SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 299

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Apr/15/24 5:12:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to quickly respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton respecting the allegation that the Minister of National Defence misled the House and the procedure and House affairs committee. I respectfully submit that this was not the case and that the House has the testimony that proves the minister was truthful with the House and the committee. The question raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton concerns whether an Issues Management Note, an IMU, that was sent by CSIS was read by the minister. It was not received by the minister. While the minister had made an assumption about why he did not receive the IMU, that does not obviate the fact that he did not receive the IMU. The director of CSIS confirmed to PROC that the process that was put in place to share secret information with the minister did not work. On June 1, 2023, the minister appeared at PROC and was asked by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton about the IMU. In response to the question, the minister stated: Allow me to clarify that the information was not shared with me. It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me....I would leave that question as one that perhaps you might want to put to the director....I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me. Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart both acknowledged that the system to send intelligence information via an IMU to the minister did not function. Mr. Vigneault confirmed this fact at least four times over the course of his testimony. On June 13, 2023, at PROC, Mr. Vigneault stated: Here, in this specific case, the minister was very clear: He did not get the information. It means the process that was put in place...did not, in this case, work. ...it is incumbent upon us, ourselves, his office and the Department of Public Safety, to find the right tool to put in place to make sure that critical information is seen by the minister. I think this is one of the key measures that we need to put in place, to have this ability to adapt our processes when they're not working. On October 19, 2023, Mr. Stewart stated at PROC about the failure of the system to ensure that the minister received the IMU, “The first question I answered was about the situation that occurred in the spring or summer of 2021. I think we identified the problems with the system that the agencies used to share information.” It is clear that the minister's statement that he did not receive the IMU is corroborated by Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart. Moreover, Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart both confirmed to PROC that neither of them had orally briefed the minister on the content of the IMU. On June 13, 2023, Mr. Vigneault stated, “Madam Chair, I did not have any specific discussions with [the minister] about that note.” On October 19, 2023, Mr. Stewart told the committee: “I did not brief [the minister] about the IMU.” On October 24, 2023, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton asked the minister whether there was any contradiction between Mr. Vigneault and the minister's statements. Here is the exchange: [The Member for St. Albert-Edmonton]: Minister, can you explain why your testimony was flatly contradicted by the director of CSIS? [The Minister]: With great respect, it was not contradicted. In fact, I sincerely believe it was the director's intent that the information be made available to me. Unfortunately, the steps were not taken by CSIS or by the Department of Public Safety to make that information available to me. I had no way of knowing that they had a secret they wanted to tell me. Under every other circumstance...the director of CSIS would advise my office they had information to brief me on. He would advise my office they had information they wished to share with me. I would then go to a secure room where that information was shared. In some other circumstances, I was actually asked to attend the CSIS office in Toronto where that information would be briefed to me, but it did not take place in this circumstance. On October 24, 2023, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable questioned the minister about an assumption he had made about why the information in the IMU was not provided to him. To which the minister stated: All I can say with absolute certainty is that it was never shared with the minister—me—at the time. Again, I don't question what Director Vigneault's intention was, but the execution was unsuccessful because the information was never shared with me. At no time, either in committee or in the House, did the minister state anything other than he did not receive the IMU. The minister may have made an assumption as to why he did not receive the information, but there was never any doubt that the information did not get to him. Finally, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton seems to be taking a creative approach to raise a question of privilege in the House in the context of a supplemental report to the 63rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. Page 154 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege....the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House.... It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action. This is clearly not the case with the 63rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. A review of the proceedings on the matter at PROC do not reveal any evidence that clearly led members of the committee to conclude that a breach of privilege had occurred in respect of the minister's testimony. In fact, we can see no reference to a potential breach of privilege or that any contempt may have occurred in the committee's report. The only reference to such allegations is made in a supplemental report by the Conservative Party. Page 995 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to supplemental reports: Committees are not responsible for the content of these opinions. They are not, strictly speaking, part of the report. The authors of these opinions alone are responsible for their content. If the matter the member was raising was, as he suggests, a clear contradiction of testimony that amounted to a breach of privilege, there would have been reference to this in the report. It is not in the report for the simple reason that there was no contradiction on the matter. The minister did not receive the information contained in the IMU in question, either in writing or orally, and that remains a clear fact of his statements in the committee and in the House. There is no basis to find a prima facie question of privilege in this matter. I thank the Speaker and the members of the House for their attention.
1241 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border