I will invite members to please carry on their conversations outside so that all other members who wish to can hear this message, especially the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
The committee had reported earlier that same day, in its 14th report, that a witness had refused to answer questions, even after being formally ordered to do so. This was Ms. Lauren Chen, who appeared before the committee on November 5.
According to the member, the witness showed contempt for the committee and the House by refusing to answer. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford asked the Chair to find a prima facie question of privilege so that he could, according to his notice, move a motion calling Ms. Chen to the bar of the House to receive an admonishment and answer questions.
The member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia argued that this situation constituted a breach of privilege and even a contempt of the House. She noted that the witness refused to answer even the simplest questions and that these types of refusals are unfortunately becoming a trend. However, she did concede that Ms. Chen's refusal was based on the fact that she is facing a criminal investigation in the United States. This raises questions about the extent of the usual protections that a committee witness can expect from the cloak of parliamentary privilege. For that reason, the member suggested that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The member for Kildonan—St. Paul contended that Ms. Chen’s refusal to answer the questions of committee members was contrary to the House committees’ well-established expectation to receive answers from witnesses. She emphasized that allowing witnesses to disregard committee questions hindered their ability to seek accountability from individuals appearing before them. She urged the Chair to ensure that Ms. Chen was held to account for her flagrant disregard for the House’s authority.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader also intervened. He stated that Ms. Chen’s reasons for not answering questions were based on her concerns about the risk of self-incrimination while under criminal investigation in the United States. He suggested that, while the House has the power to compel responses to members’ questions, the House needs to use its authority thoughtfully.
According to the parliamentary secretary, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is the appropriate body for examining the circumstances and making recommendations to the House on a way to proceed. He also asserted that making a prima facie finding now would be premature and that both the Chair and the House should wait for the committee to report on the matter first.
Historically, the House has tended to view the refusal by witnesses to answer questions with great seriousness. Having reviewed the committee proceedings of November 5, 2024, and having also considered the committee's report, it is clear to the Chair that Ms. Chen repeatedly refused to provide answers to questions posed by committee members. She stated that her refusal stemmed from concerns about self-incrimination in relation to ongoing investigations and court proceedings in the United States.
As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 1078 and 1079, and I quote:
Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, the witness is obliged to reply. On the other hand, members have been urged to display the “appropriate courtesy and fairness” when questioning witnesses. The actions of a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House.
While the Chair understands Ms. Chen's concerns about self-incrimination in the United States, it is not the Chair's role to rule on legal matters. My responsibility is to ensure that the House's authority is respected.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that this matter touches on parliamentary privilege, and I am prepared to find that the matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. However, in the case before us, the Chair is also obliged to consider other unusual factors, especially in light of the course of action the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford proposes to take.
There are limits on the House’s jurisdiction over an individual located outside of Canada. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 981, in footnote 155, confirms that an order of the House to compel the attendance of a witness depends on the witness being in Canada. This is similar to a summons issued by a House committee. On the same page, it states:
The Standing Orders place no explicit limitation on this power. In theory, it applies to any person on Canadian soil.
Erskine May, 25th edition, in a section entitled “Witnesses from overseas”, states at page 977, “Committees sitting abroad cannot exercise a power formally to send for persons, papers and records. Nor are witnesses summoned from overseas to give evidence in the United Kingdom”. On the same page, in respect of foreign nationals, Erskine May states that the power to summon is unlimited as long as the individual is “present within the jurisdiction of Parliament”. To my knowledge, Ms. Chen is currently in the United States.
These procedural authorities point to a central truth about the House’s power to compel the attendance of an individual, namely, that in using this power, the House must ensure it has the means to guarantee the desired outcome it seeks.
The motion the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford appears to want to move would call for Ms. Chen to be found in contempt and be ordered to appear at the Bar. However, it may not be within the control of the House at this time to compel Ms. Chen’s presence before it. The situation very much leaves the Chair in a conundrum, as it does not serve the House’s interests to adopt orders it cannot enforce.
Accordingly, and as indicated already, I am prepared to find a prima facie case of privilege. I believe that, in the circumstances, the best course of action would be for the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This would enable the committee to properly consider the unique elements of this case and suggest an appropriate and timely course of action to the House that ensures its privileges are respected. It may also provide more general guidance for any witness in similar circumstances to Ms. Chen’s.
I would like to make one last point. The House is currently seized with two motions on different matters of privilege. Only after the proceedings on the two questions of privilege are adjourned or disposed of will the member be in a position to move his privilege motion. This will afford time for the member to consult the clerks at the table for advice before finalizing the wording of his motion.
Given the unanimity of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's report on this matter, it is the Chair's hope that members will be able to come to an agreement quickly as to how to best dispose of this motion and, if adopted, to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake its study expeditiously.
I thank all members for their attention.