Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

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

I have a question for you before you take the vote as to whether or not we should move to that debate.

When we last left, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You had the floor. I'm fully aware of that. I asked the clerk to make that note, and she did in my notes, in the event that we were in this situation. If this motion passes, Mr. Fergus, I will ensure that you have the floor, sir.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

The motion to resume debate carries.

Before I proceed to Mr. Fergus, I will remind the committee that this does have consequences for the witnesses who are here today. I am going to hold the witnesses for approximately 10 minutes in the hope that we can dispose of this matter quickly. If we're unable to do that, then I will dismiss the witnesses and we will continue with debate.

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe that if we decide to resume debate on this motion, we should show courtesy towards the witnesses by dismissing them and inviting them to come back at another date.

I have a lot of things to say about Mr. Villemure's motion, which I find lacking in many respects.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to interrupt you on that point before you continue. Can I have consensus from the committee that we allow the witnesses to be released?

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

If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I was wondering whether we could perhaps pose the questions we have for the witnesses today, based on their statements, and ask for written submissions in response.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We could do that, or we could invite the witnesses back at a later time. I'm certainly at the will of the committee on this one.

Is it the consensus of the committee to have the witnesses submit written responses, based on the lines of questioning? I remind you that we only got through two lines of questioning. Mr. Villemure was supposed to be next, then Mr. Green. I have two choices here. I can either invite the witnesses back at a later date to conclude the line of questioning, or I can dismiss them.

What would the preference of the committee be, on Ms. Khalid's point?

Mr. Kurek, I see your hand.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would note it's unfortunate that this can't be disposed of quickly. I think it would be entirely fair.... A fairly extensive conversation took place at the last meeting and, since the witnesses made their way to the committee—and just to note I thank all the witnesses for doing so—I think it would be unfortunate to drag this out in a prolonged filibuster, as Mr. Fergus seemed to suggest will be the case.

My preference would be for this to be disposed of and voted on. Then, we can get back to the business at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you. There is still debate to occur, Mr. Kurek.

I'm going to make a decision on behalf of the committee. I'm going to dismiss the witnesses. I'm going to ask them...we may potentially need them available at a later date.

In the meantime, based on some of the discussion that's happened, we'll take two paths here. If the witnesses can submit anything in writing to the committee that they think is relevant to the access to information study we're pursuing, I invite you to please do that, but I may invite you back to finish the lines of questioning that were available.

I'm going to dismiss the witnesses. I'll suspend for a minute so we can do that, because there are many witnesses. We are then going to resume the debate.

Mr. Fergus, you will have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm resuming the meeting.

I want to thank the witnesses again for appearing. I remind them that, if they are submitting some stuff in writing, we would need it sooner than later.

We are going to recommence with debate. Mr. Fergus, as I indicated, has the floor.

I want to remind all members of the committee about chapter 20. Under “Committees and Questions of Procedure and Privilege, Disorder and Misconduct”, it says:

In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member. If the member refuses to yield the floor and continues talking, the Chair may suspend or adjourn the meeting.

There was a lengthy discussion about this, last time. There was a lot of information put to the committee. Let's try not to make it repetitive. If we are going to debate this, let's try to have some new information.

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor, sir.

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

I agree wholeheartedly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry. I was speaking with Ms. Khalid. What was that, Mr. Fergus?

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

I was going to continue, but do you want to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

She was just indicating to me that she wanted to be next on the list.

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

Mr. Chair, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that we should limit ourselves to remarks that contain relevant information, and I will adhere to this.

I have a comment for my colleague, Mr. Kurek, as well as for the Canadians who are watching us. I wish to reassure them that I am not filibustering. I would also like to reassure them that I am going to seek ways to improve the motion moved by my colleague, Mr. Villemure, who is asking us to duplicate the work of another committee of the House of Commons on essentially the same subject contained in his motion.

Let me begin by informing you that today, I attended a reception organized by the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the Honourable Geoff Regan, for three minutes, and I have with me a compilation of his decisions. Obviously, the decisions taken at the House of Commons do not always apply to committees, but they are very similar to the decisions taken by our committees. One of the principles of the House is not to redo the work that has already been done during the passage of a bill. A similar principle applies to committees, i.e., they should not duplicate the work done by another committee.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, is already looking at the influence of foreign countries on politics here in Canada. We mustn't duplicate this work, because it is a waste of time for MPs and a waste of House of Commons resources. My question is very simple: what witnesses who haven't already been invited by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons could we summon to our committee on the same subject?

My colleague is refusing to answer this question, why, I do not know. He has enjoyed a long career in ethics. He is a philosopher and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. We get along very well on a personal basis. However, we have to ask him this question, because it is a serious issue.

Imagine if every committee of the House of Commons decided to do so, whether it be the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Standing Committee on Finance or any other committee. We would be keeping MPs from doing their work and things would grind to a standstill.

But it is precisely at committee that we do our real work as legislators. Everyone thinks that this happens during Question Period. I'm not saying that Question Period is not important, but it is all a bit theatrical: We ask questions to which we don't want any answers, and the answers provided don't fit with the questions.

Mr. Chair, I tip my hat to you as well as to your predecessor, Mr. Kelly. Both of you have chaired the committee since I have been a member, that is to say since the beginning of the current Parliament. We haven't played any political games here. You have always sought to establish a consensus. I congratulate you. That is precisely what we should be doing away from the cameras. I know that our committee meetings are televised, but we don't have the same viewership that the House of Commons enjoys during Question Period.

That's one of the reasons why we should take MPs' work seriously. Our work has to be relevant. We have to be efficient here in committee. I would like to congratulate the chairs once more for encouraging MPs to rise to the challenge, that is to say overcoming partisanship and making sure that we gather information from our witnesses.

During the first round of questions on access to information, which is the subject of our study today, before even taking the opportunity to ask a question, my honourable colleague decided to go back to his motion and a debate which I would qualify as being sterile.

I'm good with numbers, just like the other MPs, and I knew what was going to happen. I therefore told myself that I would vote for the motion so that we can have this debate now and decide what will happen. I don't believe the motion is in the interest of our committee and that the subject is relevant to our mandate. However, I have to accept the fact and the decision that was taken, i.e., that the motion is admissible.

However, I think there are ways of improving the motion and that it would be important to do so, and I will not hesitate to propose an amendment or two in order to improve the motion. I think that one of the biggest weaknesses of the motion that we are talking about is the notion of priority. There's one thing that I'm not convinced of...

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fergus, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but could you please speak a little louder? The interpreters are having a hard time hearing you.

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

My voice isn't loud enough? It doesn't happen often that people tell me that I'm being too shy. I apologize profusely to the interpreters, as well as to the Canadians who are watching us.

I think one of the ways to which we could improve the motion would be to limit the number of witnesses that we would invite for the study. We could avoid inviting the same witnesses that have testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because they would simply repeat their testimony.

I heard my honourable colleague say that we have to do a better study of the issue than the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I don't agree. I believe the best course of action would be to widen the scope of the study proposed by the motion. I see the sponsor of the motion nodding, and I hope he will agree. Rather than limiting ourselves to one country, in this case China, it might be better to look at all the other countries that are acting in bad faith.

Everyone knows that China is guilty of interference and meddles in our elections. But we know very well that Russia also does the same thing and, increasingly, Iran. We know that there are actors present in various countries, even in allied and friendly countries, who act in bad faith. Maybe we should widen the scope of what we study. In that way, we would, at the very least, accomplish more than what my colleague is proposing.

I do not wish to repeat myself nor go against the instructions given at the beginning of the meeting before I had the opportunity to speak, but if we do the almost exact same work as another committee, we are wasting our time.

If my colleagues agree to do things differently and widen the scope of the study, that could make things more palatable. I think that that would be a good idea. I have proposed a way of going forward. I see my colleagues' reactions, which leads me to understand that they might have something to propose. For my part, I believe that this would be a good way to proceed and would make the motion more acceptable. I hope that we will have a consensus amongst committee members to widen the scope of the motion.

I don't want to take up too much time. I will let another member speak.

I hope that someone will propose an amendment to recognize the relevance of my objections. That said, I hope that we will get the chance to do real work that is more relevant. I don't want our work to duplicate that of another committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Next I have Ms. Khalid on the list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything that Mr. Fergus has indicated. I was unfortunately not able to attend the meeting where we had this really fulsome discussion. I really would loved to have participated in it and shared some of my thoughts on this.

First and foremost, I want to say that regardless of the fact the study is happening already at PROC, I don't want to take away from how important it is for us as a country to really take a deep dive into what foreign interference is today in its current shape and form.

I think in order for us to fully understand what that foreign interference is, we have to put it into the context of where it came from over the past number of decades.

My colleague is absolutely right that this is not just a communist China issue, but the changing dynamics of how the world operates and how we work with one another, how we build allies across the world, and how we partner with other nations to build upon the democratic values that we care so deeply about.

Chair, I do sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, so I think my perspective on this is quite heightened. I really strongly believe that we do need to do a lot more to ensure that we are safe from political interference. I do believe that we need to look beyond the one nation that is listed here in this motion.

Mr. Fergus is absolutely right: we have Russia, we have Iran, we have other hostile actors that do need to be looked at. I think that we do need to see how foreign interference or espionage has evolved over the past decades and how technology perhaps plays a role in it, and how the Government of Canada ensures that we're safe and in what context over this past number of decades. I think it is paramount that if we are to dig into this very important issue, we make sure that it is not a repeat of the work that is happening in PROC already. I do believe that expanding the scope of this motion would perhaps be the better way to go.

In that spirit, Chair, I would like to move an amendment to the main motion that, after the word "interference", remove the words:

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

I'll pause there if you want to pull it up, Madam Clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm not sure that we have a copy of it yet.

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

I'm sorry.

I'm just amending the main motion that was presented by Mr. Villemure.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Vanessa Davies]

Yes, I'm just trying to pull up the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I see. I have the main motion in front of me as well.

Just give us a second until the clerk pulls it up for her own benefit.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I will just repeat this.

What I'm proposing is that, after the word “interference”, which is on that first line, we remove what follows: “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,”. I'm proposing that we remove that.

I say this because I think this will not only expand the scope of the motion to include more hostile state actors in what we're studying, but will also include what's been happening in the past and how we've dealt with this issue of foreign interference then. Obviously, 2021 was not the first election we've had where there were suspicions of foreign interference. I think that going back and looking at how we've dealt with it in the previous elections, and going back and putting into context how that political interference is changing in today's day and age, in this digital space, would be a really good way for us to expand the scope of the motion. This would allow us to do something meaningful and really take a deep dive into how we, as a committee, can provide recommendations for the improvement of our democratic values and democratic institutions here in Canada.

Mr. Chair, I propose that amendment. I'm really hopeful that members will support my motion to expand the scope beyond just the CCP.