Evidence of meeting #61 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 telford.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
The Prime Minister is also aware—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
If you are aware of it, the Prime Minister is aware of it.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
—of the reporting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
We're pausing. Pause.
You know, friends, colleagues, this takes away from our time. That's all we lose. We all lose time. No one here is new. One person is going to speak at a time.
It was not a courtroom at the beginning of this meeting. It still has not become one. It is the procedure and House affairs committee, which I know has really high ratings. I'm sure there are many people watching, and they want to see the important work we do here in the House of Commons.
Go ahead, Mr. Brock.
Conservative
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Madam Chair—
Conservative
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I can only speak to how I am aware of this through—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Brock, it's very simple. We have someone coming to appear today to provide us with information.
What might be simple to you might not be simple to somebody else. I don't know. I've never been the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. I'm not sure if you have, so I'm going to ask, Mr. Brock—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
—that we permit Ms. Telford to answer, and when she gives a quick answer....
Ms. Telford, I have to commend you. Your answers have been quite short compared to most witnesses, and I appreciate that.
I'm going to give the floor to Ms. Telford, and it will be returned to you, Mr. Brock. If I have to come—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Just for clarification, Madam Chair, the question was premised with a “yes or no”. I didn't get a yes or a no, and that's why I referred to it as a simple question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Within the House of Commons, Mr. Brock, as you know, there are unwritten rules. Oftentimes, the amount of time that is consumed by the question or comment is provided to the person to answer. I think it's only fair that the witness be able to answer.
I recognize what the premise was. If you look at my premise, it's been, “Let's have a functional meeting and one person will speak at a time.” I've been doing this for many meetings. I've not yet achieved that. I will keep trying.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Right now, Mr. Brock, you will have one minute left, starting with Ms. Telford.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
CSIS reported a month after the 2021 election that it was well known within the Chinese Canadian community of British Columbia that Ms. Tong wanted the Liberal Party to win the 2021 election.
Is that false?
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I think, Madam Chair, you'll know my answer on this, which is that I can't speak to the specifics of that.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
CSIS reports reveal that Ms. Tong and former consul Wang Jin made “discreet and subtle efforts” to encourage members of Chinese Canadian organizations to rally votes for the Liberals and defeat Conservatives.
Is that false?
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Madam Chair, I would just remind the members of something I said in the opening that's come up throughout this committee, which is that interference in elections has an impact on all political parties.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
In November 2021, CSIS reported that Ms. Tong described former MP Kenny Chiu as a “vocal distractor” when discussing his defeat in the 2021 election. She is also reported to have said that Mr. Chiu's loss proved that “their strategy and tactics were good, and contributed to achieving their goals”.
Is that false? Is that inaccurate?
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Madam Chair, I'm going to have to give a similar answer, but I would say it's important to remind people, because of the insinuations coming from the member, that the election has been examined by experts and they have deemed it as one that was free and fair.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was a very confusing line of questioning. I don't think there is a yes-or-no answer to be given when you're asked for someone else's state of mind or someone else's belief, by another witness who's present here today. That's kind of like the hyperpartisan and political attacks we've been seeing by many members today about why the PM is keeping people in the dark and why we don't want sunlight and transparency.
Through you, Madam Chair, to the witness, I believe that, with respect to many points, Ms. Telford has mentioned that a protocol unit has been set up, that protocol is in place and that it is their job if something rises past a certain threshold to bring it to the public's attention, even if it is in one riding, let alone at a national level. Mr. Ian Shugart even said in a CBC news interview that they were prepared to do so.
I'm wondering if I could get some more comments from Ms. Telford regarding what she or the PM is responsible for doing based on the impartial parts of information they receive versus what agencies like the RCMP can do if CSIS presents information to them. What could the protocol unit do? Who is responsible for creating more sunlight or transparency with respect to foreign interference happening in our electoral process, which has been happening for some time?
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I think one of the challenges, which even comes out in your question, in which you named a number of the different bodies, is that there is no one person. Even though at least one of the members, I know, would have liked to have an inquiry already, one of the challenges is determining into which part exactly that would be. What exactly does that look like?
With POEC, there was something built into the legislation such that there was a clearly mandated, time-framed, clear question that had to be answered. However, in this case, this is something very diffuse and across very many different parts of government—let alone other levels of government, because it involves law enforcement, which obviously works very independently and separately, certainly from the political side but also from all other parts of government oftentimes, even if they coordinate with other parts. The security agencies are obviously incredibly sensitive organizations.
How all of that can come together and be better reported on, I think, is an excellent question. It's one on which I think NSICOP has made great strides and has done different things, such as providing training to members of Parliament and having better communication and ongoing communication with members of Parliament. As well, there is a whole series of other things and other next steps that can be taken, which are in the report that Clerk Charette and Minister LeBlanc just put out.
There are so many different things, and I think we're seeing that fact through all the reporting. There are so many different things, and there's not just one answer to be given here. This is an ongoing body of work that is totally multidisciplinary, which doesn't even quite cover it.