. He plays such an important role in our system. He is a member of the official opposition in Parliament. I feel for my fellow members in the official opposition, whom I've had the pleasure of knowing since 2015. Although we don't agree on everything, they are good people, and I can't imagine that they are proud of their leader's comments. I don't expect them to speak out against their leader. That would probably be asking too much. I imagine, though, they are probably a little embarrassed.

I will get back to the issue in hand. I have much to say about Mr. Turnbull's amendment, but I don't want to take up too much time. I do want to hear what my fellow members think.

What I love about the motion is that it is an honourable attempt to get to the truth. The people involved, the people who heard the advice and the people who had an opportunity to voice their concerns are listed in the amendment. Further to the amendment, the committee would invite the 2019 and 2021 national campaign directors of each recognized party in the House of Commons and the security-cleared party representatives to the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force during the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

The benefit of the amendment is that we could bring those individuals before the committee to help us better understand what they heard and what they shared, without the risk of their breaching their national security commitments. The committee will have the chance to find out what happened while they were on the job. I think that's the responsible thing to do. We will learn more about what went on, and once we've had those discussions, we'll be able to dig even deeper. However, we must proceed in a way that honours our commitments to our allies and the people working for Canadian security intelligence agencies.

What's more, that approach would be in keeping with the traditions of the House. According to parliamentary tradition, the people accountable are the ones who should appear before the committee to explain what they knew. What isn't acceptable is turning our backs on the fine traditions of Parliament and inviting political staffers to appear. That is why Mr. Turnbull's motion deserves the committee's support.

I will say again how disappointing it is to see that the Leader of the Opposition will take every opportunity to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Back when he had the privilege of being a minister in the Harper government, he made the same case that I am making today: assistants should not be made to appear before committees. My fellow member Mr. Julian, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, made the same point eight days ago. Very seldom have members gone against that tradition in the history of the House of Commons.

I have been on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for a number of years, and there are always members who want to bring staffers before the committee instead of the people who are actually responsible. I don't understand this obsession of wanting to bring assistants before committees. It's almost as though members are afraid of having a real discussion with their peers, preferring to question people who, by definition, aren't really equipped to defend themselves to elected representatives. That's the issue, so I'd like to know where this constant desire of members to go after those who are, by definition, weaker comes from. It's a form of intimidation.

I will have more to say, but as per my initial promise, I wanted to provide a brief overview and voice my great disappointment at what happened yesterday. I'd also like to ask everyone to take a step back and consider the situation from other perspectives, so that cooler heads can prevail and we can figure out the best way to deal with the situation before us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Go ahead, Madame Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning to everyone.

I will be brief. I'd like to hear a bit more about what my colleagues have to say as well, so I might put myself on the list again.

I just want to highlight one point in this amendment. I think we need to be mindful of the reference to “security-cleared” or people who have authorization. I think the importance of that is getting lost to us.

I know the NSICOP yesterday issued a press release. I was looking at the members who sit on NSICOP. I just want to highlight a few of the members who sit on it.

I have tremendous respect for Mr. Bergeron, the member for Montarville and my riding neighbour.

Then there is MP Don Davies, whom I had a chance to work with on my private member's bill and whom I know has incredible integrity and takes this to heart.

Mr. Alex Ruff, who is a retired colonel with the Canadian Armed Forces with 25 years of service, also sits on NSICOP. If we don't trust someone with 25 years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces, who has a very clear understanding of national security and the importance of that....

I'm not quite sure why members here or members in the House would doubt the integrity of their colleagues who sit on this really important committee that is going to look at the issue of foreign interference and have access to those top secret clearance documents. I just want to highlight that, because I too have a lot of questions but do not have the necessary clearance to view top secret documents. I want us to be mindful of that. I have the utmost respect for the members of Parliament who sit on NSICOP. I trust that they take this work very seriously. I want us to remember that they are our colleagues and are representing all parties that sit in this committee.

I will cede the rest of my time because I want to hear from my colleagues. I just want us to be mindful of that. We're also talking about our colleagues, whom we all respect enormously.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Just to keep everyone informed, it will be Ms. Blaney, followed by Mr. Gerretsen, Ms. Sahota, Mr. Cooper, Madame Gaudreau and Mr. Fergus.

Go ahead, Madame Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to be here at PROC bright and early. I want to thank and acknowledge the chair for providing more times to meet. I was very concerned when I came here on Tuesday after question period and saw that we were not resuming. I think it's important to get back to this work. I appreciate that we've seen this happen after some conversations.

I am interested in this. Today we were supposed to meet with the ministers. I want to question them, and I think that's an important part of the work we do here. I am concerned about the fact that we'll have a couple of ministers, when there was pretty much clarity that we wanted one minister at a time to focus on. That does concern me. I'm hoping that if there are two, the ministers will come back to see us again.

I have some process questions that, at the end of my intervention, I would really appreciate the clerk to provide us some information and guidance on.

I know that today we are returning to a suspended meeting from Tuesday. I also noticed from the PROC notice of meeting that the ministers are coming, apparently, from 12 to one today, with a meeting prior to that hour, from 11 to 12, that says “to be determined”. I'm just wondering if the process can be explained. If the ministers are coming, would we have to adjourn this particular meeting to start another meeting? I would like some clarity on that. I think that will have an influence on some of the decisions I have to make today.

For me, the goal I'm hoping we get to before the ministers come to see us is that we vote on Mr. Turnbull's amendment and then on the initial motion brought forward by Mr. Cooper and amended by me. I want to know from the chair if there will be time after question period to resume this meeting if we do not get that work done. I also want to know, from the clerk, if that will impact other committees and what that would look like.

I also want to put on the record for my friends around this table that at 3:30 p.m. today, I have a very important meeting with a community in my riding that has come all the way out to Ottawa because they are calling for a state of emergency because of the number of deaths they've had in their community. They're feeling very concerned about overdoses and suicides, largely among young people. I cannot miss that meeting.

I am asking for everybody to just consider—we obviously have time to consider this—that if we do come back to this meeting, perhaps we can wait till 4:30 p.m. so that I can be at that very urgent meeting with my constituents. They came here from across this country. It is imperative that I be there.

I also want to recognize that sometimes it's hard to find subs on a Thursday afternoon.

Madam Chair, this is so serious. We are sitting around this table discussing things that are so important. There are so many leaks, and they are, in fact, detracting Canadians from having faith in our institutions. I think it's unfair to simply say to this committee in this work.... We know those leaks are coming out. More came out yesterday. That is why I'm here in this very difficult position.

I hear again that Mr. Fergus is courting my very good friend—I'm the whip and he is the House leader—Mr. Julian, whom I work with. I have a lot of pride in the incredible work and dignity he brings to this position. It was not an easy decision for the NDP to pull forward staff, and it's not a comfortable place, but we also have to understand that the day after Mr. Julian made his very important remarks—which I think we should all listen to very carefully and consider—we again saw more information come out. When that keeps happening, you have to find a way forward.

We have asked the Prime Minister very clearly to make sure there is a public inquiry. Jagmeet Singh has been very clear. My leader has said repeatedly that there needs to be a transparent, public and independent process here.

I deeply respect the work of NSICOP and the members from every party who are on that committee. I think the work they do is incredibly important. I very much honour the fact that national security is something we should be careful about. This is why, historically, I have voted against motions the Conservatives have brought forward. I felt they did not address the issue of national security sufficiently, and that concerned me.

I'm also concerned that national security and our institutions are being threatened by how many leaks are coming out in the press. I just want to remind everyone that these journalists are people who take their work very seriously. There are other people who call themselves “journalists” who do not take their work very seriously, and if the sources were coming from them, I would be very hesitant to take this step. That is not who this is coming from. These are journalists who have very high standards, and I think we need to listen to them. I feel very uncomfortable to be put in the position that I have to make the decisions I'm having to make.

I am not very content, Mr. Turnbull, with the amendment you brought forward. It doesn't meet the criteria I have. I understand that a special rapporteur is going to be appointed, but we're still waiting to see who that will be.

I want to be very clear: With everything the Prime Minister has proposed, it is all secretive. It doesn't allow for what we are calling for, which is a transparent, public and independent process. I also want to be clear that within these processes, honouring our national security and making sure that information isn't broadcasted can be done in that process. We need somebody who's independent leading this so that Canadians can have faith in their institutions. This is undermining the fundamental belief of so many Canadians in these institutions, and that matters to me greatly.

I will wait here and have this conversation, and I'm hoping I can have some answers. If I can't have them right away, it would be good to have them fairly soon. I just want to know what the process is so that I can better understand it.

I also want to say I agree that, through this system, through what we've seen happen over the last few months.... I am concerned about the rhetoric I'm hearing from the Conservatives in their positions. I think it's frightening. It's divisive. It is such a system that says, “Let's be afraid of everything, and everything is broken.” I don't believe everything is broken. I don't believe so because we have strong, amazing Canadians across this country who represent every single party in how they vote. They are strong and they have faith. We know that if we come together, we can find good solutions, and that is what I'm focused on.

I don't want this to be about drama and intrigue. I want this to be about getting down to answers. The minute that we see a public inquiry that is transparent, independent and public, we're going to have lots of different conversations. That is when the doors are opened for Canadians. At the end of the day, that's whom I'm here fighting for.

I want Canadians to have absolute faith in their institutions. I believe in our institutions, and I have a lot of pride in our institutions. I want to make sure we strengthen them with everything we do. I have tried to do that in this committee, but unfortunately this is where we're at. I've had to make some very uncomfortable decisions, and I will make them because Canadians require that and they deserve the truth, so let's get to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

I'll just take a couple of seconds to say thank you for sharing parts of your agenda with us today. The reality is that we are all doing work here on the Hill as well as dealing with our communities. For me—and this is not to the same extent—it's important that people get to see what we do as members of Parliament, so on Tuesday I had people shadowing me, as did others. It would be one thing to have committed a long time ago that I would have lunch with them and then not have lunch, but at the same time, I had a class visiting and the list went on. It was never the intention to not find resources, but we have to work with people to find resources.

Every time members ask for more time, rest assured that we've had a Standing Order 106(4) request and we've come back to make sure we do meet. I will always do whatever I can.

As for resources today, we were informed that we have a maximum of four hours, so that's from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. At first we did not have that. The clerk and the team have worked really hard, so thank you for acknowledging my work, but I've been pushing them and they've been doing really well. They're here, hearing it, and we have four hours.

I understand that we can probably push it to about 1:30 p.m. I'm going to try. Basically, that is where we're at. It would be good to have ministers come, but to be honest, whenever we ask them, often we get responses back that they cannot attend. I do push back, and that's how we were able to get one minister, now two. We will always push for them to be here because it's important that the government come to respond. I believe in that as well. Rest assured I'm there with you.

As for the meeting notice, it will be corrected. There are little systems in place. That's why sometimes the clerk is not able to change it from home or wherever she is, but it will be corrected.

The panel we were going to have will not happen because we're in this meeting. The ministers are part of the agenda, so we will remain with that, and hopefully we can have them come. Then, with committee consent—and I think nobody here is undermining the importance of this topic and where we want to get to, and I'm hearing the nuances of people's points—we can always do whatever we want at committee by having agreement. If we agree that we need to continue this work, we need to get there.

It's good that we were able to vote on the original amendment. It's good to hear where you stand on this amendment to see if there's time to have conversations to get to a better spot so the committee can advance work that I agree Canadians expect us to do. There are a lot of concerns out there.

I take this matter very seriously. There are a few things I have unconditional faith in, and our democratic institutions and judicial system are two of them. I need to know that they are insulated and protected. Rest assured that you have my full agreement to make sure the committee gets to where it needs to get to. Hopefully, all members can recognize the nuances in the work different people do and how we protect the security of Canadians. We have that responsibility. It really does stop with the Prime Minister, and that is a massive responsibility. I would say that of any prime minister. I would never question a prime minister's allegiance to the country and the importance of security. That's of the utmost importance.

Thank you for that. I hope that addresses all of your questions. If not, let me know.

Mr. Gerretsen, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll start by addressing the point of order that Mr. Berthold referenced a little while ago. He was very quick to defend the words of the Leader of the Opposition. What I'm more interested in, quite frankly, is listening to the Conservatives defend the words of one of their own members sitting on this committee who, surprisingly, hasn't been here since we brought up his words a couple of weeks ago. That's Mr. Calkins.

It's interesting. I know he's on the Hill.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes, I saw him this morning.

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

Yes, you saw him this morning. I saw him in the House yesterday, sitting there. I know he's here. I know he's a member of this committee. I also know that I raised, in a meeting I was participating in via Zoom a week or so ago, some comments that he made. In particular, he referred to a Liberal MP as an agent of Beijing. As soon as I did that, my understanding is the whip representative for the Conservatives dragged him out of the room, and he has not been back here since.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Gerretsen, I'm just going to pause for a second—

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

—to maintain my original point about the importance of this.

We know that it's unparliamentary to talk about the presence and absence of—

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

On a point of order, that's only in the House of Commons. That's not in committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The rules of the House of Commons echo in committees. I'm just being mindful of that.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sure you can always find great ways to say whatever you're going to say. Just be mindful of that.