Evidence of meeting #57 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennie Chen  Executive Director, Greater China Political and Coordination, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I call this meeting to order.

Hello everyone, and welcome to meeting number 57 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) and the request by five members to discuss the committee's ongoing study on foreign election interference.

While I have the floor, I have with me two guests. We have Yasmin and Khushi, two women from the University of Toronto.

We have two others. We'll get your names shouted out too. Nila and Emily are also joining Ms. Blaney. We also have Alexa joining Ms. O'Connell, who also happens to have a birthday today. This is a very exciting day.

As a reminder, so that we can have good decorum, all comments should be addressed through the chair. The clerk and I will maintain a consolidated speaking list of members wishing to speak.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will move a motion at this time. We will distribute copies to members in both official languages.

I will read it into the record now.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I'm just going to do the same thing. You have the floor. I will pass the floor right back to you. I'm going to ensure that it's distributed so that all members have it.

The clerk has signalled that she's received it. We will send it to everyone. It's been sent, and the minute I can get some heads nodding to demonstrate that everyone has it, I will return the floor to Mr. Cooper.

If we can have a gallery view in front of me and in front of Mr. Fergus, that would be greatly appreciated.

I understand that everyone has received the motion in both official languages.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion is as follows:

That the Committee, in relation to its study of foreign election interference, invite Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, to appear alone for three hours, during the week of March 13, 2023, provided that she be sworn or affirmed.

Madam Chair, I'm going to make some fairly brief remarks in support of the motion.

Under this Prime Minister's watch, Beijing interfered in two elections: the 2019 election and the 2021 election. According to his national security adviser, the Prime Minister has been briefed repeatedly about Beijing's interference, and yet, notwithstanding serious interference in Canadian democracy, we have seen no action taken by this Prime Minister, and no charges have been laid, no investigations undertaken—although there are finally some that appear to be under way—and no diplomats expelled. No one has been expelled.

What is at the heart of the issue is what the Prime Minister knows, when he first knew about it and what he did or failed to do about Beijing's election interference. In order to get to the bottom of that, it's imperative that we hear from the Prime Minister's top aide, his chief of staff. It's critical to getting to the truth.

Unfortunately, at every step of the way the Prime Minister has obstructed that effort. He has refused to answer basic questions. He has deflected and tried to change the channel. He has ordered Liberal MPs on this committee to block efforts to bring forward key witnesses and to block the production of relevant documents, and yesterday we saw the Prime Minister at it again, with an announcement to do the opposite of what CSIS advised him to do.

CSIS has advised the Prime Minister that with respect to election interference, the policy of the government should be grounded in transparency and sunlight and that such interference should be made known to the public. That's why this committee is so important.

However, the Prime MInister has of course obstructed this committee, and then yesterday announced that instead of transparency and sunlight, all of this would be put before a secret committee, with secret evidence and secret conclusions all redacted by the PMO, all part of this Prime Minister's efforts to cover up what he knows and what he failed to do about Beijing's interference. It underscores why we need to hear from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford.

With that, I hope that on the fourth time we've attempted to get Katie Telford to this committee, we will be successful today in doing so. Canadians deserve answers, and part of getting those answers is to have Katie Telford appear before this committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's good to be back in the committee. I apologize for missing some of last week, but my constituents in some of my more remote communities really appreciate the time I had with them, and I just want to thank them for always having time for me.

I do have an amendment, and I'll get that sent to the clerk, but before I talk about the amendment, I want to say that my history in this committee is that I resist heavily having staff come in when they are not the people who make the final decision.

Sadly, what we have seen in this country is a continuous leak from CSIS that tells us that there is something serious that we need to be concerned with, and after that many leaks, I am persuaded that it is imperative that we now have to take a step that I was not necessarily initially comfortable with.

People in this country trust their systems, and whenever there are questions on those systems, we need to address those questions and make sure that those systems are stronger as a result of the work we do here.

The NDP, of course, brought forward the motion that everybody mostly agreed with around the public inquiry. We feel very much that this needs to be done in a setting that is public where, as my colleague Mr. Cooper talked about earlier, there would be an element of transparency and sunlight shown on this issue. If we are going to ask Canadians to trust their elections, then we must be held to that account.

Hopefully, it is seen as a friendly amendment to the motion. Has it been sent out yet? I want to make sure—

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I'm just going to pause you, Ms. Blaney. You have the floor, and the floor will be returned to you.

I understand that we have received it. Have we hit “send”? We're just going to send it to all members. We have two members who are replacing regular members, so we'll make sure that they are on the list. Once it's in front of people's eyes, Ms. Blaney, I'll return the floor to you.

Just wait a couple of seconds, please.

Printed copies are on their way. Can I just confirm that people have received it electronically? That will keep the meeting moving.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Thank you so much, Chair.

My amendment is simply that we add at the end of the sentence after “a.”, “and”

b. invite the following individuals to appear before the committee as part of the study, provided that they be sworn or affirmed:

i. Jeremy Broadhurst, Azam Ishmael, Hamish Marshall and Walied Solomon, national campaign directors for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2019 and 2021 federal election campaigns.

ii. Jenny Byrne, Leader of the Official Opposition's senior leadership advisor, and Tausha Michaud, Chief of Staff to the former leader of the Official Opposition.

Madam Chair, I was just recently in Brussels, where we met together with the NATO Parliamentary Association, and there are a lot of concerns about foreign interference. I think it's absolutely imperative that we take this very seriously. We know that 11 campaigns from both the Liberals and Conservatives have been implicated in some of the information we've heard come out.

I think that this needs to be an open and transparent process, that we recognize that all foreign interference matters and that if we're going to have strong systems that our country can rely on, we definitely need to have this kind of transparency happening here.

I hope that it's seen as a friendly amendment and that we can move forward on this very serious issue that's impacting us here in the House, in Parliament, but also Canadians across the country.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Chair, I just want to comment.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

As per usual practice, Mr. Fergus is on the list, and then I'll return back to the amendment with Mr. Fergus, but would you like to first comment on the amendment or would you like to wait?

I will come to you, Mr. Cooper.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I will have comments about the amendment and I certainly have comments about the main motion, Madam Chair. What would you recommend?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Do you want to speak?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Yes. Madam Chair—

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I'm sorry. She is asking for it as a friendly amendment and is not moving an amendment. Mr. Cooper would like to respond to it.

I'm sorry, Mr. Fergus. I will have Mr. Cooper respond.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Ms. Blaney for bringing forward the amendment. I accept the amendment as a friendly amendment.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

That's perfect.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion, as just amended by Ms. Blaney with the approval of my colleague, Mr. Cooper.

If I could backtrack for a moment, as Mr. Cooper correctly mentioned, this is the fourth time we've debated this motion. I remember when he submitted his motion and when he moved an amendment last week, during the parliamentary break that we spent in our respective constituencies.

I only have the English version of the motion in front of me, but let me read you the relevant excerpt:

invite Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, to appear alone for two hours by herself, within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, provided that she be sworn or affirmed;

Near the end of the same meeting, Mr. Cooper moved an amendment to his own motion, asking that Ms. Telford be invited to appear for four hours.

This morning, he tried to move the same amendment as he did last Thursday, before a meeting that seemed to drag on forever. Now, for the fourth time, he is trying to invite the Prime Minister's chief of staff to appear on her own, this time for three hours. I suppose that if today's debate is adjourned or if we don't pass the motion, Mr. Cooper will move another one. He left out one hour this time. Maybe his next motion will have the chief of staff appear for three and a half or five hours. He's going to keep playing games and ignoring the time-honoured traditions of our House of Commons.

According to the Standing Orders, when a motion has been debated and defeated, the same motion cannot be brought again. We can't do something indirectly that we can't do directly. I know that Mr. Cooper's first amendment to his motion was minimal, and he made it in a way that was acceptable or admissible.

But then he amended his motion a third time, and now a fourth. We have to wonder why Mr. Cooper is playing these political and procedural games and wasting our committee's time. We have to move on to serious issues to come up with serious solutions for Canadians.

Today, Mr. Cooper moved his motion, saying that the Prime Minister and his government took no action to address the situation. I find that pretty funny. Actually, I feel sorry for him. Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave a news conference in which he explained his response and outlined the steps the government was taking. Most importantly, he made sure that those efforts were depoliticized. After meeting for nearly 17 hours, the committee must do what it can to depoliticize the debate, because foreign interference is an issue that demands we, the members, put our best foot forward and set aside all partisanship in order to get to the bottom of this. After 17 hours, or nearly 20 if you count today's meeting, we are missing the opportunity to deal with the issue impartially, in the best interest of Canadians.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we were here to discuss measures the government was taking to protect our democracy and institutions from foreign interference. He pointed out that Canadians had heard and read a lot in recent weeks about attempted foreign interference in our federal elections, mainly by the Chinese government. He, himself, acknowledged that a lot of people had asked questions about our democracy, our security agencies, our Parliament and even our sovereignty as a nation. I think those questions are what this is all about. They are fundamental questions that concern us all. The Prime Minister also explained that Canadians were paying attention to these questions because they understood that protecting our democracy was of the utmost importance.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that—at least I hope not. I hope we can all agree on the importance of standing up for our principles, our sovereignty and our democratic process. I hope we can also agree that doing so is our greatest challenge as members.

It should never be turned into a political issue.

On Wednesday of last week, when Mr. Julian opposed Mr. Cooper's first motion, he issued a warning. He said that we should invite neither ministers' assistants nor members' assistants, nor the Prime Minister, citing a number of people of the same mind. Mr. Julian's message was straightforward and made a lot of sense. His point was that it wasn't appropriate, that it was a bad idea, to bring political staff before the committee. It is their bosses—ministers—who bear that responsibility.

This is what he said on the subject:

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.

Mr. Julian was very clear on the matter. That responsibility falls on the people who are elected—those who were bold enough to put their names on the ballot, who went through the purifying fire that is an election and who, once elected, assume the risk and responsibility of answering to Canadians. That does not apply to their political staff; nor should it. Their job is to provide their bosses—the people who were elected—with options. The responsibility is on those elected individuals, because they have to defend the decisions they make. Ministerial responsibility and the responsibility of elected representatives is practically a sacred principle.

One of the people Mr. Julian cited was a former Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I don't have the French version handy, so I'll read the quote in English.

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.

The person Mr. Julian was citing last Wednesday was Jay Hill, the former government leader in the House under Mr. Harper's government—a Conservative.

Mr. Julian quoted another Conservative member in the House of Commons, who made the following statement:

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.

That Conservative member also had this to say:

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.

The Conservative member went on to say this:

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....

It's not about you, Madam Chair, but it is very important that I repeat the last part of the quote:

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

The person who said that is one of our fellow members in the House, the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. He is currently the deputy whip of His Majesty's official opposition. He was underscoring the importance of not making political staff appear before committees and of upholding the tradition and principle that ministers answer for their offices.

Last week, Mr. Julian continued citing individuals with similar views on the issue of inviting a cabinet member's chief of staff to appear. He quoted a statement that is very germane to this discussion, the same one the committee has had four times over the course of 20 hours of meetings.

The person he quoted had this to say:

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.

Do you know who Mr. Julian was quoting, Madam Chair? He was quoting the current member for Carleton, the now leader of the official opposition. Imagine that. The leader of the official opposition was referring to a centuries-old parliamentary tradition, a Westminster tradition—a fine tradition that, over the years and through trial and error, has helped us strike the right balance.

I know that we are all willing to make mistakes. I have always told my political staff that I am all right with making mistakes, because I am always open to trying something new, even if it doesn't work out, which happens from time to time. The only thing I ask of my team, and of myself, is to make sure that, when we make mistakes, they are new. There is no reason to keep making the same mistakes. There is no reason to have the same discussion four times. Three is enough.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

This is the same thing. We are doing the same thing for the fourth time. Yes, the duration of the chief of staff's appearance has changed, from two hours to four hours, and now it's three hours. Thursday, it could be six hours or even an hour and a half.

If the honourable member for St. Albert—Edmonton insists on moving the same motion, of course, I'm going to advance the same arguments, because they are the right arguments, rooted in the best parts of our Westminster parliamentary tradition—and that tradition demands respect.

March 7th, 2023 / 11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I have the utmost respect for the honourable member, but there's something I don't quite understand. I know members can take all the time they need to make their point as long as they stay on topic. We can see the member's binders on the table. I'd like to know, though, whether there is a rule preventing a member from repeating themselves when they have said the same thing three times.

Other members have things to say. Perhaps the member could cover just the table of contents, instead of the whole binder.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

As long as it's relevant to the matter being discussed, it would be suitable.

It would be good to not have repetition. Something I noticed in this committee and in other places is that when the same thing is said over and over again, it oftentimes doesn't become more true.

I will give the floor back to Mr. Fergus.

The clerk is just going to check the Standing Orders to see if there is a spot, because I do think it's relevant.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Turnbull?

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Yes. I was just going to clarify that the deliberations and reflections that Mr. Fergus is relaying to the committee are really insightful and important to hear.

From my sense of it—and you started out by saying this, Mr. Fergus—it seems that we are replaying the same motion over and over again. Can it really be said by any member that the remarks we are making wouldn't also be just as legitimate to repeat?

Mind you, obviously there are differences in the things that Mr. Fergus is saying, but if the motion is able to be repeated over and over again with very subtle changes, are our remarks not able to be heard in the same way?

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mrs. Sahota, do you have a point of order as well?

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Well, I think Mr. Turnbull has made the point perfectly. The motions are very subtly different and the remarks are subtly different as well, so I don't see how they can be ruled as repetition or out of order in any way.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I'm going to try to keep us moving to see if we can land. There have been times when, as a person who is interested, I do listen for a long time.

I have a speaking list. I think it is important to hear from members, so, Mr. Fergus, I will go back to you.

I do believe—although perhaps with the debate, I'll be able to feel otherwise—that we actually have addressed these matters, but at the same time, I want to understand where members are at. With that, I will just say let's stay relevant and let's try to get ourselves to a good spot.

I'll return the floor to Mr. Fergus.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly made sure not to repeat myself during my remarks.

I started by criticizing the fact that this was the fourth time the committee was having essentially the same discussion. Mr. Cooper's motion is on the borderline of being procedurally acceptable for debate.

I highlighted certain principles.

Then, I mentioned the actions that had been taken, disproving the member's claim. I placed a proverbial asterisk there, in order to review the actions the Prime Minister and his government have taken in response to the legitimate concerns Canadians have about political interference.

After that, I went right into the substance of Mr. Cooper's motion, referring to the tradition of inviting the responsible ministers and not bringing the assistants who work for them before committees. To support my argument, I quoted political figures that Mr. Julian had cited last week. I could have cited Liberal members, people in my own party, but I opted to quote an NDP member and a Conservative member instead. I will definitely try to quote a Bloc Québécois member, if I can, to illustrate the fact that the motion stretches the limits of reason and is out of step with the fine traditions of our Parliament.

I did all of that, but I did not repeat myself.

However, I would like to continue talking about actions. If you agree with my point about the tradition of ministerial responsibility, let's talk about the actions taken by the Prime Minister yesterday. In an effort to reassure Canadians, he announced three specific measures.

First, he said that he was going to appoint an independent special rapporteur, who would have a broad mandate to make expert recommendations aimed at combatting foreign interference and strengthening our democracy.

What he did was incredibly significant. In his remarks yesterday, he provided an overview of the measures the government had taken to continue protecting our democracy and institutions.

As you know, foreign interference is not new. It's been around for years—decades even—in many forms. However, it was actually Mr. Trudeau's government who really took the bull by the horns, after the 2015 election and everything we saw occur south of the border following the 2016 election there. Everyone was talking about what Russia was doing and the disinformation and misinformation campaign it was waging.

The reason it was so important to discuss what was happening and do something about it right away was that we had never in our history been faced with such a present danger to not only Canada's democracy, but also democracies around the world. Many state actors and non-state actors with ties to those states are trying to create a climate of instability and contempt, a climate where people no longer have confidence in their institutions and feel as though those institutions are no longer capable of doing what they are supposed to and governing. The idea is to incite contempt among people.

I'm going to digress momentarily, if I may. I had the honour and pleasure of working for a former Quebec member and minister, Pierre Pettigrew. Not only is he someone who gets things done, but he is also someone who is all about ideas. He wrote a book, and I forget the title in French. As a middle-aged man, I have moments of forgetfulness from time to time.

However, in English, it was The New Politics of Confidence.

The book's underlying message is that people need to have a very high level of confidence in one another in order for democracy to work. The sole objective of countries and actors looking to destabilize democracy is to sow doubt, to sow contempt among people—contempt for one another and for the government.

It is indeed true that democracy relies heavily on confidence. I remember telling my children once that, if less than 10% of the people in a city disregarded traffic lights and stop signs, that's all it would take to stir up trouble and ill-feeling. Our safety depends on the vast majority of people following the rules. When I am about to cross the street, I assume that drivers are going to stop when the light turns red and I will be able to cross safely.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I would like the honourable member to explain the connection between the topic in hand and road signals. That would help me understand why he isn't comfortable addressing the subamendment before the committee. That's what I need to understand.

Again, it's fine to digress every now and again, but it should be brief.

I'd like to know whether the committee can adopt a rule to ensure that every member has an opportunity to speak before the meeting is scheduled to end, at one o'clock.