Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will wait for you to send it to the clerk and for it to be distributed to everyone. Is that okay?

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

Yes, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay.

I'm told the document has now been received.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank my colleagues for allowing me to present this amendment. It's pretty straightforward.

First, I move that we insert “(i)” after the words “March 23, 2023, and”. Then, after the words “within two weeks”, I move to insert “(ii) calls upon the opposition leaders to accept the recommendation in 4 (d) from section VIII of the First Report - The Right Honourable David Johnston Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, to obtain the requisite security clearance so they can read and review the full report, including the confidential annex”.

So the wording would be as follows—

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

I'm just letting the chair know that the interpreters have not received the information. They're doing their best to respond to this, but they have noted that they have not received it, which makes it harder for them to do their work.

Just out of respect, I'm wondering if the chair could work with us to make sure the interpreters have the correct information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney, we're going to suspend real quick because we've just had a switchover of interpreters.

We'll get this rectified, and then we're coming right back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call the meeting back to order.

I apologize for that quick suspension. We have contact with the interpreters now. It turns out that computers don't like water, but there are other computers to replace the watered computers.

I'm going to give the floor back to Monsieur Fergus, and then I see—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I seek a ruling from you. I would submit that the amendment is out of order since it goes beyond the scope of the original motion. Namely, it doesn't link in any way to the 25th report of this committee and it does not relate to a national public inquiry.

I would submit to you that it's out of order and ask for your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We were having a bit of this conversation, Mr. Nater, and you know I always appreciate your interest in these things. Based on how this committee has functioned and the leniency, the clerk and I do not feel that it is out of order.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I would challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'll take that in writing, but I think publicly stated feels pretty good.... Oh wait, you are challenging the chair.

We go to a vote then.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

We have no interpretation. In addition, some people in the room have no sound. We're experiencing problems right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Can you hear me now?

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

Yes, I can hear you, but you're speaking to me in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Can you hear me in English?

Madam Gaudreau and I are speaking really quickly to make sure that people online can hear me in their language of choice.

Madam Gaudreau, can you hear me in French? Yes. Very good.

Can the people listening to the English interpretation hear me?

It seems they can.

Can the people attending the meeting remotely hear me?

Mr. Nater, can you hear me?

It looks like everyone can hear me.

Ms. O'Connell, are you there?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I am. I'm sorry. I wasn't getting sound, but I am now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Perfect. Stay tuned until the clerk calls your name.

Let's start that vote again.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will continue.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Fergus, followed by Mr. Turnbull.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me read out the motion again as it would be amended. I support it, and I hope my colleagues do as well.

I propose that “(i)” be inserted after the words “March 23, 2023, and”, In addition, after the words “within two weeks”, I propose that the following be inserted: “(ii) calls upon the opposition to accept the recommendation in 4(d) from section VIII of the first report of the Right Honourable David Johnston, Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, to obtain the requisite security clearance so they can read and review the full report, including the confidential annex”.

Part b) of the motion would therefore read as follows:

b) report to the House forthwith that it re-affirms its support for a national public inquiry, expressed in its Twenty-fifth Report, which was concurred in by the House on Thursday, March 23, 2023, and

(i) calls upon the government to begin consultations, among the recognized parties, on the appointment of that inquiry within 24 hours with a view to launching it within two weeks;

(ii) calls upon the opposition leaders to accept the recommendation in 4(d) from section VIII of the first report of the Right Honourable David Johnston, Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, to obtain the requisite security clearance so they can read and review the full report, including the confidential annex.

As I said at the outset, only one opposition leader has lived up to his responsibilities, in my opinion, and that is Mr. Singh. He has said that he will certainly seek to obtain the necessary security clearance to read the confidential annex to the report. I think that is responsible. The two other party leaders have publicly stated that they would not do so, since they consider it a trap that they could not get out of. That is ridiculous.

Except for the leader of the Bloc Québécois, I know the party leaders aspire to become prime minister of this great and beautiful country. If they held that position, they would have to receive national security and intelligence information. I cannot imagine that they are not ready to assume all the responsibilities that come with the role of prime minister. If they are not prepared to do so in opposition, how can we expect them to do so as prime minister? It doesn't make any sense and it is ridiculous.

They need to behave as adults and assume their responsibilities. They must try to obtain all the information possible in order to make an informed decision. Without that information, how can they reach any conclusion? As I said, they must assume all the responsibilities of being a party leader, and it is so important that they at least continue.

I think it's really important for us to be able to ask these leaders to take their responsibilities seriously before they render judgment, and they can do it. You can take a look at confidential and security information, knowing that you might not be able to reveal the deepest details, but you can certainly come to the conclusion, just like David Johnston did in his almost 60-page report. He had read confidential stuff, but he still came to some conclusions that he shared in a transparent manner with Canadians.

That is what these leaders should do before they decide to go on and make all of these judgmental statements. I think this is irresponsible. It is below what is required for them to assume the office that they expect to do.

Madam Chair, that's the reason I think it's important for us to add this amendment, and I hope that members will support this amendment. If there are some things that we could do to adjust it to make it even better, I'm open to that.

The key is to ensure that these leaders rise to the challenge before them, that they assume their responsibilities as responsible leaders in a democratic country, read the documents and then be able to tell Canadians what they think, without disclosing national secrets. It is not an all or nothing situation. There is a wide margin between the two. The Right Honourable David Johnston found the right way of doing this, and I hope the others will as well. That is certainly what the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has done, which publishes a unanimous annual report, and which finds a way to present its conclusions on the basis of the information it has obtained.

Madam Chair, I do not want to speak for too long, because I would really like to hear what my colleagues from all of the parties suggest, whether to improve the amendment or to explain why they are completely opposed to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss this matter, which is so important and is a source of concern to many Quebeckers and Canadians. We must be able to move forward together.

I would like to continue along the same lines as Mr. Fergus. I will present my subamendment on behalf of the NDP to improve the principal amendment already tabled by our Liberal colleagues. I will read it out, if I may. In paragraph b), after the words “including the confidential annex”, which are the last words of the Liberal amendment, we would like to add the following: “provided those leaders are able to speak...

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Boulerice. Is your subamendment in both official languages?

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

Yes, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Can you send it to the clerk?

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

Yes, of course.