Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2022

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

I have a comment, Mr. Chair.

I know I can't amend my own motion, but I'd be happy to expand the timeline to three weeks to ensure there's enough time for the documents to be found. I know I'm not allowed to amend my own motion, but I'd be happy to receive that from someone, or whatever the case may be.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

It's funny what can happen over a dinner table discussion.

If everybody's in agreement with that, we'll push the timelines back to what Mr. Kurek proposes.

Are we good with that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I say we put it back until.... What was your... ?

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

It would be three weeks, as we suggested.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I hope we're not coming in over the Christmas holidays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's three weeks instead of two. I'm just trying to keep everything on track here.

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

It would be business days, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let's keep the conversation between us.

We have three weeks—

[An hon. member]

Are we recording...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're in public right now.

Do we have consensus on three weeks? I'm going to look around the room. I'm not seeing any shaking of the heads. I see Mr. Green.... It will be pushed back to three weeks rather than two. We have consensus on the motion. There's no need for a vote.

I'm going to adjourn the public part of the meeting and we are going to come back in camera.

I'm going to remind Mr. Green that you have to sign back in, sir.

Is there anybody else?

Ms. Saks, Mr. Bains and everyone who is online will have to sign back in.

The public portion is adjourned.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I will call the meeting back to order. We are now in public as a result of a motion that was passed by the committee.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'll read the motion that was put on notice on November 14:

That the Committee undertake, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), a study of foreign interference, particularly in the 2021 federal election, through the use of funds from foreign‑influenced organizations affiliated with the United Front of the Communist Party of China, and the threats to the integrity of democratic institutions, intellectual property and the Canadian state itself that arise from this foreign interference; and that the committee report to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, the motion has been moved. It is on the floor.

Mr. Villemure, do you have anything you want to say?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this motion is to discuss the integrity of the state. As everyone here knows, this issue was raised in question period in the House. The Global News report, published about 10 days ago, casts doubt on the public's confidence in the Canadian government.

Through this motion, I would like the committee to dispel that doubt so that the integrity of the state is not called into question or, if necessary, corrected. One of the things we do in this ethics committee is to ensure that the public has confidence in the democratic institution of the government. That is our fundamental mission.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am very open to the idea of studying the issue of China's interference in the 2021 election. I would probably be the first person to support the motion of my honourable colleague Mr. Villemure.

However, I should point out that this is already being studied by another committee. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we are currently studying this issue. We have already heard from witnesses, including the Chief Electoral Officer. There is a long list of witnesses. It isn't recommended or advisable to do the same study twice on the same subject and with virtually the same parameters.

I sincerely ask my colleague how the study he is proposing in his motion would be different from the one that another committee is doing right now, for which the following motion was tabled. It's much longer and much more complex, but it certainly encompasses what we're studying here.

It reads:

That the Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), conduct a study concerning foreign interference in Canadian elections, provided that:

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections be invited to appear jointly for two hours at a televised meeting at their earliest opportunity;

(b) the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service be invited to appear jointly for two hours, at their earliest opportunities, provided that one hour be televised and the other hour be in camera; and

(c) the parties represented on the Committee submit their lists of proposed witnesses, in order of priority

I can continue.

Mr. Chair, we're doing this, and it would just be a really inefficient use of our time if we were to take this on. I look to my colleagues to explain how this differs from the other one, and if that's the case, then fine.

That said, I don't think there's a relevant difference between the two.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fergus, thank you for that. It's a fair request. I don't know whether Monsieur Villemure wants to address that or not, but I will give the floor to Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the point made by my hon. colleague. However, I have two concerns.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will soon be undertaking another study on a subject that will result in this study being postponed to a later date. I think his aspect of the bill is complementary to that of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I don't want there to be any duplication, but I don't think that's the case here. Still, I think we have the opportunity to move forward more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fergus, I see your hand.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, remember that I was saying it was a long one, and of course my Internet research wasn't as quick as some other people's.

There was a second motion that was also passed, a motion that is much longer, which, again, I think.... Forgive me again for doing this.

We passed a motion that was adopted by my colleague. It said:

That

(a) given the Global News report published by Sam Cooper on November 7, 2022, revealing that intelligence officials informed the Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers in January of 2022 that the Chinese Communist Party actively worked to influence the 2019 Federal Election, the committee extend its study of Foreign Election Interference by four meetings to investigate this report;

(b) the committee recall Elections Canada, CSIS, and the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force to testify on the report referenced in (a);

(c) the committee invite The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, to testify on the report referenced in (a);

(d) the committee invite The Honourable Melanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to testify on the report referenced in (a);

(e) the committee invite Jody Thomas, National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, to testify on the report referenced in (a);

(f) the committee order the production of

(i) all relevant briefing notes, memorandums and documents which are in the possession of the relevant government Departments and Agencies, provided that,

(ii) the Departments and Agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act;

(iii) these redacted documents be deposited as soon as possible, but not later than 14 days after the adoption of this motion, with the Clerk of the committee to be distributed to all members of the committee in both official languages.

That was a motion that was adopted. It's pretty complete. It's also pretty tight, with four extra meetings.

Again, I appeal to my colleague. Please don't make me repeat my work again. Give me new things to work on, because I do sit on PROC and I sit on the ethics committee, and it's the exact same thing. I think it really is a doubling of work of members of Parliament, and that shouldn't be on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's by pure coincidence that I showed up today.

If memory serves me correctly, in 2020 I moved a similar motion. I now have the text in front of me, and I will just share it. I'm sure that the members of this committee will find it amusing.

It was November 16, 2020, and I moved:

That the committee

—this committee—

study ways to further protect Canada’s democratic and electoral institutions from cyber and non-cyber interference. including studying how new domestic and international stakeholders, as well as other orders of government, can work together to strengthen Canada’s whole-of-society preparedness, resilience and civic engagement in the face of evolving threats to democracy.

The NDP permanent member at the time was Mr. Angus. He responded that:

Mr. Dong's motion does not belong at our committee. When Minister Gould brought issues of electoral protection, she did not send that to the ethics committee; she sent it, I believe, probably to PROC. Electoral issues have nothing to do with our committee.

Later he added that:

Just so we don't waste any more time, I believe the issue of election preparedness is something that is under the mandate of PROC. Could you determine if that's the case, so that we're not tying up our committee with something that is not within our mandate?

That was his question to the chair.

What I want to ask the current chair is, what are your thoughts on whether or not it fits in the mandate of this committee?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's a very interesting question, Mr. Dong. I have had the opportunity to look at the motion. I've had the opportunity to speak to the clerk as well.

The mandate of the committee, as defined, is fairly broad in terms of what we can study as far as privacy and ethics are concerned. I'm of the opinion that the motion is in order and that this committee can, in fact, study this issue, based on the motion that's been provided by Monsieur Villemure. That would be my position on this particular motion.

Go ahead, sir.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Now it's coming back to me. I remember that one reason I moved that motion was that at the time, following the Ontario election in 2018, there was an investigation and actually a conviction. The information of 60,000 clients of the 407 was shared and used by a certain party for their electoral advantage. At the time, that was the reason.

My point is that it was investigated and people were convicted. At the end of that, I called for a study on the incident.

Again, I'm not a permanent member of this committee anymore, but my memory of my impression of this committee at the time was that when you run parallel investigations.... There may or may not be an investigation going on right now. I don't know. If there is, then there's no point of studying it. If there is a covert investigation, I don't know if this committee will be helpful in running something similar. It may jeopardize the result or the process of that investigation.

That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I appreciate the intervention.

I'm not seeing any further discussion on this, so I am going to ask whether we have consensus. If not, then we can go to a vote.

Madam Clerk—