Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know that this motion has been on the table since 2022. The problem is that, since 2022, a lot of extremely important things have happened about protecting our democracy. We have talked about foreign interference and the Hunka affair in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we haven't yet been able to get to the bottom of foreign interference.

Last week, a very important preliminary report was tabled by Justice Hogue, who acknowledged that the last two elections had been the target of foreign interference, particularly from the communist regime in Beijing.

We had asked for a preliminary report to get an initial overview of the actual situation. We're in a minority government right now, which means that an election can happen at any time, and that's why we needed to have the clarification of Justice Hogue fairly quickly, so that the government of the day, hopefully with the help of all the opposition parties, could take steps to ensure that the next election doesn't have an increase in foreign interference again.

Justice Hogue therefore acknowledged that there had been interference in the last two elections. Even though, as she said and as we said as well, this interference likely did not change the final outcome of the election, it still could have influenced the choice of voters in certain ridings.

Second, in the case of appointments—

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Chair, you told us that we had to discuss the amendment, but we are in the process of reviewing the history of other matters that could be studied here.

Discussions must relate directly to the amendment, so I invite you to remind Mr. Berthold that he must stick to the topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

I assume that Mr. Berthold will soon be making a brief comment on the amendment proposed by Ms. Mathyssen.

You may continue, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was going to talk about nominations. All the political parties are currently working on candidate nominations for the next election. We've learned from Justice Hogue herself that there were irregularities and that the Communist regime in Beijing has apparently succeeded in influencing the choice of a Liberal candidate. These include—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Chair, we've had an intervention explaining that we are talking about the amendment, not the study on foreign interference. My colleague across the way is continuing to talk about another study and is not talking about the amendment that is in front of us.

If he'd like to start intervening on the amendment that is in front of us, that's great. I'm looking forward to hearing his comments on it, but we've already had a point of order to ask that he get to the relevance of the amendment in front of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks, Mrs. Romanado.

Mr. Berthold, I do believe that we need to get towards the substance of the amendment soon. I will provide one more opportunity to get to that, but should we find ourselves on the same path we just were, I may ask to move to Mr. Duncan, who's next on the list.

Thank you.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, it would be unfortunate if you began your mandate as chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by engaging in a cover‑up and preventing me from continuing and explaining my remarks.

For the sake of my colleagues, I'll explain why I need to speak to this in order to deal with the amendment. It's because we need to prioritize studies right now, and I'm making the case as to why we shouldn't prioritize the one that's in Mrs. Romanado's amendment and why I must therefore vote against it. We owe it to Canadians, who are waiting for an election to be called in the next year and a half or two, to finish the work we've started to get to the bottom of foreign interference.

While Ms. Mathyssen's amendment is very comprehensive, the continuation of our study and the work we have to do to ensure that our elections are fully democratic would be pushed back too far. I had to talk about the nominations, Mr. Chair, because they're ongoing. Nominations are made every day and every week within each political party.

We were going to move a motion today to get to the bottom of what happened in Mr. Han Dong's riding. Unfortunately, we didn't have the opportunity to be the first to speak. I understand that, but I want to explain why we need to have all the necessary information in hand to make the right decision when it comes time to vote on holding this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold. We understand your position—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I'm not done, Mr. Chair. A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

One moment, please.

You mentioned that you're opposed to the motion and the amendment, and that's obviously your right. Several of our colleagues want to comment, and we've already heard that we're starting to stray from the subject of the amendment, which I tend to agree with.

Mr. Berthold, we will therefore move right away to the next speaker—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

No, Mr. Chair. A point of order. This is totally unacceptable. I'm not finished. I'm going to keep talking, because it's extremely important.

I'm a little disappointed. I haven't talked about why the government moved this motion today.

It is doing so precisely to avoid talking about the situation that occurred in Mr. Han Dong's riding. This motion was moved today by the government to prevent the opposition from doing its clear, clean and accurate work of ensuring that—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm trying to understand what's going on. I think we are in the process of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

One moment, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We're talking about the amendment on the table, not another motion. We should finish this conversation. If we have to discuss other motions afterwards, we'll discuss them, but right now, we have to stick to the amendment on the table.

I, for one, am looking forward to being able to comment on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

Mr. Berthold, I will give you the floor again, but once again, I'd like to remind you that the discussion concerns the amendment. For the last time, I invite you to speak to the amendment before us.

Thank you.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of things. With all due respect, since the beginning, I have been talking about the amendment and the consequences it will have on our committee's work.

I will read the amendment:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the committee conduct a review of the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, study occurrences and impacts of harassment in the House of Commons, Parliament Hill, Constituency Offices, and via the use of Members' social media, and make any relevant changes to ensure Members of Parliament, personnel and members of the public who participate in the day‑to‑day activities of the institution are protected from violence and harassment. That the committee invite: (a) the Chief Human Resources Officer; (b) the current and past speakers of the House of Commons; (c) the Clerk of the House; (d) the head clerk of committees; (e) the Sergeant‑At‑Arms; (f) the Interpretation Directorate; (g) anti‑harassment specialists and workplace mental health and safety experts; (h) non‑governmental organizations dedicated to electing more underrepresented communities; (i) former members of Parliament; (j) members of Parliament not seeking re‑election; (k) union representatives; and (l) other witnesses requested by the committee; That six meetings be devoted to witness testimony, and that witness lists be submitted to the clerk within seven days of the adoption of this motion; and that the committee report its findings to the House no later than Thursday, October 31, 2024.

Mr. Chair, you won't be able to say that I'm not talking about the amendment; I just read it. I think that's pretty clear.

What does this amendment mean? That means that we're going to spend the next six meetings talking about this, when we have in our hands a report by Justice Hogue that all parties requested last week, a report that has been made public. I would remind you that this is a preliminary report that is extremely important and that has made some major revelations.

If we devote the next six meetings to this study, as mentioned in the amendment, we will unfortunately let the findings of Justice Hogue's preliminary report be swept under the rug. We can't do that. The role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is to act on a motion of the House of Commons that was adopted unanimously, that called this public inquiry and that required us to have a preliminary report.

People now expect us to be able to study the contents of that preliminary report, in particular the Liberal nomination process that resulted in a candidate being chosen, it seems, following a strong presence of representatives of the Communist regime in Beijing. I know the Liberals don't like it when we talk about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Excuse me, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to PROC and your first filibuster.

Mr. Chair, you've asked the member to speak to the relevance of the motion that is on the table. He is constantly slipping into discussing the second motion, which we will get to. If we can deal with this motion, we can then discuss Mr. Cooper's motion, which I'm looking forward to discussing.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that you go to Mr. Duncan, as you suggested you were going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Duguid.

On a point of order, we have Mr. Cooper.

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

I would just submit, Mr. Chair, that members have wide latitude to speak on amendments and subamendments. That has been the approach, and it has been consistent since I was elected as a member of Parliament. It has been the practice of this committee.

There have been many instances where Liberal MPs have deviated quite significantly from the wording of a specific motion. So long as it is in some way anchored to the motion, the members should be given the flexibility.