Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay, thank you—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I would add that the Commission corrected this mistake in 2013—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you do not have the floor. You are welcome at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but, here, when I speak, the others do not. I do not know how the other committees work, but, here, that's how it works.

Mr. Therrien, I wanted to allow you to make a comment, but you started asking a question. That does not work either. That being said, I thank you for your summary, which was very good.

Mrs. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That is excellent. Thank you.

What I'm going to suggest—

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

Chair, I would like to intervene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Berthold.

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

I would like to clarify something. I heard my colleagues talk about the position of my colleague, Mr. Martel, concerning the proposal. I just wanted to note that Mr. Martel did not see any problem with the new proposal currently on the table. This was reported very clearly in the media, “Conservative MP from Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, Richard Martel, does not share indignation of his Bloc neighbours on the proposal”.

Just because he is not here does not mean he took a position one way or another. He simply chose not to express himself on the current proposal.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Chair, I would just like to say that I would have liked him to be here, precisely so that he could explain why he supports the last proposal. That is his responsibility as an elected member from that region.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay, so—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

That's a funny way to close the debate when everything was going in the opposite direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

All right.

You know, it's interesting because there's a process. People get to have their say. Mr. Berthold used seven seconds of his five minutes, so it made his point. Mr. Therrien has made his point.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the committee welcomes any additional comments that you would like to share, as would be the case for Madam Gill and Mr. Simard. You can send them to the clerk, and the clerk will have them shared with all members to consider as we do draft a report back.

I am not going to get into a debate on this because the point is, as per the legislation, for PROC committee members to hear objections that MPs are raising. Then we report them back to the commission. Rest assured that we will take that very seriously.

The insights you have all provided—especially because these are your backyards—are really important to somebody like me because I'm not from that area.

We appreciate everything you shared with us today. If you have further comments to make, please share those with the clerk, who will send them to all the members of the committee.

On that, I wish everyone a good day.

PROC committee members, I am going to say that because we have the second panel starting shortly and there are just some scheduling changes, we're now going to have the conversation that we were to have at the end of second hour. We can then pause it and continue it after the second panel. This is just to maximize our time.

To set the stage for this conversation, if I may, I would like to say that, at the end of last meeting, I was asked to work with the clerk to put forward a draft plan so that people could have a better understanding of what is going to take place.

We were in the process of making that plan—I have shared a draft with you, and stuff can move around as we want because members are masters of their domain—but then a letter was sent to me, as the chair, to say that we want additional time. I do want to say that not only was the letter shared with all of you but a motion was also put on notice, and there is a desire to see that conversation advance. Therefore, this would be the time for us to have a sense of where members are at with regard to how we can get all of our work done because I actually do believe that we can.

With that, I am going to.... Can I just go to Mr. Fergus first because he had his hand up first, and then I'll come to Mr. Cooper right after? Is that okay? I do believe we can find a way forward.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It would seem, to me, that the issues raised around the table, from what I understand, probably have wide support. PROC should extend its meetings by an hour each. Rather than having two-hour meetings, we could have three-hour meetings twice a week to make sure we get all the work done, in terms of foreign interference and what we're doing about electoral redistribution.

There's no objection here.

Ms. Blaney's suggestion of calling in the Right Honourable David Johnston is entirely appropriate, as well.

I hope there's wide consensus for us to move forward and make that the work plan, going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to move a motion that has been put on notice. Members will have received copies. It reads as follows:

That the committee, in relation to its study of foreign interference in elections, beginning the week this motion is adopted, hold an additional meeting, at least three hours in length, during each House sitting week to accommodate this study, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

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

I always feel as if I'm wrestling with the poor interpreters about who is supposed to push the buttons. I apologize if I disrupt their work.

I've had conversations with the Conservatives on this motion, and I am going to confess that I have a bit of curiosity about, and openness to, discussing having three-hour meetings twice a week, as opposed to two. I think the hours really matter.

I guess, for this particular motion—and to be respectful of the fact that we have many committees trying very hard, sometimes, to get extra time, and that can be a challenge—it might be easier for this place to accommodate two hours, as opposed to three hours. I offer that as what I call a “friendly amendment”. I understand that's not the official title or language, but I hope Mr. Cooper will see that.

I speak as a whip, a little. I understand the hard decisions whips have to make. I think two hours would allow us to move forward in a way that is more harmonious with the system we have here, in Ottawa. I'd love to hear feedback on that.

I also appreciate Mr. Fergus's comments about having the special rapporteur come in. I think that is essential for the study, and it will help us understand the process that's continuing on, so we can talk about that later.

First, I'll leave it to the chair and my friendly amendment. I'm moving this as an amendment to make sure that's clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

First of all, are you offering it as a friendly amendment, or are you actually moving an amendment?

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

I'm offering it as a friendly amendment, but I will move it, if it is not accepted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Blaney is right. There have been discussions. Although, as Conservatives, we would like to see three-hour meetings, I think it's reasonable to offer two. Therefore, I treat it as a friendly amendment.

Really, what we need is additional time to have at least one meeting a week to get answers with respect to serious revelations of foreign interference by Beijing—revelations that are coming to light, it seems, every few days. It's important that this committee be able to do its work, in terms of the issues we must deal with, with respect to redistribution. It's also important that issues around foreign interference are dealt with now, and not pushed back weeks later, because of that.

This is a very reasonable motion, in the circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor.

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

Well, thank you.

I'm glad that Mr. Cooper accepted that friendly change offered by Ms. Blaney.

I'm going to ask him if he would also accept a friendly change that, rather than having an additional meeting.... We'd have to find another spot in the hours of meetings that we have during the week, and we know that Ms. Blaney made reference to how difficult it is to carve out that extra time. Maybe it's just easier to add an hour to our regularly scheduled meetings. We always have time to go a little bit over, so I don't think we'd be pushing off other committees. That would probably be easier, and it comes to the same number of hours.

Mr. Cooper, just to make sure that you understand the good-faith nature of this, we can leave it to the chair to say that we're going to do two hours on electoral redistribution and, following that, one hour on foreign interference. It also could be the inverse. We could do two hours on foreign interference followed by one hour on redistribution, depending on how the panels work out, so that we can get both things done.

It's the same six hours per week that he just agreed to, and it's the same issues we could get distributed. I want to make sure he understands that there is no intention to push this off or to bring other things forward. It's just to leave it to the subcommittee to determine the schedule so that the committee can determine which is the right way to go forward.

I think that's the least complex way forward, and we can get the work done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper, do you see that as a friendly amendment?

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

No.