Okay—
Evidence of meeting #89 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #89 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
—openly and transparently to get to the bottom of one of the greatest international embarrassments—
Noon
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
—brought upon by this Prime Minister with an SS soldier addressing Parliament—
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Cooper, you no longer have the floor when the chair starts to speak.
You know the Standing Orders very well. We know how committee functions.
Mrs. Romanado, you have a point of order.
Noon
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
My intervention was going to be to ask Mr. Cooper what standing order was being broken, but I understand that you've already intervened.
Thank you.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
I am going to remind members that all of us came together to choose who would be on our witness list and to choose how we were going to proceed. Time was consumed and we agreed upon the way to do that.
Prior to leaving for the vote, I asked whether we wanted another round of questions or the deputy minister could go on his way, because the motion had asked for 60 minutes.
I believe it was your motion, Mr. Cooper.
Therefore, I confirmed that I would make sure members got their 60 minutes at minimum with this witness, and today I am seeing now for the second time this week that Conservatives believe that they can ask their questions and that no one else gets to. That's not how this committee works—and I do observe a lot of other committees.
As the chair of this committee, I am reminding members that we have a question of privilege that was not referred to us by another committee. It was referred to us by the House of Commons, to which we have been elected to serve the people of this country.
A member of Parliament stood in that place and said they felt threatened and felt unsafe, and felt that their parliamentary privilege was violated—parliamentary privilege that the average Canadian will never experience, yet we serve in the House of Commons.
We are going to respond to that question of privilege, and I never want to have to give this spiel again. We have witnesses coming and I want everyone to be honest about their intent towards it or to be honest as to what they are suggesting.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
On a point of order, the only reason it's been necessary to bring this motion at this time or to resume debate is that every effort has been made on the part of Liberals and New Democrats to have an in camera meeting to deal with the issue of the former SS soldier who was introduced before the House of Commons—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
—in what is Justin Trudeau's biggest international embarrassment.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Point of order.
With all due respect, Madam Chair, You've questioned our honesty twice now. I think it's entirely appropriate for Mr. Cooper to explain his reasons given what you said about us not being honest. I think that Mr. Cooper was entirely within his rights to explain himself and that his point of order was entirely warranted.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I didn't call you dishonest. I said that other members of the committee wanted to ask questions. They, too, have to have an opportunity to ask questions.
I have Mr. Gerretsen on a point of order.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm just incredibly embarrassed, on behalf of everybody, when we do this stuff in front of a witness.
Would it be possible to either allow the witness to leave or finish the questions? We can then get back to the petty stuff among ourselves without having to subject the witness to this.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Stewart.
I think you've clearly outlined the flow of the river of information that comes across your desk. You were asked several questions about that relevant piece of information, but you've said little about how the information is processed.
You talked about the panel of five senior public servants who process the information. You also talked about the fact that the information comes in from all over, different departments and such. You named some of them, as did some of my fellow members in their questioning.
Nevertheless, I'd like you to describe how you manage the information. What's the process for handling the information once you receive it? How complex is the process for the panel?
12:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister, International Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Certainly. First, I'd like to clarify something, if I may.
Earlier, in response to Mr. Gerretsen's questions, I explained how the system as a whole works. I talked about the intelligence and the analysis process overall.
The system works differently when it comes to the panel and the work done during writ periods. The SITE task force is made up of intelligence agency and RCMP officials. They analyze the intelligence extensively as it relates to the election, and their process revolves specifically around election interference.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
In terms of the process for identifying electoral interference or threats against an MP, can you talk about how you deal with the information you receive from the task force?
12:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister, International Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
During a writ period, the panel receives weekly briefings from the task force, very detailed briefings. They include intelligence from a number of sources and it pertains specifically to interference.
Then, the panel discusses the intelligence, the situation in general and the level of interference, specifically. Interference throughout a writ period happens in a number of ways. China, in particular, uses a number of methods to harm Canada's interests. When we are in the room with the other panel members, we endeavour to determine whether the interference rises to a certain threshold.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you.
I'm going to follow up on what we heard from Tara Denham last week. She told the committee that false and misleading information had been spread and that it was highly likely that foreign interference had taken place.
We want to get a clearer sense of all this. How do you determine when to designate something as “highly likely”? Do you have a process to verify the information? Is it complex? How do you verify whether something is highly likely or unlikely since the information could be from any source? Simply put, can you explain how complex the process of verifying the information is once you receive it? Can you talk about the time frames, as well?
October 19th, 2023 / 12:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister, International Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
It's always tough to verify intelligence with accuracy in order to get to the truth. To some extent, it's always a grey area, and we use every tool we have to analyze the intelligence.
The role of the RRM Canada team, which my colleague Tara Denham talked about, is to do its best to understand who is doing what on social media and whether the Chinese government, say, is at the source of a foreign interference activity.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal