Evidence of meeting #96 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 documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is what has been playing out for quite some time at this committee. Members seem reluctant, for reasons I don't comprehend, to exercise not only our obligation but also our capability to request documents.
I'll remind anybody who might be listening why we're here. It is to deal with an issue regarding one of our colleagues, Mr. Chong of Wellington—Halton Hills, and a number of other colleagues from other political parties whose privileges have been put to question. It's an order from the House of Commons. We have heard from witnesses. The only remaining thing to decide is regarding information relating to documents that could and should potentially be included in the report. Hence, there is a motion by my colleague Mr. Cooper.
The playbook we have seen throughout this is that parliamentarians, according to some at this table, ought not to have any more access to documents than anybody else making an access to information request. That's clearly not the case.
In rulings that have happened in the past.... What's at question here is, of course, whether or not we want a redacted copy and an unredacted copy of these documents put before the law clerk of the House of Commons—the law clerk who works in the interest of Parliament and the House of Commons—and have him examine both the unredacted and redacted documents to make a further determination as to whether or not the rights and privileges of members of Parliament have been upheld in the procurement of these documents, so parliamentarians can have all the information they are entitled to have to make a determination and use that information in a report.
I will remind my colleagues here that the interim Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Commons, Mr. Michel Bédard, was here at this committee. I will remind colleagues of the comments he made in response to questions from our then colleague Mr. Nater and others regarding parliamentarians' right to access documents, and what we could or ought to have available to us.
I will quote Mr. Bédard in answering one of those questions. He said, “Documents that could be sought and obtained by committee include solicitor-client privilege [and] documents dealing with national security”. These aren't my words. This is not my interpretation. This is the interpretation of the actual law clerk, the interim law clerk, who works on our behalf.
It's clear that the issue at hand, dealing with the privileges of our colleague Mr. Chong and others—Mr. O'Toole and Ms. Kwan—falls under the rubric, because virtually every witness we've heard from has either been a representative of our national security agencies or has public oversight of those agencies. This is a national security issue regarding our ability to hold free and fair elections without foreign interference, and to ensure parliamentarians are not subjected to any undue influence in their roles or capacities as members of Parliament. It is a national security issue.
It has been clear that we should have access to those documents. It has been clear from Mr. Bédard, the interim Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. This is why it's only reasonable that we as members of this committee should be able to have the unredacted and redacted documents sent to the one and same person, the law clerk of the House of Commons, to make a determination as to whether or not it meets the threshold or test of what members of Parliament could or should see.
Mr. Bédard also said, “The committee could decide to put measures in place to protect the confidentiality of the documents...”. We have done that in the context of this motion from Mr. Cooper.
We are not suggesting in any way, shape or form that we simply demand unredacted documents directly to this committee. That is why we want to put it in front of the lens of the law clerk, who has already suggested in his comments that Parliament has the right to request those documents. He said, “Ultimately, it's for the committee to decide.”
We are the committee, so we can make that decision and that determination. Whether something has been done before or not, it's certainly, according to the law clerk for the House of Commons, within the realm for us to make that determination for ourselves and to request those documents.
In a question from my colleague Mr. Nater about how to deal with the production of documents, what can or could be made public, he asked about making these provisions. Following up on these provisions and how we would go about doing that, Mr. Bédard said, “the committee may put measures in place to address concerns that were raised respecting the protection of the confidentiality attached to the documents.”
We have that ability, and those provisions are certainly incorporated into the motion by my colleague, Mr. Cooper, insofar as ensuring confidentiality so that we're not giving away anything that would potentially be a state secret. We have the ability to discuss these things when discussing the draft report. However, if we don't have the right information or the fulsome information in our report or in our draft consideration, we would be doing a disservice not only to Mr. Chong and the numerous other colleagues who have also been implicated in this sordid affair, but we would be doing a disservice to the House of Commons and to the electors and the voters of this country if we don't get to the bottom of this.
Further, Mr. Bédard made it very clear, to assure the government caucus members at this committee, when he said, “the right of this committee and the House of Commons to obtain documents is not subject to any specific clearance from the government. [The] committee has the right to obtain the documents.”
He also went on to say that there are “two counsels in [his] office, including [himself], who have top security clearance.” That debunks an argument that has been unsuccessfully made by some at this committee that the law clerk doesn't have the capacity, capability or authority, or ought not to have the authority, to look at these classified documents and top security clearance documents.
It's very clear that the law clerk and one other in the law clerk's office have that top security clearance. There is nothing for us, as members of this committee, to fear from having the law clerk, and the others who are designated in the law clerk's office who have top security clearance, see the unredacted versions of the documents and making a comparison with the redacted ones, to ensure that this committee is getting access to all of the information it should in order to include that information, or to at least include the context of that information, into our draft report for consideration.
Mr. Bédard went on to say, in further questioning and in cross-examination at this committee, “With a document containing proposed redactions and one without, we're able to compare and analyze them much more easily.”
Isn't that exactly what this motion seeks to do? This motion basically says that the law clerk's office ought to receive the unredacted and redacted versions. The law clerk himself has testified that having both the unredacted and redacted versions would make their job a lot easier.
He went on to say:
Indeed, some information could reveal intelligence sources without us being aware of it, because we lack context. That's why we asked for proposed redactions and a line of communication with the entity or department that generated the document; to get more context if needed.
This is an astute observation by the law clerk so that they don't fumble or make a mistake that others at this table are using as a crutch to deny this committee getting access to security-cleared information from the documents that have been vetted, not only by the departments and agencies themselves but by our law clerk.
These arguments and answers to the questions by the law clerk himself ought to put to rest any of the concerns that members at this committee have with the motion at hand.
Mr. Bédard went on to say that if there is “any mandate to our office to redact national security information or top secret information, that would be provided with proposed redactions so that we could assess and have context and, I trust, a line of communication with the department....”
It's so important that they have the redacted and non-redacted documents so that they can make that examination, understand why the redactions were made, and have communication with the various departments if necessary to make sure a national security mistake is not made.
He reassured the committee, “In some cases if there is a tough call, I will err on the side of caution and inform the committee accordingly....”
To me, that is the precautionary principle—erring on the side of national security. I believe that's what he said, and that's how I received that information. That, my colleagues, should assuage any concerns that any of us might have about having access to these documents after they have been vetted by the law clerk's office.
Again, if the words of the law clerk himself aren't enough to comfort and to reassure members of this committee, then I don't know what other expert information we could possibly bring. I would then be left with the conclusion that this is politically motivated and a cover-up of information about something the that government has done or failed to do in keeping our institutions free from interference and also what the government has done or failed to do in protecting the privileges of members of Parliament, withholding information and so on.
Either way, I would simply ask colleagues to imagine it was you instead of Mr. Chong, Mr. O'Toole, Ms. Kwan or the others who might be affected. How would you feel if you were in their shoes? Would you not want this committee to have all the information possible in this particularly disturbing affair and be able to make very clear and definitive recommendations to the government on how we can ensure that something like this doesn't come to pass again, that our electoral process actually is as free as possible from outside or foreign interference and that members of Parliament, once they are elected, don't have to suffer intimidation from a foreign entity, as we have so freely seen? It was publicly admitted by a representative of the Beijing administration that they took credit for changing the outcomes of at least two seats in the lower mainland in British Columbia.
If that isn't enough to send shivers up and down the spines of members of this committee—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Calkins, I apologize for having to interrupt you as you were articulating—
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm sure you're doing this because you have to, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I would only do it because I have to.
The bells are ringing. We do have 30-minute bells happening in the House. We could work throughout bells for about 20 minutes and then go vote in the House. I see some agreement to want to do that.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
The Conservatives do not want to work through the bells. That's okay.
We will suspend our meeting. We'll see you after bells.
The meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 12:38 p.m., Thursday, November 30]
[The meeting resumed at 11:03 a.m., Tuesday, December 5]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Good morning, everyone. I call the meeting back to order.
Welcome back to meeting number 96 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
We are resuming the motion that is being debated, and we are currently on an amendment.
When we suspended last time, Mr. Calkins had the floor, so I will return the floor to Mr. Calkins.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a pleasure to resume the meeting. I trust that this meeting won't be interrupted with several votes, like the last meeting was.
I'm happy to resume. Just quickly, I don't want to belabour any more than I already have the points I made in the last meeting. I want to reiterate that as members of this committee, we have, I believe, a duty. It's very unprecedented to be dealing with something as significant as the intimidation of or threats to a member of Parliament. Whatever we decide here as a committee will be used as a precedent should this unfortunate set of circumstances ever happen again.
I read some comments into the record last meeting regarding our parliamentary law clerk and the testimony the law clerk had put before us indicating that if the law clerk had a set of both redacted and unredacted documents, that would give the law clerk's office the context they need to make a determination as to what they need to keep redacted for the purpose of national security; to also be able to determine whether parliamentary privileges would apply and if there were certain things that members of this committee and members of the House of Commons ought to see in regard to this rather upsetting and sordid affair regarding not only Mr. Chong but other members of Parliament, both past and present; and to make recommendations that would be to the net benefit of restoring our democracy, restoring trust in our institutions and ensuring members of Parliament are free to exercise their responsibilities.
To that end, I also have, Madam Chair, a letter in my hand that's addressed to you. We've all, I believe, been given copies of this. I would like to read it into the record so that we can reiterate the point of what we're—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I will be interrupting you for a second, because I do think that accuracy in information is pertinent. It has just been received by the clerk, literally at eleven o'clock, so it has not been circulated. For the purpose of the record and for members wondering why some people refer to something that they've not received, we've just received a letter.
As much as the Internet and things are fast, we are human beings that forward it to members. The clerk will have it circulated, but that does not preclude you from being able to refer to it.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will be curious to see what my colleagues think of this letter. I appreciate your intervention and your making sure that everybody has a copy. I don't believe that would prevent me from referring to the letter right now.
It's dated December 4, so it's very current. This is on letterhead for the Honourable Michael Chong, our colleague for whom the question is before this committee.
The Honourable Bardish Chagger
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Dear Chair Chagger,
I understand a motion was introduced at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which, if adopted, would order the production of documents relating to the question of privilege on the intimidation campaign against me orchestrated by a People's Republic of China consular official in Toronto, Mr. Wei Zhao.
It has come to my attention that the Committee is debating an amendment to paragraph e) of the motion that, if adopted, would have the effect of limiting the information in the documents the committee would order.
It is imperative the Committee obtain all the information related to the intimidation campaign against me in order to fully understand what transpired within the Government of Canada that allowed this campaign to go on for two years without the Government informing me. Without such information, the Committee will not be able to fully understand what took place and will not be able to make recommendations to the House to prevent future occurrences to me or other members. The privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons and its members would be weakened as a result.
Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons and its members, which have endured for more than one hundred and fifty years since Confederation. They have endured because successive generations of parliamentarians have jealously guarded any diminishment of these privileges, immunities, and powers, which are essential to members in their discharge of their duty to represent their constituents.
Therefore, I believe the amendment should be rejected and the main motion adopted in order to obtain the information needed for the Committee to come to conclusions and make recommendations.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would convey my views on this question of privilege to members of the Committee by way of this letter.
Sincerely,
Michael Chong
That is with his signature, and it's been copied to the vice-chairs of this committee.
Madam Chair, the subject of the study and investigation himself, one of our colleagues and a member, has eloquently and articulately made the same points that Conservative members at least, as well as others at this table, have made, that we do have a duty and responsibility and the authority to request the production of these documents, and that power is granted to us through the Constitution. The parliamentary law clerk has said that it would not be a problem for their office to deal with both redacted and unredacted documents so that we could have the fulsome information we need in order to report proper findings as a result of this investigation that we've all put so much time and effort into. It would be a shame now to say after all of that work and all of that effort that's been done that we're going to leave some stones unturned and some business unfinished just for a matter of political expediency.
With that, Madam Chair, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and to restore the integrity of the original motion calling for the law clerk to see unredacted and redacted documents and to then provide this committee with the information it should have.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Obviously, we are talking about the amendment moved by Ms. Romanado to Mr. Cooper's motion, and our colleague Mr. Calkins has clearly shown that once again, the Conservatives want to prolong our work in the course of performing our functions on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Since I arrived here, I have observed that every time we are about to make a decision, there are objections. We are always ready to vote, but the Conservatives always move an amendment or subamendment.
Yesterday, again, I observed that the Conservatives had submitted three more questions of privilege. We will never get our work on these matters at this committee finished. It seems that our job is to answer all these questions.
It is easy to see how all the efforts we make to reach decisions amount to nothing.
For that reason, Madam Chair, I propose that debate on this motion be adjourned.
December 5th, 2023 / 11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but just so I'm clear, is Mr. Lauzon moving to adjourn the debate on the amendment or on the motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to confirm. He is moving to adjourn debate on this matter, so whether it's the amendment or the main motion, it doesn't matter.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
It carries.
The meeting is suspended and we'll come back in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
