Debates of June 16th, 2021

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier when the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was speaking, we have seen a really disturbing pattern in this place with the government's lack of transparency and accountability. There was an order of Parliament to provide these documents.

Thankfully, the Speaker ruled today, as a last line of defence for this Parliament and this democracy, that what the government had done was in fact a breach of parliamentary privilege. That is the reason we are here tonight to debate this issue. It was the Speaker who said that it was up to the opposition to come up with a motion. The motion was presented, yet we heard the indignation of the member for Kingston and the Islands when he spoke about everything except this privilege motion.

I want to ask the hon. member if, in his opinion, he feels this is a fair debate to be having tonight given the systemic pattern of lack of transparency and accountability in this Parliament by the current government.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it appears extremely clear that the government does not like when we pry into its affairs. We saw that with WE Charity and many other issues.

Although we are more than willing to work together, which is something we should be doing in a time of crisis, it is obvious that the abuse of power is neither warranted nor justifiable. The government's lack of transparency is a blatant, highly reprehensible problem.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, we just heard that other committees were trying to receive information from the government and they failed to get it. We now have a clear ruling from the Speaker. The government's response, in this case, was to send the documents to NSICOP, which we argued was not a committee of the House and answers to the Prime Minister. The Speaker concluded that committee exists outside of Parliament and that the documents submitted to it does not fulfill the order of the House.

Is he satisfied that this is so, that this is the first opportunity we have had to get the government to recognize and fulfill an order of a committee for documents, now made by the House, and that this is the time for the government to comply with these orders and produce the documents?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat my point very briefly and very simply.

A Parliament has rights and, if it adopts a motion, that motion should be respected. The government should not always be looking for a way to slip through the cracks and play between the lines. At some point, enough is enough. A motion requires that important documents be disclosed, responsibly, of course. This motion must be respected, period.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, my always eloquent riding neighbour, for his speech.

I took three things from his speech. First, my hon. colleague talked about the work in committee and in the House, where the government is acting more like a majority government than a minority one. The government forgot that the voters gave it a minority mandate.

Second, by infringing on our parliamentary rights, the government is behaving according to an archaic monarchical model rather than a true democratic model.

Third, my colleague has clearly outlined our different approaches to international relations. The Bloc Québécois vision is different from that of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Should Quebec not form a country so that we can exercise better control over our borders and national security and so that we can sign our own treaties? Internationally, would it not be important for the country of Quebec have a seat at the United Nations Security Council?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, in his intervention, the member certainly chronicled a large number of concerns regarding China, but ultimately this motion is more about holding our own government to account. The government has said that it is concerned about national security and laid out a plan to have NSICOP do a review, but ultimately, the Speaker ruled that was not a committee of Parliament. Now the government has to come clean, and we want to have the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada come, be censured by the Speaker and then supply the information to the law clerk.

Does the member agree that through that process we will be able to ascertain the government's managerial confidence, while at the same time preserving this country's national security interests?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question, I think he is asking me to repeat what I said in my speech, in other words that we need to strike the right balance between national security and transparency. Of course, I reiterate that this is precisely our position.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, because the Liberal member's intervention seems to suggest that the government is not taking this question of privilege seriously. It is up to the Speaker to decide whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, and the government does not seem to understand this.

I want to ask my colleague a very simple question. Does the government understand the scope of a question of privilege that has been accepted by the Speaker of the House?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that it is up to the government to answer that question. From what I can see, we do not get the sense that they actually grasp the scope of the motion. It is pretty plain and simple. We heard one speech that did not address the question of privilege at all.

After that, we heard a lot of points of order being raised to try to cut others off. We saw that the member wanted to sidestep the questions that were asked and give the kind of answer we are used to seeing from this government, which is a non-answer.

I get the distinct impression that, no, the government does not understand what a privilege motion is.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the broader question of research co-operation with the Chinese military, because this is an important values question and a policy question that underlines this debate. One gets the sense there might be information about this co-operation in these documents that the government does not want to see shared.

We know now that of the people working at the Winnipeg lab, one in particular was an official from the People's Liberation Army's Academy of Military Medical Sciences. We know there has been interchange and other forms of co-operation between Chinese military institutions and Canadian labs.

When this issue was raised at committee, the health minister seemed sort of broadly comfortable with the fact that this kind of co-operation was happening. However, it is happening in the context that a genocide is taking place. A genocide is being committed by this very same military as we speak, and we know how viruses can be used in military applications.

Can the member share his thoughts as to whether it is right, appropriate and just for the Canadian government to allow Canadian labs to be collaborating with the Chinese military on research that the military might use to harm our interests or to commit human rights violations?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, in fact, there are a number of things. It is a complex issue. As far as collaboration is concerned, I agree. I said at the beginning of my speech that we should not see China as an enemy, that we should have a dialogue, that China deserves to be treated as a country in its own right. That is not the issue.

Now, we need to be clear on one thing. Economic warfare, and more specifically warfare involving data and information, is the new global dynamic today. Canada's standards in terms of research, data and development are not at all shared by China. When opening up dialogue and co-operation, things need to be made very clear and be monitored extremely closely, as in any form of diplomatic co-operation.

My sense is that Canada is not ready for this truly global, cutthroat competition for research, information and data, and that it ought to be.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate tonight. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands is not, but I am because I think it is a very important debate. It underscores the extremely seminal basic right that is now recognized fully by our Parliament, the House of Commons and members of the House of Commons, to hold the government to account.

We hear that time and again, but in this government's mind it appears to simply be a cliché, because Liberals seem to be taking the same position that was taken by the Conservative government in 2010.

In 2010, the Conservatives took this position in the House when the Afghanistan committee asked for documents related to detainees who had been captured by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, turned over to Afghan authorities and subsequently tortured. It was important for the Afghanistan committee to examine this question and determine what was happening, how it may have happened and what the government and military officials knew and did not know. All of those questions were extremely important in terms of Canada's legal obligations under the Geneva convention and in terms of various extremely serious matters regarding Canada's international affairs and reputation, and all that went with them.

That was more serious, one might argue, than this particular circumstance, yet the government of the day took that position in 2010. I know something about it, because I acted as a member of the Afghanistan committee and participated in debates that were similar to this one in terms of what the powers of committees are and what the powers of the House are versus the executive.

I will read from Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 27, 2010. I participated in the debate and in the argument leading up to it. Speaker Milliken said that:

With regard to the extent of the right, the Chair would like to address the contention of the Minister of Justice, made on March 31, that the order of the House of December 10 is a breach of the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the legislature.

Speaker Milliken had just concluded that the Chair must conclude that the House did indeed have the right to ask for the documents listed that the order of December 10, 2009, referred to. He went on to say that:

It is the view of the Chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts. Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded.

That separation of powers is between the executive branch and the legislative branch, which has the constitutional duty to hold the government to account.

In his conclusion, Speaker Milliken said that:

As has been noted earlier, procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security.

He goes on to say that:

...it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question. Bearing in mind that the fundamental role of Parliament is to hold the government to account, as the servant of the House and the protector of its privileges, I cannot agree with the government's interpretation that ordering these documents transgresses the separation of powers and interferes with the spheres of activity of the executive branch.

That is a powerful statement. It resulted in an order being made for the production of documents by the Speaker, and it was reaffirmed today by the current Speaker in his ruling. I think it will go down in history, as well as Speaker Milliken's ruling, with the previous ruling having been followed in other legislatures for its authority.

The current situation is not much different. Obviously the circumstances are different, but the principle is fully the same about who ultimately has the authority to access the documents, to decide how to dispose of them and to decide how to protect national interests in the name of security. The Speaker, in my opinion, made a very good, strong ruling dealing with the questions put before him and found a prima facie case of a breach of the rules of Parliament. Having found that, the appropriate motion was expected to be made. He found that the motion that was offered by the Conservatives was not in keeping with the precedents of the House. As a result, a break was taken so that the motion could be revised.

The other issue decided by the Speaker in his ruling today was with regard to a solution. I think that, as the member for Kingston and the Islands said, there is clearly a responsibility that goes with that. That responsibility is for the House to take and make measures to ensure the security of the documents. It is up to the House to do that. The House has done so in the motion that was made before it. The alternative, presented by the government in its response, suggested that it should go before the national security committee of parliamentarians. That was the government's solution. From everything that I know, this was the first time the government and the House proposed how they would deal with the question of Speaker Milliken's ruling. The committee was set up just for situations like that.

I first heard about that when the government responded to questions about why it did not comply with orders of the House made on June 2, as well as with the March 31 and May 10 orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. That was the first time it was presented, to my knowledge, as to why NSICOP had been set up. As the Speaker ruled, this was not an answer as to how the House should deal with questions of national security if that is not what the House determined.

It has been argued at the Canada-China committee, and in the House here tonight, that the NSICOP committee is made up of members of Parliament and members of the Senate. It involves two branches of Parliament but is not a committee of Parliament. It says so right in this act. Members are appointed by the Governor in Council, which is the cabinet, and they are appointed to serve “during pleasure”, which means they can be removed at time. NSICOP also makes its reports to the Prime Minister, who has the right to demand that the reports be changed and has the right to withhold documents from the committee, and all of the other things that the executive branch has in dealing with the bodies it creates.

The Speaker quite rightly concluded, when this argument was presented to him, that the act makes it clear that it is not a committee of Parliament. He stated that:

It exists outside of Parliament.

In these circumstances, the Chair cannot conclude that the documents submitted to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians fulfill an order of this House or of its committees.

He goes on to say:

Nothing in the act affects or limits the privileges of the House to order the production of documents, even those with national security implications. It is for the House and not for the government to decide how such documents are to be reviewed and what safeguards to put in place, if any.

That is what has happened. The House itself has passed a motion that provides for safeguards, provides for a method of dealing with that, and that was something that was discussed by Speaker Milliken and was also recognized by the Speaker. The Speaker, when he was dealing with this matter, said in his review of Speaker Milliken's April 27, 2010, ruling that Speaker Milliken was still concerned even after he found that there was a failure to deliver unredacted documents to the House. He said he was still concerned about the issues raised.

As the Speaker said today, Speaker Milliken:

...deemed it wise to ask members to continue their discussions for a limited period of time before allowing the member who had initially raised the question of privilege to move the usual motion for debate. Indeed, the order in question offered no measure to protect the confidential information contained in the required documents....

He went on to suggest some of the ways that this could be done. He suggested that they have some discussions about that. He said the results of these discussions would in no way affect his ruling but that “the Speaker's intention was simply to offer a final delay to allow time to reach a compromise.”

Then he went on to say something else, and this is the contention that the member for Kingston and the Islands made. It was that there was no protection made for security. He said:

In the current situation, the order adopted provides that the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel first examine the documents, redact them using specific criteria and discuss them with the members of the Special Committee in camera. The Minister of Health was also called to appear, and did so on Monday, June 14, in an effort to continue some form of dialogue. It is...not up to the Chair to [decide] the extent of the measures taken, but to note that they were considered. There is thus no reason to allow an additional delay.

We did have the Minister of Health at the Canada-China committee on Monday. The minister was asked many times to acknowledge that the NSICOP committee was not a parliamentary committee, and she deferred on answering that question and just said that it had security privileges.

That is not an answer to the question, and it is clear that the Speaker of the House has acknowledged that the excuse being offered by the government is not valid, that it is not acceptable that the NSICOP committee be the depository of these documents, that in fact the motion made today in the usual form is in order for this House to deal with, and that it is in order for this House to pass this motion. This motion is one that the House is entitled to make and it is up to the House to decide whether to accept the motion or not.

I think the matter is very simple. I am not going to go deeply into the question as to why these documents are necessary. They are necessary clearly because the Canada-China committee requires them in order to conduct its duties and carry out its responsibilities to hold the government accountable and to look into the relationship between Canada and China. Those are specifically its obligations under the motion creating that special committee.

The committee has been doing that. It has been looking at the security issues and dealings between the microbiology lab in Winnipeg and the labs in China that were China's responsibility. They were dealing with very serious and dangerous viruses and with security measures to be undertaken in order to properly look after the security of the people of Canada, the security of the labs and the security of public health.

That is a simple matter, well within the jurisdiction of the committee under its mandate, and it is up to the committee to decide what papers it needs to do that. Having had the support of the committee and the support of the House, it is the responsibility of government now to fulfill that obligation and make those documents available in the manner that has been suggested.

The government refuses to do that. This motion is required in order to purge the finding of contempt on the Public Health Agency of Canada that will be found if the motion is passed. It will be found in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House and produce the documents so that they can go to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in order for him to carry out his function of helping to redact the documents and follow through on the motion put before the House.

That is all I wish to say. This is an extremely important issue. It involves the basic understanding of how Parliament works and the responsibilities members elected to the House undertake when they take their own oaths of office. In fact, it is a function of our democratic society that the House has the ultimate power and that the executive is to be held to account by the House of Commons.

If it were not for that, we would not have a democracy but a rule by the cabinet, by the executive, and not by the House of Commons, by the people who are elected directly by the electors. That is our democratic system. This is a function of upholding that democratic system. It is a sacred trust that we have, by which we are required to carry out and support the efforts of our committees and the work we are doing by requiring under this motion that these documents be produced.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the member for his presentation tonight. Last night he also made a presentation in a just-in-case speech, so I want to thank the member for his service.

More importantly, the issues he spoke about were more about his commitment to this democracy and to this House. I think there is no greater honour than to be called a House of Commons person, because this institution is important.

When it comes to our duty to hold the government to account, if we are not part of the executive, the cabinet, as was impressed on me in my first year in this place, we have a responsibility to hold it accountable. That is how we have responsible government.

Would the member agree that by supporting the motion, we would not just be protecting the rights of this chamber but also giving information? The government has stonewalled us at every attempt to get this information so that we can truly know whether there was a lack of confidence in the execution of its duties or whether there were legitimate national security reasons that it would not say anything. Do the backbenchers on the Liberal side not deserve to know their own government's confidence or lack thereof?

When we present a motion such as this, do we not put forward every member's duties by giving them the information to hold the government to account?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question asked by the member, who is very adept at making these arguments in Parliament and understands the role of every member of the House. He makes the interesting point that every member on both sides of the House who is not in the cabinet also has a duty to hold the government to account.

What is interesting in this case is that the resolutions that are referred to in the motion, the resolutions of March 31 and May 10, which were adopted by the committee, were adopted unanimously. The Liberal members of that committee, the Conservative members of that committee, the Bloc member of that committee and the NDP member of that committee all supported a notion that these documents must be made available because there was an expression of disbelief in the opinion being offered to the committee that these documents needed to be withheld for national security and other reasons, including privacy.

That is something that is important to know. It is that this committee was unanimously seeking to hold the government to account and was unanimously seeking to be able to examine the required papers to do so. It is a very important point.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say hello to the member for St. John's East, in Newfoundland and Labrador; I sincerely hope that he has a very happy retirement after he leaves Parliament. I congratulate him on all the work he has done, and he can leave with his head held high.

I heard two things in his speech. One thing he talked about was Canada's reputation abroad. I would like to hear him speak about the fact that, when it comes to international relations and co-operation, Canada is not back. The loss of influence in this area, which began under the Conservatives, continues. No, Canada is not back.

He also spoke about the importance of denying our own privilege as parliamentarians to access documents. My colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot clearly demonstrated the balance that could have been struck in committee between this vital issue of national security and the need to have access to these critically important documents. Again, this is proof of the Liberal government's contempt for the opposition parties.

I will leave it up to my colleague to decide whether he wants to answer the first or the second part of my question.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, on whether Canada is back or not, Canada is back, but in what form? I guess that is the question. We could certainly debate that. The expectation was that Canada would be different. That was the promise of the Prime Minister back in 2015. We have not seen a lot of evidence of that, and I believe we are struggling to retain or regain the reputation that we once had.

However, I would rather answer the second question, which was about whether or not the government is refusing to comply. Obviously the Liberals have been stonewalling the attempt to get the information. The government has continued to do that and is continuing to do it here tonight. It has given no indication that it wishes to compromise or find a way to do this in a way that would work.

The Liberals have clearly offered nothing, only the non-response of having a committee that is not of this Parliament deal with these documents. The government is refusing to comply tonight, instead of agreeing with the motion and moving on.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's East for his speech. He brings such a lot of experience and wisdom to this place, especially around this subject, which he knows well.

We are debating a motion of privilege here tonight, which seems to bring up a pattern of behaviour from the government. It is a pattern of a lack of transparency and a lack of openness. In terms of committees, we have seen the government thwart the work of committees through filibusters to stop the production of documents and to stop important witnesses from coming forward.

We have also seen a pattern of ignoring the will of the House. Just last week we had a unanimous motion in the House that, among other things, asked the government to stop taking indigenous kids to court. Monday the government was back, taking indigenous kids to court.

Would the member like to comment on this pattern?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is clearly a pattern that has emerged over the last number of months. At the same time that the Liberals are complaining that business is being held up, they have been holding up the business of committees by filibustering one after another, sometimes for days at a time, making it difficult for the committees to do their work.

Yes, this is a pattern. It is a pattern of the Liberals saying one thing and doing another. Essentially they are saying that they want to move business through the House; we want to move business through the House too. There are lots of bills that are important to be passed. We want to see Bill C-12 pass. We want to see Bill C-6 pass. We want to see Bill C-10 pass. There is legislation that needs to be passed because there is an urgent need for it. However, instead of doing that, the Liberals are prolonging this debate, and in committees they are filibustering in unnecessary ways when there is business to be done.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on a number of very important points about why this debate is important and how concerning the flippant nature of the Liberals is on this very serious issue.

I would, however, like to ask the member a specific question. The government has referred this issue to NSICOP. Some of the concerns that have been brought up are related to the structure of that committee, which is a committee of parliamentarians and not a committee of this House. This is a manifestation of some of the concerns that were brought forward when the initial act that created NSICOP was debated, and how the pinnacle of what was claimed to be accountability was left in the hands of the Prime Minister.

I wonder if the hon. member for St. John's East would have further comments on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, that committee has a particular role. The concern at the time was that we had these secret investigative bodies, like CSIS, the CSE and the RCMP security division, conducting secret operations on behalf of the government. They were reporting directly to the Prime Minister, and there was no oversight.

We had obviously gotten into trouble in the past with some of the behaviours of our security services that were inappropriate, doing things they should not have done, such as breaking the law, breaking various conventions and acting in a manner that was supportive of torture in certain cases, and the Canadian government was sued.

Therefore, the purpose of that was to review what went on in these agencies and make reports to provide that oversight, not to do the kind of job we are talking about here.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, I want to provide this evening an overview of the committee's composition, mandate and functions, given there have been numerous recent references to NSICOP in the House. I speak this evening exclusively as the chair of our non-partisan committee.

To begin, I wish to offer my sincere thanks on behalf of our committee to our out-going members, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge and the member for Provencher, all valuable members of our committee who offered their considered wisdom, enlivened our debates and provided an important contribution to our work.

I would also like to welcome our new committee members. We look forward to working with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, the member for London-Centre-North, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills and the member for Montarville.

The committee was established in June 2017 with the passage of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act. In November of that year, the first committee members were appointed. After the 2019 federal election, the committee was reconstituted in February 2020, and yesterday its membership was again updated.

The committee was set up to fill a gap in Canada's national security review framework: first, to give parliamentarians the necessary clearances to conduct reviews of the security and intelligence community drawn from highly classified information; and second, to create a body that could look across the community at a range of issues without being constrained by the mandate of individual organizations or the narrow focus of their review bodies.

The act that established NSICOP is specific and very clear. It lays out, with precision, the committee's membership, the appointment process, members' security obligations, the rights and limits to access information for the committee's work, procedural rules and reporting obligations.

The act also provides that the appropriate committees of the House and the other place must comprehensively review its provisions and its operation five years after its coming into force, which will be in 2022.

Our committee is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history. It is unique in terms of our security clearances, the physical requirements of our secure workspaces and our structure. The nature of the committee is multi-party, bicameral, and a membership with a broad range of experience brings a unique perspective to these important issues. We act as a proxy group for Parliament and for Canadians in examining issues related to national security and intelligence.

The committee consists of a chair and up to 10 other members, all of whom are members of one of the two Houses of Parliament. Up to three members may come from the other place and up to eight members may come from the House. No more than five of them can be members of the government, which means that government members never form a majority. With yesterday's announcement, we now have our full complement in place with eight House members and three senators.

Members all hold a top secret security clearance, have sworn an oath and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. In the course of its work, the committee may review highly classified information with only a few narrow exceptions. The committee is not entitled to have access to cabinet confidences, to information protected by the Witness Protection Program Act, to information relating to the identity of confidential sources and to information relating directly to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

We cannot claim parliamentary privilege in the case of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. That is a point I want to emphasize. Members of the committee, myself included, are necessarily circumspect in what we can say in Parliament and in public. It also means that NSICOP members are subject to prosecution under the Security of Information Act should they disclose information they learned in the course of their duties on the committee.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is mandated to review the legislative, regulatory, policy, financial and administrative frameworks for national security and intelligence. It may also review any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence.

Finally, the committee may review any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister refers to the committee.

NSICOP reports are unanimous and non-partisan. The committee prepares and finalizes its reports through consensus, following painstaking deliberations, and all members agree on final content, assessments and recommendations. NSICOP's reports are informed by the documents that departments and agencies undertaking national security and intelligence activities must provide as well as by the committee's meetings with relevant officials, outside experts and members of civil society.

The workload is heavy. Normally, the committee meets for eight hours a week and sits extra hours when it needs to examine classified documents in a designated secure workspace. Committee members often meet during the weeks when the House is not sitting, as well as during the summer.

NSICOP provides an annual report to the Prime Minister that includes its substantive reviews as well as the committee's recommendations. The Prime Minister may then direct that the committee prepare a revised version of its report. The information to be revised is set out clearly in the act. It is information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, to national defence or to international relations, or is information that is protected by litigation privilege, or by solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries.

There are no other reasons under which a prime minister may direct the committee to remove information from its reports. Information cannot be redacted because it may be embarrassing to or critical of any government.

The redaction process is similar to the one used by the government when determining what information can be released in court proceedings, typically under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. The Prime Minister tables the revised report in Parliament, and the report is referred to parliamentary committees in both Houses, as required by our statute.

The committee may also submit a special report to the Prime Minister on any matter related to its mandate. Unless the committee has notified the Prime Minister of its intention to prepare a summary of the special report, it also is revised if necessary and tabled and referred in the same manner as the annual reports.

This is very similar to the process followed by—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the member's service on that committee, but we are here to debate a specific motion. He has yet to address this. He is giving us background of his committee, of which I am sure he is proud. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you could get him to come to the motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member's point of order. I want to remind members that when they are debating or presenting in the House, they have to be addressing the subject matter at hand, or mentioning the subject matter at hand or portions of it. I know there is some latitude in the speeches, but I want to remind the hon. member and all members that when they are making their speeches, to please ensure they keep in mind the subject matter they are actually debating.

The hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that this is very similar to the process followed by the United Kingdom's intelligence and security committee, which must submit its annual and special reports to the prime minister for consultation and review prior to tabling, identifying at that time any redactions that have been made on national security grounds.

Since 2017, we have completed seven studies and produced three annual reports and two special reports. Every member of Parliament and every senator recently received paper copies of our 2020 annual report. This report and the others are also available on our website.

The very important thing for the House to note is that in each instance, NSICOP members reviewed and assessed information up to the government's highest classification. The committee did so with the utmost discretion, arriving at its findings and recommendations independently. Those were then provided to the Prime Minister and responsible ministers.

In our 2018 inaugural annual report, we provided a functional overview of the security and intelligence community, including the most significant national security threats as described by key members of the security and intelligence community. These were terrorism, espionage and foreign interference, cyber-threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction.

Also in 2018, the committee reviewed the government's process for setting intelligence priorities as well as the intelligence activities of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

We recognized that defence intelligence activities are essential to the safety and security of our armed forces and the success of Canadian military missions, including overseas operations. The committee recommended, among other things, that the government seriously consider providing explicit legislative authority to the conduct of defence intelligence activities.

The committee also presented its first special report in 2018 regarding the allegations associated with the Prime Minister's official visit to India. One recommendation repeated in the subsequent review of the government response to foreign interference was that members of Parliament and senators be briefed upon being sworn in, and regularly thereafter, on the risks of foreign interference and extremism in Canada.

In 2019, the committee conducted a review of diversity and inclusion in the security and intelligence community. The review provided a baseline assessment of the diversity and inclusion of certain designated groups in the security and intelligence community. On the whole, it was revealed that there was not as much representation there as in the rest of the Canadian public service and that the rates of harassment and discrimination remained unacceptable. We recommended that the situation be re-examined in three to five years in order to assess progress. We also recommended improving data collection and analysis and developing a common performance measurement framework.

NSICOP also reviewed the government's response to the serious challenge of foreign interference. We found that the government's response to the threat was done on a case-by-case, even ad hoc, basis and that our engagement with other levels of government and the Canadian public was limited. In its review, the committee called for a whole-of-government strategy to counter foreign interference and build institutional and public resilience. We were specific in our recommendation about what such a strategy should include and we further recommended that the government support the strategy through sustained central leadership and coordination.

Finally, the committee reviewed the national security and intelligence activities of the Canada Border Services Agency. On the whole, we noticed that the powers that the CBSA has for conducting national security and intelligence activities are clear, well regulated and supported by several acts. However, the CBSA did not receive any instructions from the minister for conducting critical activities related to national security and intelligence. This situation was inconsistent with the practices of CSIS and the RCMP and, in the committee's view, represented a failure of ministerial accountability.

The committee recommended that the Minister of Public Safety provide CBSA directions in writing with regard to sensitive national security and intelligence activities.

That same year, the committee also prepared a special report on the collection, use, retention and dissemination of information on Canadians in the context of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces defence intelligence—