Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 21st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think that our colleagues were just asking for a copy of the French version of the amendment, rather than for the amendment to be read in French.

I have it in my inbox. If I have it, we all have it. That's perfect.

We can continue.

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

I'm going to read the amendment in French, so that it's clear. As a Quebec MP, bilingualism is extremely important to me. It needs to be respected here, in Parliament.

First, I move that the motion be amended by deleting subparagraphs (c), (h) and (i).

Then, I propose amending subparagraph (l) to add after the word “public” the words “and any other witness the committee members wish to hear from”.

And finally, I propose replacing the words in subparagraph (m) with the following:

(m) order the production of all memoranda, briefing notes and any other relevant documents which are in the possession of government departments or agencies containing information concerning efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to interfere in the 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021 general elections, provided that, (i) the department and agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act; (ii) these redacted documents be deposited as soon as possible with the clerk of the committee to be distributed to all the members of the committee in both official languages.

I'm open to any friendly amendment that Ms. Gaudreau would like to suggest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We have an amendment on the floor.

I'm going to continue with the same list, if that's suitable.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me say that this amendment put forward by Mr. Fergus is an effort to gut the motion that I put forward. It would shield the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's office and ministers in the government who were in relevant portfolios at the time of the 2021 election from accountability and from having to come here to tell this committee—and, through this committee, tell Canadians—what they know about Beijing's interference in the 2021 election campaign.

What we have is a gutting when it comes to the production of documents. I trust the law clerk to make redactions to protect national security. The parliamentary law clerk is someone who has full national security clearance. He is independent. That, for Mr. Fergus, is a problem, because a production process in which the law clerk is left in charge to independently assess issues of national security gets in the way of what Mr. Fergus, I believe, would like to do. That is to cover up the inaction that the Liberals have taken in response to serious interference by Beijing.

They would like to whitewash and hide from this committee material evidence and provide a production that leads to redactions like this or this. How about this, or this? Here's Liberal transparency. Here's another page. Here's some more Liberal transparency for you. It's another blank page. There's another blank page here. There's another blanked-out page there.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I wanted a point of clarification. Mr. Cooper is holding up some pages. I believe that's a prop. I'm not sure.

Maybe you could clarify for us whether members are allowed to hold up props in committee proceedings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, it's interesting that you would ask that. I hear some commentary—perhaps from people who would like to be chair in the future—but the rules that run the House actually do help govern committees as well. We don't do props here.

Mr. Cooper, I believe we've had a somewhat productive meeting. I believe there is some agreement as to where this committee can go with the study, which you state is important. If we genuinely want to find that spot, then we should try to land that spot.

I will provide the floor back to you, but I would really like to avoid having points of order called. We are people who are helping to govern a country. This is really serious stuff.

I will pass you back the floor. I know that you know the rules better than most.

With that, go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Page after page after page of blank pages in the way of production, that's the kind of production Mr. Fergus envisions with what he has put forward in his amendment. That's completely unacceptable. It doesn't do justice to getting to the bottom of what happened.

It's par for the course with the Liberals. We have ministers who come before this committee and claim that they know nothing, that there is nothing to see here, that everything was more or less above board. Oh, there was a little bit of interference, maybe. The Prime Minister, when he was asked about the latest allegations based upon The Globe and Mail's review of CSIS documents, said there should be a hunting down of people at CSIS. That was what his reaction was. He was more concerned that this story was coming to light than expressing any concern about what happened.

What happened was a sophisticated campaign involving illegal cash donations, involving disinformation, involving collusion with political campaigns, and involving officials and diplomats in Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, Mr. Cooper is filibustering when we should be voting. We have a motion before us. We have an amendment before us. We have seven minutes left. I call the question.

If the Conservatives are legitimately concerned, as we are, about the issue of foreign interference, they shouldn't be filibustering out this meeting. They should be allowing the vote so that we can get going on extending the study and calling the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think we can all function, guys. We're all here, as elected officials, on a Tuesday of a constituency week. Opposition members chose to bring us here, so let's get this done.

Mr. Cooper, the floor goes back to you.

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

With the greatest of respect to Mr. Julian, I'm speaking to an amendment to my motion that guts my motion. I am explaining the problems with that. I think that's entirely necessary.

I would just ask, given that we are coming up close to five o'clock, if we could suspend briefly for two or three minutes. We just want to review a few issues with respect to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I have somebody else on the speaking list.

I appreciate your suggestion. It's a question, so I will get a sense of where the room is at.

With that, I will go to Madame Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will help me reflect on the amendment.

I have a question about the proposed amendment.

The original motion, in subparagrah (m), point (i), asks that the documents be deposited with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. The amendment before us asks instead that they be deposited with the clerk of the committee.

What is the difference between a clerk and a law clerk? Legally, which one is officially non-partisan and can give us the facts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I've had a quick conversation with the clerk, and the clerk has confirmed that if the clerk needed to consult with the law clerk, the clerk would do that. It's not necessarily one or the other; it's kind of all in the same entity, to get the information.

Is that an accurate reflection? Thank you.

I hope that answers your question.

I'm not getting an overwhelming desire to see a suspension, but I have come to the end of my list, so I am calling the question on the amendment. I'm going to call the question on the amendment, and then we'll vote on the main motion.

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

No, you didn't ask for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I just called the question, and the clerk will now do the roll call. Thank you.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Cooper never ceded his time.

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

He asked to suspend; you said no, and then you gave his time away. It's unacceptable.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

You can't call the question when a member is seeking the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

My list is exhausted.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

No. You asked us in good faith if you could take a question before there would be a suspension. Mr. Cooper hadn't ceded the floor, but on your urging us to all be adults and to get through this, Mr. Cooper was looking to suspend to consult with other parties to seek a resolution.

If we're going to play dirty tricks.... You need to follow the rules, Madam Chair, and you are not following the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Barrett, first of all, I will not be spoken at. Second of all, you can watch public meetings of this committee on multiple different occasions, and when I have a list and somebody is on the list, they will always get the floor in this committee. When there is agreement to suspend, I will get agreement amongst members to suspend. I did not find that agreement today—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

You didn't canvass the room.