Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I think there are two very valid considerations in that question.

The first is that the information is sensitive in its nature and it can have a significant impact on our reputation, on our international relations and on the interests of Canadians. I think there should always be thoughtful consideration of how intelligence is being used or shared.

There's also the issue of not wanting to compromise investigative techniques or those who risk their lives to collect this information or who are the source of that information to our government.

There's a process in intelligence gathering. Intelligence is not, in and of itself, facts and evidence. It's information that is assessed by our officials, who do their best to determine what it means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, out of fear of rebuke, I thank you very much for letting me have that extra time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Madame Gaudreau, we'll go to you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, on Tuesday, the committee met with the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick—whom you know well—for a second time.

In answering one of my last questions, he said that the Prime Minister should bring forward strong legislation in the House. He even said that, during yesterday's caucus meetings, it was urgent for members to press the issue to show the importance of being transparent, taking all the factors into account and, above all, restoring confidence.

Where do things stand on that front? We can't know what was discussed during a caucus meeting, but is there something on the horizon?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, ma'am. It's an important question.

I think Parliament does have a very significant role to play here, and a responsibility. We've already identified, and there have been consultations on the establishment of, a foreign agent registry, which I think is going to be very important and which will provide us with very important tools.

I think there's also been some reflection on the application of the CSIS Act. It was written in 1984. The world has changed quite significantly, and we believe there are some legislative remedies that would be appropriate and that need to be brought forward.

There are significant impacts and implications for Canadians, for our privacy rights and for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to this type of legislation. That's why it's so important not only that we bring forward legislation but that it be subject to vigorous debate in Parliament and to the work of our committees. We all need to make sure that the legislative response to these circumstances is robust and effective, but it also has to be done thoughtfully and carefully.

I also hope that Mr. Johnston's review is going to provide us with insight and advice from a wide variety of Canadians and perspectives that will inform the important work of how we should respond to these issues. It's not just an operational issue. There is a legislative response that I think we need to consider very carefully.

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

I want to point out that, if all parliamentarians together had chosen an individual, a commissioner or a judge, we would've been satisfied. The committee even heard that a non-Canadian could be appointed to lead the inquiry to ensure impartiality.

Whenever we talk about the special rapporteur appointed by the Prime Minister, my constituents can't believe it.

The government can do something, and I think the government knows what that is, but the government doesn't want to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

It's now over to Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, when you were in the role of Minister of Public Safety, the government launched the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission. Of course the mandate was to find out what happened on those two days.

I'm just curious about the process. For this commission, did they have to deal with any secure documents or information that couldn't be made public? If so, what sorts of protections were in place so that the commission could deal with those and see those sensitive documents that couldn't be made public?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

For the public inquiry headed up by Justice MacDonald for the Mass Casualty Commission, there were a number of primarily RCMP investigative documents that were relevant and that were made available to the commission, some in a redacted form. The circumstances of that tragic event, and the information and evidence that was brought before the commission, did not cross as significantly into the realm of that which would be considered highly sensitive top secret information. Some of it was of a secret nature, which is a different level of classification, and we were able to work very carefully, through the Department of Justice, with the Mass Casualty Commission to make as much information available to that commission as possible.

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

Thank you for that.

My next question is probably my last, with the limited amount of time that I have. You spoke earlier, when we were having that discussion back and forth, about the intelligence and how it moves into evidence. I think this is something that is very interesting, because it is the part that really allows action to happen.

When we look at things such as foreign interference in our systems and in our elections, where are the gaps in that, and what do we need to look at more broadly? Have any of our Five Eyes partners, for example, done any of that work that we could look at? Is it a legislative remedy, or is it something else?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I think it's a question perhaps better directed towards our Justice officials, because there are fairly significant legal impediments to the.... The way in which intelligence is gathered, and some of the legal authorities used for the gathering of intelligence, actually preclude that intelligence information from being used as evidence in a court of law on a criminal charge.

There are some legislative remedies, but I don't consider myself an expert on how to navigate through those things. It's a question better put to Justice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Monsieur Berthold.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Blair, if I understood correctly, you basically said earlier that you didn't deny that the warrant application you received to monitor Michael Chan referred to other members and other Liberal ministers.

Is that correct?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I suspect not, sir. I was neither confirming nor denying it. It's information that, quite frankly, I had no intention of discussing. I've taken an oath not to.

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

I see. You're not denying it either. Had it been that easy, you could've denied it.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

To be very clear, sir, I'm neither confirming nor denying. I'm simply not speaking to it.

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

You said earlier that the Globe and Mail article in which it was reported you took four months to approve the warrant was fundamentally incorrect.

Is that correct?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That's correct. It's correct that it was incorrect.

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

It's quite handy to call the story false and to hide behind confidentiality when it's time to talk about the facts surrounding the warrant.

I want to point out that your government did the same thing in the SNC-Lavalin affair: deny the Globe and Mail story. We all saw the outcome in that affair. We all know how it ended.

You said you had been advised that the regime in Beijing had interfered with unnamed MPs. When were you informed?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I don't believe that I actually said that. I said that they were undertaking.... They were conducting an effort to interfere.

I was concerned that there would possibly be some members of Parliament who might be interfered with without any knowledge. I wanted to make sure they were given sufficient information and awareness of that interference, of how to recognize it and of how to take steps to protect themselves. I asked CSIS to conduct awareness briefings, but they did not tell me who, or tell me the nature of any interference they might be experiencing.

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

When, then, did CSIS advise you that those unnamed MPs, as you called them, were possibly being targeted by the regime in Beijing?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

To be very clear, CSIS did not advise me of any individual MP or even any number of MPs. My concern was for all of us, for all of you and us. If you could be subject to it, we should provide you with awareness to protect yourselves.

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

You didn't just wake up one morning and think that you should warn all the members of Parliament. You received a report, and it worried you enough to decide that members needed more information.

When were you advised that those activities could be going on? It's a straightforward question.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You may recall, because I sent you and every other member of Parliament a letter in December 2020, in which I outlined political interference by the People's Republic of China. It was a 12-page letter. I tabled it in Parliament; I posted it on the website and I sent you a copy.