Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2023

[Vincent Rigby]

Madam Chair, I would totally agree with that.

That's why I'm a strong advocate of doing a full-scale national security review. Whether you do a public inquiry focused narrowly on foreign interference in elections, which is kind of a burning tree, or you look at the whole forest, where there are lots of burning trees.... If you were to do a full-up review with full-up public consultations, that is the government showing leadership and helping to inform Canadians.

Governments will often say, “It's not a big concern for my constituents.” You have to educate your constituents about the state of the world and the things that the government needs to do. That's why I think what Mr. Johnston is recommending, or a full-scale national security review launched by the government, is not a bad idea at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

As the chair, I don't really get to have an exchange with Mr. Rigby. I feel like it's been a lot of time.

The thing I really appreciated was the reference to reports and the importance of reading them in their entirety. I know, as somebody who's going through Mr. Johnston's report, that it's a pretty good read. It would be really important to see how Canadians communicate and how it is resonating, because sometimes the work you do is tough, and if you're not in that national security space, it's very foreign to those of us who have confidence in the people in those roles, because we know you do your best.

I want to say, on behalf of PROC members, thank you for your time today. Thank you for responding to us and being able to be present. If there's anything else that you find you would like to share with us, just send it to the clerk and we'll have it translated and shared around.

With that, we wish you the best.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes, as our next panel is here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call the meeting back to order.

For our next panel, we have with us, Mr. Eric Janse, acting clerk of the House of Commons, Monsieur Michel Bédard, interim law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Jeffrey LeBlanc, acting deputy clerk of procedure, and Patrick McDonell, Sergeant-at-Arms and corporate security secretary.

I understand that, combined, you are bringing readings. Mr. Janse, five minutes go to you.

[Eric Janse, Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting me and my colleagues to appear today on the question of privilege concerning alleged acts of intimidation towards the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members.

To begin my remarks, I would like to inform the committee that I do not have first-hand or specific knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this incident. I leave it to other witnesses to clarify those circumstances.

The contribution I believe I can make, for the committee's study today, is in providing high-level observations on the central role that parliamentary privilege plays in the proceedings of Parliament. In addition, I hope to also be able to offer insights into the role the committee can play in examining this question of privilege.

Parliamentary privilege refers to the rights and immunities that have been deemed necessary to allow the House of Commons and its members to carry out their parliamentary duties, free from undue influence.

In the 30th Parliament, the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, chaired by then speaker James Jerome, succinctly enunciated the reason for parliamentary privilege in its first report, presented to the House on July 12, 1976. It stated:

The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to allow Members of the House of Commons to carry out their duties as representatives of the electorate without undue interference.

The Speaker is entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that the House and its members can go about their work freely, without interference or threats. In his ruling of May 8, 2023, the Speaker emphasized this point:

The Chair has no higher responsibility than to ensure that the rights and privileges of the members, and of the House, are respected. I considered the gravity of the information that has been put before the House, the origins of the information and the potential impact on our parliamentary duties.

On May 10, 2023, following the Speaker's ruling, the House decided to refer the prima facie case of privilege to this committee. As the Speaker pointed out in his ruling, his role is not to make a finding of fact. It is, rather, to determine whether, on the face of it, the matter appeared to affect members' privileges in a way that was serious enough to warrant priority consideration by the House.

In adopting an order of reference to this committee, the House has determined that this matter required further investigation and that this committee is the most appropriate vehicle to achieve this objective.

Generally, in examining a question of privilege, a committee will seek first to establish the facts of what occurred. It can then consider whether the events in question do indeed, in its view, represent a breach of members privileges or a contempt of the House. Finally, it can look at what remedy, if any, it would propose in the circumstances and make recommendations, either to the House or to the government, of ways to prevent such events from occurring in the future.

All the usual powers of the committee are available, including the calling of witnesses and the ordering of the production of documents it deems necessary to further its study. It can meet in public, or in camera if it feels some discussions should be kept confidential.

If the committee chooses to make a report to the House, I would urge members to phrase their recommendations carefully. Where the House itself is expected to take action, recommendations should be phrased as orders which could be executed, should they be concurred in by the House. In the case of recommendations to House Administration or the government, they should be phrased in such a way as to be actionable, and should fall squarely within the committee's mandate.

This committee likely has never been called upon to consider a question of privilege that arose from the intimidation of a member by a foreign government. In a ruling on October 29, 1980, at page 4214 of the Debates, Speaker Sauvé made an insightful statement:

When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

I am confident that this committee and the House have the capacity to effectively respond to this new threat.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the support of the House administration in helping the committee address such threats. With that, I would like to thank you again for having invited me to appear at the committee. My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We thank you for taking the time to appear with your colleagues to answer what I'm sure will be a great exchange.

We will have six-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Nater, followed by Mr. Fergus, Madam Gaudreau and Madam Blaney.

Go ahead, Mr. Nater, through the chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, thank you to our witnesses for joining us this morning.

I'm frankly quite surprised that we don't have the same volume of media here for your testimony as we had earlier in the week. I'm a little disappointed by that, but I'm sure everyone's tuning in from elsewhere.

I'll begin by talking a little bit about the production of papers. Mr. Janse, you mentioned that in your comments, and Monsieur Bédard, you were with us earlier this week at the OGGO committee. At that committee, it was unfortunate, I think, that some departments, including PCO, perhaps didn't fully understand the powers of Parliament, including its committees, to compel the provision of documents.

I was hoping that either you, Mr. Janse, or Mr. Bédard could confirm for this committee our power to compel the production of documents and its authority superseding all other government rules or non-constitutional measures.

[Eric Janse]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nater.

Indeed, that's a very good question. It's not a new issue. Absolutely, Parliament, the House, has the authority and the power to demand the production of papers, but maybe I will, indeed, turn it over to Michel because he's been addressing this very issue with a number of committees over the past few months.

[Michel Bédard, Interim Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

Among the parliamentary privileges that the House and its committees have, there is the right to send for records and papers. Parliamentary privileges, in general, are rooted in the Constitution and have constitutional status, so they will prevail over ordinary legislation that would provide that information is to be kept confidential or secret unless there's an explicit provision to the contrary.

Documents that could be sought and obtained by committee include solicitor-client privilege, documents dealing with national security....

Now, if there is some concern about the production of documents, there could be a dialogue between the committee and the government or the other party that is in possession of the documents. The committee could decide to put measures in place to protect the confidentiality of the documents, could insist on its original request, or could decide not to ask for the production of the documents.

Ultimately, it's for the committee to decide.

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

Certainly, just to follow up on that and to confirm.... We can compel the production of any documents, but it's certainly also within our purview, in terms of how those documents are dealt with, that they're not necessarily made public. We could make provisions for whether they're dealt with in camera, in redacted formats, or some forms such as those, but it would be the power of the committee to make that determination as we're compelling documents.

[Michel Bédard]

Yes, and in doing so, the committee may put measures in place to address concerns that were raised respecting the protection of the confidentiality attached to the documents.

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

I appreciate that.

With regard to the Winnipeg lab documents, there were some suggestions from the government that perhaps the then law clerk didn't have the necessary security clearance to deal with top secret information. Could you confirm whether you do have the requisite security clearance to deal with that information, were you to receive it?

[Michel Bédard]

First of all, the right of this committee and the House of Commons to obtain documents is not subject to any specific clearance from the government. This committee has the right to obtain the documents.

Now, if it's relevant for the committee and for the government in considering measures to be put in place to protect the confidentiality of documents, there are two counsels in my office, including myself, who have top security clearance.

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

Would you also have the necessary provisions to keep any such documents secure within your facilities?

[Michel Bédard]

Right now, we're equipped to have in possession paper documents and to consult documents. We don't have a room that is set up to discuss top secret information, but we can make arrangements to have a room set up temporarily to allow the discussion of top secret information.

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

I appreciate that.

I'll move on. This question is for Mr. Janse.

Last month, our committee invited Beijing's ambassador to appear before this committee. Obviously, we have a few questions we hope to be able to ask him. To my knowledge, he has not yet responded. Committees have, in the past, heard from diplomats voluntarily.

Should this committee decide that it must hear from the ambassador, instead of just letting his silence speak volumes, does this committee have the authority to compel his attendance?

[Eric Janse]

The short answer would be no, but I think my colleague might have a more detailed response.

[Michel Bédard]

The power of the House of Commons and its committees is limited to the Canadian territory, so if an ambassador or any foreigner is outside of the country, the House or its committees would not have the power to compel the attendance of this individual.

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

Thank you for that clarity.

Mr. Janse, I want to follow up a little bit on the Speaker's ruling on Erin O'Toole's question of privilege. The Speaker said, “Given that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already been instructed to investigate the matter of foreign interference, the Chair believes that it is the appropriate forum for further discussion of this issue.”

In your view, do the matters that Mr. O'Toole raised fall within the scope of our May 10 order of reference, or would this committee need to pass a new motion to expand the scope of that study?

[Eric Janse]

It was the Speaker's ruling, but I think his interpretation was that the mandate currently before this committee is sufficiently large to include the issues that were raised by Mr. O'Toole, and potentially other members, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their appearance and for their work, which they give to MPs every day.

Mr. Bédard, I would like to follow up on the question posed by my colleague, Mr. Nater. You replied that three people in your office have the highest security clearance, meaning Top Secret clearance. Did I understand that correctly?

[Michel Bédard]

Two people in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Council have that clearance.

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

Okay. So, there are two people, and you are one of them.

[Michel Bédard]

That's right.

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

You told Mr. Nader you're equipped to read top secret documents in your office, but you cannot store them.