Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

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

Thank you, Minister, for that.

We know that a member of Parliament, Michael Chong, was kept in the dark about that. His family was being targeted by an accredited Beijing diplomat, and he learned about it for the first time upon taking a call from a reporter from The Globe and Mail, which is completely unacceptable.

How many other MPs being targeted by Beijing or other hostile foreign states have been left in the dark by your government?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, I certainly share Mr. Cooper's sense that the circumstances around Mr. Chong were unacceptable. That's why we have made the appropriate changes to ensure a circumstance like that doesn't happen again. I know that CSIS, under the authority of the public safety minister, is reviewing all the information they have.

The public safety minister—or the director of CSIS—is in the best position to talk about those circumstances. Obviously, Madam Chair, I am not going to talk about individual cases in a public forum like this, but I can reassure committee members that all the necessary steps to ensure that what happened to Mr. Chong does not happen to others....

Our government is very much seized with this issue.

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

Minister, earlier, I posed a question to the Sergeant-at-Arms. He indicated, in answer to my question, that he is aware of other members of Parliament who have been targeted or are being targeted by Beijing or other hostile foreign states.

Can you confirm whether those MPs have been briefed or are being briefed? Can you provide that assurance and an update in that regard?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, I obviously can't speak for the Sergeant-at-Arms. He's somebody I've worked with for a long time. I think he's doing a terrific job. He very much has the safety and security of members of Parliament and our staff at heart. I have full confidence that he'll take what measures are appropriate, based on the advice he'll receive from intelligence and police agencies.

To Mr. Cooper's questions specifically, I know officials of CSIS, who are the appropriate ones to provide this kind of information, are reviewing all the intelligence they have that would speak to the exact issue Mr. Cooper raised, and they are taking the appropriate steps to get in touch with parliamentarians who may be concerned.

That shouldn't come from a minister responsible for democratic institutions, and it shouldn't, obviously, happen in a public committee hearing. However, we recognize the importance of that happening.

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

Through you, Madam Chair, the buck stops with the Prime Minister and your government. CSIS informed this committee that, when elected officials are targeted, the information is conveyed to the government. Consistent with that, we know the intelligence assessment from CSIS of July 20, 2021, concerning Michael Chong was sent to the Prime Minister's department, the PCO and relevant departments, including Global Affairs Canada. It's not just a matter of passing the buck down to CSIS. It is the responsibility of your government to see that members of Parliament who are being targeted by hostile foreign states are briefed on a forthwith basis so this doesn't happen again.

I ask you again: What steps are being taken? How many MPs have been briefed? How many more need to be briefed, and when will all MPs whom your government is aware have been targeted have a briefing?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, I accept Mr. Cooper's premise that the government is responsible for ensuring that officials of the security and intelligence apparatus are the ones best able to speak to individual circumstances, incidents and concerns. The Minister of Public Safety can probably speak in the detail that is appropriate for these national security incidents.

I am aware that steps are currently being taken and have been taken in recent days to get in touch with a number of parliamentarians who have come to the attention of the security and intelligence community.

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

Just very briefly, why are they only being—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You can take it up in the next round.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today. I appreciate your update on the Leaders' Debate Commission and look forward to hearing about the process on your next visit to our committee.

Is there something more, though, you could let us know as to the process of selecting another commissioner? Will the process remain the same? Are there some adjustments being made to the process? Is there anything that's being changed from having undergone the process for the very first time, last time?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Ms. Sahota asks a very important question, and one which we're obviously reflecting upon. The current structure of the commission is established by order in council. That was the structure we put in place in 2019 and renewed in 2021.

We obviously recognize that the debates commissioner has to be someone who has impartiality and experience in democracy, public affairs and perhaps journalism. Somebody has to bring to this role a credible, non-partisan body of work and experience. We think members of Parliament should be able to offer views as to who perhaps would be the ideal candidate to fill this position. In my own view, it should be somebody who is bilingual. It would be difficult in the case of one commissioner to have somebody who's not bilingual.

Ultimately, we expect it to be an order in council appointment. It's a recommendation I would make to cabinet for a Governor in Council appointment. Because of the very unique nature of this work, it has to be somebody who is beyond reproach. I'm working with the Privy Council Office on a potential list of nominees. We haven't even landed in any way on a short list. We're working from a large list of potential people. We would hope political parties, members of this committee, organizations representing democracy groups and perhaps journalists would offer views as to who might fill this role. We're very much interested in those suggestions.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

David Johnston made many contributions to the leaders debate last time, but there were also many challenges that were faced, having done so for the very first time.

Would you speak to some of the positive outcomes and the challenges that you think, from your perspective, the leaders' commission faced, and how we can resolve them in the future?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, those are again very germane questions.

I know that Mr. Johnston appeared before this committee in a session subsequent to one where I had appeared previously as well. I share Ms. Sahota's view in terms of his service to the country in many roles.

I think he acknowledged—and we've acknowledged—that the English-language debate in the 2021 election created some controversy, particularly around a particular opening question in the province of Quebec. That's understandable and regrettable. I can't speak to the structure or of those decisions, obviously. I didn't make them. The commissioner and his advisory group came to those conclusions.

Mr. Johnston has spoken about those challenges. There's the challenge around organizing the debates so that the commission would have the sole authority around the format versus the issue around accommodating the necessary elements of journalistic integrity. I'm not an expert in that space. I can't speak to that. I recognize the importance of hearing thoughtful voices and getting that right.

Ms. Sahota asked about the success of the commission. I think one metric might be that 10 million Canadians tuned in to watch the 44th general election English-language debate, and four million Canadians watched the French-language debate. The English-language and French-language debates were distributed on 36 television networks, four national radio networks and 150 digital streams. The debates were provided in 16 languages, including six indigenous languages. That's one of the principal reasons we think the commission has a role to play. It makes those debates accessible to the widest variety and the widest group of people possible.

We've seen in previous elections that television network X, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy or university Y will decide to organize a debate. That's great. Some leaders may go and some won't go. In terms of allowing networks and digital service providers the greatest access to a neutral, professional, thoughtful debate amongst people who seek to serve as Prime Minister of Canada, we think the commission has an important role to play.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm just going to leave you with a question. I don't think there will be time to answer it.

There's been a lot of talk about foreign interference; however, I do think for your portfolio that disinformation, misinformation and even domestic interference are a huge issue. We know that consultations are happening for a foreign agents registry from Public Safety.

At any point, could you give us some thoughts as to what other measures you may take in order to counteract all of the threats that we face internally, on social media and with the emergence of AI being used so readily as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madam Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to continue with the same line of questioning.

When the major television networks organize a debate, whether in the States, the U.K. or France, they bring in a journalist to ensure neutrality. Even Quebec uses a Radio-Canada journalist to moderate its debates.

That brings me to wonder why. I don't want to hear that it's in the interest of non-partisanship. It's actually about having experts, a structure and funding. What happened during the last election could have been avoided.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think Ms. Gaudreau is absolutely right, Madam Chair. I and many of my colleagues paid careful attention to the entirely legitimate and understandable questions and concerns that were raised regarding the English-language debate during the last election.

As I said, I, personally, wasn't involved in organizing the debate That's not to say that I'm washing my hands of any responsibility. I agree with you, Ms. Gaudreau, but I wasn't the one who chose the structure of the debate or the moderator. The right people need to have the independence to make those decisions.

I completely agree with the point you're making. The commission could find someone, a reputable seasoned journalist who is respected by their peers, maybe even from a different network. You mentioned Radio-Canada. No controversy came out of the other networks regarding the person who was chosen. Even our friends at TVA recognized that the person had experience and presence.

I hope the committee will invite the next commissioner to appear. When I speak with him or her, I'll be looking for the answer to that specific question. The unfortunate situation last time could have been avoided.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Since we are on the subject, I'd like to know whether you're aware of the commissioner apologizing to the leaders as well as Quebec's National Assembly regarding its policy choices?

Are you aware of the commissioner issuing an apology, as he should have?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I don't want to mislead anyone, but from what I heard publicly or from what my colleagues may have said, he understood just how unfortunate the situation was, further to his appearance before the committee. Honestly, Ms. Gaudreau, I'm not surprised, because I, too, was disappointed, and I said so publicly.

I never heard Mr. Johnston claim at the time that what happened was fine. I'm not familiar with the details, but it doesn't surprise me. He's a man of great humility. Based on my discussions with him, my sense was that he wanted to understand the criticism and rectify the situation. In fact, that tied in with the recommendations he made following the 2021 election. The new commissioner will likely take a close look at them, and I hope that person will have the support of the committee and members.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I asked the question because I didn't have any information indicating that he had, and as far as I know, no apologies were made. If we want to achieve what we're trying to do here, a formal apology needs to be made publicly. I think it would go over very well.

Situations like that may be why members, especially in the Bloc Québécois, don't see how a special rapporteur is supposed to be impartial when we don't feel our concerns are understood.

What do you think?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

While we may not agree on the matter of Mr. Johnston being the independent special rapporteur, I do understand your concerns over the 2021 debates. I think we can find common ground.

The process to appoint the next commissioner will have to take into account the lessons learned. The person chosen will have to consider the challenges that arose and understand the legitimate concerns expressed by many, whether in the Bloc Québécois or other parties, or our Quebec friends in the National Assembly.

Mr. Johnston assumed that role on a volunteer basis. I can't imagine that the person who agrees to take on the responsibility would not want to examine the lessons learned to make sure what happened doesn't happen again.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It's never too late to right a wrong and apologize formally.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much.

I thank you for your testimony here today.

The two reports following the 2019 and 2021 debates recommended the creation of a permanent publicly funded entity to organize the leaders debates. These reports also recommended that the commission maintain its permanent capacity in a reduced form between elections.

If these recommendations were accepted, would you want to see some changes to the mandate of the commission?