Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm just going to make a quick comment once again.

I'm sorry about all the commentary today, but I do believe this committee is very important. I know we've had this conversation about “appearing by themselves”. Sometimes people do bring people with them based on the information they need, so I would just be mindful that even watching some of the press conferences with the Right Honourable David Johnston, he does refer to some of his team members. If we actually want the information, it might be relevant to make sure this person has the ability to have those people.

Mr. Clerk says we have an answer for this already, so we're good to go.

Mr. Fergus, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, trying to be respectful to my colleagues, I wonder if my colleague Mr. Turnbull would entertain a small change so that we would say that the Right Honourable David Johnston is invited “as soon as possible and no later than June 6”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, do you consider that a friendly amendment?

Do you want it?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, I do. I think that's a very good suggestion. I think it shows a bit of room to move in the direction of where the consensus is building in this conversation. I appreciate that attempt by my colleague.

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

Madam Chair, did the clerk clearly understand what I intended, or shall I provide a French translation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think we have some agreement, even though it does not follow procedure. The clerk does not appreciate it so much, but we as a committee are masters of our own domain and we can make things work when we want to.

We appreciate the leniency provided by the procedure people.

With that, my list is exhausted. I'm going to call the question on the motion as amended.

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

It's on the amendment, not on the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's right. It's just on the amendment. The amendment didn't get amended, because the subamendment failed. It's the amendment as “friendly amended”.

We're going to call the question on the Right Honourable David Johnston's appearing no later than June 6, for three hours. That is the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now back on to the debate of the main motion as amended.

Is there debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I just want to make sure that everyone understands the motion as amended. Can the clerk read it to us? In fact, has it already been sent out? I didn't check my inbox during the votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Basically, what is on the floor right now is the motion that was moved by Mr. Barrett. Part (a) of that motion has changed. The rest has stayed the same.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Fergus?

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

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

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

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Just reading the motion as amended, I think there are still some issues with part (b).

Part (b) says:

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

I have a bit of an issue with this part (b) of the motion. It seems to me we've had an independent special rapporteur go through a thorough process. Even though, as I said earlier, there was an assumption that the Right Honourable David Johnston, when he came into his appointment and was doing that work, would likely land on a public inquiry, he has, for, I think, very good reason, landed on not having one and instead on having public hearings. I think he said in his report why a national public inquiry would not be able to navigate around the very real tensions that exist when dealing with matters of national security and highly classified information and how those just cannot be aired in public. We've all heard that time and time again. We seem to see opposition parties not wanting to admit that it's counterproductive to the overall objective that I think we share. When we get down to the root of it, we all share a very common concern for our democracy and our democratic institutions. I think we're all very committed to protecting those and ensuring we have processes in place that can successfully combat and counter attempts at foreign election interference—and all forms of foreign interference for that matter, not merely those within the election period.

This part of the motion calls for a public inquiry, which is consistent with what we've heard before from opposition members. I think the very real concerns around airing that information in public are being taken seriously by individuals who would call for a public inquiry after reading the 55-page report the Right Honourable David Johnston has done. I can't really understand why that would need to be in there. I think it was a helpful move to appoint someone who was independent and impartial to look at all the facts and to make a recommendation on this.

Obviously having the Right Honourable David Johnston come to this committee...and I'm sure opposition members will dig into his rationale for not recommending a public inquiry at the end of the day. To me part (b) really tries to circumvent this whole process, which I think has been a fair, rational and impartial process that has landed in a place that makes sense given all of the national intelligence and security experts and the things they've recommended and the very real concerns that I think we all have around having intelligence revealed in public and disclosed in public and just how harmful that would be to methods and human assets and how it would compromise national security in many other ways.

Not all of us fully understand. I think that's part of the issue at times. Perhaps we're not all aware of just how harmful this information may be. We saw with Han Dong, for example, just how harmful false allegations can be. I feel for Han, the victim of a lot of allegations that have circulated—which are clearly false, if Mr. Johnston, in his report, did a thorough analysis of.... He landed very firmly on the fact that the allegations circulated and reported on by the media were only giving a very small slice of information, and that they were very harmful indeed to Mr. Dong's reputation.

I don't know how you get that back, as a member of Parliament. I think that should be something we're all concerned about. It's an example of how, when you take intelligence out of context and air it in public, you're not treating it with the gravity and care it deserves. You're liable to create harm. Maybe it's unintended harm. I know the intention here is to have the public gain greater awareness of the issues and, certainly, of how the government is addressing them. I think that's important. However, I also don't think the opposition parties are operating in a way that fully acknowledges the facts. I've pointed to that many times over.

Maybe I'll leave it there. I just wanted to express my concerns about part (b) in Mr. Barrett's motion. I think we have to make an amendment there. Maybe I'll leave room for my colleagues to contribute more to that discussion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fergus.

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

I'll be brief, Madam Chair.

As Mr. Turnbull said so well, it was terrible that Mr. Dong's reputation was damaged. I was very surprised but very pleased to see the Right Honourable David Johnston's conclusion in his report after he was able to look at a broader range of secret documents. He set the record straight by simply stating that the allegations against Mr. Dong reported in the media were false and that people had drawn hasty conclusions. I feel that's a good thing.

As members of Parliament, we represent constituencies and we represent Canadians. We're always vulnerable to false allegations and incomplete information circulating about us that could lead to hasty conclusions. I commend Mr. Johnston for looking at the big picture before coming to this conclusion and making it public. None of us in the House are immune to such allegations. I'm very pleased that he chose to make those comments.

I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. For that reason, in addition to the others he has already mentioned, I'm very much in favour of the amendment that Mr. Turnbull is proposing to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

You mentioned an amendment, but you have not yet sent it out, is that right?

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

Yes, Madam Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. I'm sorry, I'm just looking for it in my documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's not necessary, if you have nothing further to say.

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

I do have an amendment, Madam Chair. It's very simple. I thought Mr. Turnbull had mentioned that. It's simply removing item (b) from Mr. Barrett's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

My understanding is that Mr. Fergus is subamending the main motion as amended by deleting paragraph (b).

Is that correct, Mr. Fergus?

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent.

Seeing no massive reaction, may I call the question on removing paragraph (b) of the main motion as amended?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will go back to the main motion as amended.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. I'll send it to the clerk in a second. I just want to make sure we have the right document. The amendment proposes that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fergus, do you intend to send us the amendment?

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

Yes.