Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2023

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

I would like to move in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We're debating a motion, which is to stay in public, unless you're amending it. That would not really work; we kind of have to deal with that before we have another one.

Based on the look on your face, I see you agree with me. Is that okay?

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

Not quite, but if that is what the clerk says, then....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It was what the clerk said.

We have a motion on the floor.

I'm going to go to Ms. Blaney, followed by Ms. Sahota and then Madam Gaudreau.

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

I'm fine to move forward with this meeting in public. I'm not as comfortable about voting for this evening. I'm hoping we get everything done today in this hour. If we can't, then my recommendation is that we can then vote on whether we're going to be in public or in camera at the next meeting.

I don't know if that's perceived as a friendly amendment—I know it doesn't exist—but I am fine with this hour. If I need to move an amendment, I guess I'll hear from Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I'm fine with that. We can take it up at the beginning of the next meeting, at which I will move a motion that we be in public this evening. Ms. Blaney isn't ruling that out. She's just saying that for the purpose of today, let's deal with this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper, this is the second time that you've signalled that we're having a meeting this evening. I thought we were trying to get it done this morning.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I don't know whether we are or we aren't. I agree with Ms. Blaney that I prefer we not, and that there would just be unanimous agreement for my very good motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney, did you want the floor back?

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

No, I think that Mr. Cooper heard what I was laying down and he picked it up. I think we're good to go.

I'm happy to support his motion for just this one hour of committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We do have resources until 1:30, so it is possible that we can get our committee business done in public and then we'll deal with this evening accordingly, it sounds like, if we need to.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I just want to agree with Ms. Blaney, and also to add on.... I think Mr. Cooper indicated his desire to read the motion out loud or to put it on the record, verbally, right? Let's, I think, move on with that.

I may change my mind eventually, depending on where the conversation goes. If we get into speaking about witnesses or some details of the motion, that may call for having to go in camera. There are some things, I think, that can be sensitive and that we don't really want to talk about in a public meeting. In all fairness, PROC has always operated in that way. For the last seven years I've been on it, if we are discussing witnesses, that is an in camera matter. I know the motion does go into that.

Let's begin. Let's see how far we go. Hopefully, we can stay in public for the remainder of this meeting, as Ms. Blaney has said. If we have to have another meeting, we'll have to discuss it then, but if it takes a turn where we're getting into the nitty-gritty of those witnesses, then I may come back and.... I just want to give forewarning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We like forewarning more than foreshadowing.

I think we have agreement to maintain this meeting in public and we're separating it from an evening meeting, should that be the case.

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau.

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

I think we've reached a turning point. We've heard from a lot of witnesses, every one of whom has said how important it is both to shed light on the situation and to reassure our people. Unless I'm mistaken, we haven't held any in camera meetings with witnesses, except for subcommittee business.

For my part, out of respect for people, and considering our obligation to respect the delicate nature of certain information, I see no reason not to hold public meetings. I'm very comfortable with the idea of continuing in that manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau.

I think we can continue the public meeting for the moment. If a majority of the committee wants the meeting to be held in camera, we'll be able to discuss that at the appropriate time. For the moment, I think we all agree that the meeting should be public.

I now give the floor to Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Cooper, are you reading your whole motion into record?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Yes, I will read it into the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The floor is yours.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The motion reads:

That, in relation to its order of reference of Wednesday, May 10, 2023, concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members, the Committee

(a) expand the scope of this study, further to the Speaker’s ruling of Wednesday, May 31, 2023, and the evidence of the Acting Clerk of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2023, to include the matters raised in the House by the Honourable Erin O’Toole on Tuesday, May 30, 2023;

(b) makes the evidence received during this study available for its study on foreign election interference;

(c) hold at least eight meetings, of at least two hours’ length, between Tuesday, July 4, 2023, and Friday, September 8, 2023, on dates to be determined by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, for the purposes of hearing witnesses and considering related committee business;

(d) invites each of the following to appear on his or her own:

(i) the Honourable Erin O’Toole, for two hours,

(ii) the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, for two hours,

(iii) the Honourable Ian Shugart, former Clerk of the Privy Council, for one hour,

(iv) Janice Charette, Clerk of the Privy Council, for one hour,

(v) Rob Stewart, former Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, for one hour,

(vi) Marta Morgan, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, for one hour,

(vii) Greta Bossenmaier, former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister, for one hour,

(viii) Gina Wilson, former Deputy Minister of Public Safety, for one hour,

(ix) Paul MacKinnon, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Governance), for one hour,

(x) Zita Astravas, Chief of Staff to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, for two hours,

(xi) Jeffrey Hutchinson, former Interim Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Emergency Preparedness), for one hour,

(xii) Marie-Hélène Chayer, Executive Director of the Privy Council Office Task Force on Foreign Interference, for two hours, and

(xiii) Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Machinery of Government and Democratic Institutions), for one hour;

(e) invites the following to appear on panels: (i) Navigator Ltd. officials who had been providing support to Special Rapporteur David Johnston and to Han Dong, for two hours, and (ii) Don Guy and Brian Topp, founding partners, gt&co, for two hours;

(f) re-invites each of the following to appear on his or her own: (i) the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, for one hour, (ii) Mike MacDonald, former Acting National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister, for one hour, (iii) Cong Peiwu, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Canada, for two hours, (iv) Sheila Block, Counsel to Special Rapporteur David Johnston, for two hours, and (v) Valérie Gervais, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, RKESTRA, for one hour;

(g) invites each of the following to re-appear on his own: (i) the Honourable Bill Blair, former Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, for an additional hour, and (ii) the Right Honourable David Johnston for an additional two hours, following the publication of his final report;

(h) directs that a summons do issue to Michael Chan, former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister, to appear, on his own for two hours, at a date and time fixed by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, but no later than Friday, September 8, 2023;

(i) order the production, within three weeks, of

(i) the July 2021 CSIS report entitled “People’s Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat” and the May 2021 CSIS issues management note sent to the then-Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness respecting the Beijing regime’s intention to target Members of this House, together with all records concerning the transmission to, distribution within, analysis of and handling by, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, of this report, and

(ii) all other memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, including any drafts, which are in the possession of any government department or agency, including the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, the Critical Election Incident Protocol Panel, any minister’s office, and the Prime Minister’s Office, containing information concerning (A) planning or efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to intimidate a Member of the House of Commons, or (B) the matters raised by the Honourable Erin O’Toole in the House of Commons on Tuesday, May 30, 2023, provided that

(iii) these documents be deposited without redaction, in both official languages, with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel,

(iv) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited, in both official languages, with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, with any proposed redaction of information which, in the government’s opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise the identities of employees or sources or intelligence-collecting methods of Canadian or allied intelligence agencies,

(v) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly notify the Committee whether the Office is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the Chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the Committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation,

(vi) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall assess the redactions proposed by the government, pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to determine whether the Office agrees that the proposed redactions conform with the criteria set out in subparagraph (iv) and

(A) if it agrees, it shall provide the documents, as redacted by the government pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to the Clerk of the Committee, or

(B) if it disagrees with some or all of the proposed redactions, it shall provide a copy of the documents, redacted in the manner the Office determines would conform with the criteria set out in paragraph (iv), together with a report indicating the number, extent and nature of the government’s proposed redactions which were disagreed with, to the Clerk of the Committee, and

(vii) the Clerk of the Committee shall cause the redacted documents, provided by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel pursuant to subparagraph (vi), to be distributed to the members of the Committee and to be published on the Committee’s website forthwith upon receipt;

(j) order the production, within three weeks, of the annex to Special Rapporteur David Johnston’s First Report, together with all documents reviewed by him in preparing his First Report, provided that

(i) the documents shall be deposited without redaction, in both official languages, with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel

(ii) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly notify the Committee whether the Office is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the Chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the Committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation

(iii) the documents shall be available for viewing by Committee members, under the supervision of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, between the day of their deposit and the day prior to the meeting referred to in subparagraph (iv),

(iv) the Committee shall meet in camera, for at least two hours, no fewer than 14 days after the documents have been deposited, but no later than Friday, September 8, 2023, with relevant government officials, to discuss the documents,

(v) at the meeting referred to in subparagraph (iv), (A) only Committee members, support staff required for the meeting, the witnesses, and representatives of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be permitted to attend, and (B) the Clerk of the Committee shall provide numbered paper copies of the documents, at the beginning of the meeting, to Committee members who are present in person, which shall be returned to the Clerk at the end of the meeting, and the Clerk shall destroy the numbered paper copies after the meeting, and

(vi) during the viewing referred to in subparagraph (iii) and at the meeting referred to in subparagraph (iv), no personal mobile, electronic or recording devices of any kind shall be permitted in the room, and no notes may be removed from the room; and

(k) order the production, within three weeks, of all records concerning the expenditures incurred, or committed to, by the Special Rapporteur, pursuant to paragraph 4(g) of the Schedule to Order in Council 2023-0324, including contracts with Torys LLP, Navigator Ltd. and RKESTRA, provided that

(i) the documents shall be deposited without redaction, in both official languages, with the Clerk of the Committee,

(ii) the documents shall be distributed to the members of the Committee and published on the Committee's website forthwith upon receipt, and

(iii) the Clerk of the Committee shall promptly notify the Committee whether he is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the Chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the Committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation.

Now, Madam Chair, that I have read into the record the motion that I am bringing forward, I wish to make a few brief comments about the substance of that motion.

Since the start of this study, we have heard from ministers and officials of this government and from the Prime Minister's rapporteur. Taken together, their testimony has resulted in far more questions than answers.

We have a former minister of public safety who is now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness give evidence to this committee that was outright contradicted by the director of CSIS. We have a current Minister of Public Safety who was unable to answer the most basic questions, including what happened to the issues management note that reached the public safety ministry and that warned that MP Michael Chong was being targeted by the Beijing regime. That minister couldn't even answer whether he had instructed his departmental officials to find out what happened to that IMU.

We have a government, led by a Prime Minister, of ministers who are never responsible, who are always conveniently never briefed and who always cast blame on others, whether it be CSIS or public servants. We have a rapporteur, the Prime Minister's long-standing family friend, who was unable to defend key conclusions in his report and appears to have not been given complete information by this government.

It was very interesting that we heard today from Mr. Cooper, formerly of Global News, who noted that an NSICOP report in 2019 raised concerns about PCO withholding certain documents from NSICOP. It certainly raises questions about the transparency of PCO and this government.

We have a rapporteur who is tainted by conflict layered on top of conflict, undermining his independence and the credibility of his findings. This is a rapporteur who has, for decades, known the Prime Minister; who was a member, up until his appointment as the Prime Minister's rapporteur, of the Beijing-funded and Beijing-compromised Trudeau Foundation; who hired as his chief counsel, a major Liberal donor to help write his supposedly independent report; a rapporteur who hired a recent former Liberal ministerial staffer to be his spokesperson.

Moreover, we learned most recently that this rapporteur hired the same crisis management communications firm that was advising a member of Parliament whom he was tasked with investigating. Imagine that—a rapporteur hiring a crisis communications firm. That, I think, speaks to the utter mess surrounding his appointment.

In the face of all of that, what is needed very clearly is a public inquiry. Canadians deserve one, and Parliament has called for one three times, and three times this Prime Minister and Liberal MPs across the way have thumbed their nose at the will of Parliament and continue to do so. Some of them were just nodding now. All that the Prime Minister has offered is a fake rapporteur, a family friend, to buy time and to issue a report that the rapporteur couldn't defend and then didn't understand. It amounted to a whitewash of the Prime Minister's record of turning a blind eye to Beijing's attacks on our democracy in two federal elections under his watch and the targeting of sitting members of Parliament in an attempt to impede their ability to do their jobs, to speak on behalf of their constituents and to vote freely in the House of Commons without their and their families' being targeted and threatened by the Beijing regime. That's not to mention a Prime Minister who has repeatedly turned a blind eye to Beijing's diplomats and upper officials targeting the Chinese-Canadian diaspora, and turning a blind eye to intelligence reports that warned him of the activities of Zhao Wei, thereby allowing that diplomat to freely target and intimidate Chinese Canadians for two years. Only when The Globe and Mail blew the whistle did the Prime Minister finally act and, after considerable pressure, send one diplomat packing.

That's not thanks to anything this Prime Minister did, or, for that matter, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did, who, when she came to this committee, claimed that she had no information about any such activities, which was patently false.

At the end of the day, until the Prime Minister calls for a public inquiry, this committee is the only public forum where these issues can be studied to get to the bottom of Beijing's interference and to get the answers that Canadians deserve. That is what this motion provides for. It provides for the calling of key witnesses to committee, for production of relevant documents, and for the continuation of hearings over the summer, because very simply this matter is so pressing that we cannot afford to shut hearings down for two and a half months. We need to continue to do our work, and that's a very key element of this motion. I am hopeful that members on all sides recognize the importance of producing relevant documents, calling key witnesses and allowing this committee to continue to do its work over the summer. I hope it will receive the support of the members of this committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

I have Ms. Blaney.

Then we'll go to Ms. Gaudreau.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I just think we should get to the vote, so I'm calling the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

As I have Madame Gaudreau on the list, I will just need to go to her and then I'm sure we can call the question. Now Mr. Berthold would also like the floor.

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, if my understanding is correct, our resources are available until 1:30 p.m.

We've had great meetings with the witnesses this morning. However, we shouldn't forget that we started the meeting at 10 o'clock.

Is it still official for this evening? Will we actually have two hours to discuss Mr. Cooper's motion, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, but we have time to talk about that now and begin the discussion.

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

I don't object to starting the discussion, but every time we've held five-hour meetings, we've never gone beyond 1:15 p.m. It has to be constructive, and we have to be able to hear each other. We can express our view and prepare for this evening, but I'd propose that we reconvene this evening. We have work to do in the next few hours. We've already been here together for three hours.

If we complete a round at 1:15 p.m., as usual, I propose that we reconvene at 6:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's exactly what will happen if we can proceed to the vote, as Ms. Blaney has requested. Mr. Berthold will also have the floor. If we can proceed to the vote and continue, we may not have another meeting. If we still have things to do, we'll have to hold another one.

We know we have our resources until 1:30 p.m.

So we have 25 minutes left.