Public Safety Committee on Oct. 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll open it up. Are there any questions? Is there any debate on the amendment by Mr. Lloyd?

I see Ms. Dancho and I see Ms. May. She's had her hand up for a while.

I'll start with Ms. May and then go to Ms. Dancho and Ms. Khalid.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you so much for allowing me to speak to this point.

As someone who has a top secret security clearance and is perhaps more aware of the legislative framework around security of information, I feel duty bound to say that this motion would be very inappropriate and in fact would be calling on people who have access to top secret security information to break the law.

I know that can't be Mr. Lloyd's intention, but the Security of Information Act, which used to be called the Official Secrets Act, requires that information that is collected and has a top secret security designation not be made public. There are many reasons for this, including that we could be risking the lives of intelligence assets of the Government of Canada; these are people—real, live human beings—unknown to us around the world who help Canadian security agencies and the RCMP collect information.

Even the publication of the numbers of people involved can help a hostile foreign power work backward by inference and figure out that if Canadians know about that, they can only have obtained it from this source, and then that source's life could be in danger, so it's very important that all....

I agree with the intention of Mr. MacGregor's motion. It's very important. I really do urge Mr. Poilievre, as a friend and a colleague, to ask for his top secret security clearance to clear the air. It must be done.

However, that is another matter altogether from saying that the names should be made public. To do that is to urge colleagues to break the law and, perhaps even worse, place Canadian intelligence assets at risk.

I think the amendment might come back to the committee after the committee and all members have had briefings on this point, not from me but from our intelligence apparatus—the people at CSIS, the people who handle security within the Privy Council Office, the RCMP and so on—so that everybody around this committee table is fully informed that releasing the names is a non-starter and a threat to Canadian security and can actually jeopardize lives.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll go now to Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting; Ms. May's story seems to have changed quite a bit in tone and scope from her perspective when she read the unredacted NSICOP report. I just find it interesting that her perspective has recently changed.

Anyway, I would say that this amendment to ensure that the names are released would be in line with what a number of our allies do. For example, the United Kingdom rightly names and shames any members of Parliament who are acting in a treasonous manner or who are colluding with foreign countries to undermine the United Kingdom's national interests. I do believe that Canada should be doing the same. I agree with my colleague Dane Lloyd that otherwise, the Prime Minister, to his own advantage, seems to just be weaponizing this so-called secret information that he continues to talk about without actually saying the names.

I certainly would agree with a former NDP leader who won many more seats than the current leader of the NDP. He said just recently, “I agree completely with Poilievre's decision not to take the bait.”

He's referring to Mr. Trudeau's claims.

He said, “Trudeau's been trying for a year and a half to restrain what Pierre Poilievre can do by trying to say, 'Come and get this private briefing—and oh, by the way, then you'll be held to an official secret and you won't be able to talk about this anymore.' ”

It seems notable, and frankly formidable, that former NDP leaders would agree with Pierre Poilievre, our leader of the Conservative Party, that any effort to do this is really an effort to put him under some sort of gag order so that he can't really do his duty to hold the Prime Minister accountable for matters of foreign interference.

It's interesting to see that Mr. Singh is now working hand in hand with Mr. Trudeau yet again to try to gag-order Pierre Poilievre from being able to speak about this issue.

It's interesting that Mr. Singh recently made a big show of ripping up some so-called informal coalition with the Liberal government, but it would appear now that the NDP is really helping Mr. Trudeau to carry water on the shameless partisan politics he's playing in the foreign interference inquiry. It was quite a serious, respectable and professional undertaking until the Prime Minister decided to make some sort of ruthless and shameless political show and circus out of the whole affair.

I think it's really important for this committee to remember—and certainly Canadians will—that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this foreign interference inquiry. You'll remember that he had first denied there was any election interference from China, for example, and had denied that anything was going on with the member for Don Valley North in that nomination, yet here we are, in a foreign interference inquiry, and there is clear interference from not only China but also India, Iran, Pakistan and Russia. We are, in fact, at the worst point in history when it comes to foreign interference, and we've had the same Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for nine years. What does that say about his leadership or lack thereof?

I would also point out that the person in this country most responsible for foreign interference and preventing it and keeping national security safe is the Prime Minister of Canada. If we've had the same Prime Minister of Canada, and now this has come to such a point that the RCMP has had to announce that 13 individuals are in peril because foreign interference has become so bad, what does that really say about his leadership?

What's interesting to me is that in the foreign interference inquiry, which he's made a farce of with his recent partisan attacks, he's really trying to do two things. Number one is to distract from his failed record to prevent foreign interference in this country and the fact that he's created an environment in which foreign interference is worse than it has been at any time in Canadian history. Foreign adversaries and others feel that we are a weak country that they can bully under Prime Minister Trudeau's so-called leadership.

The second thing is that the Prime Minister is trying to distract from the fact that he has an ongoing revolt in his caucus that is looking to overthrow him. It's no wonder he's doing this, but certainly, if he continues to weaponize this, as my colleague said, then he should release the names. Canadians deserve to know who in Parliament right now or in the past has been undermining the national interest on purpose to aid a foreign country. They absolutely deserve to know that, and those individuals need to be held accountable.

I would also say that it's interesting that he won't do so. I wonder why that is. Well, perhaps it's because it makes the Liberal Party look bad.

Again, he was the one who denied that there was election interference from China, for example. He's the one who denied there was any issue here at all, and yet here we are. He continues to deny that there's any issue there. I would suspect that this is why he's not releasing the names.

I think we could put this to bed. It's rapidly devolving into some McCarthy witch hunt as a result of the Prime Minister's actions. I think we can easily clear this up today by releasing the names. Canadians deserve to know. The Prime Minister should be showing leadership in this regard and in ensuring that he's actually taking action on this intelligence.

The last thing I would say, Mr. Chair, is that it's not clear why we are taking intelligence if we're not able to utilize it to ensure that these individuals are held accountable. If they semi-wittingly or unwittingly know, then they should know and they should be informed, so I think it is imperative that Parliament learn who these people are, if any, and move forward with that information.

Mr. Chair, I'd also say again that the responsibility for national security lies with the Prime Minister. The only reason we are here is that he has failed to protect it, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Gaheer, please.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's rich that the Conservatives are talking about this issue when their leader engages in wilful blindness by burying his head in the sand and not getting a top secret security clearance. He can quite literally get a top secret clearance, learn the names of the people in his own party who are vulnerable or have been vulnerable to foreign interference and have engaged with foreign governments and then remove those names. Because he has the ultimate power in his party, he can remove those names from his party.

This subamendment that's been brought is practically out of order, because the RCMP and CSIS have stated that anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally. Obviously, in this case, to reveal publicly the names that are classified at this time would be a criminal offence. That's what this subamendment is asking for. It's asking the Prime Minister to engage in a criminal offence.

What we can see is that for the last few months and for the last year, Ms. May and Mr. Singh, from the Greens and the NDP respectively, have done a wonderful job of commenting on this issue. They have not been muzzled at all on this issue, so I think it's very rich that the leader of the Conservatives engages in this behaviour, refuses to get a top secret security clearance and points fingers.

This subamendment is a non-starter, and we should just go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

We'll go now to Ms. Lantsman.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate that members of this committee think that the motion is out of order because they don't like it, that's not exactly how it works.

What we're seeing now, here at this committee, is that there's only one party in this country that is calling for the release of these names—the names that the Prime Minister has alluded to, the names that we know are being kept secret. Everyone else is trying to work to hide the names, particularly in the changing stories of Ms. May from before and after she was briefed. Now we see that the NDP is trying to distract from what was brought to this committee as a serious issue today—the serious issue of foreign interference by India—and they're now playing politics with it.

Listen to this: “I agree completely with Poilievre's decision not to take the bait. Trudeau has been trying for a year and a half to restrain what Pierre Poilievre can do by trying to say, 'Come and get this private briefing—and oh, by the way, then you'll be held to an official secret and you won't be able to talk about this anymore.' ”

Do you know who said that, Mr. Chair? That was Thomas Mulcair, who was the leader of the NDP when the NDP used to be an opposition party that wasn't helping the Liberals cover this up.

The question is this: What is the government trying to hide?

Everybody watching might not know that the CSIS Act allows the government to offer information to any Canadian about specific risks of foreign interference without forcing them into sworn secrecy or controlling what they say. However, this motion is particularly about releasing the names that Canadians deserve to know of any parliamentarian, in any party, who has been wittingly associated with foreign interference or with a foreign government working against the interests of Canadians. Receiving a secret briefing would, even according to the Prime Minister's chief of staff, prevent the recipient from using that information in any manner.

I don't think that's very smart for the only opposition party that can force the Prime Minister to come clean with Canadians on what he is trying to hide.

This particular motion that was dropped at committee is a mockery, the same kind of mockery that the Trudeau government has repeatedly made with foreign interference. What we witnessed at the public inquiry this week was nothing more than well-rehearsed partisan smears by a failing Prime Minister who is facing rejection from Canadians from coast to coast and is increasingly facing it from members of his own Liberal Party, who are conducting letter-writing campaigns to oust him from his leadership.

It is beyond rich for the Prime Minister to grandstand, given the record that his government has on not taking foreign interference seriously. With all of the benefit of information from the government agencies that he has and with all of the information that he was warned with, including in the Liberal Party, he refused to act.

This Prime Minister and his government repeatedly claim that they weren't aware of foreign interference happening right under their noses, despite a massive paper trail of warnings from officials.

It is Justin Trudeau's government that mysteriously sat, as we learned from the inquiry last week, on a CSIS surveillance warning, a warrant application for a Liberal power broker, for 54 days. Still there are no answers about that. The minister says that he doesn't know. Other ministers say that he doesn't know. There are staffers who gave absolutely no answers at that commission.

It is Justin Trudeau's party that willingly allowed Chinese high school students to vote in the now infamous Han Dong nomination race, and that was fine.

It was Justin Trudeau who ignored calls from the Leader of the Opposition to release those names to Parliament. He has repeatedly done that, and now the entire country is asking for those names.

You cannot go to the committee under the guise of providing information, drop that kind of partisan smear job on members of Parliament and then not come clean with the names.

The only people who are looking to have those names told to the Canadian public are in the Conservative Party. We are fighting, now, every party that is working with Justin Trudeau and his government to cover up these names. Canadians deserve to know which members of Parliament in which party, no matter what, are colluding with foreign governments, wittingly or unwittingly.

Others are willing to limit their ability to hold government to account on important issues of national security; Conservatives will not do that. Mr. Poilievre will not be left under a gag order, unable to speak about any of the information he receives.

All of that is to say that these names have to come out. There's only one person who can do that, and that's the Prime Minister of Canada. The government, through CSIS, is authorized by a particular section in the CSIS Act. It's section 12.1. He could act at any time to utilize threat reduction measures and notify the leader of a political party of issues concerning national security. He did not do that. Instead he chose to make it public in an inquiry and cast aspersions, with absolutely no evidence and no follow-through to let Canadians know who those people and members of Parliament are. This tool has been available to his government since he started, since 2015. He could use that tool to inform Pierre Poilievre, but he's not doing that.

All of that is to say that the amendment on the table is to release the names. Again, there is one party asking for this Prime Minister to release every single one of those names. The other parties, which are purportedly in opposition, are helping the Prime Minister to hide those names and the identities of all of those members of Parliament. The question really is, for the entire committee, “What on earth are you hiding? What is the Prime Minister hiding?” I think that's the question we have to get to the bottom of in this committee.

I hope that members will vote for this amendment to make those names public for the betterment of our national security and for every Canadian to know who represents them and, ahead of the next election, who they are actually voting for, which country they are working for and whether they have Canadians' best interests at heart.

Only the Prime Minister can do that. Everything else is pure politics. That's what we've seen this week and, unfortunately, that's what we're seeing right now at this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Hallan.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, we see this costly cover-up coalition in full force. Jagmeet Singh, in this fake theatrical performance that he probably learned from Justin Trudeau, pretended to rip up his so-called agreement. Then, once he used the people of Winnipeg, he taped it right back together. Once again, we're seeing the Liberals, the NDP and, obviously, the leader of the Green Party try to cover up, divide and distract Canadians from this flailing Prime Minister.

This is a very serious issue of foreign interference. The RCMP has alleged that members of the South Asian community have been targeted by a foreign government—in this case, India—and made allegations of murder, extortion and violent threats. What do the Liberals and the NDP do, with the help of the Green Party? They want to distract from a Liberal revolt happening within Justin Trudeau's caucus. They want to distract Canadians from the pain and misery Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh have caused them with the high cost of living by doubling their housing costs and making sure there's more food bank usage than ever before in this country. On top of all of that is letting Canada become a safe haven and a playground for foreign interference.

I'd like to give one clear message to Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh from our common-sense Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, in a letter he just recently wrote: “Release the names of all MPs who have collaborated with foreign interference.”

We can put this whole thing to bed. Canadians want to know. Canadians want to know who are those MPs working in the best interests of foreign governments and not in the best interests of Canadians. It shouldn't be that hard to do.

As Mr Poilievre also wrote:

The CSIS Act allows the government to offer information to any Canadian about specific risks of foreign interference without forcing them into sworn secrecy or controlling what they say.

and further:

Receiving a secret briefing would, according to Justin Trudeau's Chief of Staff, prevent the recipient from using “the information in any manner”, and “even where that is not the case, briefing political parties on sensitive intelligence regarding an MP could put the leader or representative of a political party in a tough position, because any decision affecting the MP might have to be made without giving them due process.

In clear words, Justin Trudeau and the NDP are trying to muzzle not just the leader of the Conservative Party but all Canadians.

Justin Trudeau doesn't need to wait for an inquiry. According to the CSIS Act, he can walk over to Pierre Poilievre and give him the names. He doesn't need to continue to muzzle. He muzzled the NDP leader because of his greed for his $2.2-million pension, and he's also obviously muzzled the Green Party leader. This is why Canadians are so fed up and want an election now.

Common-sense Conservatives are the only MPs inside the House of Commons and outside the House of Commons who are calling for the names to be released now.

Can you imagine that there are people sitting in the House of Commons today who are not working in the best interests of Canadians? This can include anyone. A sitting member of the House of Commons could have major implications in trade deals by doing what's in the best interests of foreign governments and not in the best interests of Canadians.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Ms. Khalid on a point of order.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

I take a lot of exception to the member calling into question the integrity of members of Parliament, in our Parliament, with what he's saying. I take major exception to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I think that would be Standing Order 18, and I would advise members to be cognizant of that.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Yes.

Look, Mr. Chair, we see once again that the Liberals will do anything to distract away—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair. I don't appreciate....

If the member has points to raise on his motion, as is absolutely his right, please do so. Please don't try to call into question the integrity of members who are in this chamber.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Ms. Lantsman.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I just want to remind the member that it was the Prime Minister himself, at the inquiry, who called into question the integrity of members of Parliament by naming parties and affiliations without actually putting the names down, and that's exactly what we're arguing here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Hallan.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you to the great Melissa Lantsman from Thornhill, our co-deputy leader, for that clarification.

I also didn't know that hurt feelings could be points of order, because that's what it seems like the Liberals keep doing—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Ms. Khalid on a point of order, please.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Please don't. It's not nice. Make your arguments, as is the right of every parliamentarian in committees. Let's not call people names. Let's not go down this path. Let's be respectful, please, of everybody.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your point of order.

The point is well taken. Please, everybody, try to be polite to each other.