Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to the question of privilege raised by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on November 7 concerning the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am vice-chair. I echo many of the comments made by the member of Bloc Québécois, who is also a vice-chair of the committee.
Conservatives are very concerned with the display we saw at the public safety committee on November 5 by Ms. Lauren Chen. The committee is studying the impact of Russian disinformation in Canada. All committees have heard testimony, in this study and others, that Russian interference in Canada is a very serious matter. Russia is looking to sow division and discord in Canada, and it ultimately wants Canada to fail and be weak. What is happening in the western world because of Russia is a very serious matter, and we have been studying that as a priority at the public safety committee over the last few weeks.
I found what happened on November 5 to be quite appalling and an affront to our ability to use accountability tools to hold ministers and others accountable. They are a check on power that we have as official opposition members and members of committee.
Ms. Chen was first invited to willingly come to committee to answer quite serious allegations. There is a United States Department of Justice indictment that involves her company, Tenet Media. The allegations are that her company received $10 million from covert agents from Russia Today for the purpose of spreading Russian propaganda through her platform. It is quite a serious matter and an issue that is at the heart of what we are discussing at committee.
We invited Ms. Chen to committee, and her testimony was welcome by all parties, but she refused to come willingly. Some of the allegations against her company and against her and the covert actions she allegedly engaged in are quite shocking. She invited other influencers to speak and, as the allegations go, failed to inform them where the funding came from and of the influence that Russia Today had on her platform. All of these individuals were sharing their message under Tenet Media, which was being influenced by Russia, according to the allegations. This is a very serious matter that is topical to our study at committee.
Ms. Chen was invited but refused, so the committee unanimously agreed to summon her. When she came, and I have never been witness to this but I know it has happened at other committees, she refused to answer any questions. As the Bloc member pointed out, she asked Ms. Chen her name and she would not even answer that question, let alone important questions we had about the influence of Russia Today, which is the propaganda arm of Russia that is looking to undermine and weaken Canada, and the involvement she had in playing along with it and receiving millions of dollars to do that. These were very important questions that are of primary importance to the health of our democracy and our ability to hold wrongdoers accountable. She refused to answer them.
The NDP member and the Bloc member outlined, and I agree with their assessment, various regulations in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, on pages 1078 to 1079, which states: “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them.” We agree with that.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you know procedure better than anyone, other than perhaps the experts sitting at the table in front of you, whom we all rely on, but beyond that, when you are considering this question of privilege, I would ask you to consider the impact your ruling will have. Do we want to allow, as parliamentarians and committee members, a precedent to be set, which I would argue is very dangerous, for the accountability mechanisms we have as parliamentarians? If this is allowed to go ahead and Ms. Chen is not called to the bar or is not held accountable for her lack of responses, what does that say to all other witnesses? What does that say to ministers of any political stripe? What does that say to anyone invited to committee who is a bit uncomfortable or, for whatever reason, does not want to answer questions? What does that really say?
Your ruling will set down that either Parliament believes it is unacceptable and people must come to committee to answer questions or they do not have to if they do not feel like it. I would ask for you to consider what precedent this will set moving forward, because I think it will be quite impactful.
If Ms. Chen gets away with her bad behaviour without a clear reprimand, it will be deeply impactful and concerning for Parliament and for the ability of committees to hold wrongdoers accountable. Again, she has not been convicted of anything. She has not actually been formally charged. What we are saying, and what we are concerned with at committee, is that she took money from Russia to further their propaganda, which aims to undermine Canada and other western actors.
What she was there to talk about is very serious, and we need those answers from her. Regardless of that, if she is allowed to get away without a reprimand from Parliament, as we have seen with Kristian Firth and others, that is a very dangerous precedent to set for accountability. We would be saying, as Parliament, that it is okay if someone comes to committee and does not answer any of our questions.
The committee does incredibly important work. All the committees are seized with critical issues right now. If we have witnesses who come and do not have to answer, what are we all doing this for? What is our duty as parliamentarians at committee? What is our duty as opposition members if people can just show up and say nothing? In our rule books, we have as precedent for hundreds of years that people have to come and answer questions; she did not do that. In fact, I found that it was quite insulting to the institution at large, to parliamentarians at the table who have been duly elected by the Canadian public to fulfill their duties.
We have been appointed to committee. Our duty is to hold people accountable, to gather expert testimony, to finalize reports, to issue recommendations to Parliament, to ensure that Canada and Canadians are well aware of what is going on in these critical issues they are concerned about. Russian disinformation deeply impacts us all, just as interference from China, India, Iran and Pakistan does. This is not a nothing issue. This is a critical issue that has an impact on modern democracies and the foundations and the security of our institutions.
I would ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, the precedent that your ruling will set. Whatever it is, it will be of paramount importance. Given that all parties support this and have supported it every step of the way, in fact, this is not a partisan issue. This has nothing to do with somebody's political leanings or even with the issue itself, although it is serious, as I have outlined. The question is this: Can people come to committee and disrespect Parliament by saying nothing? I would say no, and I hope that you agree, Mr. Speaker, after you review this and rule on this question of privilege.
Conservatives have supported this. We have been in lockstep with other parties on this. It speaks volumes that we are united on something for once. It is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you use the tools at your disposal and at Parliament's disposal to ensure that anyone who is doing this is held accountable.
To conclude on the specific matter Ms. Chen was called to committee about, as a patriotic Canadian and somebody who loves this country and is honoured to serve it in this capacity, I was quite appalled to read that indictment and to think that a fellow Canadian is taking money from a foreign government to undermine the Canadian interest. I was appalled as a parliamentarian to sit across from someone who refused to answer for her own actions, who did not have the integrity to answer for what she had allegedly done. There is a lot in here that sets quite a precedent. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider those things holistically and, at the end of the day, consider whether our privilege as parliamentarians has been violated.
When someone is invited to a committee by all members and summoned to answer questions on something of this magnitude of importance, and even if it is any other issue, do we not have the privilege to hear answers to those questions? Is that not a centuries-old tradition? If someone is allowed not to answer, what does that say about the strength of our democracy, the committee process or our ability as duly elected parliamentarians to hold people accountable? It calls into question all of those powers.
This is a much bigger question of our democratic institutions, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you consider that holistically and really think about the seriousness of the decision you make and the precedent it will set. Ultimately, the Conservatives believe that committees and the powers we have should be used to hold wrongdoers accountable. It is tough to say this in the House because it is a very serious allegation, but someone who may very well be a traitor to this country needs to be held accountable for not coming to committee and answering questions on those allegations. I would ask you to consider that as a patriotic Canadian.
The Conservatives want to see people held accountable. They want to see our powers maintained. They want to see respect for this place maintained. This happens with decisions you are about to make.