Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Samson, I think that was the first time that somebody was asked a yes-or-no question and we received it. That was excellent. Thank you.

Mrs. Blaney, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I thank the witness for being here with us today. Thank you for having this discussion about a challenge for many different levels of other governments across the planet that are looking at this new view. Of course, you in your role have to figure out the procedure within the House. I appreciate very much your dedication and work.

One of the things that we are really seized with in this process that we're going through around foreign interference in our elections and how it directly impacts some of the members of Parliament in our system is trying to figure out how to get information shared with us in a way that we can access some of it, while also recognizing that we have to respect top secret information and, of course, making sure that we keep our partnerships strong with different countries that share information with us.

One of the questions that I have, and I believe you talked about it a bit with one of the previous questioners.... Can you share anything with us on how information is shared when it is very top secret within your system?

Also, is there a history of any other department within the House of Commons taking information—for example, for us, it would be from CSIS—and reviewing it?

The example I am thinking of, particularly here in Canada, is we have had an offer for the law clerk within the House of Commons to receive the information and review that information, and their office will decide what should be redacted and what should not be. We've heard several testimonies that that is not the safest way to go forward because, of course, the people who are enmeshed in the work are the best people to do the redactions.

I'm wondering if you have ever seen that happen within the system that you're working in.

[Eve Samson]

I think I can answer generally about confidential information. I can't answer about particularly security classified information, except to say that, yes, some of our committees get it. They handle it safely, but there is always a problem—and I'll be brutal about this—about sharing information with a committee. Any one of its members can stand on the floor of the House of Commons and reveal secret information without any comeback. That is the consequence of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It's very important.

That isn't a barrier to information sharing where there's trust, but it does mean that trust is very important. That does explain why the ISC, which is the committee that does get the most high-level information, is so constrained and why there is such a strong statutory constraint about what it can have. I should say, by the way, that the ISC is not headquartered in the House. It's headquartered over within government buildings, which helps to keep the matters secure.

Turning away from classified information and to information that committees have received, I mentioned there have been orders passed for the government to put papers into the hands of committees. Those committees have agreed protocols and, indeed, the Committee of Privileges, which I was very close to on another matter, agreed to a very similar protocol for the handling of those papers. They were to be kept secure. They were to be accessed by members only in individuated conditions. No electronic devices were allowed. Notes could be made on the papers. Each member had their own set of papers, but they couldn't be kept. They couldn't be taken away from the room. There would be a record of who had accessed the papers. While the two committees in question reserved the right to publish the papers, they said they would consult the government before they did it. That is how we would do it. It also required having a very strong upgrading of the House of Commons safes.

It can be done, although I should stress that these were not top secret papers. They were papers that the government considered commercially sensitive. Where there were criminal investigations going on, the committee respected those terms.

I'm not sure I have very much else to add to that after thinking about it.

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

Thank you for that.

I only have a few seconds, so this is my last quick question.

I know that here, of course, when an MP is elected, they get training on different aspects of being a parliamentarian. I'm just wondering if there is any expansion of training, through the House, on how to identify if foreign interference may be impacting you.

[Eve Samson]

We are doing a great deal more on security briefing than we used to. I'm not familiar with the details of that briefing, but one of our problems.... We're very worried about the physical threat to members before you get on to foreign interference, so I'm sure we'll start by focusing on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

There is just under five minutes left on the clock. I am going to ask if this is suitable—and if it's not suitable, you don't have to say anything, but just show me your displeasure with what I'm saying.

Mr. Nater just has two minutes of questions. We could then go for a vote and then give two minutes to Mrs. Romanado and a quick question before noon, if that's okay. If somebody has to go to vote, you're welcome to go. If something were to happen, I will commit to suspending the meeting right away. Perfect.

Mr. Nater, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Samson, for joining us today, and I might offer our congratulations as well. I understand that you've been named a Commander of the British Empire on the King's birthday honours list. On behalf of your counterparts here in Canada, congratulations.

I wanted to follow up on Ms. Blaney's comments about some of the processes for the production of papers. Like the U.K., our committees have that authority to command papers as part of the grand inquests of the nation, but I wanted to follow up because you talked about some of the procedures that could be in place.

In a situation where a commitment is made around a committee table that the government would be allowed to redact certain documents, to withhold certain information, I was curious to know whether there would be a parliamentary double-check, so to speak. For example, in Canada we have a law clerk. I believe the counterpart would be the Speaker's counsel. Would there be an opportunity for the Speaker's counsel—or, in our case, the law clerk—to verify information that might be redacted, that might be withheld, along certain parameters that the committee or the House might set?

[Eve Samson]

This has come up in my experience about matters which aren't secret, so I'm not sure how helpful my answer will be.

I think the committee itself will take a judgment. If it is the names of junior civil servants, it will not mind. If they think there might be something more contentious, they will press for it.

For example, the Committee of Privileges has recently done an inquiry into the conduct of the former prime minister and asked for the notes of an inquiry into parties or the interview notes. They were provided at first in a redacted form, and the committee spent several months pressing until the government produced them unredacted. I think the answer is that the committee will look and take a sense check of the sorts of things that have been redacted, but, for example, the House will delegate certain things to officials.

For example, if there are police searches on the parliamentary estate and there is an issue about whether the police wish to look at privileged papers, the clerk of the journals and the Speaker's counsel together have helped the police assess the material to say, no, that's privileged, or, yes, that looks like it might be a personal paper, you can have that. There is some analogy for clerk or law clerk involvement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

What I'm going to do, as we are approaching the vote but the walk has to take place, is go to Mrs. Romanado for two minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank the witness for being here with us.

I want to pick up on something you said earlier: that when there were actions regarding sanctions, the action taken was state-level action rather than contempt. Then, when you did have to deal with a question of intimidating an MP, could you quickly walk us through how we would be able to determine if a member's privilege was breached if they were not aware of the intimidation tactics?

That's what we're discussing today. We're trying to determine whether or not MP Chong's privilege was breached based on intimidation through a foreign state actor, but MP Chong has testified that he was not aware of it, so we're trying to determine whether or not there was a breach of privilege.

If you have any expert advice in this regard, it would be most welcome.

[Eve Samson]

There was a similar case, or an analogous case, where the Sussex police took action against a member for what he'd said in the House. They issued the member with a protection...a notice designed to stop harassment, and that was held to be a contempt. The member knew it was used to.... It was designed to stop him doing it again. But at the same time, the police had recorded I think a complaint about the member's alleged racism and they'd done it privately, and that was held not to be a contempt, because the member didn't know so he couldn't have been intimidated or impeded. I can send your clerk the link to the report.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

That would be most welcome, actually, because that's kind of what we're dealing with: whether or not someone's privilege was breached if they were not aware.

Thank you.

[Eve Samson]

I think, if you look what a contempt is, it's not just something that does impede a member. It's something that has a tendency. I think you might want to reflect on whether knowing that it might have happened....

Obviously, you can think about anything. You can scare yourself that there's a tiger in the canopy of your double bed. If you know that something is likely to have happened, then you might be getting on to the tendency angle.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Samson, thank you so much for your time.

We are just going to pause to vote. The vote is live for anyone using the app.

If it's suitable, do you mind sticking around for about 15 minutes?

[Eve Samson]

This is very familiar to me.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay, perfect.

What we will do is have Madame Gaudreau and Ms. Blaney just get in some quick questions. Then we'll do the switchover.

I will just note that we know that you are the expert when it comes to privilege in the House. I think we're trying to figure out where there are abilities in how you operate. We do appreciate your broadening the scope of your expertise. This is just where members are coming from.

We'll be right back. Stay tuned. Thank you so much for waiting.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Hello, everyone. We're going to finish this panel with a quick question by Madame Gaudreau, followed by Mrs. Blaney.

Madame Gaudreau.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My last question is very simple.

You said at the outset that you've seen how we operate. So I'd like to give you a chance to make a few suggestions for changes that we could make to the way we work.

How can we improve?

[Eve Samson]

Is this about foreign interference or about the...?

I do not know whether the Canadian Parliament has a security department or how that operates. We have, over the years, had great increases in the capability and professionalism of our security department. It was always helpful. I think that having an informal—"informal" is the wrong word—or a very capable security department is the key to it.

However, as a procedural and privilege expert, I'm not sure I can tell you too much about it, except that has vastly increased my peace of mind.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mrs. Blaney.

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

I have the last question for you today, and again, thank you so much for being here.

Quickly, you talked about your security department. Here, of course, we have similarly the Sergeant-at-Arms. One of the changes we have made concerning foreign interference—or that is in the process of changing, I should say—is more connection with the Sergeant-at-Arms, who will connect with the members of Parliament and let them know whether they are being targeted for anything specific around foreign interference.

I'm wondering if you have a similar process and how that is effective or whether there are any concerns.

[Eve Samson]

Before giving evidence, I discussed with Alison Giles about her remit and my remit and what should be said in public. I think, if I may, I will suggest that when you see Alison, you ask her.