Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fergus is correct; it is a very important matter. It is one on which there ought to be consensus. Unfortunately, as I am listening to some of the rhetoric from some members of the committee, it would appear that there is no such consensus, which is very disappointing. I would note that, although it is not new, the Chinese communist regime, Russia, Iran and other foreign state bad actors have interfered in and are interfering in our democracy and in other aspects of Canadian society.

What is new are certain facts pertaining to the following: funnelling at least $250,000, directed by the Chinese consulate in Toronto, to at least 11 candidates; coordinating efforts to install agents within campaigns to try to control the activities of candidates, including who they met with; placing agents in MPs' offices; corrupting Canadian officials; and mounting an aggressive intimidation campaign against elected officials. We have learned—again, this is new—that the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet were briefed about this in January 2022. What we know or believe we know at this time is that no one has been expelled. No charges have been laid. No investigation has been opened. No action has been taken by the Prime Minister. In the face of these very serious instances of interference and of directing funds to try to influence the outcome of an election in 2019, it is incumbent upon us to get to the bottom of this and to do so in a transparent way.

There doesn't appear to be, based upon the comments I've heard from my colleagues, any real objection to the contents of this motion. More than once a point has been raised about the production of documents. Let me say that at this time we don't know what the contents of those documents are, so it's premature to judge that. What the motion provides for is that the law clerk, who has a full national security clearance, could go through them and undertake appropriate redactions in respect of national security or other considerations. I think at this point in time, given that there's much we don't know, it's quite appropriate to leave this in the hands of the law clerk. If the law clerk identifies issues, I'm sure the law clerk will flag those and we as a committee can respond accordingly.

With respect to this motion, the issue is based upon new revelations and based upon briefings the Prime Minister and his cabinet had. We need to do this in an open and transparent way. That's what this motion offers. It provides an appropriate list of witnesses. It's not unreasonable, I believe, in the face of these very serious allegations, to hold four more meetings and to do so as expeditiously as possible, all within the context of this broader study that we are undertaking relating to election interference and foreign interference.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I've listened very quietly and patiently to all of the arguments being made. I appreciate all of the comments of everyone on the committee. From my perspective, any foreign interference in our elections is of concern. That's why all members on this side supported the original motion to study foreign interference in our elections in the first place. We feel it's important.

I agree with Mr. Fergus, though I don't see the fire in the need for Standing Order 106(4) considering we were already engaged in a study on this topic. It could have easily been extended through a good faith discussion, as we've done before. I'm not sure what precipitated this particular meeting or the need for an extra meeting, which obviously disrupts other committee schedules.

Regardless, I would like to make a few comments related to some of the arguments that I've heard, because I feel I need to correct a few things. Based on testimony that we heard—I wasn't at the meeting, but I read the notes—Mr. Marcus Kolga said:

In 2014, those accounts—

He was referring to the Russian government's Twitter accounts.

—were actively doing the same. They were attacking the Harper government on various issues. They are agnostic with regard to any sort of political party. They will sink their fangs into the left and the right, and they will tug on any specific issue until it tears us apart. This is what they do.

It doesn't matter who's in government, whether it's the Conservatives one day, the Liberals the next, the NDP another day, or perhaps the Bloc one day.

He also said that all of the parties, even when they're in opposition, are subject to these types of attacks. It's important for us to recognize that all of the parties, no matter which party is in government, are equally vulnerable to foreign interference. I think that's important.

I would also quote from a November 7 Global News article. Mr. Cooper, unfortunately, spoke only about Conservative candidates being targeted in that article. It reads, “The briefings did not identify the 2019 candidates. But the alleged election interference network included members from both the Liberal and Conservative parties, according to sources with knowledge of the briefs.” I think it's important for us to put that on the record as well.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

To correct the record, the comments that I made, specifically with respect to the Conservative candidates, were based on the information that had been gathered by the rapid response mechanism of Canada at Global Affairs, pertaining to the 2021 election campaign

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That sounds like debate.

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

I'm clarifying, because the comments by the member are misleading based on what I stated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to mention a couple of things for colleagues about the way we handle ourselves. We are limited in time. The committee cannot proceed after one o'clock because of limited resources, so you get to use your time as you like.

It sounds like everyone is saying this is an important topic. Let's have important conversations—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I hadn't finished my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, would you like to finish your comments?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Just to go back to what I was saying, I will go back to Mr. Cooper's opening remarks on this and double-check the record afterwards. Thank you for the point of clarification from him.

I also wanted to mention that despite the fact that, clearly, based on Mr. Kolga's testimony, much of this election interference and disinformation campaign went back to at least 2014 under the Harper government.... In fact, I would just point people to the Library of Parliament briefing, which we were all given and clearly states:

In January 2019, the federal government announced an action plan to safeguard Canada's elections and democratic institutions in anticipation of the October general election that same year. Since then, elements of the plan have been evaluated, and measures have been improved and renewed for subsequent elections.

It details that the plan has “four pillars”, including “enhancing citizen preparedness; improving organizational readiness; combatting foreign interference; and building a safe information ecosystem”. Then it goes into more detail on combatting foreign interference.

It's a mischaracterization for anyone to say that the current government has not taken steps to prevent foreign interference. It in fact has an action plan, and it has set up SITE, which is the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, as well as the G7 rapid response mechanism, and there's more.

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that nothing has been done. I think it's important to put that on the record.

I also agree with Ms. O'Connell when she asks, “Why the focus only on China?” I mean, we've heard testimony from CSIS that had indicated Russia and Iran. It's also in our other briefing documents. I think it's important for us to consider all foreign state actors in terms of interference in our elections. It would I think be important for us to ensure that if we're doing a fulsome study we consider all threat actors.

The last thing I really wanted to say is about paragraph (b) in the motion. I have no problem extending this study and having some additional meetings and additional witnesses. I think it's great. I don't see why we needed a Standing Order 106(4) meeting today to determine that, because we could have done that based on consensus quite easily without this meeting, in my opinion. I do think that paragraph (b) is problematic, which is based on our good faith agreement to finish two other studies, one on hybrid and the other one on precinct security. Those would be overridden by what's been put forward today. I have a real issue with that, because we had a good faith agreement on it and I really don't think it's appropriate for us to now override that.

Certainly, I could see a situation where that might happen if something were extremely urgent, but in this case, we already had decided to do this study. I think we're already in agreement that we could have some additional witnesses and some additional meetings. It just doesn't strike me that this should all of a sudden supervene things or become the highest priority on our agenda when we have two other studies that clearly were priorities before.

We clearly decided to study foreign interference as the third priority. Now we're saying that all of a sudden foreign interference in our elections should be the first priority. Well, we already decided that the priority among those three studies would be to complete the two that were already started and to then move on to this one. That was a good faith agreement that we had. Members on that side had all agreed to that. I'm not sure why they would renege on that agreement now. I think it's important for us to call that out and to actually work through setting our priorities.

That's all I have to say. I do have other things, but I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I previously indicated, I wanted to listen to the comments of colleagues from all political parties before moving an amendment to Mr. Cooper's motion. I listened closely to Mr. Cooper as well, and I think he'll find the amendments I'm going to propose reasonable.

To that end, Madam Chair, after listening to all the members across the way and hearing my colleagues on this side, I'll propose an amendment to the motion, which I have just sent to the clerk in both official languages. Let me read it out.

By this amendment, I move first that paragraph (b) be deleted from Mr. Cooper's motion.

I further move to delete paragraphs (g) to (k). We can determine whether to call more witnesses once we've heard those referred to in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).

I also move that the text of part (l) be amended as follows:

the committee order the production of (i) all relevant briefing notes, memorandums and documents which are in the possession of the relevant government Departments and Agencies, provided that, (ii) the Departments and Agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act, (iii) these redacted documents be deposited as soon as possible with the Clerk of the committee to be distributed to all members of the committee in both official languages.

I think I've captured most of what our colleagues have mentioned around the table. I think there's been some give and take on all of this. I think we will get to what we're trying to get at in an expedited and timely manner, but not such that we will undo our excellent work during the probable three meetings or 10 calendar days that are required for us to finish our work on the other two studies. They have been worked on very assiduously by all members around this table and certainly by our analysts, who have put together an excellent report that we are just at the final stages of considering.

I hope this amendment respects the important will around this table to extend the hearings we currently have and to make sure that we bring forward the right people and leave open the possibility of going even further, depending on what we hear from some of the opening remarks from witnesses. If necessary, we will go further. I hope this will be taken as a good statement.

Madam Chair, I am not the chair, and I am not being presumptuous in suggesting this, but perhaps we could profit from a couple of minutes for members to talk to each other to see if we've found the right way of going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I had Mr. Cooper on the list. Obviously, we're debating the amendment.

Yes, Mr. Calkins.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, Mr. Fergus has provided his amendment to the committee clerk. Perhaps the clerk could provide the proposed amendments to the rest of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I understand that it's been sent around. There's confirmation that it has been received by members. I'm guessing no one wants to have a quick side conversation, so Mr. Cooper—

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

Madam Chair, I have a question before we begin consideration.

I'd like to know why, in his proposed amendment, my colleague wants to delete the part of the motion ordering the production of documents from the offices of all the ministers mentioned: the Prime Minister's Office, the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, the Office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Office of the Minister of Public Safety. Under the proposed amendment, no politician would be held accountable for foreign interference, only departments.

I'd like to know why my colleague deliberately chose to delete the part of the motion specifically stating that all the ministerial offices would be ordered to produce memoranda and relevant documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper, do you want to debate the amendment?

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

The point that Mr. Berthold raised was one I was going to raise as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's perfect.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I want to thank Mr. Berthold for his question.

I have two points to raise.

First of all, as regards the politicians mentioned in Mr. Cooper's proposal, I would note that Dominic LeBlanc and Mélanie Joly are among the first witnesses I would propose to the committee. I added Ms. Thomas from the Privy Council Office, considering her role as national security adviser to the Prime Minister. I thought that was very important. So there are some politicians among these witnesses.

Second, as you can see, I have amended subparagraph (i) so that we would be ordering production of "all relevant briefing notes, memorandums and documents which are in the possession of the relevant government Departments and Agencies". I thought that was more elegant wording, or broader wording, some might say, than what appears in Mr. Cooper's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Is there anybody else who would like to jump into this question?

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

I think we need to suspend briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

There's agreement to have a quick pause. We will suspend really quickly. We'll be right back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Welcome back to PROC. I hope that was a fruitful conversation.

We're going to continue with debate on the amendment. I'm just going to make a quick list, if anybody else wants to join right now.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We are prepared to compromise from a scheduling standpoint. The Liberals seem very insistent on completing the two outstanding studies. We're prepared to get those studies finished. At the same time, we're amenable to shortening the witness list to hear from the witnesses listed in paragraphs (c) through (f), inclusive of (f). Then there will be an opportunity to perhaps call additional witnesses based upon what we learn from the initial witnesses.

However, the real problem, as I see it right now, with the amendment proposed by Mr. Fergus is with respect to the production of documents. As I read Mr. Fergus' amendment, it guts our production request. The issue is this: What does the Prime Minister know and what do ministers know? What were they briefed on? What have they done or not done as a result?

That is the heart of the issue. Mr. Fergus' amendment completely removes the essence, the heart, of what it is we are seeking to get to in order to get answers and learn the truth. This is not about departmental notes. There is a mountain of departmental notes. The issue is what is in the possession and control of the Prime Minister and ministers.

I wouldn't want to impugn the motives of Mr. Fergus, but as it appears on its face, the reason for the amendment and the significant change in wording is an effort, on the part of the Liberals, to cover up what the Prime Minister knew, what ministers were briefed on and what they failed to do as a result.