Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2023

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of Mr. Julian's proposal that he will bring forward tomorrow, I think that the ask for a public inquiry is one that can definitely be explored as well. Once again, I think this committee should get back to the work we have planned for tomorrow. Something like that could end up becoming a recommendation that this committee could provide in its final report on foreign interference.

In terms of the amendment that has just been brought forward by Mr. Julian—and I like Mr. Julian a lot, so I don't criticize just for the sake of criticizing—I want to point out that once again I feel as though I'm having déjà vu and we're having the same type of discussion we had last week on these issues, except now, unfortunately, Mr. Julian is taking a different side of the issue, or a contradictory side, if I may say so.

Just the other day, when we went through a motion very similar to what Mr. Cooper has brought forward today, Mr. Julian sided with the position of not bringing forward or inviting staff. I can actually quote many things that were said in that meeting and many things on which I agreed with him then, and still do, in part. I just don't know which frame of thought Mr. Julian is bringing on any given day, because he did caution this committee against inviting staff.

He wanted to cite a number of people for the record and, Madam Chair, if you remember, you permitted him to quote many other people on this issue around having political staff being brought forward to testify, as opposed to ministers. He said they should come forward to explain what they did, what they knew and what actions they'd taken to ensure that whatever circumstance had occurred does or doesn't happen again. He quoted a former House leader, stating, “There is a clear case to be made that the accountability of political staff ought to be satisfied through ministers. Ministers ran for office and accepted the role and responsibility of being a minister. Staff did not.” Mr. Julian quoted that day from former Conservative government House leader Jay Hill.

Then he moved on to name another member, a cabinet minister. He said:

we believe that cabinet ministers are responsible for what happens in their names and responsible to Parliament. This is called ministerial responsibility and it is one of the oldest traditions here in our country.

The Liberal leader wants to do away with this tradition. Instead, he wants to import a foreign U.S. committee system that is used as a political weapon to bully, to intimidate, and to humiliate opponents, something that I believe should never happen.

Ministerial accountability is the reason why cabinet ministers answer questions in question period and it is why they appear before committees to answer for their offices.

We hope that all opposition committee chairs will follow the rules and procedures.

This is the member for Grande Prairie—MacKenzie, who is the current Conservative deputy whip, who was being quoted about the importance of not involving staff but of ensuring ministerial responsibility.

Then he even went as far as reading a third quote, which I still agree with, stating that this was a very germane conversation and, “the hon. member knows very well that for hundreds of years, the principle of ministerial accountability has been paramount here in the House and in its committees.” This member was speaking again of the idea of inviting political staff rather than ministers. That final quote is from the member for Carleton, who is currently, as you know, the leader of the official opposition in the House of Commons.

Though Conservatives have said very eloquently in the past that we should not have political staff brought forward and that the issue of ministerial accountability is fundamental, and Mr. Julian then agreed with them. I have to say that I'm disappointed to see that Mr. Cooper has gone down that road again, and now Mr. Julian has switched sides and is also going down that same road of wanting to bring in staff instead of the accountable ministers and those who are in charge.

Once again, I have to state that I think we're onto something. We were on a good roll. Our meeting today was a great meeting. We had a really good meeting today. I could tell that everyone was eager to ask questions. I know that I have many more questions. I'd even be happy to have some of those same panellists from today come before us again, because they are the ones with knowledge as to what is happening in the foreign interference realm in this country. They are the ones who can best identify gaps.

From what we have just received, again, from the public protocol committee, we have many recommendations. I think that's something our committee could look at as well. I think on page 45 or so of the report, for those who have the report and are following along or who are intending to read through it, we have a good 16 really great recommendations from people who have good knowledge as to how we can better safeguard our democracy. I think we should also incorporate that report. Many of us have probably read it. We should debate and bring forward witnesses to discuss how they feel, perhaps, about some of these recommendations that are in the report, and whether they agree or disagree with them.

I think that's how we should move forward, ideally, so that we get value out of what is happening and not just headlines. I'm afraid that what we're doing is just chasing headlines right now. What we're not doing is making sure that whether it's in the grand scheme of the general election or whether it's in an individual riding.... I know that this is the point of contention here, and that this is what Mr. Cooper and others and we all want to fight for and we all want to see not happen.

This is not the only time. I'm not just saying this off the top of my head. You can go ahead and google many other news articles on foreign interference taking place, whether it's in the election context or whether it's in between elections, to intimidate members of Parliament. In many countries that's taken place, and those types of activities.

I think it's really important that we keep abreast of them but that we do it in a very balanced way and that the public understands this in a responsible and balanced way. What we're seeing right now, through what I would say also.... There are some failures. I think it's great that the media and many journalists have brought the issue to light, but I think they bear some responsibility in the way they report the issues as well. I think we all bear some responsibility.

My colleague Mr. Gerretsen just said that it was a very irresponsible move for Mr. Calkins to have already decided that one of our members of the House of Commons is a foreign actor or agent. It just goes to show once again that we are coming at this from a very “minds made up” type of situation. We're not coming at it from an honest place, where we want to put in place a system that builds upon the system that our government has already put forward.

We've already taken steps. We are the first government that's properly acknowledging this and putting together a framework to address this issue. Is it enough? No. That's what we're realizing: It wasn't enough. These are initial steps.

This has never been done before. We are in an area where, yes, foreign interference has always been a thing, and that's what we're hearing from all our security advisers, but we're also hearing that there might be an increase from some actors over others. How do we go about protecting our institutions in a day of social media, which also wasn't a reality?

I can recall that in my 2015 election, social media were important, but not as important as they had become by the time the 2019 election rolled out and then by the time the 2021 election rolled out. It makes us all the more susceptible in our institutions, and it makes our election process more susceptible to the information that gets shared on these social media platforms or through WeChat or WhatsApp. We've all seen a lot of false information being spread. A lot of times, we don't know the origins of that information, and at times we've also read in many reports that the origins of that information come from abroad or through bots run by foreign actors.

What we need to get to the core of is, how do we not let that situation happen again? I think we all agree that interference has occurred. We have been told what level of interference there was and whether it rises to the point of making an impact on the general election or not. We, as a committee, can now change that framework, right? We can at least recommend to have that framework changed. If we think the threshold needs to be changed on all of those things, we can do that, and we have the knowledge and the people with the expertise at our disposal to come forward before this committee.

Once again, it is a public forum. Perhaps the government moves in a direction of a public inquiry in the future. Perhaps that's also something that we will recommend at the end of our report. I'm open to all of those discussions, but I think what we're doing right now is having an intermission, I feel, in the middle of our study, which is a valuable study.

I think we can discuss having more meetings so that we can accommodate redistribution and we can accommodate this extremely important topic, but I think that the way we are going about it, pretending and fooling ourselves that we can somehow receive all these unredacted documents and then also drag in all the staff who have ever served....

I have to thank Mr. Julian. At least he is to some degree being non-partisan and trying to bring in staff from both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. That's a good step forward, but it can still leave me a little confused, because I think the principle was that the ministers are accountable and that the heads of departments, the deputy ministers, are extremely knowledgeable. That's what we should be doing: We should be having a very serious discussion about this and not just trying to make headlines and scare Canadians about foreign interference in a very irresponsible way.

I feel that we are headed down that path of irresponsibility, and once we go too far.... Well, you know what has happened in other countries. I feel that if we go too far and exaggerate what is happening to the point where we devalue our own institutions, then we are going to have quite the reckoning in the coming years. It is up to us to protect our institutions. I'm not saying to keep them the same and I'm not saying “don't improve things” and I'm not saying to let foreign interference be, to let it occur; I'm saying “let's identify it”, which is what we have been doing. Let's identify the gaps and let's move forward. Let's fix this so that we don't have an increase in these types of incidents.

That's how I think we should all be coming together to approach this matter, this serious issue. Most of the articles and things that I am reading express concern, and constituents I've spoken to are concerned. They are worried about this, as am I. I am worried about this—this information.

I've been on this committee for a long time. There are a lot of things that keep me up at times. One of the main things is the stability and integrity of our democracy, and making sure that we continue to protect our democracy, because I truly believe in a democratic system. We are seeing authoritarian states emerge quite rapidly all around us, and I don't want to see us go down a path that leads us to end up destabilizing our own system. We should be very cautious, perhaps even about the influences that might be encouraging us to go down that path. Be mindful and be wary of why we're doing these things and of what you want as the end outcome.

If the end outcome is just “I want some flashy headlines”, “I want the Prime Minister to look bad” or “I want to be in power”, okay, because that's what it seems like. However, if the end outcome is, regardless of who is in government—and it could be anyone tomorrow—that we want to make sure that we continue to have strong, fair and free elections....

That is something that Mr. Rosenberg's report has indicated. It said we had a fair and free election, but it didn't deny the fact that there was interference. I don't think anyone is denying that, nor is anyone looking to bury that or walk away from that fact. That's still my position.

I'm going to have a hard time flip-flopping now and going back to supporting this amendment, because we've made it quite clear that we were all on a similar page. The Liberal members and even Mr. Julian were on a similar page when it came to not inviting staff and making sure that the ministers were those who were accountable.

I think this is becoming too sensationalized, and that's not the approach we should be taking in this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mrs. Sahota.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the amendment by my colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby, a great parliamentarian with years of experience. He is someone I have a lot of respect for.

Like my colleague for Brampton North, I have some reservations. I must say that I find it fascinating to see how quickly positions have changed on the need to invite staff of ministers or of the Prime Minister to appear. It almost gave me whiplash.

I clearly recall, at our last meeting, my colleague from British Columbia speaking very eloquently about ministerial responsibility being an important tradition. The principle is that ministers are responsible for their political staff. We were looking, at the time, at a motion tabled by my dear colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton, which was also aimed at inviting the chief of staff to the Prime Minister to appear. The motion was worded almost exactly the same as the one we are looking at today. The committee rejected that portion of the motion, however, mainly because of the fine and very relevant points made by my colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby, who said that we had to avoid inviting political staff. He quoted Jay Hill, former government leader in the House of Commons for the Conservative Party, and Mr. Poilievre, when he was a minister in Mr. Harper’s government. He had set out a clear argument.

I’m therefore surprised at this sudden change of position. If Mr. Julian has the opportunity to do so, I would like him to take note of my question and tell me the reason for this change of heart, when he was saying just last week that it was not acceptable.

I do like a portion of his amendment, however. For members who do not have the clearance to access top secret documents, it would be useful to have a system similar to the one we had for documents from the Public Health Agency of Canada. I am ready to examine that portion.

We must find a way to ensure that we are not jeopardizing the people working in national security and intelligence while keeping the confidence of our allies who send us intelligence and, most importantly, we must make sure that countries that are not allies do not gain access to these documents and determine where the intelligence comes from, which could jeopardize the brave women and men who serve our country or our allies. Our main objective and our ultimate responsibility as parliamentarians is to protect the interests of Canadians and our great country.

I would like Mr. Julian to clarify something for me. He began his comments by saying that the best solution was to have a national public inquiry into these issues. In that non-partisan inquiry, secret information would be protected and we would get to the bottom of this situation to determine the extent of foreign interference in this country by not only China, but also other countries, like Russia, that are causing us trouble. Not only have these countries interfered in elections, but they have also influenced events such as the occupation of Ottawa. Their actions have also had an impact on people who have been victims of misinformation.

All of this is intended to weaken our democratic institutions. Those countries know that our country's secret ingredient is the fact that everyone has the opportunity and the freedom to express themselves. This is very important. Those countries do not respect freedom of expression, but they take advantage of that freedom to spread misinformation. Through that misinformation, they want to weaken the democratic debate that is going on in Canada and in other democratic countries around the world.

I like the idea of holding a public inquiry. If this committee decides to support my colleague's motion or to make a recommendation to hold a public inquiry, that would be great. However, I want to get clarifications on something. If we get this tool, does that mean that an end will be put to all the studies on this subject that are currently being conducted by our committee, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, by the non-partisan committee responsible for considering the issue and by the committee on China? After all, there are four parliamentary committees in the House of Commons that are carrying out studies on the same topic. I would like to know if the idea proposed by my colleague—that is, to hold a public inquiry—means that these other inquiries will end. That does not make sense. There is a first duplication and then a second one. It's like my Conservative colleagues like to say: triple, triple, triple the inquiries on the same subject. It doesn't make sense.

I would like to understand my colleague's intent a little better. I hope he will be kind enough to clarify that for me, for everyone around this table and for all Canadians listening to this debate at home.

This is a debate of fundamental importance. We are all concerned about this issue.

Under the best of circumstances, Canada and Parliament have been able to act independently of the petty interests of respective political parties. We have seen that a number of times, including at the beginning of the pandemic. All political parties and all members of Parliament rose to the challenge and rose to the occasion. It touched my heart deeply. We had targeted a common threat, the virus, and everyone did their part to help Canadians. Members of the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party all did a remarkable job. We were proud to work together, in every province and territory, from coast to coast to coast.

Once again, we are faced with a common threat, one that puts the health, sustainability and integrity of our democratic institutions at risk. These institutions deserve everyone's efforts.

I have been working here on the Hill for a long time. I arrived here in 1988. I remember when Mr. Bouchard left the Conservative caucus to form the Bloc Québécois. I remember very well the debates that took place outside Quebec. People wondered why some were dedicated to breaking up our country and questioned their place in the federal Parliament. Yes, I was a staunch federalist. Yes, I am a staunch Liberal. But I have always defended everyone's right to hold any viewpoint, and I will do so for the rest of my life. It is important. If a person can convince their fellow citizens to vote for them, they deserve their place in Parliament.

I say this because I believe it is much better to have discussions than to resort to violence. Our political institution—

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I really like what my colleague is saying. It's interesting for me to hear him remind us of the history of the Bloc Québécois' existence on Parliament Hill, but we may be getting a little off topic.

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

I want to reassure my dear colleague: If I’m saying all this, it’s to highlight that it’s in the common interest of all Canadians to defend and protect our political institutions. Canadians have a right to do so. It’s our duty as parliamentarians to set aside our individual interests and make sure we can defend our political institutions from foreign interference.

This is therefore an invitation I’m extending to my colleagues.

I have no problem with maintaining a parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, currently, some colleagues seem unable to set aside their partisan interests. I say that with all due respect for my colleagues. Indeed, commentators in the political world even noted it.

That is why I really like my British Columbian colleague’s idea of asking for a public inquiry. In fact, it could be a way of eliminating partisanship from an inquiry into the sources and extent of political interference in Canada’s democratic institutions.

My colleague from Kingston and the Islands mentioned that one of our colleagues had accused another of being an agent for another country. I just found out about it, and I was disappointed as well. Indeed, that runs counter to the House of Commons Standing Orders. We have no right to sow doubt about another member’s character. All members are honourable members. Saying that someone is serving another country goes well beyond what we expect in terms of an acceptable debate in the House. I hope that colleague will withdraw the tweet or video on social media. If he doesn’t do so publicly, I hope he will at least have the decency to call the member he insulted and apologize privately. Let’s hope so. I’m sure the member is an honourable man. Going off the rails can happen from time to time, but I hope he will apologize.

Recently, I myself apologized to Canadians. I didn’t mince words. My apology was entirely sincere. It’s important to say that anyone can make mistakes, that’s not a problem. What we do afterwards and the way we react to a situation really give the measure of a person’s character.

We have an opportunity here to set aside our partisan interests and act in citizens’ common interest, regardless of their origins and political affiliations. This is a key moment in our history. I hope we will decide to look for the truth rather than defend overly narrow interests.

I’m concerned about another aspect of my colleague Mr. Julian’s amendment.

Excuse me, I think I have the wrong document in front of me. I seem to have lost it, but there was something else in the amendment that drew my concern.

Wait, I think I have the right version of the amendment in electronic format.

Actually, I’m grateful to Mr. Julian for suggesting we look into the possibility that there was foreign interference in our country during the 2011 and 2015 general elections, as well as those in 2019 and 2021. I think it makes sense, especially since we’ve observed a disinformation trend for some time, since the beginning of social media. That’s what national security experts and those who gather national intelligence said when I asked them the question. They said it started well before 2019. It became evident after 2016, but it did indeed exist before then.

The amendment therefore proposes that we look into "efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to interfere in the 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021 general election". I think that’s a significant improvement with respect to the main motion proposed by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

As for inviting political staff, as I said, it doesn’t reflect the principle of ministerial responsibility, which is part of a long tradition in the British parliamentary system.

I’ve just been informed that I was touching my mic while speaking, so I apologize to the interpreters. I hope I didn’t cause them any problems. I’ll do everything I can to keep my hands in front of me and not play with the mic.

I’d like to seize this opportunity to express, on behalf of all the members here, our deep gratitude to the interpreters and all members of the House of Commons staff. They work tirelessly to support us, not just during this late evening meeting, but every day.

As I said at the beginning, August will mark the 35th anniversary of my move here to the region. I started working at Parliament as a page, and I haven’t left the Hill for 35 years. Every day, I’m very grateful to the Parliamentary Precinct staff, who do their best to make sure members can do their work and serve Canadians well. I congratulate and thank them.

Let’s come back to the subject.

So, I was talking about ministerial responsibility. There’s a part of the amendment that leaves me a little cold. It’s point i in part b), which invites Ms. Katie Telford, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, and Ms. Tausha Michaud, the former official opposition leader’s Chief of Staff, to appear before the committee. Again, there’s some inconsistency.

I’ll quote what Mr. Julian said last week. Unfortunately, I don’t have the French version on hand, but here’s the English version:

I caution on the issue of inviting staff. I wanted to cite a number of people for the record, Madam Chair, if you'll permit me. Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did and what they knew, and what actions they've taken to ensure that this never happens again.

First, Mr. Julian quoted a former leader of the government in the House:

There is a clear case to be made that the accountability of political staff ought to be satisfied through ministers. Ministers ran for office and accepted the role and responsibility of being a minister. Staff did not.

Mr. Julian quoted the former Albertan Conservative member, Jay Hill, who became leader of the Maverick Party in Alberta, which is demanding independence for that province.

Mr. Julian then quoted a second member:

Mr. Speaker, we believe that cabinet ministers are responsible for what happens in their names and responsible to Parliament. This is called ministerial responsibility and it is one of the oldest traditions here in our country.

We are talking here about the principle of ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Julian then continued to quote the member:

Ministerial accountability is the reason why cabinet ministers answer questions in question period and it is why they appear before committees to answer for their offices.

We hope that all opposition committee chairs will follow the rules and procedures....

He quoted the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, currently the official opposition’s deputy whip in the House of Commons.

Mr. Julian concluded his statement with the following quote, which is really the icing on the cake, in my opinion:

The hon. member knows very well that for hundreds of years, the principle of ministerial accountability has been paramount here in the House and in its committees.

Mr. Julian was quoting the member for Carleton, Mr. Poilievre, when he was a minister in Mr. Harper’s government. He is now leader of the official opposition. I hope he has many years, or even decades, to master the role.

For all those reasons, I take issue with the amendment of point i, part b), in my colleague’s proposal.

We have here an opportunity to make sure we do our job and do it without overlap, duplication or even triple, triple, triple, as conservative members habitually say dozens of times a day in the House of Commons. It makes me wonder if they accumulate points every time they say it.

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

Triple, triple, triple.

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

Exactly. I thank my friend, the member who represents Lac‑Mégantic, in Estrie, one of Quebec’s most beautiful regions.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

No, it’s Montérégie.

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

My colleague for Saint‑Jean says it’s Montérégie. I apologize. Indeed, the riding of Saint‑Jean in Montérégie, and definitely the riding of Hull—Aylmer in Outaouais, are the most beautiful ridings in Quebec. That’s why many of my colleagues have their second home in my riding. I’m very proud to be their MP while they’re here for parliamentary sessions. Every election, I invite them to take one of my signs. We’re not there yet, but that day may come. I remain optimistic, as always.

We can do many things. There are things we should do and others we shouldn’t. For example, there shouldn’t be any overlap. Three House of Commons standing committees are already conducting studies on the same subject. That certainly shouldn’t be the case if a national public inquiry is launched. My colleagues are already very busy and have things to do to better represent their fellow citizens. I hope that if we arrive at a consensus for holding a public inquiry, they will be willing to drop the standing committees’ studies. We would then be able to work to better serve Canadians.

In fact, many motions were proposed to conduct studies on all kinds of other subjects. We can plan and use our time effectively to really help Canadians on other issues. If we can do that, we will serve Canadians’ interests well.

I hope the few minutes I took to express some of my thoughts on the subject will convince members to make significant changes to my British Columbian colleague’s amendment. I repeat, I’m in favour of some aspects of his amendment, but not others. I hope we can find a consensus. That way, we can start the work that must be done.

I’ll stop here, because I’d like to take a look at Ms. Normandin’s subamendment.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

It does not apply to this amendment. I’ll be able to move my proposal later.

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

Very well. I look forward to it.

So, I’ll end my remarks here, Madam Chair. I’ll have other things to say later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At this time, I will be moving an amendment.

I move that the amendment be amended by replacing the proposed new paragraph (b) with the following: “(b) invite Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister, to appear alone for four hours”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper, can you hold on for 30 seconds? We're going to get this amendment passed around. I understand that it has come to the clerk. We received it and we will make sure that it's sent to all members. It's in both official languages. We'll just note that there are some members who are not regular members of the committee, so it's just to make sure they receive it so that we're all on the same page.

I understand that everyone should have received it. I can see it in my inbox.

Mr. Cooper, it's back to you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me start again, reading my amendment into the record. It is that the amendment be amended (a) by replacing the proposed new paragraph (b) with the following: “(b) invite Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister, to appear alone for four hours, within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, provided that she be sworn or affirmed; (c) invite the following individuals to appear before the committee on a two-hour panel: Tausha Michaud, Jeremy Broadhurst, Azam Ishmael, Hamish Marshall, Walied Soliman, Jenni Byrne, Jennifer Howard and Anne McGrath;” and (b) by deleting the paragraph in the amendment concerning paragraph (f) of the main motion.

Madam Chair, I will now make some brief remarks on the motion.

First of all, let me just say that it is important that Katie Telford appear alone and that she appear to answer the questions of this committee, because Katie Telford is in an entirely different position from any of the other witnesses in that she is the Prime Minister's chief of staff. She has been with the Prime Minister through all of the relevant times concerning the 2019 election and the 2021 election. She has security clearance. She is privy to classified information. She's privy to briefings that the Prime Minister would have received, and she is not just any chief of staff. As the Prime Minister is reported to have said, “When you're talking to Katie Telford, you're talking to me.” It's important on that basis that Katie Telford appear on a stand-alone basis for four hours.

With respect to the names I have added—Jennifer Howard and Anne McGrath—Jennifer Howard is the chief of staff to Jagmeet Singh. It seems appropriate, if we're going to have other chiefs of staff, that Jennifer Howard, the NDP chief of staff, also be invited, as well as national campaign directors and managers of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Party, to come before the committee, and that we also hear from Anne McGrath of the NDP. The motion is simply that we would hear from chiefs of staff and campaign chairs of all three parties, not just Liberals and Conservatives, all of whom may have insights regarding the 2021 election.

With respect to the production order, we are proposing...or the effect of deleting the rest of Mr. Julian's motion would be to maintain the production process that is set out in the main motion, which provides that the parliamentary law clerk would be in a position to undertake redactions or determine the appropriateness of certain redactions and make the final call, having regard for national security considerations.

It must be noted that the parliamentary law clerk is independent. He has a full security clearance. The language contained in our motion was drafted in consultation with the parliamentary law clerk.

I would note that there is a precedent for this. This is precisely the process that was proposed and adopted with respect to the Winnipeg lab issue.

The NDP voted four times for that type of production process involving the parliamentary law clerk, twice at the Canada-China committee and twice in the House of Commons.

With that, I urge the adoption of this subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Basically, we have a subamendment. I have a speaking list. I can either start a new one or continue with this one, and when we come back to the amendment I will still continue with this list and I will give you the right of refusal.

On my list currently are Mr. Turnbull, Ms. O'Connell, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Julian.

Mr. Turnbull, would you like the floor on the subamendment?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, I would, Madam Chair.

Maybe just before I get—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Chair, before.... I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt Mr. Turnbull. I was just wondering, on a point of clarification, if procedurally.... I believe, even from the title, that what Mr. Cooper has moved is a subamendment to Mr. Julian's amendment, which is amending his original motion within the subamendment now. I guess the first question is, can the mover of the original motion move a subamendment? Could I get that answered?

Also, then, the other thing is that the mover of the original motion is now subamending not just what Mr. Julian's amendment is but is also changing the timing of his original motion. Maybe he is free to do that, but I'm not sure. I just want to be clear on that procedure and whether that's allowed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota, for raising that.

Mr. Cooper would not be able and any member would not be able to amend their own motion, but a member is free to subamend an amendment, so it's not directly their motion. Because he is amending Mr. Julian's amendment, it's fine, but he would not be able to amend his own. That's the rule. Basically, this subamendment is removing the bottom half of Mr. Julian's amendment.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay. I have so many screens open that I was just a little confused as to whether one portion of the subamendment.... It's clear that he can move a subamendment to someone else's amendment, but is he essentially also amending the original language of his own motion and not just subamending the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No. He is just amending the amendment, and because he is amending the amendment, that becomes a subamendment. The amendment was amending his motion, so that's where it's all connected.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay. Is it as clear as mud?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's clear as mud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's perfect. At this time of night, that's all we can ask for, so thank you.

I'm going back to you, Mr. Turnbull. Did you want to speak to the subamendment?