Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What we're seeing this morning is part of what we have seen for the past year and a half on this committee. It is obstruction by the Liberals to thwart the ability of this committee to get to the bottom of the failures of this Liberal government with respect to foreign interference, which has attacked our democracy and our elections, and has targeted our colleagues—whether it be Mr. Chong or the 18 members we now know were the subject of a cyber-attack.

What we see from these Liberals is that they say they're very concerned about this. They even went along with giving unanimous consent to send this over to the procedure and House affairs committee.

All I wanted to do this morning was, in light of that, to have this committee get to work and schedule hearings. What did the Liberals, with the NDP, do when they had an opportunity to do that? Suddenly it's not a priority. Suddenly it's all about them again. They want to make it a priority about them, not about the failure that occurred or the breach of the privileges of other colleagues.

I want to see that there is accountability, because there needs to be accountability. We need to know who was aware of the information that was provided by the FBI to the Communications Security Establishment, and why those members, following that information being provided, were kept in the dark. We need to know why it took a foreign government, an unsealed indictment from the U.S. justice department, and a report in The Globe and Mail for this to come to light.

The Prime Minister famously said that “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”. When it comes to Beijing's interference in our democracy and in our sovereignty, the Prime Minister's record has been anything but transparent. Canadians deserve better, and frankly our colleagues—all of us—deserve better insofar as this could happen to any one of us. For all we know, one or more of us has been the subject of these types of attacks and was kept in the dark. In order to address that broader concern, we need to get to the bottom of what happened in this particular instance involving these 18 MPs.

I will have more to say, Mr. Chair. I'd ask to be put at the bottom of the list. However, I will leave it at that for now as I look forward to the comments of my other colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Colleagues, I did this the other day. Some time has passed since we last talked about the list. I'll just remind colleagues of where we're at. It will be Mr. Duncan, followed by Monsieur Berthold, Mr. Calkins, Ms. Mathyssen and Mr. Cooper again.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I take this opportunity to build on what my colleague Mr. Cooper said. We are increasingly seeing, not just in the House but in several committees, including multiple times here at the House and procedural affairs committee, a record of the NDP, frankly, saying one thing but when it comes to a vote doing the opposite.

I want to read into the record.... Actually, I want to give a bit of background to what's happened so far today. Mr. Cooper gave a notice of motion regarding the question of privilege, which was just passed within the last hour or so by the House of Commons and referred to PROC, to study another question of privilege around the issue of foreign interference. This time it is not just one specific member but 18 members of Parliament from many different political parties who are affected by the issue.

Mr. Cooper asked to adjourn the debate that we are currently undertaking—the subamendment that Mr. Cooper has on the amendment by Ms. Mathyssen to Mrs. Romanado's main motion. It seems like the NDP complained, saying it would defeat the motion. For those Canadians who are watching, adjourning debate on a motion does not defeat it. It puts it back in the proverbial parking lot and allows another issue to come forward, particularly the notice of motion that Mr. Cooper has, which the House was just seized with for several hours this morning and last night. The NDP refused to adjourn the debate to allow discussion about the question of privilege and to move forward on the study. Let's make it very clear what happened there.

I want to take a moment. I have the transcripts from last night, particularly of what the NDP was saying on the floor of the House of Commons about the priority and importance of moving forward with this question of privilege and studying it.

The Speaker took the floor last night at about 8.20 p.m. and ruled on the question of privilege raised on April 29, 2024, by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I'll fast-forward to different colleagues in the chamber making comments. I will read into the record what NDP House leader Mr. Julian, in one of his first interventions, said in the House of Commons:

...I always listen attentively to my colleague. I think, in this case, it is very clear, as we have seen with Justice Hogue's preliminary report, which points very clearly to some things. There is a real shortcoming in terms of how the government and past governments have dealt with the information around foreign interference. We have seen repeatedly, from the 2019 election and the 2021 election, that information was not communicated to candidates. In this case, addressed in the question of privilege, information was not communicated to members of Parliament.

There is a lack of protocols and a lack of organization, not necessarily around the obtaining of information but in actually communicating that information to people who might be impacted. This may be members of Parliament or, as we saw in election campaigns, candidates. We need to ensure that action is taken to prevent further interference of this type.

To go on, Mr. Julian got up a bit later. I quote from Mr. Julian, the NDP House leader—and it's the NDP deputy House leader who sits on this committee. Mr. Julian said last night:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we see this matter, this question of privilege and the motion before the House of Commons as important. We will therefore support this motion so that it can be adopted as quickly as possible and this whole matter, this question of privilege can be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible.

Then Mr. Julian said a few minutes later—I believe in an exchange, a back and forth—in questions and comments:

There is a systematic pattern of the government erring in how it potentially gets information to candidates during an election or to members of Parliament. That needs to change. That is why we need to refer this to [the] Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with protocols and suggestions for actions.

This was just last night.

In response to the Bloc Québécois, in questions and comments, Mr. Julian of the NDP said the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is precisely for that reason that the NDP moved the motion that led to the public inquiry....

Further on, he said:

We believe that we should act in the national interest and think first about how [we] do everything we can [do] to prevent foreign interference in our politics, in our democracy and in our elections.

He goes on to further state:

There are many things we can do and it starts tonight with referring the motion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Then Mr. Lamoureux got up and asked a question or made a comment, and Mr. Julian of the NDP responded:

That is why I suggest to all members tonight that we need to refer this to...PROC...promptly and not take a day or two to talk about it. The time for talk is over. It needs to be referred to PROC for action. That, coupled with the Hogue commission...hopefully [gives] us all the things we need to put in place to fully protect our democracy and any future election.

He continues on again. In response to an exchange with Mrs. Kusie, Mr. Julian asks her a question:

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member agree with me that this needs to be referred promptly, this evening, to procedure and House affairs to come up with recommendations?

He wasn't done yet. There's more. Mr. Julian had a lot to say, with a lot of passion, about PROC taking this up, beginning deliberations, making recommendations and studying this question of privilege.

Actually, Ms. Ashton took the floor for the NDP a couple of times last night. I'm going to quote what she said. The NDP said this last night on the floor of the House of Commons, even though the NDP blocked Mr. Cooper's motion to get the ball rolling.

Here's what Ms. Ashton said last night in the House of Commons:

Mr. Speaker, given the severity of issues like this, would the member agree to sending the matter to PROC? It is obviously the body that is best equipped to deal with it. Would the member agree that it should be sent to PROC as soon as possible?

Ms. Ashton again took the floor a little while later. She said:

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this issue merits proper examination. At this hour, we have heard from many speakers that this must be taken seriously.

Will the member agree that this should be referred to PROC as soon as possible? Obviously, we gathered here to debate C-59, which has issues of great importance to the citizens we represent. Will the member agree to—

These are her words. This is continuing the quote:

—speeding up the process and moving this to PROC as soon as possible?

Ms. Ashton took the floor again last night as a member of the NDP.

[An hon. member]

They're a broken record.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Yes, it's unbelievable, their advocacy and their passion on the floor of the House of Commons. Ms. Ashton said:

Would it not be in all of our...interests to have this dealt with by PROC as soon as possible? Will the member agree to send this matter to PROC as soon as possible, so that we can actually move on this?

It goes on. Ms. Kwan from the NDP spoke this morning very passionately in the House. The motion was unanimously adopted. It was referred here. Mr. Cooper tabled the notice of motion. He attempted to have that brought forward, and it was blocked.

Mr. Chair, at the beginning of my comments, I confirmed, to alleviate the concern of Ms. Mathyssen, that adjourning the debate we are currently undertaking does not defeat it. What it would allow us to do, as Mr. Julian, Ms. Ashton, Ms. Kwan and many members of the NDP have said numerous times in recent days, is deal with this issue as soon as possible at PROC and have it dealt with by PROC. The motion was defeated, so we cannot discuss how we move forward and study this important question of privilege.

The NDP truly says one thing on the floor of the House of Commons. They have a record of saying one thing. They talk tough. They all challenge and say they're frustrated with the Liberal record on all of this. Then they vote a completely different way, deciding to cover up and form a bloc with the Liberals, many times.

Now that I've clarified that we are adjourning so we can bring up the issue, and now that we have clarified that we have several members of the NDP on record in the House last night when the cameras were on and people were watching us talking about this—the cameras are still on here—I move to adjourn debate in order for Mr. Cooper's motion to be brought forward, please.

I move to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Duncan, can you please repeat and clarify that for our benefit?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I move to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we know how this goes. We are going to vote on this immediately. This is the same vote that we held a little while back. The question is whether or not we are going to adjourn debate on Mrs. Romanado's motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Colleagues, the debate continues.

Mr. Duncan, should you wish, the floor remains yours.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I have another quote from the NDP last night, if I could continue with that.

We just saw the NDP block for a second time, despite what they said on the floor of the House of Commons about how, as soon as possible, this needs to be discussed and moved forward on. They're blocking the opportunity to move forward specifically on the question of privilege that was unanimously just passed on the floor of the House of Commons with the support of the NDP.

It was Ms. McPherson, the NDP whip, who raised, in her intervention, the question of privilege. She stated:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the point of privilege that was brought forward earlier today by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The New Democratic Party is very concerned about the recent news that...members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China could have been or were targets of cyber-attacks from hackers who were linked to Beijing. I am a member of IPAC, and I am deeply concerned because I do not know the details. I do not have the information I need to know whether my personal emails were hacked or whether there were cyber-attacks made against me, other members of the New Democratic Party or, indeed, any other member of the House.

I am concerned that this information came forward from the U.S. government, and our government did not provide that information to legislators. I am concerned because this is not the first time I have felt that the government has withheld information from members of Parliament, from legislators.

I think back as well to the time when the members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights were called out and sanctioned by the Chinese government. As a member of that committee, I found all of this out on Twitter. There was no support provided to me as a parliamentarian by the government, and I find that unacceptable.

I also find it unacceptable that it seems we are repeatedly having to ask the government of the day to provide the information to parliamentarians that they need to do their work. We do not know what the Government of Canada knows. We do not know when [they] knew it, and we...do not know why it did not alert those members who have been impacted by this work.

Then she wraps up here by saying:

Legislators need to have this information. They need to be able to feel they are protected. They need to be able to feel they are safe in doing their work....

Lastly, here, she says:

I do believe this constitutes a violation of parliamentarians' privilege, and it is vitally important that we get to the bottom of this.

It is so “vitally important”, so “as quickly as possible” and so “pass it now so it can go to PROC”, Mr. Chair, that we had the NDP align with the Liberals to block it twice.

To clarify, Mr. Cooper had a great notice of motion and a great motion that talked about how we can address the question of privilege, and the NDP blocked it from even being discussed. That tells you everything you need to know about the NDP.

The Liberals, we know, want to cover it up. It makes them extremely uncomfortable to have to talk about the issue and their record on foreign interference. There are many examples of them covering up and not providing information.

I just read quotes from the NDP, within the last 24 hours, complaining about the exact same thing. Twice now, the NDP, despite their House leader advocating in the House of Commons for PROC to take this up as quickly as possible, at the first opportunity it came up, they have blocked it. This is ridiculous. The committee needs to move forward on this discussion, this question of privilege and this issue of foreign interference. This should be the issue and the number one priority that PROC deals with right now.

Mr. Chair, I'll have more to say, and I ask to be added to the bottom of the list, but I know my colleague Mr. Berthold has some comments as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Duncan, you are correct.

Mr. Berthold, I think I got it right this time.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a little surprised at the turn of events this morning, especially since we offered all parties the opportunity to take a break to talk about the committee's agenda over the next few days. Twice since the start of today's meeting, we have proposed adjourning debate on Ms. Romanado's motion. What does it mean to adjourn a debate? It means to put it on hold, to set aside what we've done and then come back to it.

We Conservatives don't usually like to adjourn a debate. Since we don't have a majority around the committee table, we're not able to put the debate back on the agenda, because we need the agreement of a majority of the members. So that's the situation we're in at the moment. In short, this is why we Conservatives don't like to adjourn a debate.

At the moment, the situation is rather peculiar. The adjournment of the debate has been refused by people who have the majority around this table. If the debate were adjourned, all it would take is for a member of the government party or the NDP to rise and move a motion to return to the adjourned debate, that motion would pass, and that would be the end of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Berthold, perhaps this a good moment for me to interrupt you for one moment, and you've indicated you may talk a little more.

Colleagues, out of respect for your schedules and your schedulers, because I know that things move quickly, I want you to know that because it seems like there's a still a fair amount for us to work through as a committee, I have asked for resources. We've therefore been granted resources to continue until two o'clock.

I'm interrupting Mr. Berthold right now so that you have a chance to plan your schedules. We were supposed to end the meeting at one o'clock. We will now continue until one o'clock, and then we'll re-evaluate where we are after that.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor again. You may speak until 2 p.m.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's very kind of you to let me know that I'll have the opportunity to speak until 2 p.m., but I'd prefer that we come to a solution based on common sense, that is, that we adjourn the debate on this motion so that we can take advantage of some downtime to discuss the next steps and begin the study that was requested by the House of Commons following the question of privilege on the fact that 18 of our colleagues were targeted by foreign hackers.

I would very much like us to do this and not use the resources of the House unnecessarily until 2 p.m. However, unfortunately, it seems that the NDP is opposed to this, despite everything that was said in the House yesterday. This worries me a great deal, given the statements I've heard. This morning, I listened to our colleague Jenny Kwan, who gave a very thoughtful speech about how people, including herself, had been victims of foreign interference by having their email accounts hacked. For her, it was a no-brainer that this question of privilege needed to be addressed as soon as possible in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Ms. Niki Ashton, who is a member of the NDP caucus and represents the Churchill-Keewatinook Aski riding, posed the following question to my colleague Mr. Bezan:

Mr. Speaker, given the severity of issues like this, would the member agree to sending the matter to PROC? It is obviously the body that is best equipped to deal with it. Would the member agree that it should be sent to PROC as soon as possible?

This was a request made by the NDP itself, Mr. Chair, last night during the debate. This opportunity was offered as soon as the House passed the motion unanimously. This means that the Conservatives voted for the motion to refer this question of privilege to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that the Bloc Québécois voted for the motion, that the NDP voted for the motion and that the independent members voted for the motion. Everyone agreed that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should quickly study this issue, because it's a very important one.

We now propose to adjourn the debate so that we can move on to this very important study, but unfortunately, for some political or partisan reason I don't know, the Liberals refuse to let us do so. What's even more surprising is that the NDP refuses to adjourn the debate and set this aside for two minutes so we can talk about our schedule, our business, the witnesses and how we're going to operate over the next few weeks, so we can then talk as quickly as possible about this question of privilege.

As I was mentioning, the NDP members, who proposed amendments to a Liberal motion, can, at any time, bring the debate back to Ms. Romanado's motion, because there are quite a few of them. I know that numbers and Liberals don't always go together, but that's another story. I don't want to start another debate, Mr. Chair, because you could call me to order for any number of reasons. That said, the figures speak for themselves.

So, we could quickly return to this study. If, for example, we don't have any witnesses, or the witnesses we want to invite to talk about the question of privilege aren't available, we can start this study. There are many opportunities for us to move forward and do what is important both to the House of Commons, which has asked this committee to address this question of privilege as quickly as possible, and to the members of the committee, who would like to address other topics in a completely reasonable way.

We don't oppose the Liberals' motion, but like the Bloc Québécois, we may have some amendments to propose regarding the content and process. We are not fundamentally opposed to the motion, though. We were willing to undertake a dual study.

Meanwhile, since Tuesday, the Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled that the question of privilege raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Garnett Genuis, did constitute a prima facie case of privilege. We spent all last night debating the matter. Every parliamentarian I heard agreed that the interference in our Parliament and electoral system by the Communist regime in Beijing was an important issue.

Everyone wants the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the matter as quickly as possible. The committee members have to decide how best to go about it, how quickly to do the study and which witnesses they want to hear from.

I really don't understand what the Liberals are trying to stop right now. When we are all in the House, everyone is in agreement, but when we are here as a committee to discuss the issue, the NDP-Liberal coalition government emerges and opts to vote against us. Those are the facts.

Mr. Chair, the matter before us is extremely important. We found out through the FBI that Canadian parliamentarians were targeted by Chinese hackers in 2021. What's more, the FBI didn't tell us. We read it in the papers, which learned about it from the FBI.

Apparently, someone in Canada was informed. Someone in Canada means either someone in the government or someone in the House of Commons. That's why we need to conduct the study. We have to uncover who was informed and when.

Again, as we saw in Michael Chong's case during the study we just finished, which came on the heels of another question of privilege, members were the last to find out.

It is completely unacceptable that hostile foreign interests are targeting members, people elected to represent their ridings, because they expressed their views on a topic as important as foreign interference or because they stood up for diaspora communities living in Canada—Chinese, Ukrainian or whatever they may be.

In this case, we are talking about hackers, as mentioned by Mr. Genuis, who was very shocked to read in the papers that he had been the target of those hackers.

What harm was done? We don't know. What were the consequences? We don't know. Was there a breach of information? We're being told there wasn't, but I don't know because no one told me so, personally.

It is precisely the committee's role to get to the bottom of this and to ask the right people the right questions. The committee needs to get a clear understanding of what happened, and ensure that Canadian parliamentarians aren't the targets of foreign cyber-attacks and that, if they are, they are alerted at once, not just when it suits someone's interests.

On the issue of foreign interference, we saw that the decision to notify the parties or members wasn't made by CSIS or the RCMP. It was made by a group of individuals who were supposed to make a judgment as to the information they received, individuals who met to determine whether the situation crossed the line they had drawn to say when something was serious enough to warrant notifying the persons concerned. As a result, everything came out later rather than sooner.

The report Justice Hogue released last week clearly shows that a review of that whole process is necessary. As my fellow member rightly pointed out, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met 70 times to discuss foreign interference. That shows how important the study was to the committee. It shows how important foreign interference was to the members of the committee. Many have been here since the beginning. Along the way, some joined the committee, while others left—70 meetings is a lot, after all.

However, we can't stop there because foreign interference has not stopped. It would have been nice if, miraculously, we could wave a magic wand and make it so that Commissioner Hogue's appointment stopped all foreign interests, including the Communist regime in Beijing, from doing what they were doing because Canadians had appointed a commissioner to examine foreign interference. That's not what happened, though, and that's not going to happen. That's why we need to better protect ourselves. That is why the government needs to make the right decisions. That is also why we're going to have to examine Bill C-70 when it's sent to committee. One of the key roles of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is ensuring that parliamentarians are protected.

Thanks to a motion in the House of Commons, we called on Justice Hogue to produce a preliminary report, and we didn't do so just to put more on her plate. We did so to find out as much as possible as soon as possible leading up to the election.

This issue also requires urgent attention because we are dealing with a so-called minority government and as long as the government is in a coalition with the NDP, there will be no election. Is it possible to know when the NDP will pull its support for the Liberal government? I can hear Liberals wishing that will never happen, but I have news for them. When the time comes and the NDP drops them, it will leave their side. The Liberals don't need to worry. Actually, they do, I should say. That's the reality. This is a minority government that has the support of the NDP, a government that currently controls, or is trying to control, what people do or don't find out about foreign interference. That is unacceptable.

I want to come back to Justice Hogue's preliminary report because it revealed many things. Justice Hogue confirmed what everyone knew, that foreign actors did interfere in the last two elections. Justice Hogue confirmed that foreign interference did not directly impact the overall result of the last election. The Conservatives said it. Everyone said it.

Most importantly, we learned something about our fellow member Kenny Chiu's claims that the Communist regime in Beijing and its disinformation campaign had a significant—perhaps even decisive—impact on his loss in the last election. We found out that his claims were founded. There was evidence showing that it certainly could have impacted the election result in his riding.

There was a reason Justice Hogue felt it necessary to share that information with parliamentarians and Canadians before her final report.

I'm sure she wants to prevent this from happening again during the next election. She, too, is very aware that an election could be called at any time.

The other very troubling thing is the Chinese Communist regime's interference in the candidate nomination process. On that subject, I disagree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It doesn't have to do with the fact that the member is speaking about me. It has to do with the fact that we have only a few minutes left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Actually, we have over an hour because we were able to get more resources.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

To keep the meeting going, you have to check with the committee members. I, myself, wasn't consulted on whether it was feasible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I don't necessarily need to consult the committee members. It's the chair's prerogative, and I decided—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Is it always that way?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, Ms. Gaudreau.

A half-hour ago, I decided that we would keep meeting.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I was referring to the honourable member who just asked about the meeting's duration. As I was saying, I disagree with the opinion she expressed when she commented on my fellow member's subamendment and the NDP's amendment to the Liberals' motion. She said that the committee should let Justice Hogue do her job and not respond to her preliminary report.

However, that's not what the House asked for. The House asked for a preliminary report so preparations could be made in the lead-up to the next election. Justice Hogue's report revealed that the Communist regime in Beijing apparently did interfere in the nomination of a candidate, our colleague Han Dong. The Beijing regime's interference seems to have influenced the choice of the candidate who was nominated. Even before he was elected as the member of Parliament, Mr. Dong reportedly benefited from the support of citizens who were brought to the nomination meeting where he was a candidate by representatives of the Communist regime in Beijing so those citizens could vote for him.

The problem is that we are talking about a very Liberal riding, which do exist in certain parts of the country. Out west and in Quebec, we find a lot of very Conservative ridings. When by‑elections are held in those kinds of ridings, the same party usually holds on to the seat. A Liberal riding will stay a Liberal riding. Why does interfering in a nomination process in a context like that matter to a regime interested in influencing a country's electoral system? It's very obvious: choosing the candidate means choosing the member of Parliament. That was addressed in Justice Hogue's report.

However, there was something Justice Hogue's report did not address. We know that Mr. Dong was notified that CSIS was investigating efforts by the Communist regime in Beijing to interfere in his favour in the nomination process in which he was a candidate during the election. It being a very partisan, a very political, issue, Justice Hogue obviously won't delve into that aspect. That means it is up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This committee needs to examine the nomination process as well as how it took place to find out who was told about the investigation and who shared the secret and confidential information with a candidate in order to protect them. Justice Hogue won't address that in her report because it's inside information.

It is nonetheless very important for us. It is important for Canadians to know who broke the law, potentially jeopardizing a CSIS investigation in order to help get a Liberal candidate elected.

That is why my colleague's motion calls for the committee to deal with the issue of foreign interference before beginning a new study. As I mentioned, we were willing to consider the new study Mrs. Romanado had asked for. We were having discussions so we could start holding meetings.

Last evening, when the Speaker of the House agreed, he told our colleague Garnett Genuis that the question of privilege he raised was very relevant, that it did indeed require the House of Commons to hold a debate. Everything stopped. It was instantaneous. The Speaker made his decision and the debate instantly turned to that matter of privilege. The debate lasted all evening and we picked it up this morning. The debate lasted for as long as MPs wanted to talk about it, until a motion was unanimously adopted to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Once people were aware of the motion, my colleague Mr. Cooper immediately asked this committee to interrupt its work in order to address it. It was just as immediate as last evening and this morning.

Unfortunately, government members, with the help of the NDP once again, wanted something else. I do not understand why there was unanimous agreement in the House, but they vote against giving the matter priority here.

I will stop here, Mr. Chair. I am concluding my remarks. I would ask you to put my name at the end of the list again please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

A new team of interpreters has to get set up, so we have to suspend for a few minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, may I first propose a motion to adjourn debate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

If we cannot continue discussing this in both official languages, I cannot continue to chair the meeting.

We have to suspend, but we will continue in a few minutes.