Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Telford, you mentioned a little earlier that no information was withheld from the Prime Minister. Is that correct?

[Katie Telford]

That is correct.

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

Two weeks ago, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics heard testimony that CSIS had attempted on several occasions over the past 40 years or so to sound the alarm and warn government of both parties of certain foreign interference situations.

Am I to understand that if CSIS sounds the alarm saying that it has important intelligence, a meeting will routinely be set up with the Prime Minister's Office to share that intelligence?

[Katie Telford]

Yes, and if there is an alarm being sounded, the meeting could happen with the Prime Minister extremely quickly as well. Sometimes these things happen the same day, and one of the frustrations with some of the commentary on all of this has been the feeling that there aren't channels to do that. I know that if it had ever been brought to my attention, or if it had ever been brought to the Prime Minister's attention that something was being missed, we would have acted on it. I would have ensured he knew about it, and I know he would have acted on it.

That hasn't been the experience. Anything that has come forward, as I said earlier, he has acted on.

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

Thank you.

Now that we are assured that the intelligence goes to the Prime Minister when CSIS raises the alarm, could you tell us who is responsible for assessing whether the information is accurate or not? Is it CSIS, is it Ms. Thomas, is it you in tandem with the Prime Minister or is it the Prime Minister alone? Who is ultimately responsible for judging the quality of the intelligence received?

[Katie Telford]

As I said in my opening statement, when we'll go off into a SCIF, it's usually a group of people. As the NSIA wrote in her memo, she is almost always there, and sometimes there will be other senior officials there, as she deems appropriate, depending upon what we're talking about. The Prime Minister, of course.... I am usually there, as I said at the outset, and sometimes there will be some other senior staff there as well.

It's really important that we take the intelligence and we talk it through. If we need other experts to come in to answer other questions, that will get scheduled immediately.

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

At that point, once intelligence is received, who makes the decision whether or not to investigate further?

[Katie Telford]

Largely I would defer to the experts through our peppering them with questions, which we do a lot of, as I said earlier. That can sometimes lead to even more of a need to have them.

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

If I may, I'd like to ask you who you are referring to when you say experts.

[Katie Telford]

I consider them to be the heads of our security agencies and the experts they will sometimes bring with them, like an expert who specializes in a particular region in the world, for example, or who specializes in a certain form of intelligence collection, or that kind of thing. Those would be experts, in my view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I'd like to clarify that it is my responsibility to allow more speaking time. I signalled to you that your time was up, but you kept talking. In my opinion, that does not work. We know we have a limited amount of time and we need to use it properly. I gave you a little more time to speak. Having said that, it's my place to speak up and that is what I did.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

As always with everything, through the chair, I hear very clearly, Ms. Telford, that you trust in the Right Honourable David Johnston in his role as rapporteur, and that's fine. What I am saying is that I trust Canadians. I trust their need to have trust in our electoral institutions, to be able to have these serious allegations addressed in a way that honours our national security, and the need of Canadians to understand what has happened. How is Canada protecting itself? Is there any corruption that we should be concerned about? How can Canadians have faith in the election process in the future?

In my opinion, those things can be addressed only through a public inquiry.

I guess what I am trying to understand is why there is resistance from the Prime Minister and the PMO to giving Canadians a process that they can quantify, that they can see and that takes it out of the political sphere.

You and I do definitely agree on that issue. I find it frustrating to hear from some of the Conservative members that if you don't say this, then it means big problems over here.

I also don't like what I think Canadians are hearing, which is these big concerns being minimized: “Look at all the things we've created. Don't worry. There's no problem to see here.” I don't believe that Canadians agree with that. It, therefore, feels as though we're having this tug of war and what we're forgetting in that tug of war is that Canadians require accountability in order to have faith in our institutions.

I ask again, why is there resistance? Why can we not move forward in this way so that Canadians have assurances that their institutions are working and responding to the changing reality we're in and so we can have faith in those systems?

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, I would just like to start by saying that it was suggested perhaps that the member trusts Canadians and that this is somehow different from my own point of view on things. I just want to say that it is exactly because I trust Canadians that I do what I do and that I believe in elections so much and that I believe in the protection of our elections. That's also why the government has taken the many steps that I've already outlined, and many more that I didn't have time to get to, over the course of our time in government.

It's not so much resistance as it is actually making sure we are setting up the right things and that the right environment is being chosen so that the matters you're talking about can be dug into and so that exactly those questions you're talking about can get proper answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Ms. Telford, on February 13 the Globe and Mail reported that, in 2019, a CSIS briefing to the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister's chief of staff—which, of course, is you—warned about the connection that the former Liberal MPP from Markham—Unionville had to the Beijing consulate. The nation's spy agency, CSIS, told the Prime Minister's Office and you that the MPP should be on “your radar” and that “someone should reach out to Mary [Ng] to be extra careful”.

As he was her campaign co-chair, of course, in 2017 and was lined up to do the same job in 2019, did the Prime Minister's Office advise the current minister of trade to distance herself from the former Liberal MPP for Markham—Unionville?

[Katie Telford]

There are a couple of things on that.

I believe the minister has already spoken to the fact that the individual you're talking about was not a co-chair of her campaign. I can't get into, as I've said before, the specifics of what you're describing, whether or not it happened and whether or not we were briefed on it.

What I can do is just take a quick step back and try to give you a little more than that—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

It's okay. Thank you. I'll move on to the next question.

[Katie Telford]

Memos usually don't make those recommendations. That might be helpful for you to know.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Just for clarity, he was in fact her campaign co-chair in 2017, so you cannot deny that. He was lined up for 2019 but was then promptly dropped within a matter of time of this report being released. That's just an interesting fact for the public to consider.

I would also remind you, Ms. Telford, that you do have the ability to talk about the extent and the timing of briefings. The reason I say that is actually that intelligence and security expert Wesley Wark, who served for two terms as an intelligence and security adviser to the Prime Minister, has said so. If he says you can provide those details, I'll take his word over yours.

Let's just start on that platform, shall we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No. I'm going to pause your time.

I'm not sure what's happening here. I feel like we've been doing a really good job. I was actually saying that because the line of questioning has been so fruitful, perhaps we should try to get in a bit of extra time past two o'clock, just to make sure that we get the information we are requesting.

As I said at the top of the meeting and as I have repeated, this is not a courtroom. It's a procedure and House affairs committee, where members of Parliament sit, and we do important work. Comments are made through the chair.

Mrs. Thomas, as someone who has chaired committees very well, you know very well the important work we do as chairs, so I'll ask that comments be made through the chair.

The floor is yours.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Through the chair, did anybody from the Prime Minister's Office or the Liberal Party headquarters relay any information to the current minister of trade regarding CSIS warnings about the former Liberal MPP for Markham—Unionville?

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, I would encourage the members, if they have questions on Minister Ng and her local campaigns, to raise them with her. I believe she's on the public record already on these questions.

I'm not sure things were laid out the way I understand them by the member in terms of those experiences. The thing I was starting to try to say earlier, which I think might be useful for the member to know, is that recommendations don't tend to come to us saying, “You should go and do the threat reduction measure”—if there's ever one that's recommended.

That's something to consider in terms of how the member is presenting things as facts that are certainly not the way that I have experienced things.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, I wonder if Ms. Telford considers the Minister of Small Business a close friend.

[Katie Telford]

Madam Chair, yes, I do.