Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I want to thank you both for taking the time to be here. I totally recognize that it's hard to just drop and come when we need you to come. You both did appear, and it means a lot to PROC committee members.

If anything else comes to mind that you would like committee members to know, please just send it to the clerk. We'll have it translated in both official languages and share it around.

With that, Madame Michaud and Mr. Soliman, thank you for your time and your service. We hope that you have a good rest of the day.

[Tausha Michaud]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[Walied Soliman]

Thank you.

Good bye.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

PROC committee members, we are going to continue with our meeting in public. As per the top of the meeting, Mr. Cooper had asked for the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to move a motion relating to the production of documents concerning the question of privilege respecting Michael Chong. The motion has been distributed to members, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I will just confirm that I think you sent it to us. The clerk does have it, and the clerk was going to distribute it.

I think it would be fair if we started by reading it into the record.

Do the interpreters have it? Do you want to give me two seconds?

Thank you. I understand that everyone has it.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll now read the motion into the record:

That, in relation to its order of reference of Wednesday, May 10, 2023, concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members, the Committee

(a) order the production, (i) within one week, of the July 2021 CSIS report entitled “People’s Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat”, together with all records concerning the transmission to, distribution within, analysis of and handling by, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, of this report, and

(ii) within three weeks, of all other memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, including any drafts, which are in the possession of any government department or agency, including the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, the Critical Election Incident Protocol Panel, any minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s Office, containing information concerning planning or efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to intimidate a Member of the House of Commons,

provided that

(iii) these documents be deposited without redaction with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages,

(iv) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, with any proposed redaction of any information which, in the government’s opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise the identities of employees or sources or intelligence-collecting methods of Canadian or allied intelligence agencies,

(v) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly notify the Committee whether the Office is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the Chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the Committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation,

(vi) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall assess the redactions proposed by the government, pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to determine whether the Office agrees that the proposed redactions conform with the criteria set out in subparagraph (iv) and

(A) if it agrees, it shall provide the documents, as redacted by the government pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to the Clerk of the Committee, or

(B) if it disagrees with some or all of the proposed redactions, it shall provide a copy of the documents, redacted in the manner the Office determines would conform with the criteria set out in paragraph (iv), together with a report indicating the number, extent and nature of the government's proposed redactions which were disagreed with, to the Clerk of the Committee, and

(vii) the Clerk of the Committee shall cause the documents, provided by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel pursuant to subparagraph (vi), to be distributed to the members of the Committee and to be published on the Committee’s website forthwith upon receipt; and

(b) makes the evidence received during this study available for its study on foreign election interference.

Madam Chair, the motion before the committee is straightforward and critical to getting the answers that MP Chong deserves, that members of the House deserve and that Canadians deserve.

How is it that an accredited Beijing diplomat was threatening the safety and security of a family member of a sitting member of Parliament and seeking to intimidate that member by threatening his family? How is it that CSIS knew about it, drafted a report on it in July of 2021, which, in turn, was circulated to the Prime Minister's own department and to relevant departments, including Global Affairs Canada, and that, notwithstanding that, for two years, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was kept in the dark?

It wasn't until he was notified by The Globe and Mail that he was made aware. The Prime Minister has claimed, incredibly, that he had no idea—this from a prime minister who supposedly is briefed regularly on national security matters, who supposedly reads everything; and from his chief of staff, who came before this committee and claimed that supposedly nothing is held back from him.

It is very difficult to believe the Prime Minister at the best of times, but as MP Chong clearly stated before this committee, if it is true the Prime Minister didn't know, then that is also extremely problematic and raises real questions about his “fitness” as Prime Minister in dealing with serious national security issues. This is including something as serious as an accredited Beijing diplomat seeking to intimidate a sitting member of Parliament to interfere with their ability to do their job, to speak on behalf of their constituents, and vote in this place on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of Canadians.

This motion essentially provides for two key things. The first is the production of papers for where this CSIS memo went.... As Jenni Byrne, the former deputy chief of staff, highlighted to this committee, there is a tracking system. Michael Chong also mentioned that there is a tracking system that would make it very easy to determine exactly whom this memo went to and when it went to various officials and departments. It's important to know that. It certainly is relevant to understand where this breakdown occurred or whether something more serious happened, namely that the Prime Minister or senior officials in his office knew about this and covered it up for two years.

The second component of the motion relates to production of all other memoranda, briefing notes, emails and other documents surrounding this memo and surrounding the government's knowledge of intimidation attempts by Beijing directed towards members of Parliament.

The process for the production of documents set out in this motion is one that balances, on the one hand, the need for this committee to be able to see as many of the documents that are out there as possible, while at the same time protecting national security interests.

The motion recognizes that the PCO, quite frankly, is in a conflict on this. The heart of this issue is a memo that went from CSIS to the PCO, and what happened after that is a critical question.

It is imperative that it not be the PCO, that it not be this government—which has so much to answer for—that gets the final say over what is produced and what isn't, what is redacted and what isn't. Given that, what this motion provides for is that the government—through the PCO, through the normal process—review documents, identify what documents are relevant and make what they see as appropriate redactions, and then provide them to the parliamentary law clerk.

He has a full national security clearance. Unlike the PCO and this government, he is completely independent and not in a conflict. Give him the opportunity to look at and compare the unredacted version of the documents and suggested redactions, then make a final decision on—having regard for national security and other considerations—what the final redactions should be. Thereafter, the documents come to this committee.

This process is not a novel one. In fact, it is one that involved the parliamentary law clerk, who recommended this process. It was one that was adopted with respect to the production of documents from PHAC in relation to the Winnipeg lab scandal. Those documents were never produced. The Liberal government blocked their production, resulting in a finding of contempt of Parliament for the chair of PHAC and highlighting the lengths to which this government has gone in the past to cover things up and not be transparent. I hope that won't happen in this case.

The PCO and the Prime Minister.... This government is in conflict. We need an independent process, and we need to move ahead expeditiously because it's not just a matter of calling witnesses. It's important that we call witnesses, and we've made some progress in that regard, but we need, to the greatest degree possible, unredacted documents.

What we don't need is what this government has provided, with the support of the NDP, in the past: an ATIP standard of production with respect to redactions, which has resulted in page after page of blank documents. It's completely unacceptable. It's completely unnecessary and I would hope that, if the Liberals are sincere and truly concerned about what happened to Michael Chong and his family and want to get answers, they will support a process that allows this committee to truly do its work and empowers the parliamentary law clerk, not the Prime Minster's Office and the PCO—which are in a conflict—to make a determination as to what should be redacted and what should not.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

I have Mr. Turnbull on my list, followed by Mrs. Blaney.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Cooper's remarks, although I don't agree.

I think we've all expressed concern about the allegations and the question of privilege that Mr. Cooper mentioned. I think all we're really concerned about here is protecting national security and ensuring that information and documents are shared in a responsible manner. The standard on this committee, in the past, has been to follow—at least twice in this study on foreign interference—the normal ATIP rules and abide by that standard.

The specific part of what you proposed here that strikes me as challenging is that the documents be deposited without redaction at the Office of the Law Clerk. I have concerns. I legitimately don't want information to be shared publicly that should be dealt with in a sensitive manner. That's the only concern I would like to share.

I will stop there. That's one concern. As I read through it.... It's a longer motion. It's not as simple as Mr. Cooper made it out to be. I'll certainly review it and let you know if I have any other concerns, as well.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the member for bringing forward this motion. This is really concerning. I appreciate that in the motion he said, “the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members”. I think it's very clear that one of those other members is somebody whom I also have partnership with in our caucus.

This is really serious. Trying to navigate this very complex issue, knowing that we need to have clarity and accountability but also knowing that we have to honour national security, because we don't want any of those people who have already faced challenges to be put in an uncomfortable position.... We want to make sure that as we move forward we don't threaten any of the relationships we have with other countries that we share information with. These things are very concerning to me.

I also want to let the committee know that I am leaving today for a trip for the NATO Parliamentary Association. I do have a hard stop of 1:30. I will need to leave or I'll miss the plane. I'm sure I will not be in a happy reality then.

I have a couple of questions for the member. I read it closely. What I think I read is that there was an understanding that every piece of information coming to us would be translated prior to it getting to the law clerk. I have had a conversation with the law clerk. I've been fairly transparent that I'm trying to understand what this motion is, making sure that we are following the very best rules and acknowledging that we do need some information to help us go through this process.

I definitely heard that one of the holdups could be the translation. That concerns me because then, of course, the timelines that we're putting in this motion won't necessarily be effective, just because we don't have the resources to get that done as quickly as possible.

The other question I have is this. Other committees that have addressed some fairly confidential issues have followed certain processes whereby, for example, information was shared in a room. You could go into the room. You weren't allowed to bring your phone. You would review information, which often was redacted, and then you could leave from that place.

This one actually asks for—if I understand correctly—all of that information to be put online. These are issues of national security. I'm not trying to be a pain here. I am very concerned. We have a responsibility to our country. We have heard so many witnesses say repeatedly that this cannot be partisan. Those things really do concern me. I'm not taking this lightly. I am trying to understand so I can make the best decision for the security of our nation but also recognizing that MPs need to have the right to do their work. I'm also recognizing that there are many Canadians in this country who are facing challenges. When they go to police and the RCMP, they are not being heard at all. No further action is taken. It's not just at this level. It is at a broader level that we have to provide leadership.

I'm hoping we can get this done sooner rather than later but I also want to say, on the record, that I need time to do my work as a parliamentarian, because I take this very seriously. I hope we can have some questions.

Chair, I hope you will let us leave at the appropriate time, and we'll come back to this as soon as we possibly can.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I do have Madame Gaudreau followed by Mr. Fergus and Mrs. Romanado, but because those questions were posed to the member, I'm going to ask the member if he's comfortable trying to answer.

Mr. Cooper.

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

I will be brief.

First of all, with respect to Mr. Turnbull's concerns about the law clerk receiving fully unredacted copies of documents, that is true. That is a process that was previously adopted, and the parliamentary law clerk does have a full national security clearance. I don't see why that would be an issue.

With respect to the questions posed by Ms. Blaney, with respect to the translation issue, you are right. That is provided for at subparagraph (e)(iii). That's something we can work on to try to see that there isn't a delay, because I take your point on that.

As far as documents being posted online goes, that would occur only after the parliamentary law clerk had undertaken redactions. Those would be documents that would then be distributed to the committee. Those would be redacted copies, not unredacted copies, so there would be no national security issues at play. It would be an issue of transparency and obviously we want to be as transparent as possible for Canadians so there isn't a national security issue there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are several things to consider.

First, we have a few minutes to make a decision that may be favourable or unfavourable. I'd like to remind you that we're on break next week and that time is short.

We want to find solutions going forward, we all agree on that. That said, as parliamentarians, we have a duty of respect to national security.

Further, we have to listen to our fellow citizens. In my case, I hear them telling me that we have to do everything we can. We need to use every means at our disposal to find the necessary tools to fix the situation, while always maintaining integrity and access to information. From what I'm hearing, I have the impression that it'll be a while before each of us feels reassured that what we are asking for will be done.

What troubles me somewhat is that, even though we're meeting again on Tuesday, and we'll all have agreed and we'll all be reassured, there is no guarantee that information won't be used in a malicious or partisan way, or kept secret.

How much time do we have? We also need to get these documents translated.

It really bothers me. It's Thursday afternoon. We have to make a decision. One overriding question remains: if we make a decision on Tuesday, can we hurry the process to deal with this as a priority, given the urgency and importance of the issue? We need to think as much about gathering all the documents as we do about respecting the disclosed information and translation. We need to consider all of these elements to make a decision. Otherwise, it will be difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Our committee can always change the priority, because we do it on a daily basis right now. If this is the new priority, then that's what we choose. When it comes to resources and all that stuff, it's a rhetorical question, because it matters what else is going on.

I think you're absolutely correct, to summarize, to say a bit of time might go a long way to get some of these i's dotted and t's crossed.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll be very brief.

I have several concerns with regard to this motion.

I'd like to echo what Ms. Gaudreau and Ms. Blaney said, and also Mr. Cooper. It is indeed important that we have the information. According to Mr. Cooper, the purpose of this motion is to find out who knew what and when. Witnesses who have appeared talked about a tracking system for the distribution of documents. As far as the 2021 report is concerned, the tracking system is perhaps the only thing we really need access to. In this way, we can bypass entirely the question of whether the document distribution process is airtight and all the other things which were requested, given the potential consequences on national security, as Ms. Gaudreau so clearly put it.

As for translation, as a Quebec MP, I firmly believe that documents must be available in both official languages. However, I don't think this can be done within the time frame contained in this motion. All we're doing is setting ourselves up for failure and there will be fallout for business.

In addition, I have concerns about the information being produced only in one version only without redactions made by our national security agencies. I have great respect for the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, but we have obligations to our allies, and I don't want Canada to be seen as the weak link in the great information chain. If that were the case, we would be compromising the security of Canadians, because some information would not be shared.

I'd like to ask Mr. Cooper to rewrite his motion so that it sticks directly to the information he's seeking and so that the planned process actually allows us to have all the information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You are the next person on the list. Do you really want to answer? There's not really anything to answer.

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

I think the motion is very straightforward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Perfect. I agree.

Madam Romanado.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are some parts of this that I'm a little concerned about. I'm concerned about, as Ms. Blaney said, putting the names of other MPs who may have been targeted and who may not want their names out there or that kind of information to get out. We have a duty also to respect the privacy of some of these MPs who may also be concerned about having their names as possible targets. So, I do have some concerns with this, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding it.

However, I know that Madam Blaney has to leave. Just the idea of putting MPs' names out there and their family members out there is quite concerning to me.

With that, I'm going to move that we adjourn.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Have a good weekend. We'll see you next week.

Please take time to talk to each other and figure out a way forward. We can do it.

Thank you.