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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.

I do appreciate your willingness to by and large accept the amendment that I'm proposing. I know that in talking to my colleagues from the other parties, a subamendment or two might be needed to clarify some things.

I'm also reminded of an old joke. I wish I could remember which MP said it. I think it was George Baker. He once got up—a Liberal from Newfoundland and Labrador—and asked Mr. Speaker if he could call another member x, y, z, which was unparliamentary language, and the Speaker got up and said, “No, you can't do that.” Then George Baker said “okay” and sat down.

I know you're not impugning my motivations, but let me just defend what I'm saying. I don't think I've gutted the motion at all. As a matter of fact, I think I've enhanced it.

Neither the Prime Minister, nor a minister's office, nor the Prime Minister's Office is on the front lines of making determinations on national security. That always comes up, and it's legislatively required to come up, from the different departments or agencies that are concerned with those matters.

When I put in the amendment that we bring in all relevant documentation that comes from all departments, ministries and bodies responsible for this, I think I made it more open to understanding the information that was seen by cabinet than what was being suggested. It wasn't my intention to gut the motion. It was just about finding a more elegant way of writing it.

That's what's behind the amendment, and I think members will actually end up getting a fuller picture than what was just described in Mr. Cooper's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess the spirit of compromise is only working in one direction. The reality is that the report from Global News published by Sam Cooper back in November specifically listed documents and people. These are the same documents and people appearing in the motion that was put before this committee today.

Mr. Fergus has argued, not only here in public but in the little sidebar conversation we had, about the things that are important to his initiatives. We've compromised on those things. Now he's saying that we don't need the bureaucratic witnesses in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k), which are the ones he's asked us to not consider bringing—

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

I have a point of order.

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

No, this is how I'm interpreting what he said, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

He's making a point of order, Mr. Calkins.

The floor goes to Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, I would like the member to perhaps provide some proof of the allegation that he's making against me, because that's certainly not the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Calkins, I hope you can—

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

I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that the witnesses in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) are, for the most part, political witnesses. The witnesses in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) are largely bureaucratic witnesses.

He's asked for the politicians to come, but not with the documents. He's asked for the bureaucrats to not come, but we can get their documents instead. We're going to have politicians answering from bureaucrats' documents. That's basically where this is going to go. I don't agree with it at all. The crux of the matter to me is the production of those documents.

There is nothing wrong in the language in paragraph (l) of this motion. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility—at least in the opposition—to hold the government to account. There are serious allegations in the news report published by Sam Cooper, which revealed, as said in the motion, that “intelligence officials informed the Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers in January of 2022 that the Chinese Communist Party actively worked to influence the 2019 Federal Election”.

I'll go back to the Parliament that happened before the 2019 election. This very committee had a motion before it to study foreign election interference, and the Liberal majority at the time actually killed it. Now they're in a minority situation and they're scrambling. I know what scrambling looks like when I see it.

The documents that are being asked for here are going to help parliamentarians make a determination of the level and extent of the threat and the abilities of not only the Chinese Communist Party, but, to Mr. Turnbull and Madam O'Connell's point, any foreign state actor that is not working in the best interest of Canada. We need to know as parliamentarians what the actual lay of the land is. Our constituents demand it, and defending our democracy demands that we have this information.

The Liberals seem agreeable, but they are obfuscating with regard to getting any results, having this committee get results and having Parliament and parliamentarians get the information we need to make an informed decision.

If we're not going to come to an agreement on this, we would yield to deleting paragraph (b) and we would yield on paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k). However, we will not yield on the amendment to paragraph (l) or anything about that matter. Otherwise, I will work with my colleague from the NDP, who in my opinion is reasonable in suggesting that seven days might not be long enough. I'll let her make that argument if she wishes to. We need to have these documents before Christmas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to once again say that committee members will be leaving me with no choice regarding what has to happen after one o'clock, because I've been clear about the resources that are available.

With that, we'll go to Ms. Blaney and then Ms. O'Connell.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

In light of that, I will be brief.

I don't have any subamendments to make. We'll just leave this as it is. I do think we should vote for this separately, though. It sounds to me like there's a very clear message that we have three different parts. That's something I would like to provide feedback on.

I also want to say that I am concerned about information coming through our committee that could harm us in the future in terms of elections. I'm still not 100% convinced that this is the right place to do this. It should perhaps be done at NSICOP. I'll leave that for people to determine.

I also want to say that regardless of how we vote on this, there has to be some honesty from the ministers coming before us. If we don't hear it at this table when they're sitting in front of us, I think we'll have some other discussions that might be a bit harder. I want to hopefully have the Liberals share with their ministers that we want to know what is happening. We need to have some level of transparency so that our constituents understand what's happening.

We cannot lose faith in our systems. If there's a problem with our systems, we must fix it immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll follow up on what Ms. Blaney just talked about. I agree that there has to be transparency, but what we risk in this forum is providing the same transparency to the foreign state actors that we want to prevent from having this information. This is precisely why we created NSICOP. It's why we have an agreement with the parties to create a system for the review of redacted documents by people who have the right security clearance.

There is a suggestion that we have to produce these documents, or they have to be done a certain way. Is this not, to Ms. Blaney's point—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I see that we're getting close to one o'clock. I note that there isn't consent from the committee to adjourn at one o'clock, but in foreshadowing that this discussion will probably not wrap up in the next 30 seconds, perhaps as a compromise we could resume this meeting tomorrow during our regular committee time slot. We could suspend until tomorrow at 11 o'clock, resume this meeting and then potentially adjourn to the subcommittee if there's time tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you.

If you're going to rule to adjourn, I'd like to have my spot continued in this order. I'd like to continue speaking, but I'll go as long as I can until you cut me off or until I'm finished.

I think that the issue is, again, not about continuing the study. The issue is about handling the documents with care. In the past, the Conservatives have not cared about maintaining national security protections. I think Ms. Blaney's comments are exactly right. We want this information, but we also don't want it in the hands of the people who want it most, to be quite honest. There needs to be a way for all parties that have the proper clearance to have this information, but doing it in an open forum is counterproductive to the very real issues of foreign interference.

On the point about witnesses, every study is based on how committees move forward and bring forward their witnesses. I don't see why the Conservatives are focused on predetermining things and boxing this committee into specific witnesses at this time.

To what Mr. Fergus said, I heard clearly—I may be paraphrasing, because I didn't write it down—that we should hear from these first witnesses in paragraphs (c) through (f) and then determine who the next round of witnesses should be or would be.

The suggestion by Mr. Calkins was that politicians are answering for bureaucrats, but that was never the suggestion. It was to hear the testimony and see where that goes, and then as a committee determine who would be best to bring forward next. I don't think it's in anybody's interest in this committee, with the limited hours and resources we have, to box ourselves into not being able to open this up to the type of testimony we need.

I think the assertions are completely inaccurate, based on the conversations that have happened here on ensuring that we have the ability to call further witnesses. The subcommittee can look at that, with the regular process of each party determining and putting forward their best set of witnesses.

Again, I think if we're willing to be open and talk about how best to handle these documents, I don't think Mr. Fergus's amendment did anything to limit that. He said we wanted all relevant information. At the end of the day, these documents are not owned by ministers' offices. They're owned by the departments that produced them, so his amendment did nothing to restrict things. In fact, as he said, it probably made what is relevant within the motion more broad.

I worry. If we're going to have a serious conversation about foreign interference and the safety of our democratic institutions, we need be very honest about intentions here. If this is just an attempt by the Conservatives to get redacted documents and then say to Canadians, “They're hiding something”.... Mr. Cooper said that the government has done nothing on this and the Prime Minister has done nothing. He has no basis to make such a suggestion. He's never seen the documents. The information he has seen in the public realm is about things we've put in place.

Our government put in place the panel that discusses foreign interference during elections. Our government put in place the SITE committee, which provides all parties with information. There's this notion about what Canadians want to know and about how candidates protect themselves. Those are very real concerns. If you look on the CSIS website and the CSE website, they provide information on how Canadians and political parties can protect themselves and what to look out for. There is information out there. I think we should talk about it.

I think more Canadians should be thinking about cybersecurity, and political institutions need to ensure that we're protecting ourselves. However, I also think it's really important to note that attempts to influence our elections do not necessarily mean that they were successful. That's the point of the non-partisan panel: to make that determination so that it's not political when one political party over the other may have a reason to benefit in a particular instance, because it's true that all parties are targeted.

I think it's really important to note that if we're going to have these conversations, the worst thing we can do is have these ridiculous gotcha moments when it comes to producing national security documentation and the handling of it. That's not to say the information shouldn't be available, but the handling of it has to be done in a secure, safe way so that we're not providing it to the very actors who would love to have this info.

I don't know where we're going to go in terms of the back-and-forth in figuring this out, but I think the handling of these documents is important and it's worth continuing that conversation. Let's make sure the information is there and that we do so in a way that protects our national security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau.

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

Madam Chair, I have a request. I think we showed that we members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were capable of moving forward. My understanding was that we still had a few minutes left. I also want to thank the interpreters and all those people who are working so we can continue our meeting.

I leave it up to you to make good decisions and to propose something to us, having regard to the fact that we have five weeks left before Christmas and our committee will have a major task ahead of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to clarify what's going on here.

All the parties are having a very interesting discussion in an attempt to find a way to proceed that will help us get answers to the questions asked, not by the members of the official opposition or other opposition parties, but rather by Canadians, regarding foreign interference, particularly as a result of this article that Global News published on November 7.

While the people watching us may not have seen it, the parties are nevertheless having a major discussion in an attempt to come up with a compromise. The official opposition wasn't at all reluctant to introduce its motion, and we're prepared to work with it to get to the bottom of this matter and advance the analysis.

The Liberals have moved an amendment that has led us to change our position. We don't agree on everything they propose, and that's precisely why they'd like to force a vote on an amendment that doesn't work for us at the very moment we're trying to discuss it.

The official opposition and other opposition parties have shown that they're sincerely and genuinely amenable to the idea of advancing and shedding light on the serious events that occurred during that 2019 election. I would recall that a foreign regime knowingly organized and funded activities designed to directly influence the results of elections here in Canada. According to the Global News article, 11 candidates were directly targeted.

It's in the interest of all Canadians that we determine exactly what the Prime Minister, the ministers named in the motion and their offices knew. To do that, we must have access to the documents we've requested and set a deadline for their production. Unfortunately, if we proceed too quickly to a vote, we may lose our chance and cause discontent in the committee.

I think we should continue talking and trying to convince the party in power, the Liberals, of our goodwill. We're prepared not to demand that this study take priority over the other two, which is a major concession. We're also prepared to withdraw half of the names from the list of witnesses we wanted to call first, which is another major concession. However, there can be no compromise on one point, and I believe people will understand this: we want to know what the ministers and their offices knew about this situation. That's what we're seeking in our motion.

So we're showing considerable openness. People may try to portray us as blinkered individuals who refuse to change, but that isn't true. We want answers for Canadians. We want to reassure voters and to be able to tell them that no foreign country, not even the Chinese communist regime in this instance, can step on their toes or undermine their legitimate right to express themselves and choose their representatives. We owe it to the Chinese Canadian community. People must be able to exercise their right to vote without undue influence or intimidation from any regime in the world whatsoever. However, we won't be able to give them that assurance unless we have all the necessary information and can disseminate it.

It's also important to bear in mind that, when it comes to elections, it's solely up to Canadians to determine what's right for them to know. We're talking about their fundamental right.

I believe my colleague wants the floor, Madam Chair. I promise to yield to her shortly.

I will close by saying this: if there's one thing in which transparency must be widespread and automatic, it is elections. Elections are the basis of our system, of our democracy. However, if we begin to conceal from Canadians what we consider irrelevant information about how foreign countries interfere in our elections, it will unfortunately undermine their trust in that democratic process.

For that reason, I ask that the committee take into consideration all the concessions that have been made. We are prepared to move forward, and we want to move forward, but we must ensure that Canadians have access to all the information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Madam Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. I apologize to my colleague. I was just trying to get the chair's attention. I wasn't trying to disrupt him.

My perspective is that we just need to call this to a vote. I heard very clearly that we have only a few weeks left. We need to get on this study. We need to make sure that it's done. I just hope you will call the vote so we can get this done.

Tomorrow our subcommittee can meet with a good strategy to make sure this study is a priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to suggest one very small subamendment, which is about the documents to be deposited. The motion says within one week. I don't think that's actually possible.

Could we just agree that it should be as soon as possible but not exceed 30 days? I think that would be more reasonable, actually.