Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc.

I'll be very brief. I'll also mention, while I have the microphone, Mr. Chair, that the previous chair managed to get us room 025-B on a regular basis—I'm just teasing. The room below us is the one we normally have. Anyway, we'll see. You're two for two here, but we'll see afterward how you do on that front. I'm just giving you a bit of a jab in good nature.

I agree with my Conservative colleagues at the table that we need to pursue foreign interference. I think we're about to find out about foreign interference.

My understanding is that the House has made its decision and a question of privilege has been adopted. I imagine we'll be discussing this in the context of these other two choices before us. We actually have three choices, given that two of those three choices will be on foreign interference. There are a litany of other reasons that I think we should pursue foreign interference, notwithstanding the timelines. My primary rationale is the timelines between now and the next federal election—whether it's on October 20 or October 27, 2025—if we're going to make meaningful recommendations. This would give the government an opportunity to respond to those recommendations with a legislative change and get through the legislative process. I feel this would be of paramount importance and a priority for the committee.

I'm not in any way suggesting that the original intention of the motion moved by Mrs. Romanado is not important. We're simply triaging what I believe to be the issues before us. From my perspective, it's dealing with the issue of the sanctity of not only our electoral institutions but also the institution of Parliament itself. We need to pursue this as a matter of priority.

I believe my colleague Mr. Cooper is next, Mr. Chair, so I'll cede the floor back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Calkins. You are indeed correct.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I echo the comments of my colleague Mr. Calkins about the need for this committee to prioritize foreign interference. That is underscored by the Speaker's ruling last evening, which found a prima facie question of privilege with respect to the failure of the government to inform 18 members of Parliament that they were the targets and subjects of a cyber-attack by the Beijing-based Communist regime.

There have been developments with respect to that ruling. There was a motion moved in the House last evening following the Speaker's ruling to refer that prima facie question of privilege to the procedure and House affairs committee. Moments ago, the House gave unanimous consent to that motion to refer the prima facie question of privilege to this committee.

With that, at this time I would like to give notice of my intention to move the following motion. I will read the motion into the record. I hope there will be consent thereafter for members to adjourn debate on the subamendment I moved on Ms. Mathyssen's amendment of Mrs. Romanado's motion.

Clearly, in light of the Speaker's ruling—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I'm sorry. I need clarity.

The member can't give notice of a motion and move a motion to adjourn debate at the same time. There's also no debate on a motion to adjourn debate.

Could the member be clear on what he's trying to accomplish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You are not incorrect, Ms. O'Connell.

For clarity, Mr. Cooper, I want to understand this. For the benefit of the committee, you are not currently moving your motion, but simply giving notice of introduction. Is that correct?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Precisely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. O'Connell, does that—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I'm sorry. Is he also adjourning debate? If so, there's no debate on that, because that's dilatory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You are correct.

Colleagues, we will not be able to enter into debate on the motion that Mr. Cooper intends to introduce. If he were to move that motion, it could not be debated until the current motion—Ms. Romanado's—is dealt with. That would have to be dealt with in the form of either an adjournment or a vote.

I'm going to allow Mr. Cooper to continue with the introduction, but of course, he knows very well— and you're not wrong, Ms. O'Connell—that we can't begin debate on that motion until we have dealt with these affairs.

Mr. Cooper, it goes back to you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

That is well understood, Mr. Chair.

I now will give notice to the committee of the following motion. It reads as follows:

That, in relation to its order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, regarding the prima facie contempt concerning the People's Republic of China’s cyber-attack against members of Parliament, the committee

(a) make use, for the purposes of this study, of

(i) the evidence received during its study on foreign election interference,

(ii) the evidence received during its study of the prima facie contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members, and

(iii) the evidence received by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics during its study on foreign interference, provided that it shall not limit the witnesses who may appear before the committee or the questions which may be asked of them;

(b) deem the evidence, including testimony and documents, received by, and publicly available on the website of, the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions to have been received by this committee, and that this evidence may be used in its reports, provided that it shall not limit the witnesses who may appear before the committee or the questions that may be asked of them or the documents that the committee may request or order to be produced;

(c) invite the following witnesses to appear:

(i) the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, by himself, for two hours;

(ii) the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence and former minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, by himself, for two hours;

(iii) the Honourable Marco Mendicino, former minister of public safety, by himself, for one hour;

(iv) the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, former minister of national defence, by himself, for one hour;

(v) the Honourable Anita Anand, former minister of national defence, by herself, for one hour;

(vi) panels of impacted Canadian members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China who wish to appear, provided that no more than three members shall appear on each panel, for one hour per panel;

(vii) Eric Janse, the Clerk of the House of Commons, by himself, for one hour, to discuss parliamentary privilege considerations;

(viii) Michel Bédard, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, by himself, for one hour, to discuss parliamentary privilege considerations and the production of documents;

(ix) officials of the House of Commons administration, by themselves, for two hours, to discuss IT and cybersecurity considerations, provided that one hour shall be in camera;

(x) officials of the Communications Security Establishment, by themselves, for two hours—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, I'm going to interrupt you for one minute, and I apologize. Because you're reading it in officially here, on my copy it says officials of “the Canadian Security Intelligence Service”, and you said “Establishment”. Can you just clarify for us which one it is, please?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I'm reading “officials of the Communications Security Establishment, by themselves, for two hours.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry. I was one ahead of you.

Go ahead.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I'll continue:

(xi) officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, by themselves, for two hours;

(xii) Nathalie Drouin, deputy clerk of the Privy Council and national security and intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister, by herself, for one hour;

(xiii) Vincent Rigby, former national security and intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister, by himself, for one hour;

(xiv) David Morrison, former acting national security and intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister, by himself, for one hour;

(xv) Jody Thomas, former national security and intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister, by herself, for one hour;

(xvi) officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by themselves, for one hour;

(xvii) officials of the secretariat of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, by themselves, for one hour; and

(xviii) academics, IT and cybersecurity experts, and other witnesses requested by the committee, provided that the parties shall file their preliminary lists of witnesses within 10 days of the adoption of this motion;

(d) order the production of all memoranda, briefing notes, emails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, including any drafts that are in the possession of any government department or agency, including the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections task force, the Critical Election Incident Protocol Panel, any minister’s office, the Prime Minister’s Office or the House of Commons administration, containing information concerning cyber-attacks and efforts to conduct cyber-attacks against members of the House of Commons by Advanced Persistent Threat 31 (APT 31) and related entities, provided that

(i) these documents be deposited without redaction with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within one month of the adoption of this order;

(ii) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within one month of the adoption of this order, with any proposed redaction of information which, in the government’s opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise the identities of employees or sources or intelligence-collecting methods of Canadian or allied intelligence agencies;

(iii) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly notify the committee whether he is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation;

(iv) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall assess the redactions proposed by the government, pursuant to subparagraph (ii), to determine whether he agrees that the proposed redactions conform with the criteria set out in subparagraph (ii); and,

(A) if he agrees, he shall provide the documents, as redacted by the government pursuant to subparagraph (ii), to the clerk of the committee; or,

(B) if he disagrees with some or all of the proposed redactions, he shall provide a copy of the documents, redacted in the manner he determines would conform with the criteria set out in subparagraph (ii), together with a report indicating the number, extent and nature of the government’s proposed redactions with which he disagreed, to the clerk of the committee; and

(v) the clerk of the committee shall cause the documents provided by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel pursuant to subparagraph (iv) to be distributed to the members of the committee forthwith upon receipt.

That is the motion that I have now put on notice.

With that, I would like to now adjourn debate on the motion on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we have a motion to adjourn the motion put forward by Madam Romanado at the subamendment stage.

That's if I understand correctly the motion that you're putting forward, Mr. Cooper.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It's on the entire piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, it's on the entire piece.

Give me one moment to check with the clerk.

I'm sorry. This is an adjournment of debate on the entirety of the motion.

This will go to a vote right away, colleagues.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor] I seek recognition afterward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

In a moment, colleagues, I will ask the clerk to call the vote on the adjournment of this particular motion.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

There's a motion that has been moved and accepted. There is no debate. The vote must be called.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You are correct.

Colleagues, for clarity here, I'll repeat one more time that we are voting on Mr. Cooper's motion, which calls to adjourn debate on Ms. Romanado's motion. This is not debatable. We are voting immediately.

I have asked the clerk to begin the roll call on that vote, and that is what he will do right away.

We have a tie. Colleagues, traditionally at this point in time, the chair will vote to uphold the status quo. I will be casting my vote as no.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)