Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 12th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

There's an issue....

In answer to Mr. Carr's question first, I'll say that members are not able to access that. However, the committee can authorize current members of the committee to see in camera testimony from previous Parliaments. You don't have the automatic right to see it, but the committee can authorize that.

The other issue—I'll come back to you, Mr. Carr; I see your hand up—the analysts have told me is, again, understanding the logistics of it, their inability to provide a substantive briefing note for Tuesday's meeting, as it would have to be submitted by tomorrow at noon. I'm hoping that there's an understanding, given the urgency with which the committee has asked to proceed on this study, that we can absolve the analysts from that. Why put them through that if we're not going to receive something substantial? I see heads nodding that we have consensus on that.

Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make sure that I understand this. In other words, if any member on this side or that side who was not sitting in those meetings that were held in camera in the previous session wishes to gain access to the transcripts of those meetings, that member could gain that access with the approval of members around this table. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

That is correct.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay.

Therefore, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of Mr. Cooper's motion. Nonetheless, I appreciate the clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

What I'm going to say may indirectly answer Mr. Carr's question. The fact that the analysts have confirmed that they have already started producing documentation related to all the latest studies—this documentation was not distributed at the last committee meeting and was not distributed today—demonstrates the relevance of having a compilation of documents.

That will also enable members around the table to all have access to the same documents, to the same information. It could also consolidate the information on foreign interference that has been made available in other committees, through the Hogue commission, if the analysts deem it relevant. So a number of things may come out of proceeding in that way.

I would like to ask a question about confidentiality. When committees receive draft study reports, those reports are deemed to be confidential. From what I understand, a member making them public would constitute contempt. Is this a formula that could be used to compile information that was received in camera and distribute it to the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I have a sense that it can be confirmed. I don't want the committee to expect something different. What the analysts are going to prepare is a summary of available evidence that's already there. They're not going to provide anything new. If it is the desire of the committee to provide in camera testimony as part of this study, understanding.... I'm sure that some members who were there will have a better understanding of the national security consequences of doing that than I will. I was not there; some members were. Again, this is a summary of existing evidence. This isn't anything new. This isn't a report. This is a briefing note to this committee; that is what we're interpreting this motion to be.

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Maybe I misspoke.

To the extent that it would be useful for the committee to receive summaries of what was said in camera, could those summaries be considered confidential in the report the committee would receive, in the same way that draft reports are confidential? Would proceeding in that way be acceptable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Yes, absolutely. If it's the will of the committee to provide a...but again, it would be a briefing note and it would be confidential. If that is the will of the committee, that is something we can proceed with.

Mr. Cooper, did you have your hand up?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I did, but I think the issues have been largely resolved. I'm hoping that they are and we can get on with passing this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Are there any further discussions?

I have Madame Romanado.

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

I want to make sure we understand.

What the committee is asking for is a briefing note of the testimony from the previous three studies. The briefing note would contain the in camera testimony, or reference to it, and, therefore, that briefing note could not be made public because it has information that was provided in camera. Am I understanding that correctly? It's a briefing note that's provided with the understanding that it's like when we receive a report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I believe Madame Normandin asked if we could proceed that way, and we can proceed that way.

There's a vagueness to this motion that I hope the committee takes a bit of time to look at clarifying a bit more. It's using words that I've never seen in a motion—like “assess the need for”—but as I interpret it, it is a briefing note that has been requested. It will be provided as briefing notes are provided to members. Upon return from the summer period, we will analyze this briefing note and determine whether—if possible, maybe—a study will be required.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Yes...for the purposes of the analysts in terms of preparing such a briefing note. However, the motion is a bit broader in scope than that, in that it would permit members to, at the very least, have access to all of the evidence, whether it be briefs or documents that were tabled at committee and so on. They would have that ability because it is to provide all “testimony and documentation”, but as for what would be presented in terms of the work of the analysts, I think what has been proposed is more than satisfactory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Does the committee wish to proceed with Mr. Cooper's...? Okay, we'll deal with this. Is there any further debate on this motion?

We'll go to Madame Brière and then to Mr. Carr.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first sentence of the motion is, “That the committee…assess the need for a study on foreign interference…”. However, everything has been studied. The committee has been studying this topic since November 2022. There have been reports and testimony.

I think everyone agrees that a summary can be tabled with the committee, but we're certainly not going to redo the work that has been done over the past three years. That would be a waste of resources and time. The members opposite were all present for this study. I agree that the committee should get the summary, but we need to move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

The analysts have also mentioned, again, if this is the will of the committee, that it can be one briefing note and a confidential briefing note, if that's the preference of the committee. I see heads nodding, but that's not what has been written down and instructed to us. I would prefer it to be in writing rather than for me to just make that determination.

I'll call the vote.

Is there any further debate on the subject? I see none.

(Motion agreed to)

Seeing nothing further, do we have agreement to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Great meeting, everyone.