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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Obviously, I am coming back to the main motion and Ms. Romanado's amendment. I am going to start with that.

Ms. Romanado proposes that the department and agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act. I think we can easily accept Ms. Romanado's proposal.

We have to remember that the report contains certain documents and that certain witnesses appeared. Obviously, the report is not public and certain material may not be mentioned. Of the witnesses who appeared here, there were Mr. Chong and Mr. O'Toole, who testified about everything they knew. They sent all the information necessary for the committee's work to move forward. Other witnesses appeared, such as the senior assistant deputy minister, office of the chief information officer, Treasury Board Secretariat. Obviously, what he said in his testimony was said by several witnesses. He said that he could not disclose information that he did not know or that was at a high security level, but he stated that the agencies and departments were tasked with providing the documents that it was possible to obtain. I think that was clear from the outset.

The Conservatives did not like some of the answers, but they are the answers we got. They would like to lay blame on Minister Blair because he said several times, when he testified, that he had never had that information. It had never reached his office. I understand that the Conservatives consider that answer to be inadequate, so they are trying to get the answer by other means, which do not exist. That is what is preventing this committee from moving forward. In fact, were it not for this question, which Mr. Blair answered honestly, we would not be here today.

Let me remind you that for the study of the report, people testified to tell us about parliamentary privilege and the role of committees. They explained our role clearly. I have read, in the evidence, what Eric Janse, acting clerk of the House of Commons, said. He explained the procedure to us clearly. He explained it to all the members. He answered the Conservatives' questions about how information and documents could be sent to this committee. He stated clearly that the role of the speaker of the House is not to rule as to the facts, but to ensure that members' rights and privileges to examine documents requested by this committee are respected. He also stated that by referring this to the committee, the House had determined that this matter called for more thorough consideration.

We can therefore deduce from these explanations that the committee may make the requests that it wants, but security levels have to be respected. I understand that the Conservatives do not like getting redacted documents. Redacting is used to conceal information that is critical for national security. It is for the good of our government. Measures are proposed for combating interference, but publication of certain information, precisely, could jeopardize the security of the government in the face of foreign interference.

We must therefore respect both the right of committees and the government's rules for high security.

When Michel Bédard, interim law clerk and parliamentary counsel, talked to us about parliamentary privilege and the role of this committee, he told us that, in general, parliamentary privileges were rooted and recognized in the Constitution. They are rules, and they must be followed. He also explained that committees of the House have the privilege of being able to request documents, including documents dealing with national security, but may not jeopardize national security.

I understand that committees may use certain rules. We are free to ask the questions we want. I am happy to participate on the committee to move things forward. In the past, I have participated in certain studies done by the committee that moved our government forward.

Today, they are trying hard to require that documents be deposited without redaction. It makes no sense to ask that of a government. It is irresponsible on the part of parliamentarians to meet in committee to request exclusivity. Other committees have also requested documents that are sensitive in terms of national security, the security of our families. They are requesting documents with no redaction.

There is redaction because someone, somewhere, has determined that it was not wise to provide sensitive documents or words in documents that could jeopardize our national security. They involve matters as important as the one we are dealing with.

I am therefore not comfortable with the word “redaction” in the language of this motion. However, the rest of the wording and what relates to the two official languages, the office of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel is fine with me.

It would be so simple to ask that the departments and agencies tasked with gathering these documents use redaction in accordance with the law. There is no request to add redaction where it must not be used.

It is simply requested that redaction be applied according to the Access to Information Privacy Act, to protect our national security and our security as parliamentarians. This seems obvious to me; otherwise, our national security would be endangered.

I think this is one of the points in the motion that it is easiest to amend. It is consistent with everything the witnesses told us about procedures. The witnesses told us what they could tell us; some of them have sent us documents, while others are yet to be received.

I agree about working with the clerk and the analysts to ensure that our report is well documented. I am open to that. However, playing with a sensitive aspect like redaction is very dangerous.

This is why point (iii) of the motion, which reads as follows, must be removed:

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

It must be replaced by “the departments and agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act,”. That would make complete sense.

I therefore strongly support Ms. Romanado's amendment.

By relying on other testimony, I could prove that it is dangerous to play with national security. I will argue as long as I can that the passage calling for documents to be deposited without redaction must be removed.

I will stop here, Madam Chair, but you can put my name back at the bottom of the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Cooper.

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

I have nothing to add on this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Chair, I have certainly come to the conclusion in my short time on this committee that there's one thing the Conservative Party members are interested in, and that is partisan points: embarrassing the government. Like in question period, facts often are distorted and are massaged so that they are not facts any more. They are alternate facts, to quote someone from the Trump era.

We are obligated to protect the nation. We're obligated to protect the privileges of our members. That's what we're trying to get to with this privilege motion and study, and we're not getting there, because we're always on a sideshow that Mr. Cooper is creating by keeping on with introducing motions, extending the period through which we're not getting at the report, getting to action and getting to recommendations that will protect our members, protect democracy and protect our sovereignty.

The amendment that Mrs. Romanado has introduced is that:

the Departments and Agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act,

These are the laws of the land. This is legislation that we all abide by. We have no choice. It is legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons. If Mr. Cooper would like to amend or replace those pieces of legislation, they can bring forward opposition motions in the House. They can do a number of things to amend those pieces of legislation.

I did read from the record of testimony during the course of this study. Unfortunately—or maybe fortunately—I was not privy to all the witnesses, but I have read their testimony. I think I ended off with Mike MacDonald, senior assistant deputy minister, office of the chief information officer; David Morrison, deputy minister, foreign affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; Dan Stanton, former executive manager, Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Rob Stewart, deputy minister, international trade, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; and, importantly, Jody Thomas, national security and intelligence adviser, Privy Council Office.

All of these public servants, who have served Conservative and Liberal administrations, told the truth on the stand. They are required to.

I recall reading their testimony and hearing a few of them personally, some of them who were back for the second time. They acknowledge that foreign interference is a major issue facing our country, and that is why we are having a foreign interference inquiry led by an independent judge. It will be non-partisan. It will get to the bottom of things, but we are dealing with the motion of privilege today, and I would again go back to some previous comments. I'm concerned about the privileges of all members, including Mr. Chong, including Ms. Kwan and including all of us around the table and in the House.

I would like to get to the report and would respectfully request that the honourable member from Alberta stop putting motions on the floor that drag this thing out so that we can get to recommendations and we can get to actions and we can deal with the issue of privilege, which is really the focus of our efforts today and over the last 17 or 18 meetings.

I am concerned with the tenor of some of Mr. Cooper's comments about national security and his lack of trust with pieces of legislation, such as the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Again, I would put to him that if he's so concerned about those pieces of legislation, which are on the books and which guide us in our actions, then he should be introducing motions in the House. His party should be introducing opposition motions that work to correct those pieces of legislation if he believes there are flaws.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

It's Mr. Lauzon, Mr. Cooper and then Ms. Sahota.

Go ahead, Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Duguid.

I am going to come back to some concrete examples that show how providing certain documents may jeopardize national security. A number of witnesses came to talk to us about that at this committee, including both former and present senior security officials.

I am going to quote Michael Duheme, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who was accompanied by Mark Flynn, then the deputy commissioner of the RCMP. He sent us some quite relevant information concerning the question we are considering today.

Mr. Duheme told us that Patrick McDonnell, sergeant‑at‑arms and corporate security officer for the House of Commons, had informed this committee that there were concerns associated with foreign interference involving a member of Parliament in particular, but that he was going to communicate directly with the MP or their staff instead of communicating with their office.

In the questions Mr. Blair was asked, much was said about the Five Eyes group, which obtains information from all over. Mr. Blair learned about relevant information relating to the situation when he read a newspaper article, at the same time as everyone else. He testified about this several times. Regarding foreign interference, protocols have been put in place by senior security officials, and they have been adhered to.

Some witnesses told us about the procedure they follow in their organization when they receive information. They explained clearly that information could come from all over, be it the media or a resource person, for example. They look for information on the web and by using the tools available to them to combat foreign interference. They are also supported by Global Affairs Canada. This is information that comes from all over. It may come from members of Parliament and people on the ground in other countries.

Ms. Denham said that the goal was to understand the information environment and be more familiar with the tactics used in that space. She stated that the information and disinformation campaigns carried on by foreign states were not necessarily significant enough in themselves to influence the outcome of an election.

Some witnesses also said that certain information had to be corroborated and that this committee therefore had checking to do before passing information on to anyone. The information must be not only screened, but also verified. That was clear in the testimony we received, at least from what I have read.

As well, they said that because the activities in question were not going to influence the outcome of the election, they did not pass certain information on, and what they did pass on was sent in such a way that it was not brought to the attention of Mr. Blair, the minister, before it became public. That could not be any clearer, to me.

So disclosure of all the documents in issue that were requested in point (iii), without redaction, could jeopardize national security.

That is why my colleague has proposed an amendment for the departments and agencies tasked with gathering all these documents to redact them according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act. There can be no exemptions.

When there was discussion of information concerning the foreign threat to democratic processes and the measures taken to neutralize it, Mr. Duheme informed the committee that the RCMP was going to investigate the allegations of intimidation against Michael Chong. That work has been done.

He added that he had not launched an investigation into the allegations of intimidation affecting Mr. O'Toole and Ms. Kwan, the member for Vancouver East. He said the RCMP had been informed of these cases through public disclosure mechanisms. That information was given. What more can we ask?

Mr. Flynn said he had signed a memorandum of agreement with the commissioner of Canada elections. The RCMP communicated with the commissioner. It offered her its assistance in connection with the investigation by her team into the allegations of intimidation against members of Parliament. Everything was done according to the rules.

Saying that the information we have today is not sufficient for writing the report and that we want more is just a way of not accepting the answer already received because it is not the one we wanted. That is how I understand it.

Asking that the departments and agencies redact all these documents according to the rules means respecting Canadian national security and the fight against election interference.

Election interference is a matter of extreme concern and extreme importance, particularly since we are getting reach for an upcoming election. We should finish what we are doing here as quickly as possible so that our recommendations can be implemented before the next election. We are asking no more than that. We have to complete this process and make good recommendations in order to achieve our objective.

Asking for documents that it is not possible to produce is irresponsible on the part of parliamentarians. You cannot ask the impossible. That is all this amendment is proposing.

In my opinion, all the measures taken to neutralize the threat of foreign interference in our democratic processes are extremely important.

I hope we can complete our work on this issue as quickly as possible, so we are able to write our report. There is still work to be done. All members of the committee know that the report will undoubtedly be read line by line, paragraph by paragraph. Information will be added while the report is being written. If a member is not happy about something, we will be able to discuss it and move the report forward. However, we have to get started as quickly as possible.

I really get the feeling that after Mr. Cooper's main motion, the Conservatives are going to propose more. I really get the feeling that this is not over yet. I really get the feeling that they are going to move amendments that will delay us once again.

What is important to understand from my message is that if we apply texts according to the rules of a committee and the rules of national security, the committee will be able to achieve a good result. For that, everyone has to agree to remove the parts where it asks for documents to be provided without redaction. At this stage, it makes no sense for parliamentarians to agree to language like that. If we want to be responsible members of Parliament, we cannot accept it.

Madam Chair, I strongly support my colleague's amendment proposing amendments to point (iii) of Mr. Cooper's motion.

You can put my name back on the list of speakers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Cooper.

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

I'll be very brief, Madam Chair.

What we're witnessing is a pathetic spectacle by the Liberals. They say they want to get to the bottom of the issue relating to the question of privilege, yet they are filibustering a motion that would empower this committee to do that by receiving all relevant documents and communications among the relevant departments and officials, including the Prime Minister's Office and the PCO.

There's a very good reason for that. It is very apparent that the Prime Minister's Office and ministers in this government, including Minister Blair, were briefed or should have known that Michael Chong was being targeted by Beijing, and kept him in the dark for two years. That is what is happening here. They are embarrassed about that failure. As a result, they are going to all lengths possible to gut my motion. By the way, they're filibustering an amendment put forward by a Liberal member. They want to move ahead with this, but they're filibustering their own amendment.

I reiterate that the notion that national security is somehow being imperiled as a result of this motion is absurd. Mr. Duguid said the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act are about the law of the land when it comes to the production of documents. What on earth is he talking about? He should get his facts straight. We have a motion before us. It's very straightforward. It was crafted in consultation with the law clerk, who I think knows a little more than Mr. Lauzon or Mr. Duguid do about national security, seeing as he has full national security clearance.

It would simply provide that, instead of the Prime Minister's Office deciding what is produced and what isn't, it send its redactions to the law clerk, and sends an unredacted version of the relevant communications. The law clerk makes a final determination as to what is redacted and what isn't. There's nothing more and nothing less to the motion.

If the Liberals truly want to get on with this, they should stop filibustering and let's get to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would argue that what's pathetic is the Conservatives' fishing expedition, which has been going on since we started this study and, I would say, even going back to the beginning of the foreign interference....

We have a report before us right now, and this report is about a serious issue concerning a Conservative colleague, and the Conservatives don't want to get to it. They don't want to report back to the House. All they want to do is play games.

They are only following the leadership of their supreme leader, who constantly doesn't want to see the facts, doesn't want to be briefed on anything, and doesn't want to know the truth so that he cannot be blamed afterwards for fudging the truth, and for, obviously, being extremely dangerously irresponsible in almost every intervention I've seen that concerns public safety and that concerns the security of Canada. Canadians should know how dangerous the leader of the Conservative Party is and how all the Conservative members are just following in a lineup, taking his lead and ready to create fear amongst Canadians.

We have a Privacy Act. Those redactions are not just made willy-nilly without any serious thought behind them. The Prime Minister himself does not sit there and redact all those documents. The Prime Minister does not have time for that, and neither does the PMO. The departments and agencies those documents come from, just like when anybody makes an access to information request, have a role to play to make sure that information is protected. That has been happening since, I think, this act went into place in 1983. This is nothing new. It shouldn't be shocking.

The Conservatives complied with this all the time. It's just that with what's happening now, it doesn't matter who it hurts or how dangerous it is, they cannot get enough of making accusations and coming to conclusions before having any evidence before them.

Everything we have heard at this committee, so far, has led us to the fact that, yes, a serious incident did happen. I do not disagree with Mr. Cooper when he says that a member of his party should be concerned as to why he was not informed when he should have been informed about what was happening. We know that to be true.

How do we correct that? That is this committee's role. Why did that information not get to Mr. Chong? Why did that information not get to the then public safety minister? The public safety minister should have had that information. There is an issue with that information getting there, and we should be recommending how we can resolve that issue, but Mr. Cooper's not interested.

Mr. Cooper does not want to resolve any issues because he is following his leader's direction, which is to just make any kinds of statements. They make the statements and figure out the facts later. They try to fill in the dots and go on fishing expeditions to destroy people's credibility and careers.

It doesn't matter who gets in their way because they're power hungry. They're so power hungry that they cannot see the damage they're creating along that path. I warn them that this is a really dangerous path we're headed down. We've seen it play out over the last month in the House because they've taken—I would say this is what I'm seeing—the position that they are just going to steamroll ahead.

Again, I have to emphasize, and Canadians need to know, that there have been many occurrences, even at this committee, where we've said, “Let's send this to NSICOP. Let's get this studied properly. Let's have a national inquiry.” The government has worked with the NDP, without too much help from the Conservatives, on coming up with a plan to have a full national inquiry on this issue. I think that's a responsible way to deal with this and to also deal with the expanded types of threats Canada is facing right now, but the Conservatives weren't interested in that either.

When we were having the study on foreign interference, and time and time again, we wanted to also include other issues, they said, “No, we just want to talk about our ridings that may have been affected and only those. We don't want to talk about anything else,” because their interest is only about gaining power.

That is the only thing. It's not about the good of Canada, what's good for Canadians, what's good for government or what's good for Parliament. It's all about power, and that's what we're seeing play out here again. It's, “Let's not report back to the House. Let's not try to fix the system. Let's try to blow it all up. Let's see how we can do more damage.”

We did get the facts here at committee. Let's get the facts. The facts are that there is a broken process, and we need to fix that process, but instead of fixing it, what I'm seeing is a two-year-long study. It's absolutely ridiculous. That's one way to never get anything done at this committee. At least let's report back.

I would like to submit a report and show that all the work we have done has amounted to something, rather than taking another year to do this privilege motion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

When the House referred this motion to us, I don't think the House or even your colleague expected to have this privilege motion go on and on. Even when we had your member here as a witness, nobody cared to ask him any questions.

Mr. O'Toole came. He also has experienced issues in this area. Everyone wanted him to be here. We debated a motion to try to get all these other witnesses to committee. Those witnesses came, and Conservatives were not interested at all in hearing from those witnesses, so I think I will call for a suspension of today's meeting, please, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Are you moving to suspend?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm moving to suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent.

The meeting is suspended. I'll see you on Thursday.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:02 p.m., Tuesday, November 28]

[The meeting resumed at 11:30 a.m., Thursday, November 30 ]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good morning, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting 96 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is resuming consideration of the motion proposed by Mr. Cooper with regard to the question of privilege related to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members. The committee will now resume consideration of the amendment proposed by Mrs. Romanado.

On my speaking list I have Mr. Lauzon, Mrs. Romanado and Mr. Calkins.

We'll resume with Mr. Lauzon.

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

I would like to put my name at the end of the list, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put myself on the bottom of the list, too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to be back at procedure and House affairs.

I wasn't here last week, so for clarification, on the amendments that have already been made to the motion that was originally tabled by my colleague Mr. Cooper, it has been agreed to strike out paragraphs (a) and (b). Then the wording is, “That, in relation to its order of reference of Wednesday, May 10” up until it says “Members, and in relation to its study on foreign election interference, the Committee”, and then it proceeds directly to paragraph (c).

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Well, I haven't had an opportunity, because I've been away—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but we are currently at (B)(iii) and the amendment that has been proposed by Mrs. Romanado. That is what we are debating at this time.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

All of (b) has not been stricken?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's (c), (d), (e), under (e) is a (B), and then it says “provided that” (iii).