Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will wait for the clerk and the interpreters to receive it, and then you will have the floor again.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Perfect, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I understand that the interpreters and the committee members have received it.

Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This subamendment preserves the spirit of the amendment, which is designed to give the opposition party leaders access to those documents. We in the NDP would always rather know than not know. We think knowledge is better than ignorance, unless people are trying to hide and evade their responsibilities. We would however like to add something extremely reasonable to the Liberal amendment. At the end of paragraph b), after the words “and examine the full report, including the confidential annex“, we would add the following: “provided those leaders are able to speak as freely about conclusions based on this intelligence as Mr. Johnston, the Prime Minister, and other members of privy council.”

The logic is simple. I think everyone would agree that it is better for the leaders of all the political parties to be on the same footing and to understand exactly what is at issue, for them not be muzzled and for them to be able to speak as freely as the Prime Minister and the special rapporteur, Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston has tabled a report and given interviews, some short, others longer and more detailed, while preserving the confidentiality of some of the more sensitive information. It is sensitive information for our police services and secret services, and its disclosure could have an impact on national security.

We all agree that the federal party leaders should be able to see the information, but that they also have the responsibility not to jeopardize anything, including employees of the government, of public services, secret services and police services, for purely partisan reasons.

I may on occasion have criticized Mr. Johnston and his decision, which I do not necessarily agree with, but we must have access to the documents and be able to speak publicly in a responsible manner. The leaders must have access to the information and be able to speak about it, subject to the same restrictions as the Prime Minister, the special rapporteur, Mr. Johnston, and other members of the privy council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to Mr. Boulerice for his subamendment.

I had my hand up to speak to the original amendment that Mr. Fergus put forward, but I can now adapt and speak to the merits of Mr. Boulerice's subamendment as well.

The reason I think this is important is that throughout our discussions on foreign interference, which started quite some time ago, we've heard a lot of talk from the Conservative Party in particular. They have spoken about bathing in sunlight and transparency almost as if it were like their seeking salvation on a Sunday morning.

It was seen as the Holy Grail of what we were all trying to achieve here, and certainly they expounded on that with great passion all throughout the process, but then, when given an opportunity to participate in the Right Honourable David Johnston's work, we saw that all the parties, including the previous Conservative Party leader, Mr. O'Toole, participated. I will quote from page 8 in the English version: “Each of Mr. Singh, Mr. Blanchet and Mr. O'Toole gave their thoughtful perspectives on the threat of foreign interference.”

Mr. Poilievre, the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, refused to participate at all and, when asked multiple times, it looks as though he didn't even have the dignity to respond to the Right Honourable David Johnston's request, except on Twitter on April 12. This is all documented on page 8 in the Right Honourable David Johnston's report. This says back to me that throughout the process the Conservative Party and its members have been saying that they want sunlight and transparency, yet their leader will not participate in the process to get to the bottom of the issues and allegations that have circulated in the media and the very real concerns that have risen out of those. I find that highly suspicious, as Mr. Cooper would say.

Now what we're seeing on top of it is that not only did they refuse to participate in the process, but they're also.... I think it has happened multiple times now that the Conservative Party leader.... Unfortunately, the Bloc leader has joined the Conservative Party leader in making public statements about not being willing and stressing their unwillingness to have a briefing and to pull back the veil, which they've wanted all this time, to see the intelligence in its whole context and to understand why the Right Honourable David Johnston came to the very rational conclusions that he's come to, based on all of the facts and information.

What they're saying now is that truth is a trap. It's a trap, everybody. We're all trying to trap them by offering the information they've wanted all this time. Now, all of a sudden, it's a trap. We're setting a trap for them because then they won't be able to speak about it publicly. I would say that if you're actually committed to getting to the truth, I mean, how could you possibly claim that the truth is a trap? Truth isn't a trap. It's the thing that you've been seeking all along in this process, and at the very moment that you're able to get access to that, you're saying that you're unwilling to do it.

For me, I call into question the motives behind the Conservative Party members—and now, unfortunately, the Bloc, in joining them—in not really wanting to get to the bottom of this, not being willing to see the truth, not willing to face the truth, and all the while telling us that this is what they desire.

I think that when Mr. Fergus put his amendment forward—which I think is a really strong amendment—it really responds to the section in the Right Honourable David Johnston's report where he talks about the role of opposition leaders. It says:

I recommend the government start immediately the process of working with the Opposition Leaders to obtain the requisite security clearance so they can read and review my full report, including the confidential annex.

The confidential annex provides all of the information that the Right Honourable David Johnston saw and gathered to make the conclusions he made in his first report. I can't imagine actually claiming that you care about these issues, and then not being willing to look at that information and verify whether or not the Right Honourable David Johnston's conclusions are accurate. I don't understand how anyone could legitimately stand up in public and say they care about the truth of these matters but not be willing to actually read and review those intelligence documents in their full context, so that they can formulate their own conclusions and see whether the Right Honourable David Johnston's claims and conclusions are accurate.

The amendment is good. I believe Mr. Boulerice's subamendment makes a lot of sense in that, for individuals who were able to speak about the Right Honourable David Johnston's conclusions....The same conclusions that he's been able to disclose to me should be fair game for anybody else who is reviewing those documents. It does make sense to me.

I would ask for a friendly subamendment, though, just to stay consistent, Mr. Boulerice. It's important to refer to Mr. Johnston as the Right Honourable David Johnston. He's earned that title. He served as our Governor General, and we owe him the respect and honour that title comes with. We should just amend your subamendment, if you would consider it friendly, to ensure we're referring to him properly.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Boulerice, are you okay with adding the Right Honourable David Johnston's title to your amendment?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It's a really friendly subamendment to a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm not going to consider it a subamendment. I'm just going to consider adding those two words “Right Honourable” to your subamendment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Perfect.

I will now go to Madam Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I knew this was going to happen; it was predictable. Right now, they are finding every possible way to disregard the majority of members of the House of Commons and all the witnesses who have appeared. They all said they were in favour of a foreign agent registry, and the list will be long. Everyone said they were in favour of an independent, public inquiry. We are not saying this because we want to. We have the proof, here and now, that things are being mixed up, as though a leader has to comply with a requirement issued by a committee. There is talk of impartiality, but we clearly need to review that concept, from a political point of view. We want to protect our democracy, and to do that we must to use impartial methods.

I hope people recognize that the respectable and honourable Mr. Johnston, who was not chosen by all parliamentarians, has already been deemed to be impartial. He was chosen by the Prime Minister. That was the first request we wanted to make. They did not listen to us. Nothing was done. They wanted to retain control over the whole process. Now we are being told that all the leaders should read the classified information, but they will feel muzzled. They will only have the right to say whether they agree or not, nothing more.

We will give them the right to speak. Are they experts on the subject? I think asking the question is the same as answering it. What we need is expertise, a judge, someone with all the expertise and, above all, real impartiality. We cannot set aside all the factors before us in view of the close ties of the special rapporteur, appointed by none other than the Prime Minister. Actually, I understand once again. I did not understand enough in the WE Charity saga, which is similar to what is happening, that is, getting to the bottom of it without actually shedding any light. Moreover, the witnesses who appeared said the same thing.

I was not here in March for the 24‑hour filibuster. We even heard about the sensitivity of providing information during an independent and public inquiry. The Globe and Mail reported that even a lawyer heading up the commission of inquiry into the Maher Arar affair stated that the Johnston report raises serious questions about intelligence services, interaction, communications. In his opinion, an independent and public inquiry is needed.

I know we have staff until 8 p.m. tonight. I know how it works now. I can no longer say that I am the new kid on the block. Honestly, I think this game we are witnessing is unacceptable, all in the name of democracy. Perhaps there are other tools in your tool box, but we will get there in the end. This subamendment that imposes a requirement on the party leaders, but is written as a recommendation, is utter nonsense.

I am very disappointed by what is happening at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs right now. It seems that partisan politics and parliamentary games are ultimately more important than integrity, real integrity, and democracy. It does not bother me to say so, because I say it all the time: we do not aspire to be in power; we want to get some clarity in order to correct the situation. To do that, we will need experts and an independent, public inquiry.

The Leader of the Bloc Québécois has shown good will. He received an invitation from Mr. Johnston and he accepted it. Now it is up to him to decide whether he wants to consult a classified document without expertise or impartiality, but with concrete action, because this is a trap that will muzzle people, as many of my colleagues have said.

I am keen to hear from the other parties. I did not really think it would come to this. Those are my initial thoughts in the heat of the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

We've all had the opportunity to read the report from Mr. Johnston, and it's certainly not a complete review of what we've seen to date. There are notable omissions from it, including, of course, that the foundation that Mr. Johnston was a part of, the Trudeau Foundation, was the target of a foreign influence operation that saw $140,000 from Beijing-backed donors go to the foundation and then those cutouts, acting on behalf of Beijing, then get access to the Prime Minister. That orchestrated campaign of influence involved another individual from the Trudeau Foundation that the Prime Minister tapped to investigate foreign interference, Morris Rosenberg.

While Mr. Johnston did comment on some of the public reporting about reports from our spy agencies, he must have missed those. Maybe his subscription wasn't up to date with The Globe and Mail when those reports were published.

I heard lots of comments about people's fitness to hold the office of Prime Minister, but we currently have a Prime Minister who, in the face of a majority vote of the House of Commons to hold a public inquiry, instead picked his neighbour, ski buddy and member of the Trudeau Foundation board, which is mired in the foreign interference controversy, to issue a report.

I will say one thing that should be a cautionary tale to anyone who would take the bait on these briefings, and that's that the folks in our bureaucracy who are preparing these reports are delivering them to people in the public safety minister's office or the Prime Minister's Office. They drop binders on the table in front of those who are receiving these reports without context and without technical support, and the matter is considered closed. That's one of the items listed in Mr. Johnston's report. I imagine that this issue of transparency and context has not been remedied since Mr. Johnston issued his report on Tuesday.

We have ministers who were told.... Some of them received information. It was a failure of the bureaucracy to provide them with information. We saw an awful lot of that. We saw in this report from Mr. Johnston that it was the public service's fault. Where there was fault, it was the fault of the public service and not the fault of government. Well, the government has had their hands on the controls of the machinery of government for eight years and are presiding over its brokenness, as it's been described by Mr. Johnston.

We don't know what the ministers aren't able to tell us and what the Prime Minister isn't able to or won't tell us on this. That's why we need to have a public inquiry. That's why the majority of members elected to the House of Commons called for a public inquiry. We already have an issue where we were just told we were going to have a couple of people who the Prime Minister picks take a look at something, and then we're to believe that everything is okay.

His challenge so far is that the people he picks are all connected to the Trudeau Foundation. They're all Liberal insiders. It was the Trudeau Foundation to investigate foreign interference with Mr. Rosenberg, the Trudeau Foundation to act as a special rapporteur with Mr. Johnston, and the Trudeau Foundation to provide Mr. Johnston with advice of whether he's in a conflict of interest. You'd be shocked to learn that his colleague from the Trudeau Foundation said that he wasn't, and a lifetime Liberal donor hired as one of Mr. Johnston's staff advised him in this process.

We need a public inquiry. We don't need a situation where it's just the opposition leaders.... Our party has members appointed to the committee of parliamentarians that the Prime Minister has set up. It's not a committee of Parliament. They're going to take a look at the documents and not be able to talk about them. We don't believe that any of the opposition leaders should tie both or one of their hands behind their back in this process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Once again, I want to go over what has happened.

Since November, we have learned from national security sources that the communist regime in Beijing interfered several times in the electoral process in Canada in 2019 and 2020. Global News reported that some candidate networks were supported by Beijing and even received funding. From all those reports, we learned that an MP was allegedly very close to the regime in Beijing, going so far as to interfere in a dangerous matter involving two Canadians being held prisoner in China. We have been hearing these things since November, week after week, day after day.

The House of Commons adopted a motion calling for a public inquiry that is independent of the government, which is one of the entities named in many of the allegations reported by the media. Many allegations and events were reported from national security sources. As the special rapporteur indicated in his report, some people have said that the information from those sources was incomplete and taken out of context. And yet one of the first decisions the government made following these revelations was to expel the Chinese consul in Toronto, on the basis of the very information it claimed was incomplete and taken out of context.

So, forgive me if I have some doubts, not only about Mr. Johnston, but in particular about the Prime Minister. As I said at the outset, when the House called for an independent, national inquiry with a commissioner appointed unanimously by all the main parties in the House of Commons, what did Mr. Trudeau say? He chose a path that would allow him to control the events and the information, namely, by appointing a special rapporteur. To my knowledge, it has not happened very often in Canada that a special rapporteur has been appointed to investigate the government. Who chose that process? Of course it was the Prime Minister, who is one of the parties identified by national security sources as having made mistakes with regard to Chinese interference in our elections.

He then chose the special rapporteur, unilaterally, without the support or involvement of the opposition parties. We then learned a number of things. We learned that the special rapporteur was a long-standing friend of the Trudeau family. Anyone who, like me, watched Mr. Johnston deliver the findings of his report on live television this week might have been surprised to see him take his distance in no uncertain terms. He said it was just a few ski outings and a few dinners. A few years ago, however, that same Mr. Johnston was on television boasting about his ties to Trudeau's family and his father. He said his children were great friends with the children of Pierre Elliot Trudeau and that they skied together. It was a completely different tone and a completely different approach. At the time, he boasted about being very close to the Prime Minister and his family; this week we saw him take his distance because he had to give the appearance of neutrality.

I would like people, especially Quebeckers, to be able to see the two interviews: Mr. Johnston's interview when he boasted about being close to the Trudeau family and the testimony he gave when he released his report this week. It is troubling to see how much of a difference there is between these two interviews.

We have also learned that Mr. Johnston was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, a foundation that was targeted by the communist regime in Beijing as a vehicle that could be used to influence the current Prime Minister. That has been quite clearly established. We even talked about the refund cheque that was sent to an address in China, and we are not discussing that fact.

Is it any wonder then that the special rapporteur's conclusions are exactly the same as the Prime Minister's assumptions when the issue of the public inquiry first came up? He said that we do not need a public inquiry, as we have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that will get to the bottom of this. That raises some questions, and those are questions we would like to ask Mr. Johnston next week.

Since the report was released, I have had the opportunity to speak with media representatives and to give interviews. I was asked how we could have more confidence in an independent public inquiry than in Mr. Johnston's findings. It is simple: If all the parties agree on the appointment of a judge and we have confidence in the person appointed to conduct this public inquiry, it will be very difficult for us to then say that we do not have confidence in their recommendations.

This has been done in the past. There have already been independent national inquiries into matters of national security. There have been reports that have dealt with very specific issues. There have been reports of in camera portions of a national public inquiry. That was in the Maher Arar case. I invite you to check the facts of this inquiry. There was a report, there were discussions in camera, and the recommendations were followed by the government at the time. That was done, and it dealt with very important national security issues. It was done because a trust framework was established in connection with this public inquiry. It has not been criticized by the parties. They agreed with the recommendations. That is what we want. It is as simple as that. We want to shed some light for Canadians. We want to restore Canadians' confidence, but we cannot do that when only one party decides on the process, the judge, the achievements and the recommendations. It is impossible.

From the beginning, the Prime Minister has been saying that this inquiry will be referred to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, that the members of that committee will look at all of this and report back to us. The problem, again, is that we're not talking about a parliamentary committee. We have to be very careful to clarify that. It is a committee of parliamentarians that does not report to Parliament, but that reports to the Prime Minister's Office, which will ultimately decide what this committee will recommend and what will be public or not. That is the reality.

Now the Prime Minister wants us to move in that direction. I understand very well that the Conservative leader does not want to get on board and play the Prime Minister's game. All the Prime Minister wants to do is muzzle the Leader of the Opposition by asking him to do what Mr. Johnston is recommending, which is to read the report, even though he will not be able to talk about everything he learns from the report afterwards. That is the reality. That is what the government wants us to do. That is why we need to stand up right now. We are not here to protect the government. If the NDP wants to do so by amending an amendment that is not good, we understand that it is because it is part of the coalition agreement between the Liberals and the NDP.

We are opposed to it for a reason. We want to keep our right to speak, and Canadians have a right to know. If we are not here, if we are not opposed, if we are not standing up, unfortunately, everything will happen behind closed doors, and Canadians will not learn more about all the foreign interference by the Beijing regime in our elections.

I think that this amendment and this subamendment have only one objective, which is to muzzle parliamentarians, the majority of whom decided and voted in favour of holding a public and independent inquiry. That is why the committee needs to hear from Mr. Johnston, so that he can explain to us why he came up with these recommendations that muzzle party leaders, and explain to us on what basis he could say that he was in a better position than the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to hold public hearings and to continue studying the issue of foreign influence in elections.

The committee has important questions to ask. Before trying to force the implementation of the special rapporteur's recommendations, the committee should listen to his explanations of the how and the why. Then we can make decisions. This amendment and this subamendment were moved far too soon. Let Mr. Johnston explain to the committee why he came to this decision. For now, it is urgent to hear from Mr. Johnston and to reiterate to the House that an independent public inquiry is the only option that will restore Canadians' confidence in the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

As my list is exhausted, I'm going to call the question on the subamendment by Mr. Boulerice.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

I have Mr. Barrett on the amendment as amended.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I would like to propose a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Give me 30 seconds to confirm the rules, because I don't want Mr. Nater calling me out and challenging the chair.

To confirm, you are subamending Mr. Fergus's amendment as subamended. Is that correct?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes, if you say so, Madam Chair. There's no challenge there.

The subamendment would be adding after “opposition leaders” the following: “after the Prime Minister has launched a national public inquiry”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You want to expand on that. You want to speak to it. Is that right?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes, briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'll come back to you. Give us a couple of seconds.

We're all following this. Basically, it's what Mr. Boulerice suggested to Mr. Fergus's amendment and then adding after “a national public inquiry”.

Mr. Barrett, the floor is yours.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

We've covered the ground already. The House has voted on the question of whether there should be a public inquiry. The House didn't direct or ask the Prime Minister to subcontract out the question. We, as a majority, on behalf of Canadians, called for a public inquiry. The work done thus far, though incomplete, does not satisfy the real concerns Canadians have about confidence in our democratic institutions. It's critical that whatever steps are taken, going forward, are done with the reflection of the will of Parliament to have that public inquiry.

Having the opposition leaders unable to speak to some of the elements is certainly a regrettable amendment to this motion, but ensuring there's a process in place that has Canadians' confidence and one they're comfortable with.... There's been public opinion polling completed that shows that three-quarters of Canadians want a public inquiry. It's something they understand. My colleague Mr. Berthold quite rightly pointed out that we have, as a country, done this in the past. We've had public inquiries that dealt with issues related directly to questions of national security. They are, of course, always carried out in a way that protects methods and sources, as well as our relationships with our intelligence-sharing allies, such as our Five Eyes partners. You can believe, by what's gone on in the last several years—the last couple of months—and by what's been revealed in Mr. Johnston's assessment, that the machinery of government, with respect to the national security apparatus, is failing Canadians. A public inquiry is an understandable and a transparent way for Canadians to have some resolution to that, one that's outside of the hands of the PMO and the Trudeau Foundation affiliates, and that is truly independent.

The outcomes we will get from a public inquiry, and the report out of that, are not always ones the government is comfortable with, but Canadians have confidence in that process. There are guardrails used in the past that ensure the process is carried out with integrity and that the selection of the individual charged with executing that inquiry.... That's one of paramount importance, and it's why we've called for the government to consult with opposition parties on that.

I'll leave it there, Madam Chair.

It might be helpful for us to get you, or perhaps the clerk, to read back the placing of my subamendment. I appreciate that I offered it verbally without having cobbled it onto the amendment that was there. If it has been circulated for everyone's understanding, that's great. I don't have anything further to add on it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

It has been received and it has been circulated. The addition of the words are after the words “opposition leaders”, for anyone who hasn't seen it.

Check your inboxes. You should have it with you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Berthold.