Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2023

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I thank Mr. Cooper for bringing this forward.

I am going to offer an amendment to remove paragraph c. I'm not averse to having the conversation, but I'm not prepared to make that decision. I know that the people in paragraph c are not receiving any compensation. I think that's something I could explore at a later date, but today, just to get things done quickly, I think that would be the best way to move forward.

Madam Chair, I am officially asking for that to amend the motion. I hope to see paragraph c removed.

The rest of it I can support, just for clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I have Mr. Cooper.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate Ms. Blaney's comments. I am amenable to removing paragraph c. I think both witnesses should appear, but this is something that perhaps could be looked at on another day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

On my list for the motion and then for the amendment, I had, following Ms. Blaney, Mr. Fergus, followed by Mr. Turnbull.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the amendment or the suggestion by Madam Blaney. I also appreciate that Mr. Cooper is willing to remove paragraph c. However, I do have some problems with this motion as it stands, and I would like to make a modification.

I think we've gotten into a bad habit, Madam Chair, of detailing who comes and for how long before committee. I think it's been very good that we've been able to do this, but now we're getting into the short strokes before the summer. I would like to suggest that we maintain paragraphs a and b, but we remove the times that are added to their appearances.

Of course, we'll ask the chair to please schedule this, respecting the times within the next 10 days for these folks to come, and just allow the chair and the clerk to determine for how long these folks would appear before committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull is next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I am obviously a little disappointed that I didn't get my round of questions in, but I've let that go at this point. Looking at this motion, I don't really comprehend how this has to do with the question of privilege that we're undertaking a study on here. I can only speculate as to what the real motivations of calling these particular witnesses are, but based on what we've seen from the Conservatives in terms of dragging people's good names through the mud, I have concerns that this is just another way to attack people who don't really deserve to be brought into this.

I don't have any problem with them in particular being witnesses. At the same time, I just don't understand the motives of Mr. Cooper. How does this pertain to the question of privilege? To me, that's what we're doing the study on. We realize that this may now include several other members of Parliament—we'll see—but as a study that we're doing....

What we're trying to get to the bottom of is whether Mr. Chong's privileges were infringed upon by a threat of intimidation or interference that never materialized, which has been documented multiple times by national security experts, including previous witnesses.

National security and intelligence adviser Jody Thomas said that there was no actual threat. There is confirmation from Mr. Johnston's report as well.

That's not to say it isn't a serious matter and that we don't take this seriously because we do, but I don't understand the motive here. I think it's to bring additional people into this to then drag them through the mud for political gain, and if that's what the Conservative Party's motivations are, which seems to be the case based on the experiences that I have had on this committee, then I can't support this motion. I would suggest that maybe we should consider some amendments to it. While I'm not opposed to what Ms. Blaney has said, I'm just looking at what value this motion would bring to our current work, and I don't see it. I don't see the value of it, let alone the amount of time that's been specified here, which I think is a lot of the committee's time for witnesses whom I don't see as being relevant to the particular study.

They are another example of trying to create suspicion out of someone who has integrity and credibility, who has been cited by the Conservative Party because they need to attack the person and discredit Mr. Johnston because they don't like the conclusions in his report that are based on facts and evidence.

When you're desperate and you don't have truth on your side, what you do is attack the person, which is a well-known tactic that's been used in rhetoric since time immemorial. It's attack the person—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The member's comment seems to relate to the main motion, when we're discussing the amendment that's been proposed. Shouldn't we be discussing the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, that's right.

Mr. Turnbull, I realize that you had more to say because it relates to the broader conversation. Sometimes, we do things this way, but let's try to stick to the amendment.

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sure. I generally support the amendment that Ms. Blaney has put forward. Perhaps I'll cede the floor for the moment, and maybe we'll be able to get to a vote on the amendment. Then I'd like to put my name back on the list for the motion itself, please, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I already have you on the motion itself, so I'll revert, because you and Mr. Fergus are on it and I just came to you because of it. I'll add you.

I don't have any other speakers for the amendment. I'm going to call the question on Ms. Blaney's amendment to Mr. Cooper's motion.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On the motion as amended, I have Mr. Fergus, Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Sahota.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, as I suggested the last time I spoke, I would like to propose an amendment that the references to the duration of the witnesses' appearances be removed.

I suggest we leave it to you, Madam Chair, and the clerk to determine how long the witnesses appear before the committee.

Obviously, we'd like to have a full discussion with the witnesses while taking into account their availability. I think my amendment makes sense. We've gotten into the bad habit of asking witnesses to appear for a specific amount of time. I think this amendment makes things easier.

That's my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fergus, can you repeat your amendment?

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

I propose removing all references to how long the witnesses would be appearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Fergus, to confirm what our records show, you're moving the two hours—one hour for paragraph a and one hour for paragraph b. Are you also removing the 10 days or not?

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

It's not the 10 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's just the hours. Thank you.

We are now back on the main motion as amended twice.

My speaking list is Mr. Turnbull followed by Ms. Sahota.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As it stands now, if I'm correct, we have paragraphs a and b. We've eliminated paragraph c. I'm just verifying this. We've removed the reference to the number of hours from both paragraphs a and b. Is that correct? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I still have, I think, similar concerns that I was expressing earlier in relation to this motion. I really don't see how Ms. Block and Ms. Gervais are going to contribute to the work we're doing.

I think the appointment of the special rapporteur, Mr. Johnston.... We had him come before the committee for over three hours. It was about three hours and 15 minutes, if I'm not mistaken, which is almost unheard of in terms of the amount of time a witness would appear. I thought he was very forthcoming and gave us lots of clear responses and really spoke well, I think, to the detailed work he's undertaken as the special rapporteur.

I know that the committee has benefited greatly from his testimony, and I'm not sure why.... I think what we witnessed, certainly from the Conservative Party, was an attempt, which they're not even doing subtly at this point, to drag Mr. Johnston's good name through the mud. Personally, I think it's disgusting. I apologized to Mr. Johnston, in a way, on their behalf, even though I have no right to do so in a sense.

I just feel horrible for how he's been treated, someone who was appointed by Stephen Harper, whom Mr. Poilievre sang praises about for numerous years—as we all did—as a pre-eminent Canadian who served this country so well as the Governor General. To have his reputation be tarnished for political gain just seems to me to be beyond the pale. It makes me feel really badly for him. I really do feel for him. I'm not saying that he deserves, necessarily, to be protected or that he needs it, per se, but I really think it's not merited in his case.

I don't understand why and how these two witnesses will give us more testimony that's really useful for the important work we're undertaking. There are so many witnesses we could be hearing from who I think have an ability to look forward and say how we can improve our response on foreign interference, or witnesses we could have just heard from, if Mr. Cooper hadn't used his opportunity to move a motion like this in the middle of a meeting where we had scheduled witnesses, who were really relevant to a question of privilege.

When we have a question of privilege, and we have the law clerk, the clerk of the House of Commons and the Sergeant-at-Arms here, we have important work to be done on the actual question of privilege. I had clarification questions for them and, I think, very important questions as to how we can understand the potential infringement of one of our MPs' parliamentary privilege.

The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case here, and that's why it was referred to this committee. That's why we're undertaking this work, but it seems a little strange to me that we wouldn't have the opportunity to fully utilize the expertise in the room.

really just don't see the value of these witnesses for the current study. I've stated that and given you some of my reasons.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for not being repetitive, Mr. Turnbull.

Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Chair, I wanted to state my frustration or bewilderment with the last four committee meetings we've had. Perhaps my count is off. I don't even know how many meetings we've had on the question of privilege so far. It doesn't seem any different from the foreign interference study. It's all blending into one.

I've been on this committee for quite some time. We've had other questions of privilege. It's a constitutional and legal matter, like we've heard here today.

I believe the witnesses who were before us today were extremely valuable, and I think they would be beneficial in our getting down to the definition of intimidation. What we've heard from them today about this type of foreign action never having been looked at.... We're sitting on something that is precedent-setting and I think it's quite exciting for us to explore how we adapt and evolve with these given threats in the coming time.

My bewilderment and confusion come from an area...we aren't even exploring that. We've already heard from testimony that threats were made. We've already heard that. We're coming from a place of knowledge where we know foreign interference exists. We know that in terms of election interference, the last two elections may have had attempts, but the elections were decided by Canadians and Canadians alone. We know that.

What we should be deciding at this committee now is whether the level of threat or the type of threat, or if in the absence of knowledge of a threat...whether we would now make a precedent-setting decision as to this being a privilege matter. That is before us.

We haven't even begun to explore the actual issue. The witnesses who have been put before us today are not going to get us any closer to making that determination.

What is the point of our going in circles just for the circus that serves the CPC's political intentions and motivations? That's exactly what it is. It's all political tactics to see how far they can take this game of leading Canadians down this road of mistrust in our democracy, and how they can destroy and maybe burn down our institutions. That is the goal of the CPC, and that's all I can really make of all of this, because we're not getting down to what we should be doing to protect our institutions.

Yes, we already know certain things exist, so we need to now move forward from those. We know a colleague of ours, who happens to be a member of the CPC.... I feel bad for what has happened. Now we need to figure out how to solve that problem.

One thing that's already happened—and we've heard this—is a directive has been given by the public safety minister to make sure that any incidents of intimidation or foreign interference involving parliamentarians are quickly elevated and brought to the attention of our security agencies and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. This is important. This is a good outcome, I would say, as I was questioning some of the witnesses here today.

Although it's taken us getting through a lot of mud and unnecessary stuff, we're getting to some good conclusions, but I don't believe having this meeting with these witnesses is getting us any closer to answering the question of whether this is a matter of privilege or not.

These witnesses would not be coming here with any knowledge of whether this is a matter of privilege or not in this House of Commons. What is the point?

The point is to distract and to create mistrust. That's all we've seen in Pierre Poilievre's campaign so far. There are no solutions and no ideas. It's just, “Let's tear this place down. Let's see how angry we can get people. Let's cause confusion and chaos where we can cause them.”

That's exactly what these witnesses are being brought here in an attempt to do. I'm sure the witnesses will be wonderful and great, because they're eminent top professionals in their areas, but what's the point of this? It's definitely not to get to the answers that this committee has been mandated to look into by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

It is not our mandate to drag other people's names through the mud unnecessarily or to attack them about what they did 30 years ago. This is becoming normal, I guess, in politics in the last couple of years, but it's disgusting, quite frankly. It's absolutely disgusting.

I don't think any knowledgeable, eminent person is going to want to advise parliamentarians anymore, which is going to be a real shame because we respect professionals in their fields and require their guidance and their advisement at times like this when we are going through unprecedented situations—that we have their service at our disposal. However, no one is going to come forward anymore.

Quite frankly, I don't even think anyone's going to want to become a parliamentarian in the near future if we keep going in this direction, at least nobody who has a reputation that they care about.

All I can say is that I'm a little frustrated by the joke that we're creating out of this whole situation. Even what we saw in the House of Commons yesterday, running out there so the budget could not come to a vote—running out and hiding in the lobby, voting on your phones and saying that you're having technical difficulties when, quite frankly, it's evident that no one's having technical difficulties.... It's just to delay and waste time.

This is another tactic to delay, to waste time, to confuse matters, and I don't agree with it. I don't intend to vote if you cannot explain to me what your intention is and what type of evidence you think you will be garnering from bringing such witnesses that will help us in the question of privilege that is before this committee now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

My list is exhausted, so I would like to call the question. Is that suitable?

I am just going to make a comment really quickly.

Today is Thursday. With regard to Tuesday, the notice is out for Duheme for one hour, as was requested by this committee, and Morrison for two hours. That evening, as was requested by this committee, is Vigneault for two hours. On Thursday, as was requested by this committee, Minister Mendicino is appearing. Then we have two of the people who were on that list of witnesses we had asked.

The 10 days will be pending a deviation request, which the clerk has already put through. Otherwise, it will probably be 10 business days. We will try to swap around, but cancelling people doesn't get us further ahead, so just be mindful that we will do our best to have them here within 10 days. Should a deviation request not happen, it will be the 20th where we'll try to put them in, unless something changes.

Did you have something to add, Mr. Savard-Tremblay?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

In response to all that, I just want to mention that Ms. Block worked on the report in question and that we know she has something to contribute. We aren't looking to pillory her. We are simply looking for answers.

The various comments that this is a smear campaign are unfounded. We have a report that raised questions, that was challenged and that is ultimately raising more and more questions. For that reason, asking Ms. Block to appear is far from holding a public trial on the matter.

Our goal is to get to the bottom of all this. We have a duty to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I will call the vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The meeting is adjourned.