Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

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

Under (B), there's the section that says “provided that”. Right under that is (iii). It says, “these documents be deposited without redaction, in both official languages, with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel”.

Replace that with “the Departments and Agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act, and”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you have that in both official languages?

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

I do not, but I can get it to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Can you email it to the—

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

Should we suspend while I get that to you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes. That's a great idea.

Can I please have it sent to the clerk? Once it has come to the clerk, I'll have it circulated around.

The meeting is suspended until we get that. Do that quickly, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The amendment has been passed around, and everyone should have it, including the interpreters.

Go ahead, Mrs. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

As I was saying to one of my colleagues during the suspension, I want to make sure people understand where I'm coming from with this amendment. It is strictly that, as you all know, I have serious concerns about having classified information in the public domain, given the possible dangers to assets who do this for a living. One of my concerns is that information that is not redacted but that should be redacted could put some of those assets at risk and and/or alienate our Five Eyes partners.

My concern is that having those documents in the public domain may be of concern, so that is why I'm bringing the amendment, but I want to hear from my colleagues. I just want them to know where I'm coming from in this regard, as my only concern is information that is classified putting at risk our intelligence assets, who go to great lengths to gather that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Romanado's amendment guts the substance of the production motion now before us. Mrs. Romanado asserts that the basis for her amendment is supposed concern that classified information would somehow be brought into the public domain when, in fact, if one were to read the motion, it is very evident that it would not be the case. This motion simply provides that the departments and agencies—the PCO, the PMO, ministers' offices—turn over the documents, one set that they redact and another set that is unredacted.

The parliamentary law clerk, who is completely independent and who has a full national security clearance, would then make the final determination as to what remains classified and what can be released to the committee. In other words, instead of the Prime Minister's Office making that decision, it would be the independent law clerk. In other words, it's an independent process that removes the politics with respect to the production of documents.

With respect to the access to information standard that Mrs. Romanado, if her amendment were adopted, would provide for in the way of production, that has resulted in virtually nothing being produced to this committee. It has resulted in pages and pages of blank pages and, as a result, we as a committee have received nothing. It is an effort to gut the motion, to cover up for the Prime Minister's Office and ministers in this government who were aware two years ahead of time that MP Chong and his family were being targeted by Zhao Wei and the Beijing regime, and did nothing about it and kept MP Chong in the dark. That's the substance of what Ms. Romanado is bringing forward. It's a cover-up attempt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Mrs. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Cooper's explanation. I kind of get it to some degree. However, we have heard testimony here, and it wasn't just from the public safety minister. It was a very thorough explanation the minister gave about where this note had gone and why the computer system or whatnot that it goes to...and the fact that nobody had briefed him on it. The process is that the deputy and those who work for him would see this information. The department would bring this to the attention of the deputy. The deputy would then brief the minister on it. None of that was done in this process.

Whether there was a document out there or not out there, I don't think that's necessarily the question the Conservatives are interested in getting at.

I'm assuming that what you want to get at is that the government did know about this, the public safety minister in particular, you're saying. You're trying to get to a point where you can figure out whether he came here and lied, his deputies lied and all the departments are lying—that everyone is lying—and he was briefed and he knew, and that at that point this document is going to explain that, as to what date he was briefed on and the knowledge he carried. No document is going to do that, yet what we may end up doing in the process of this is risking our security.

As my colleague has said, we have already, through this process, come across times when I think we have put our Five Eyes allies in discomfort. We need to continue to work with them. They expect that Canada is the type of country that takes security very seriously and, therefore, that is why we are a partner in that alliance. If we show our incompetence or our disregard for these things and we become novices in dealing with this type of information, I don't think that's going to be a good look for Canada.

Mr. Cooper, it seems, through the explanation he's given, has already concluded that this is what he's trying to find. I get it. It's like being a scientist: “This is the end result I want to get to and I want to figure out how I get to this end result.” Unless you think the public safety minister was lying here at committee, the deputy was lying and also everyone that has been put in place and appointed by the Conservative government, all of them are lying.... We know that our bureaucrats are independent. Our bureaucrats, many of them, have been put in place by the Conservative Party of Canada.

This is an issue that I have seen re-emerge, whether it's in debate in the House, in inferences that are made or in outright accusations that are made by members of the Conservative Party and by their leader, Mr. Pierre Poilievre, to basically come to a conclusion on their own without any evidence, without wanting to see evidence—ever. We've seen that happen. The leader has done that many times, where he's like: “I don't want a briefing. I don't want to know what's really out there when it comes to foreign interference. I don't want to know whether Canadians are being killed on Canadian soil. I don't want that briefing because I want to be able to just go out there and allege whatever I can.”

I think it is so irresponsible and is childish behaviour, especially from a party that aspires to come back into government. That's not a good look on a party that aspires to come back into government, because what are you showing Canadians? That you would put Canada at risk, that you would alienate our allies? Anything to get a political point...?

That's what we're seeing in the House right now: anything to get a point. Some of it is being miscalculated because you're becoming so blinded by getting those political points that you're not seeing the damage that comes in that way, damage such as the risk to the lives of senators, the risk that can be caused to our assets, which could happen....

I think Mrs. Romanado made a good point. Things that rise to a level that could not be seen by the public should not be coming to this public forum in this committee. This is not the place. We have done a really good job here trying to figure out.... Yes, there are things to correct so that other members are not put in the position that Mr. Chong was put in. Mr. Chong should have been clearly notified and more should have been done to protect him. I think that's something on which we can all agree.

We're not looking to not respond back to Mr. Chong and make sure that improvements are made and that what happened doesn't happen again. We want to get to that place. That's why we want to take a look at and review the report and report back to Parliament on that. However, I'm finding that what we're doing here is just trying to score some political points.

I know Mr. Cooper feels that the whole system is lying, but I do not feel that. I trust our Canadian institutions. I trust our departments to not be lying.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

That's fine. You don't have to trust the minister.

There were many independent witnesses who came before this committee and told us how the process worked. When it comes to the CSIS note and all of that, we know, through the department, what that process looked like. It wasn't a matter of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Madam Larouche, you have a point of order.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, out of respect for our interpreters, I would ask Ms. Sahota to be careful and not move papers around close to the mics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that, and I apologize to the interpreters. I didn't realize that had happened. Thanks for pointing that out.

I don't know the intention of the Conservative Party of Canada. Are they going to come in and just wipe out all departments and wipe out everybody else—nobody is trustworthy other than them? They can just go up to the mic and make accusations. They don't want briefings. They don't want to know what the evidence holds.

If there is something stated in a note, what we learned is that the ministers and the Prime Minister are not briefed on every single piece of intelligence that comes forward, or even exchanges of documents that happen at the departmental level. That is what we heard.

We should maybe be recommending from this committee that there are certain types of things—and we had those discussions today—that when they rise to interference and intimidation of a member of Parliament from being able to carry out their duties, it's very important that the minister is made aware of that. I think the departments have now realized that, too, after what happened and having had these conversations at this committee.

If we're looking for some honest results to come out of this, I think the rule should be that we make sure we strengthen our system so that doesn't happen, so intimidation doesn't happen by foreign actors.

Even internally, our constituents are allowed, of course, to give us their opinions on matters and inform us as to how we should vote on matters. If it were to rise to a level where we're being intimidated or threatened, or family members are being threatened if we don't take a particular action—as we saw just happen in the Senate—then that rises to a level of great concern.

Therefore, it should be taken very seriously by the public safety minister. As there is an investigation in the Senate right now about that too, I think they are now seeing how important this is. Having the study here at this committee I think has brought some light to that.

I stand with Mrs. Romanado's amendment to paragraph (B) item (iii) that the departments and agencies that are tasked with gathering these documents should apply redactions according to the access to information and privacy acts. If we're seeing any types of documents, I think that is standard. That should be done, unless we're going to get some kind of special security clearance and view everything in camera and all of that.

I don't know whether that's a process that could be undertaken; that's not written here or anything like that. I think in the absence of that, we should be applying this amendment and voting in favour of it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

I have Mr. Duguid, followed by Madam Larouche.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues for their interventions.

I'm going to start where I began previously, which is that every time we think we're headed to the finish line with this particular study, Mr. Cooper introduces another motion. We've had 17 meetings and 34 witnesses and climbing. Many of those witnesses have appeared more than once.

I have read the report that we want to get to, because we want to get to actions, to conclusions. We want to protect parliamentarians. We want to get answers for Mr. Chong, Ms. Kwan and, frankly, all of us, because we know that foreign actors are out there. They mean our country ill will. They mean democracy ill will and that's why I'm really concerned about (e) and why I support the amendment by Mrs. Romanado.

We've heard from many senior public officials. Let me list a number of them: Tara Denham, director general, office of human rights, freedoms and inclusion, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; Michael Duheme, commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Mark Flynn, deputy commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Cherie Henderson, assistant director, requirements, Canadian Security Intelligence Service; and about six or seven other senior public servants.

What do they all conclude through their public testimony? That there are flaws in our processes. There are things that need to be fixed. Therefore, we really need to get on with it. We need to get to the report.

This latest request and motion from Mr. Cooper just drags things out and, I might add, may put our security at risk. Again, I would refer to, as a number of my colleagues have, the reckless behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition the other day when he jumped to conclusions and called an accident on a bridge that joins our two countries a terrorist attack. That does not give our allies, the Five Eyes, confidence.

I'm very concerned that we are opening things up that may put our national security, our sovereignty and the privileges of members around the table and members in the House in jeopardy, and so, I fully intend to support the amendment by my colleague. I'm hoping that we can move on and get support for this around the table.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Duguid.

I'm going to Mr. Cooper.

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

I'll go to the bottom of the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

All right.

I have Monsieur Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Chair, it is Ms. Larouche's turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No, Ms. Larouche changed her mind.