Evidence of meeting #76 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm just going to pause for a quick moment as it gets sent, and then we can just have it circulated around and people will be able to see it. That way, it just functions a little bit better.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Turnbull, I thank you for letting me know when you shared the amendment with me and the clerk. I understand that it has been distributed to interpreters as well as to members.
The floor is now yours again, Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I hope everyone received that okay. I'm just going to read into the record the motion with the amendment. I move:
That, in relation to its studies of foreign election interference, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), and of the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members, pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, May 10, 2023, the Committee
(a) re-invite the Special Rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, to appear before the Committee, by himself, for two hours, no later than fourteen days following the adoption of this motion; and
(b) report to the House forthwith that it re-affirms its support for a national public inquiry....
Maybe I can just say, “and so on and so forth” here, because the rest does not change.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Do you want to speak to it, or was your preamble your speaking to it?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I've already spoken to it. Essentially, the difference is that we're taking out the summons, which is completely unnecessary. When someone is willing to come, it creates the false perception that he isn't already willing to come, which he is. I think we're amending the amount of time from three hours to two hours, which I think is more than enough time for the witness to appear. I'm not overly concerned about the amount of time, but I think that two hours is sort of a standard amount of time.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
We now go to Mr. Fergus, followed by Ms. Gaudreau, Ms. Blaney and Mr. Barrett.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank my fellow member Mr. Turnbull for his amendment. I think he's just proposed something very responsible.
First, it does away with the false perception that the Right Honourable David Johnston was not willing to appear before the committee. That is simply not true.
Second, it sets out the same process the committee would use for any other witness it wanted to hear from, that is, politely invite the person to appear and wait for their response. We have a date now, so there's no issue.
I also appreciate the rest of his amendment because it gives us the opportunity to do our jobs as members and better understand the reasoning behind Mr. Johnston's recommendation to the Prime Minister, the committee and Canadians. It's an excellent amendment. Other amendments may make the motion even better, but overall, I think what Mr. Turnbull is proposing puts us on the right track.
I wasn't planning to comment on the amendment when I raised my hand earlier. I just wanted to voice my frustration with Ms. Gaudreau's claim that the Prime Minister was trying to make it look like he was doing something and didn't want to face the facts. I find that frustrating.
Rather, what we are seeing today is that her leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Poilievre, are refusing to get the security clearance required to receive an intelligence briefing and find out everything there is to know. If they had that information, they could come to a reasoned judgment. We might come to different conclusions, they and I, but at least they would have the information they needed to make an informed decision. Despite what they've said this week, I hope they will take advantage of the opportunity. Then, they would know everything there was to know about the matter. That could help steer the work of the committee and other parliamentary committees, which could have access to reasoned information and findings, taking into account what is confidential and what can be shared publicly.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I can understand the frustration, really. A number of government members are well aware of what's going on and have seen it all before. I can certainly understand that it's hard to show that everything you do is in good faith and legitimate, to shine a light on what democracy could be. That must be very hard to do, I agree.
However, the reality is that things weren't done the usual way. We can judge all we want, but in a democracy, we must consult with others, and then we make a choice. There will be some discontent, but at least we will have voted. The House of Commons didn't vote on who the special rapporteur would be. It might have voted for Mr. Johnston, but the fact remains that the Prime Minister deliberately chose him himself.
That was my first comment.
Second, why would an individual, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, for example, want access to classified documents to understand what happened if they can't talk to anyone about it afterwards and they have to keep the information secret so that it doesn't get out? It makes no sense.
That's why we want a public inquiry that would keep the integrity and privacy of those involved intact.
I won't name them all, but a number of cases come to mind, like Maher Arar, the Air India bombing and the Rouleau Commission. I could even cite cases going back to the 1960s. We don't want to go there.
I can totally understand that the leader of the Bloc Québécois really doesn't want access to information that he won't be able to use in any way.
Having said that, I'd now like to speak to the amendment.
I understand that Mr. Johnston was scheduled long ago to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. You know what I'm talking about, Madam Chair, because I shared my thoughts with you earlier. People are watching and listening. The situation is dire for our democracy, so we have to show that we can follow through. Why do we need to wait another two weeks? How many days do we have until the House adjourns? In my experience, people tend to drag things out when they fear certain things, even if they say they can't talk about them. If the motion explicitly guarantees no prorogation, I'm prepared to support it. Otherwise, I'll vote against it.
Mr. Johnston is scheduled to appear on June 6. However, this is a very serious situation. In my opinion, he should appear in the next few days, perhaps even next Tuesday. Once again, I need to hear a very strong argument to convince me that we need to wait another two weeks. The special rapporteur has done his job, the documents are here and we want to know the details. I look forward to having my questions answered. I don't want what we're afraid will happen to come about, and by that I mean Parliament ending early, all of this being stifled until the House resumes and us moving on to other matters in the coming weeks.
That's my reaction off the cuff.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you for providing an amendment. I will always talk about how important this is to me with my constituents, even if that upsets my Liberal colleagues. I take my job really seriously. Seeing this report and what came out of it was very concerning to me. That's why I agreed that we should have this meeting. I think it's unfortunate that it has to be made political, but I guess that's your choice.
I have a couple of recommendations for my friend who provided this. The first one is that I can't support two hours. I think we need three hours to get to the details of this issue. I certainly hope they will consider changing that.
I'm fine with removing the summons. I don't understand the 14 days in the context I've just heard from the chair, which is that the plan is for the 6th. If I could get clarity on that, it would certainly help me decide what I'm going to do next.
Liberal
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I would like clarity on why it is 14 days. When I look at the motion it says “re-invite”, and I don't understand what that means. Does that mean that we want the special rapporteur to come in on the 6th and then come again in 14 days? Maybe that would make sense. Maybe we'd like to have him for three hours and then have him again in two weeks. I'm just asking for clarity. If, as the chair has said, we seem to be having a meeting on the 6th, why are we putting in the 14 days?
I'm fine with removing the summons because it makes sense if we already have a commitment from the special rapporteur. If we don't, then maybe we need to discuss that again. I'm just asking for clarity from Mr. Turnbull on this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I have Mr. Barrett on the list next, but, Mr. Turnbull, I'm going to ask you to quickly answer Ms. Blaney's question.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It says “re-invite” because we're acknowledging that the special rapporteur was already invited and was willing to come. Your comment about three hours is fine. I'm not really stuck on the amount of time.
I think the 14 days gives us until about, if I'm not mistaken, June 8 to June 12-ish, depending on.... Maybe the chair can clarify that. I think that gives us time to have him scheduled in.
That was the rationale. I hope that helps.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm just going to chime in. Fourteen days would be June 8, so we would then have confirmed whether he was coming on the 6th or not. Then we would know what next steps...and it would provide us some ability, between the clerk and me, to know how we're moving forward. I do see some sense in that, so I hope that clarifies Ms. Blaney's question.
I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett, followed by Mr. Turnbull.
Then we'll go to Mr. Fergus.
Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
As I said before, the committee invited Mr. Johnston. We passed that motion two months ago. The report has been issued. Canadians have questions. Having Mr. Johnston appear is what needs to happen.
The summons guarantees that he appears for three hours. It also removes some of the variables, as speakers previously mentioned, that, should there be prorogation or other interruptions to sittings of the House, if the can is kicked down the road weeks and weeks, then we could find ourselves in a position where we don't have the opportunity to ask these vital questions.
The motion in its original form, looking for Mr. Johnston to appear for three hours in a week's time, provides the opportunity for accountability that we're looking for.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
I'm just also trying to manage the schedule as to having witnesses come. As we know, a motion was passed. There was a series of witnesses who were on that list. This being a constituency week, the clerk has been inviting the people within that motion. I understand that perhaps additional names are being provided as well, so we're just trying to figure that out.
In moving these pieces around, we end up rescheduling people who have been confirmed. I was just asking if any of the ministers on the list have confirmed their attendance, and I have just been told that there have been some confirmations. I'm just going to look at those details to share them with the committee. That's where the dates all fill in really quickly—because we have so many moving pieces—and that's where the challenge always is.
Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I forgot that I was on the list again. That's great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have just a couple of things to add here. One is that I seem to recall a conversation we had as a committee about when we preferred Mr. Johnston to appear in this study. I recall recommending that he come before his report. Other members seemed to be more interested in his appearing after the report was released. It's interesting that the committee will was there previously to have him come after the report was issued, which I think was the committee's overall preference.
He's actually expressed the willingness to come, in accordance with what we desire or prefer as a committee, yet we still have the Conservative members implying somehow at the outset of our meeting—a little less forcefully now—that there was an unwillingness to come on his part, which is contrary to the truth.
I would ask they retract that and that we get down to moving forward as a committee.
Thanks.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Chair, I listened to Mr. Barrett, Ms. Blaney and Mr. Turnbull, so I'm trying to seek out some clarification between Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Blaney.
Mr. Turnbull, did I understand that you're willing to amend the motion to address Ms. Blaney's concerns about moving from two to three hours?
Second, Ms. Blaney, I'm trying to figure out if it's clear on the 14 days as opposed to 12 days, and on that question of the reinvite.
I'm trying to figure this out, Madam Chair, because I'm trying to figure out how I should vote on the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Is that a question you would like Ms. Blaney to answer right now, or are you okay? Was that more just...?