Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. Welcome to the 153rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

For members' information, we're sitting in public.

Before we start, related to what we just saw, do you remember when we were discussing parallel chambers and also the elm tree and there was a question about who has the authority? You'll get this notice soon, but I had the researchers look into it and in 1867 when the Constitution was created, there was a transfer to a government department and then at the same time it was placed under the control of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

You'll get this. It's being translated but I thought it would be interesting for people to know where the authority rested.

The minister can come on Thursday, May 16, related to the main estimates for the Leaders' Debates Commission.

The order of the day is committee business. I've asked the clerk for a short list of potential items of business that the committee discussed, which has been handed out.

These matters have been raised in committee or put on notice in recent weeks. Although there is no obligation for members to put their items forward for today's discussion, I thought it could help guide us in our deliberations.

I open the floor to the committee.

Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm not sure if I have to raise a point of order further to the situation with the bells and unfortunately where we had the time allocation vote on the last visit of the minister, but I wanted to bring forward again the motion I had.

I'm not sure. Was it tabled or did we just dismiss it because we were concerned we didn't have enough time to debate it?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Lauzon]

The suggestion was that the committee would come back to it.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay, I do have another copy of it today here again.

The motion asks that we “continue the study of Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections; that the study consist of five meetings”—since the group didn't like the original 12 meetings I suggested, although I feel there is enough material for that when we cover all aspects of the spectrum from privacy to disinformation, which is the term that Jennifer Ditchburn prefers as indicated at the Policy Options breakfast this morning. I was happy to see our chair Larry Bagnell there.

Although there is not a lot of new information unfortunately but it would consist of five meetings so I think that seems reasonable. I recognize, in the context of the time that's left, it might be hard to fit this in, but five meetings seems enough.

Especially from my meeting with parliamentary secretary Virani it seems as though this would be a service to the government to help them get information. I'm seeing more and more that it's unfortunate the government wasn't able to consider this earlier because I see the solutions being very high level and complex, but perhaps even if we could provide any recommendations or insight, I think the minister would genuinely benefit from it and appreciate it as would, therefore, the government and Canadians, of course, which is the reason we're here.

As I said, it would consist of five meetings and the findings would be reported to the House.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Just before I open the discussion I want to welcome Mr. Guy Caron to the committee. Just to let committee members know, I spoke in glowing terms of his role as a member of Parliament yesterday in the House. He comports himself very professionally so we like to have him at this committee because the members here are very forward thinking as well. It's great to have you here.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

To open discussion, we have Mr. Nader.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I don't want to say too much. The motion is self-explanatory. I do think it's important that we, as the PROC committee, undertake the study. Five meetings are reasonable, but I don't think it's a hill that we're going to die on. If there's some flexibility, it would be important.

The one point I want to get on record is that it would be important to hear from at least the chair, if not all five members of the panel that's been created to oversee interference in the upcoming election. Even in the short period of time between when it was announced to today, we've seen a change in membership on that committee based on changes in the people who hold those positions.

There's a new Clerk of the Privy Council, who was the DM for foreign affairs, so it's a new position there as well. It would be important to hear from at least the chair, the Clerk of the Privy Council, if not all five members of the committee. Whether we do that in camera, if that's necessary, I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. At least hearing from the chair and members of the committee would be important, given the context of our being five months away from an election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank Ms. Kusie for bringing this motion forward. However, we're in the last bit, the final stretch, and we had already gone through these matters. We had extended discussions and debates related to our elections on many occasions, but especially in our consideration of Bill C-76.

I know a lot of that time was filled up with debate unrelated to the matter itself and protecting Canadians, and there was an extended filibuster on that. That would have been an excellent opportunity to extend our study on that, but it's late in the game.

I know there's work already being done by the ethics committee on topics related to this. We've already discussed it and I don't see us getting into this at this particular stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I want to confirm, for the discussion of this and any other items that come forward, and I think I'm right in looking at the schedule. We have 11 meetings left, not including today's meeting. One of those is taken up with having the minister, so I believe that's 10 additional meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Half of one would be with the minister.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Fair enough, we have 10 and a half left.

It's probably unlikely that we're going to spend an entire meeting again on the committee schedule, our agenda. Am I right on that? Okay, so we have 10 and a half meetings. For anything we discuss, we should bear that in mind, because the issue now essentially is that one item will crowd another off the list. That is true regardless of which motion we're speaking to, or which subject matter we're speaking to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I certainly appreciate Mr. Bittle's comments with regard to the discussion and evaluation of topics during Bill C-76. Unfortunately, I was not here for the bulk of it, but I feel as though that was really with regard to the legislation at hand. It was an opportunity to reflect upon, truly, the experts with regard to what I believe is the greatest challenge and the greatest threat facing our democratic institutions in the coming year. I don't think that is outrageous, outlandish or an exaggeration.

I want to be sure that the government is very clear on what it's doing and the message it is sending to Canadians in rejecting such a study. It's very grave. It's very serious. In our committee, this is potentially the greatest responsibility we have to the Canadian public, coming up within the short time frame. To reject a study on this is truly to do a rejection of our due diligence to the integrity of the election.

As a member of Parliament and as a shadow minister for democratic institutions, I don't want to accept that responsibility, that lack of due diligence and evaluation, so I would really ask that the government consider the message that it is sending to Canadians about its seriousness with regard to the integrity of the election in rejecting this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you have any comment on Mr. Nater's possible proposal that the meetings be in camera?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, I would absolutely be open to anything that we can find that will provide us some insight or shed some light. I genuinely believe the government, as in many nations across the world stage, is struggling to find, in this case, concrete legislative solutions, but also solutions in general to a challenge that has a significant effect on society.

Here, specifically, I'm speaking in terms of the integrity of the election, but beyond. I think it could do a great service to not only the integrity of the election but also to the piggybacking of the work, as my colleague Mr. Bittle mentioned at ethics as well. It would only enhance and maybe even confirm some of the work that they have done before us. I believe that's a piece of what they have done over there in regard to the privacy, largely.

Here we deal with matters that are more concrete, more specific, more real life, more immediate, for certain. Again, they have done this work, which I think is good, valuable work, and I have had conversations with the chair, my colleague—my apologies, the name of his riding escapes me right now—as well as other members of the ethics committee, the member for Thornhill, the member for Beaches—East York—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You can use their names here.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Sorry. I appreciate that. I am formal by nature too, David, coming from the diplomatic world.

I feel as though this would—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

In all fairness, your name is longer than your riding name, I think.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You have a middle name, too.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I do have a middle name but out of courtesy to my colleagues, I don't share it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay, well, now I'm curious. I'll have to sneak a peek at your driver's licence or passport sometime.