Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Turnbull, I'm sorry to interrupt. You're welcome to start again, but while you're in the process of reading the motion, it would be very helpful to the committee if you could send that to the clerk in both official languages so that it can be distributed.

Feel free to begin where you'd like, but the clerk has informed me that she doesn't have that yet. If you could instruct your staff to get that sent as soon as possible so that members can follow it, I would appreciate it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

They've heard you. It will be sent momentarily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. The floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

I'll start from the top in terms of the witnesses we would like to have included here:

1) Patrick Brown, Mayor of Brampton;

2) Dan Muys, MP for Flamborough—Glanbrook;

3) the Honourable Michelle Rempel Garner, MP for Calgary Nose Hill;

4) Kyle Seeback, MP for Dufferin—Caledon;

5) Doug Shipley, MP for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte;

6) Jaskaran Sandhu, one of the campaign managers for Patrick Brown; and

7) Harkirat Singh, the other campaign manager for Patrick Brown.

I want to speak to this for a few moments, just to motivate committee members on why I think they should vote for this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull. I have a point of order.

Mr. Duncan, go ahead.

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

As a very basic decency—this is not Mr. Turnbull's first meeting—we need to wait to get the motion. Can we suspend until we get that and speak to it, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

In fairness to the committee, I don't disagree with Mr. Duncan. It has been my practice, when members have read motions that have not yet been distributed, to suspend in order to allow an opportunity for review.

I will now suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, everybody now has a copy in both official languages, so we will resume debate.

Just for clarity, we are debating an amendment to Mr. Cooper's motion.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I have a point of order from Mr. Berthold.

Go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I just received my colleague Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I'm reading it as I speak.

It seems clear to me that this amendment can't be deemed in order, given the motion of November 26 relating to Bill C‑65 and specifically relating to the documents discussed and produced as part of the discussions on Bill C‑65.

In the amendment proposed by my colleague, I don't see anything relevant in this regard, nor do I see any connection with the November 26 motion.

Honestly, I think you have to rule this amendment inadmissible for all the reasons I've just mentioned.

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

On the same point of order, Chair, if you look at the Conservative motion, the language is identical in the amendment. This is a motion on Bill C-65. Within Bill C-65 there are provisions and amendments dealing with foreign interference. While the Conservatives might be asking questions about documents, within their requests for documents on Bill C-65—which is broad—on the entire bill, there could be conversations around the development of Bill C-65 dealing with foreign interference. They do not target their questioning or their document production specifically at the date of the election. They ask for everything, which means it includes foreign interference, a key component of this bill. The language of the amendment is the exact same in terms of the calling of witnesses as their first clauses.

Unfortunately, they didn't limit the scope to the election date. They have the scope as the entire Bill C-65, which includes foreign interference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

On the same point of order, I have Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate my colleagues' comments.

First of all, I appreciate that this is an example of how we bring forward strengthened amendments that are more holistic in nature. I agree with the first amendment that was brought forward. I think this addition makes the motion even stronger. I think these are all very relevant points if we're talking about the transparency of documents and the transparency of information—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, not to cut you off, but if I may, I feel prepared to rule on this. I've heard the arguments made. I see no reason why this is not admissible, which I think is what you're getting at. For the benefit of the committee, I would like to keep going.

Did you have something else to add, Ms. Barron?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I was just going to ask to be added to the speaking list on the next—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I have you on the speaking list.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, my ruling on this is that it is admissible.

Mr. Duncan.

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

I'm sorry. [Inaudible—Editor] the speaking list.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't understand what you said. Is it admissible or inadmissible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

It is admissible.

Mr. Duncan asked me to confirm the speaking order. The speaking order—

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

I'm challenging your decision, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

I have a challenge of my decision, colleagues, so this goes right to a vote.

Just as a reminder, we are voting on whether or not my decision from a moment ago, which rules the amendment to Mr. Cooper's motion admissible, should be overturned. I've ruled that it's admissible. Monsieur Berthold has chosen to challenge the chair.

Clerk, we will go right to a vote on that.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

Colleagues, I think the vote there was clear, so we're resuming debate.

Mr. Duncan did ask for a confirmation of the speaking order. The speaking order changes, of course, because we are on the amendment.

I have Mr. Turnbull, who maintains the floor, followed by Ms. Barron. Should any other members wish to add their names to this list, they can at any moment indicate that.

Mr. Duncan, I see that you wish to be added. You would be third in that order.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I was on this committee for about four years of my political life here on the Hill. We studied foreign interference at length. I'm very proud of the work our government has done to prevent against foreign interference. I think Bill C-65 actually tries to do more in this area.

What really concerns me is that the Conservative Party of Canada know full well that there was foreign interference in their leadership race. The current committee for parliamentarians, NSICOP, which was formed by our government, has at least one member from the Conservative Party on it. We had Alex Ruff at this committee, speaking to his private member's bill, not so long ago. He actually said that all members of Parliament should be required to get a security clearance. That is really interesting and slightly ironic, if not hypocritical, given the fact that the Conservative leader is the only federal party leader to not get a top secret security clearance while knowing full well that within his party and within his leadership race there was foreign interference.

The NSICOP report alleges that there was Indian government interference in the Conservative Party leadership race. I've cited this report and tweeted about it numerous times, because I'm deeply concerned, as the Conservatives were concerned back when Han Dong.... There were intelligence leaks that the Conservatives quickly jumped on to have Mr. Dong questioned in committee and to undertake studies on foreign interference here. They took that matter very seriously at that time because it was a Liberal member of Parliament whose name was in question, yet they show zero concern and zero interest in undertaking the same kind of scrutinizing study and in looking at it deeply.

They have lectured us time and time and time again on this quote that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Transparency and sunlight are the best disinfectants, but this only applies to everybody else, not to themselves. They do not want this. They scrambled in this committee room. We watched them all scramble and huddle up, because they were scared like little rats on a ship.

Do you know what? I watched that happen. Why would they be so concerned about their party finally being exposed for the actual foreign interference that's been within their party? It's interesting, because they show this deep interest. For partisan gain, they will fake their interest in almost anything. That's what we've seen in the House of Commons for many, many months.

We know that the NSICOP report has allegations of Indian government interference in the Conservative Party leadership race. Just recently, we actually confirmed this. We've actually now confirmed this. Media reports have confirmed that within Patrick Brown's campaign....

It's interesting, because there are things that are connected here. I can't quite figure out what the connections are, but I think Canadians should be deeply concerned. On the one hand, we know that the current leader of the Conservative Party's campaign actually paid the legal fees for the person who reported allegations against Patrick Brown. What's interesting is that they paid the legal fees. That seems kind of strange. Why would one campaign pay the legal fees of the person who took down the opponent, right? That's been out there for a long time.

On the one hand, that's the case. On the other hand, we hear that the Indian government was actually pressuring MP Rempel Garner to step down from the campaign of Patrick Brown. Why? It was because it wasn't in her interest to stay connected with Patrick Brown. It's almost as if the Indian government knew that Patrick Brown wasn't going to be in the running for much longer. They were encouraging her to abandon ship, because it wasn't good for her political career, which is really interesting.

Just recently, when Patrick Brown finally came to the SECU committee—I know that my colleague Ms. O'Connell was there and questioned Patrick Brown—we heard a number of things. The media headlines were clear: Patrick Brown actually confirmed that there were “angry” calls from consular officials.

This was confirmed by not just one person. Actually, five people—sources in Patrick Brown's campaign—confirmed that there was pressure, that it was well known that there was pressure, from the Indian government or Indian consular officials and the consul general, for Ms. Rempel Garner to basically abandon ship and remove herself from Patrick Brown's campaign.

It's interesting, because she actually did remove herself. She subsequently said that she was considering running in Alberta to replace Jason Kenney shortly after. Funnily enough, she decided not to do that, but she never actually went back to Patrick Brown's campaign. That is highly suspicious, if you ask me. It really piqued my interest, certainly.

I think all Canadians should be interested, just as they were interested before, when in a nomination contest there were questions and allegations made about a Liberal member and whether there was any foreign interference in that nomination contest. I've never seen the Conservatives so excited and so interested in jumping on this issue.

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

I have a point of order.