Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You're right, and Al Sutherland will correct me if I have the technicalities wrong. We accepted the commission's suggestion after 2019 to establish it on an ongoing basis. In other words, it wasn't for one election. The order in council that recreated the commission was on an ongoing basis—it didn't sunset—and that allowed the commission, as I said in my opening remarks, to have some capacity between elections, which is more complicated in a minority Parliament, of course, to ensure that continuity.

With respect to the legislated independence, I've shared this with Mr. Johnston in my conversations with him previously, and I think I may have said it at the committee, as well. Ideally, we would have a legislated structure that would create this. We're in a minority Parliament, where House time is precious, where changes like this to the Canada Elections Act or other companion legislation are, obviously, extremely important and sensitive. We didn't want to have a gap around a potential ultimate legislative structure, but we think we can learn from the current structure, which exists by virtue of an order in council and exists on an ongoing basis. However, we're obviously looking at the recommendations coming out of the 2021 report and would want the new commissioner to quickly be seized of those as well.

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

Based on that, what would be the necessary budget to allocate to the commission during an election period? The other question is this: What would be the annual budget to allocate to the commission between election periods?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, it's a very good question.

The amount of money allocated in a non-election year to allow the commission to maintain its bare-bones staff—it's one full-time person, I believe, and three part-time employees—is about $600,000 annually. There's this frozen allotment of $2.8 million, which is the amount we believe would be necessary in the context of an election for the commission to retain the professional services necessary to actually organize the two debates.

The amount in an election year would include an additional $2.8 million. We think $600,000 allows them, on an annual basis, in a non-election year, to continue to do their work to prepare to listen to experts and to develop their plans. Obviously, the arrival of a new commissioner will be an important step in the realization of this work and making sure that work happens.

Al, did you want to add something on the financial numbers for Ms. Blaney?

[Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

Yes, it's just to note that, in budget 2021, the debates commission was put on a four-year budget cycle. That too speaks to the commitment that the minister mentioned of an ongoing debates commission. They put it on a four-year cycle, and it properly reflects the fact that, particularly in a minority government context, an election can occur at any time. That's why there's a frozen allotment, so that the money when needed can be drawn on, but it can't be used otherwise.

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

In its May 2022 report, the commission also recommended that it should select the moderators of debates on the basis of consultations with experts.

I'm wondering if you can elaborate on the criteria for selecting the experts who would be consulted if this recommendation is accepted. Can you address the considerations that might be used to guide the selection of moderators, if this recommendation is accepted?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, through you to Ms. Blaney, that is a critical question.

To be honest, I don't have the expertise. I've obviously read the debates commission's report. I've had conversations with the previous commissioner, Mr. Johnston. I think that gets to the crux of the issue.

That was the challenge: Under whose authority is the choice of the moderator and in whose hands does that rest? How is the public interest of a debate balanced against the journalistic...? I may not be using the exact, precise words. I don't pretend to be an expert myself in this space. However, as I remember those conversations, there's the obvious importance of respecting journalistic integrity and independence, and the commission's independent role in selecting a moderator who would act in the public interest.

Those two issues clearly overlap, certainly in my mind, in a number of areas, but there are probably important distinctions between the two. I wouldn't hazard before this committee to improvise an answer.

However, I think in my recommendation to cabinet on a potential successor to Mr. Johnston as the debates commissioner, in terms of this person's ability to triage that very question and arrive at an answer that doesn't land in the unfortunate circumstance that we discussed with your colleague previously, Madam Gaudreau, I would want to be assured myself and be able to assure my colleagues that we have found an answer, not to the specifics of that question but to a process that will give the correct answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will now go to Mr. Berthold,

followed by Ms. Koutrakis, Ms. Gaudreau and Ms. Blaney.

Over to you, Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. LeBlanc, you can appreciate that the committee is in an unusual position. The reason we are dealing with multiple issues is that they are all intertwined, when it comes to the decisions of the Liberal government. Questions have been raised regarding the Trudeau Foundation's funding. David Johnston, the former commissioner, is now the independent special rapporteur on foreign interference.

Mr. LeBlanc, I want to ask you something very specific. I know you to be someone who answers questions candidly.

Had the Globe and Mail article not come out, do you think Michael Chong and the other members would have been informed that they were being targeted by the regime in Beijing?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think so, yes.

For months, the department and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, have been looking for ways to strengthen measures.

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

You just said that you've been looking into it for months. You are confirming, then, that you were aware for months that a Conservative member had been targeted.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No.

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

That's what you just said.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's not what I said, Madam Chair.

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

You said it's been months, Mr. LeBlanc. Let's turn the clock back momentarily. I asked you whether you thought the Globe and Mail article was the catalyst. You said that it wasn't and that you had been looking into the situation for months. Then one day, you decided to inform the members, and it had nothing to do with the article. That doesn't wash, Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You asked me a question, and I answered it candidly, as you asked.

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

Why, then, were the members not informed until recently, if you were aware for months that the regime in Beijing was pressuring them?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's what I didn't say. I don't want to be a difficult lawyer with you, Mr. Berthold, but I didn't say that we were aware of the specific circumstances regarding the members of Parliament.

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

Had the Globe and Mail article not been published, would these MPs have been notified?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

We were and still are looking for more robust safeguards against foreign interference. We are in discussion with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, especially with my colleague Mr. Mendicino. I sometimes have discussions with him myself.

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

Mr. LeBlanc, it's because the government got caught red-handed that Mr. Chong was finally notified, a week after a Globe and Mail article was published. In that article, it was revealed that he had been targeted by the Beijing regime. The same source said that the government had been informed of this several years earlier. Had they known for one, two, three or five years? We don't know. You mentioned several months.

Mr. LeBlanc, is this willful blindness?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No, that's not what this is about. You can't put words in my mouth. I want to be very specific. I did not say that we had been aware for several months of the circumstances concerning the MPs and individuals, including Mr. Chong, obviously. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this. I talked about several months because of the evolving threat.

Mr. Mendicino, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are looking at how we can strengthen our measures internally, and we're having discussions with experts and officials at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I can't imagine you'd be against the idea that—

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

Mr. LeBlanc, that was my question: When did you learn about it and why was it made public? Why was Mr. Chong notified only a week after the Globe and Mail article appeared?

When I asked you if you thought the Globe and Mail article had been the trigger, the question was very clear. You replied that this was not the case and that you had been monitoring foreign interference in our elections for several months.

Mr. LeBlanc, the government was caught not wanting to act in the case of Michael Chong. Do you believe the foreign interference crisis is now over?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No, I don't believe that at all. On the contrary, I think it's even more important that we listen to the experts and take whatever steps are necessary to strengthen our democratic institutions.

You asked several questions during your intervention, Mr. Berthold. You asked me why this information was made public. I can't answer that specific question. Obviously, I hope you're not claiming that it was I who gave this information to the Globe and Mail.

Next, you asked why it had taken so long to understand the precise circumstances in relation to Mr. Chong. That's an excellent question. It's one that the Prime Minister, Mr. Mendicino and I have asked of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and we will continue to make sure that it doesn't happen again in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Koutrakis, you have the floor.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, welcome, Minister, and thank you for your testimony this afternoon.

I'd like to give you the opportunity, Minister, to tell this committee the steps our government has taken to address the issue of foreign interference. Can you also compare this with the actions that were taken by previous governments?