Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Paragraph (c) is asking the clerk to prepare the report with whomever owes documents, and whatever else. Paragraph (d) is getting the clerk to contact the people in the report. Paragraph (c) is to “direct the analysts and clerk to prepare” for us, and (d) is “direct the clerk to contact” them.

The two are needed. He's not suggesting that they be removed. They are not redundant.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You're saying that they do have value in the motion. One is to create the report of the outstanding documents. One is to contact the people.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Who are we...?

I guess it's my turn, anyway. I'd like further clarification. I ask who we are really contacting at this point, because (a) has completely been removed.

The motion reads:

That, in relation to its order of reference of Wednesday, May 10, 2023, concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members, and in relation to its study on foreign election interference, the Committee

(a) direct the analysts and clerk to prepare, for the members of the Committee, within three weeks, a report on all undertakings given by witnesses who have appeared during these studies and the status of those undertakings, other than the undertakings referred to....

I think I understand more clearly. It's just that so many changes have happened.

Basically, the analysts would.... We have a report. The analysts would go back with the perspective.... Correct me if I'm wrong and tell me what you're understanding is so that we're all on the same page. You'd go back and go through all the witness lists that we've ever had, give us some kind of table, maybe, or however you would like to format it, of all the undertakings. Then, I think there would be a timing needed because you would give us that. You would let us know what the status of those undertakings is—so completed versus those that are not completed. Then I would think that (d) would only come after we would be able to review all those undertakings, what you give us. Then we would be able to direct you as to whom to contact and whom not to contact. That's something I would propose that I think makes sense.

In (d) it states, “direct the clerk to contact any witness who has not completely satisfied any undertaking”. I feel there should be a step in between. The way this reads, to me, is you're preparing a report for committee members. I assume we should have a meeting on that report, then. The clerk wouldn't automatically see the report on his own and go and start contacting people—or would we have a discussion as to what the undertaking was, whether we find that it was complete or not complete? Would we discuss that? The way that we have a report right now, we're not getting to review that report.

When the analysts bring us this report, would we have an opportunity to review it or would all of this just happen between the analysts and the clerk? That's my question.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have a point of order, Monsieur Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Yes. I bring this point first: I would like to talk with my colleagues. Can we suspend for a couple of minutes? We want to talk together about this.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

They want to talk together, to talk it out, Chair. They're asking to [Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Suspension will happen when there is agreement. If certain people want to have conversations, that's what's happening. People can have conversations in the room. I can't just suspend because somebody wants to have a conversation with people. That's why conversations happen.

I don't see agreement here to suspend. It's actually not really a point of order, but sure....

I will give the floor back. Can I just—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I believe I put out the question and you were having some discussions. I think you're going to respond. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I will respond to you based on the conversation I just had.

This is in regard to the witnesses who appeared and committed to undertake to provide us documents. We can go through the testimony and confirm who did that. We can let you know who we received it from.

If the committee decides, by whatever motion we pass, that we get to do a summary of who owes us documents and then we contact them, that's what the clerk will do. If the committee decides that we want to have a report, have all of us look at it and then call witnesses, that's what we will do.

Within (d) it does suggest—I'm reading from the motion—to “direct the clerk to contact any witness who has not completely satisfied any undertaking”. The clerk would not be able to determine “has not completely satisfied” without members letting us know if they're satisfied or not, so that is something we would need direction on, but what the committee determines is what we will do.

If the committee wants a report to be prepared, brought back to committee to discuss before the clerk contacts people, then that's what we'll do. If the committee decides we're going to get a report created and then the clerk contacts them for testimony, that's what we'll do. Members are going to determine what they would like us to do—“us” being the clerk.

Ms. Sahota, I do have others on the list. Are you almost...?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Are we back on the complete motion?

Since I wasn't here last time, could I get some update on paragraph (e)? Is paragraph (e) still as it stands?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We're on the main motion as amended. The amendment was the removal of paragraph (b), followed by the removal of paragraph (a). Everything else remains.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay. Everything else remains.

Paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) make sense to me. It's what we were discussing earlier, and it's what Mrs. Romanado was also referring to, at that point. I assume that was the conversation Mr. Cooper and Mr. Green were having, as well, but I could be completely wrong. Therefore, I was hopeful we were moving in a positive direction. I'm glad.

I have no issues with paragraph (c) or paragraph (d), but I need more clarification on paragraph (e). It is quite long. I'd put out there that it's not necessary for the Conservative members to help me out with justifications for paragraph (e), but I would appreciate it if paragraph (e) were explained to me, since I've lost my footing a bit here. If no one wishes to do so, I could just continue trying to figure it out and taking time before I feel ready to vote on paragraph (e).

However, paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) look good to me at this point.

I'd put that out there. If Mr. Cooper could help me out a bit and explain paragraph (e) to me, I would appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Duguid, followed by Mr. Duncan and Mrs. Romanado.

Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very much in favour of what Ms. Sahota just recommended: hearing from Mr. Cooper. I don't know how the rules work, in terms of allowing an intervention for clarification. I'm ready to speak, but I wouldn't mind hearing from Mr. Cooper, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Unfortunately, I don't believe you're going to be hearing his melodious voice yet.

If you would like to have the floor, you can. Otherwise, I have Mr. Duncan on the floor, who might provide some insights.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'll provide a few comments, Madam Chair, just reflecting on Ms. Sahota's comments a few moments ago.

I think in light of the discussion we had on (a), I'm now okay on (c) and (d). Those points, (c) and (d), would have been moot had (a) been amended in the way that I think my colleagues were going to suggest.

One of the reasons I want to hear more about (e) is that one of our substitute members the other day talked very eloquently about our national security and some of the recklessness we've seen from the Conservative Party. We have to protect our nation. Protecting our nation is sometimes about protecting intelligence. We saw the leader of the opposition the other day rush to judgment and call what was unfortunately a tragic accident a terrorist attack. They are always willing to jump to those kinds of conclusions without the proper backing of evidence.

What I'm concerned about in (e) is jeopardizing our national security. We know that there are foreign threats out there. That's why we want to get to the motion of privilege and deal with the report that is before us.

If I had some suggestions for amendments, which I would love to talk with my colleagues about—that's one of the reasons for the requested suspension—we need to give clear, clear direction to the departments and agencies tasked with gathering these documents to be judicious and to apply redactions to the access to information and privacy acts so that we protect our national security, we protect our sovereignty and we protect our members. That's the reason we are studying this motion of privilege in the first place.

I think in the spirit of what I have heard around the table, we do want more evidence and more documentation so that we can get to the end of this study and we can deal with the matter of privilege related to Mr. Chong and Ms. Kwan and all of our members who have been subjected to foreign interference.

With that, I will once again yield the floor. I am concerned about (e). I am concerned about protecting our sovereignty and protecting our country from foreign interference. That is why I would like a little more information.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Duncan, followed by Mrs. Romanado and then Ms. Sahota.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Chair, I will remove myself again and ask to go to the bottom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think where some of the confusion came in with respect to (c) and (d) is that reference to preparing a report. I think it's more preparing a list of undertakings instead of a detailed report. I think that's where there was some confusion.

I'm fine with collating a list of what was asked and what was received and then presenting it to the committee so that we can determine what is absolutely crucial for us to be able to look at before we finalize the report on the point of privilege. I too have some issues with respect to (e). I know that we can't discuss in public what is referenced in the draft report, so I can't really explain publicly why I have some concerns about (e) without breaking privilege of what's in the report that has not been made public yet.

With respect to other parts of the motion, I do have some concerns as well. I'm not sure if other members have some of those same concerns—we keep getting people going to the bottom of the list—with respect to, for instance, (e)(iii). I think the language can be worked on a little bit. Right now it says that it be provided that “these documents be deposited without redaction, in both official languages, with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel”.

I'm prepared to move an amendment on that point. I would prefer that it say “the Departments and Agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions according to the Access to Information and Privacy Act, and”.

I would like to move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you have it in both official languages?

You're just removing. Is that right?

Can you please confirm what you're doing?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

What I'm saying is that under “provided that”, bullet point (iii) currently—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry.

To get us to the same spot, we are on the main motion under (e), under (B). Is that right?