Evidence of meeting #59 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 name.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Sophia Nickel

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you, Mrs. Blaney.

Mrs. Blaney, do you have a preference as to whether we would keep it by theme? Would you prefer that it not be mixed from one to the other, or would you want it to be the buffet?

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

I would prefer that it not be mixed. I think it's a lot easier if we have the time exclusively for one subject. But I also recognize that if we have a witness who can only make it on this, I would prioritize the issue over the discrepancy of whether or not to have three hours fulsomely on one subject or another.

I hope that makes sense. I do think I would like the clarity of knowing that we are there to work on just that issue.

Again, speaking as one member of one party in opposition, it comes back to this issue that has been brought up that I think the opposition feels: We don't want to feel like we're being tossed around. We want to know that there's accountability. We don't want to see this study on foreign interference pushed to the back when it's something that is incredibly important. There needs to be a little bit of support for us—for me, anyway—to have faith that this will be the case.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Before I go to Mr. Fergus, and I do want to try to get this to a vote, I do want to say, Mrs. Blaney, that I actually do believe, based also on the work that the analysts do to support the committee, that it would be better to be on one study or another study unless there's an exception, and then to do what we've done in the past with scheduling—see where members are at and see if there are some adjustments.

That's why, even in the draft with reports, it wasn't just about foreign election interference and extra time, but really about how we can get that work done, maximize the time and then be able to have more functional meetings.

I have Mr. Fergus, followed by Mr. Cooper.

1 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I'm wondering, Madam Chair, if it would be helpful to my colleague Mrs. Blaney if we made it a clear preference that the priority would be foreign interference, and then, subject to the subcommittee booking of witnesses, we would have the recognition that this would be the priority and that our preference would be for a single-issue meeting. If the situation arises, however, where there are either not enough witnesses or....

You know, let's not make perfection the enemy of the good. Let's allow for some flexibility from the chair and the subcommittee to determine what the agenda would be.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Before I go to Mr. Cooper, I think that's what would allow us to have more functional meetings. Is the one hour added going to be of benefit for us to get through the work, or would it be better to have a stand-alone two-hour meeting based on witnesses and so forth? I feel like that's where it would be nice if we could actually get it to a spot of “and” instead of “or”, based on what is needed, and be able to do it with the intention of having the extra time every week to get through this work.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

1 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you very much.

I get your point about “and” versus “or”, but again, to emphasize why I think it makes more sense to proceed with a stand-alone meeting, upon passing this motion, we then know that those resources are guaranteed. When we request an extra hour, or generally we understand that when we request an extra hour, it's a request. It's not guaranteed.

Second of all, generally speaking, having a two-hour committee meeting, as opposed to adding an extra hour at the end of our two meetings, I think from a witness scheduling standpoint actually provides more flexibility, not less.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

1 p.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Here's how I see it. First, we need these two extra hours. Then we have to check to see about the House resources. Earlier I suggested Tuesday night as a possibility. The Board of Internal Economy sometimes meets on Thursday, so maybe we could exclude that day.

That being said, depending on the witnesses, the first option would be to separate out the topic. The second option is to accommodate the availability of witnesses and the resources of the House from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. I don't think that 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m is a viable time.

I think we've completed this round, but my colleague would also like to speak.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

1 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Another good reason to add a third meeting, Madam Chair, is that it would give you and the clerk another option in the following week should witnesses be available only in the evenings. That would give us three opportunities to accommodate the witnesses we want to hear from in the study on foreign interference.

That's why I think it is important to ensure we have a separate two-hour meeting and, as you just said, that's easier. The final solution would be to have an extra hour per meeting, but I don't think that's the best option. That's why I would stick with the original proposal. I understand that some latitude might be helpful, so I think we should make sure we have that additional two-hour meeting and then decide on something else if that doesn't work.

Madam Chair, you have the option of talking to each of the parties. Since you do that on a regular basis, you could discuss this with them.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Before I go to Ms. Blaney, I just want to make sure it's noted on the record that our regular meetings that take place on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 to 1.... I have the full intention of having foreign election interference be part of those regular meetings as well. Therefore, depending on who's coming and their availability, it might be worthwhile to be able to have a three-hour meeting, or it might not be. If we're looking at a redistribution report, it would be nice to have the window.

For me, as the chair, working with the clerk and the analysts, we're trying to manage all of the things to satisfy the intentions of what the committee's asking, but nowhere in my world is this additional meeting the only spot where foreign election interference would happen. Foreign election interference was asked to be on the front burner. I have kept it on the front burner. I would like to also satisfy our legislative requests because there is a law in front of us and we are lawmakers, so we should look at that legislation.

How do we get it all done? I actually do believe we can.

Ms. Blaney.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

This is an interesting conversation.

The first thing I'll say is.... Again, I did ask this, and maybe we can't get it now, but I need clarity on it: Is it easier to add an hour, or is it the same difficulty? I'm just trying to understand that. That would be helpful for me in my decision-making process.

The other part that would be helpful for me to have clarity on is this: If we do this motion, accept the amendment, and have a vote and the amendment is selected for the extra hour, then that means we have an extra hour. It's just like if we voted to have an extra meeting; we would have an extra meeting. There seems to be.... This isn't just a gentle recommendation. This would be a motion from the committee to add an hour to each meeting in a week, resulting in two extra hours of committee for PROC.

Those things would help me.

Thank you.

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Because there are a couple of extra slots, if we can get those slots, then obviously we would take the slots because the House functions in slots.

At the end of the day, whatever the committee asks, the House is going to do whatever it can to accommodate that ask because that's what it does. That's where having a little bit of a game plan as to what we want to do, providing us with a little bit of flexibility...because the motion also does say “at least”. It could be that in one week we have four extra hours based on availability and the next week we don't have two hours.

That's where we just want some flexibility to be able to say, “We want to understand what the committee wants, and we will do whatever we can to deliver it.” I think that's where.... I'm not hearing anyone who is opposing the extra time. I'm not hearing anyone opposing the desire to do all of the things, including keeping foreign election interference as the priority focus, and I think that's where we're just trying to get to it.

I hope that answers your question.

I'm going to call the question on Mrs. Romanado's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Now, we'll vote on Mr. Cooper's main motion as amended.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Could we just have the motion read?

1:05 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Sophia Nickel

It reads: “That, the committee, in relation to its study of foreign interference in elections, beginning the week this motion is adopted, add an additional hour to its regularly scheduled meetings, during each House sitting week to accommodate this study.”

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I'll call the question.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

I'm just going to take 30 more seconds before the next committee sets up to say that I hear what members are asking for.

Miriam is not here this week. When she returns, we are going to get a consolidated list of all of the witnesses who have been invited, those who have already come, and those who are yet to come, as well as information as to when they were invited and if they have responded or not responded.

We did have two panels on foreign election interference that had confirmed, and then we postponed them. We'll look at what their availability is and then adjust, perhaps, the redistribution stuff around that so that we get to the right number of hours in meetings on that.

I see your hands, Mr. Cooper and Mrs. Blaney, but I just want to let you know.

Then, based on this motion, the intention of it for me is the added hours, so where we need to do what the House has, either a stand-alone meeting or one hour and one hour.... I understand that it was passed for one hour and one hour, but there will be times where we will need to do a stand-alone meeting based on who can come. I am going to take that leniency for the chair and the clerk and the analysts. That, based on what the intention is, is what we will be advancing.

This week, although we will not be able to secure witnesses and probably have the extra meeting, I will ensure that these two hours that should have been in this meeting are in another week.

Also for the record, during the two constituency weeks we know that Ms. Telford will be appearing. We are doing our best to have a date confirmed to you by the end of this week so that we can plan accordingly.

I also have heard back from Minister Mendicino's office that it is the second week we return where he is trying to come. As we know, he was at the funeral yesterday. There's been a lot going on, and it's important that the government be represented. However, he has been in communication with the committee to secure a time to come, and we will make sure that everyone's invited and has responded, and we'll keep you in the loop.

Mr. Cooper.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you very much. I'll be very brief.

There is one matter that I do want to raise. It's the third time that I have raised it, and it is with respect to the consolidated response.

It was on March 1 that the Prime Minister's national security adviser committed to provide responses to questions that had been put respecting dates on which the Prime Minister and PMO staff had been briefed about Beijing's election interference. On March 2, the director of CSIS committed to working with the PCO to provide a consolidated response, including the dates on which the Prime Minister, ministers, PMO staff, ministerial staff, and senior Liberal party staff were briefed about Beijing's election interference.

Respectfully, these are questions that the witnesses could reasonably have anticipated. They are not complicated. They require checking the calendars of those individuals the question was put with respect to when they were briefed.

Given that it has been nearly a month, let me say that this is really unacceptable, especially given the fact that we are going to be hearing from the Prime Minister's chief of staff within the next couple of weeks. It's imperative that we have that consolidated response within a reasonable time before Ms. Telford appears.

I would submit that the time that has lapsed has not been reasonable. This is a straightforward undertaking, and I would certainly hope that the Prime Minister's office isn't obstructing the work of this committee once again with respect to providing this information that the Prime Minister's national security adviser has undertaken to provide to this committee.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Go ahead, Mrs. Blaney.

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

I wanted to add that I hope one of the meetings we have soon is set aside for a bit more planning. Now that we know there are going to be three-hour-long meetings, it would behoove us.... Again, what you've given us today as a draft is a good start, but I think it would be helpful for us to take an hour of one of those days to sit and do that work.

Thank you.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I've noted that.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.