PROC Committee Meeting

     Welcome back, everyone.

    Go ahead, Madame Normandin.

    Unless I'm mistaken, we were talking about the motion we put forward concerning the study of the 45th general election. We were talking about a Liberal amendment to strike out some of the text and add “and interpretation”. If I understand correctly, my colleagues may have discussed this amendment.

    Mr. Carr.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'm looking for unanimous consent from the committee to withdraw Ms. Kayabaga's amendment, which I understand was proposed at the last committee meeting. I'm here for her today, so I'm just looking for unanimous consent in order for that to happen.

    Is there unanimous consent?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Amendment withdrawn)

    The Chair: We'll go back to the original motion that Madame Normandin moved.

    Mr. Louis.

    If I may, I will move an amendment that would [Technical difficulty—Editor].

    Just watch the mic.

     I will read the amendment.

    After “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the committee undertake a study of the changes that need to be made in the implementation”, we would add “and interpretation”. The original motion then continues:

    We would make a second addition here of “for a total of 4 meetings”. The rest of the motion would remain the same. I'll continue to read it:

    I think we would change that to “the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada”.

    Do you have an electronic version of that in both official languages, Mr. Louis? Okay.

     We'll suspend for a couple of minutes to make sure that everyone has a copy of that.

     The amendment has been sent to everyone. The changes are in bold. We are debating the amendment.

    Mr. Louis, do you have anything further?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I see “Chief Electoral Officer” was fixed. I'm just making sure that those last changes were made.

    It is as written. Thank you.

    The debate is on the amendment.

    I'll speak slowly to ensure that Madame Romanado gets a copy of that.

    Is there anyone who wishes to speak to the amendment?

    Mr. Van Popta.

    Do we have this in print or...? All I have is just my mark up.

     It's been sent to your email. If you would like a printed copy, we'll suspend and get you a printed copy—if that's your preference.

    That would be my preference.

    Excellent.

    We will suspend for a couple of minutes and get printed copies for everyone.

     We are back, and we are debating the amendment.

    I'll mention that I think there's an understanding that the final line of the motion is “That the committee report its recommendations and observations to the House.” There was a typo.

    A voice: It's “observations and recommendations”.

    The Chair: Yes. Excellent.

     Is there any debate on the amendment? I see none.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Now we will move on to the motion as amended.

     Is there no debate? That is excellent news.

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: I see your hand up, but first I'll make sure I put this on the record. In terms of what we are going to do on Tuesday, if this is the will of the committee—obviously, it's the only matter before us right now, subject to what we're going to discuss—I need to know. The time is tight in terms of who we call. We will attempt to get the Chief Electoral Officer here on Tuesday, since that is directed by the motion. If there are other witnesses, we will need to have their names as soon as possible, remembering the headsets needed to ensure they can participate and the infrastructure required to get those witnesses ready in such a short period of time.

    Madame Normandin, go ahead.

    I have two questions about that, Mr. Chair.

    First, we're talking about a meeting next Tuesday. Technically, the parliamentary session will end on June 20. Are there any indications that no meeting will be held next Thursday?

     The House is sitting, as far as I know. Regarding what is discussed between the House leaders, you would have a much better understanding of that than I do. I am in the hands of this committee. I want to ensure that we are meeting on Tuesday and that we do have something prepared for Tuesday. Then, if not for Thursday, we can have something lined up when the House does return.

     When I say to send your witnesses as soon as possible, that means now or very shortly after the meeting. I'm going to accept that the Chief Electoral Officer is the witness that is the preference; I see nods around the table. The first priority would be to get him. If he's not available, then provide those witnesses and we can make the effort to get people. Again, this is very short notice.

     Madame Normandin, go ahead.

    The second point I would like to raise concerns witnesses. The way the motion is drafted, it already sets out the order in which we would like to invite witnesses. There's a reason for that.

    Point (a) of the motion states, “representatives of each of the political parties who wish to speak on this subject”. Our reasoning behind that is to enable party representatives who may have witnessed certain things during the election to come talk about it. In addition, if Canadians witnessed certain things, they will also be able to come and testify. That may provide us with new information, and we may then want to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer.

    The first witnesses we would like to hear from on Tuesday are the representatives of our parties. Since we're supposed to be relatively close to the representatives of our parties, I imagine we can invite them to testify on Tuesday.

     Potentially. Unless the committee wishes to get down into this, I don't see (a), (b), (c) and (d) as a ranking of witnesses or a tiered list of witnesses. The Chief Electoral Officer, I imagine, will be here multiple times in our months on various studies, since that is a priority of this committee and under the jurisdiction of the committee.

    In terms of closeness, we don't know. Again, we're asking people to appear and just being cognizant of the fact that it is June and that people do plan vacations and have to plan for taking care of kids or whatnot, or any of those items, so they may or may not be available. There's the fact that the witnesses you may seek are from Quebec and are close. They may wish to come down to Ottawa and can appear quickly. Please provide us with those names. We will endeavour to see those, but Mr. Melillo may know someone from Kenora who wishes to testify, and that may be a more difficult journey.

    We will do our best. In my experience, when we're embarking on a study, we're not usually right up against the end of the session. We have time to work things in. I know that the clerk, who is a very experienced clerk, will do her best to get those witnesses, but please provide those names to us.

     Madame Normandin.

    With all due respect, Mr. Chair, the motion specifically sets out the order in which the witnesses will appear. It does say, “in the order listed”. Given the context, it's relevant that the invitation be extended to the representatives of our parties, even if it means they testify by Zoom, which hybrid Parliament makes possible.

    I submit that for your consideration.

    I guess the question is.... You may be in contact with these witnesses and they're for sure guaranteed, but life happens. If these witnesses aren't available, we again do not have a lot of time, because we've now burned today trying to get hold of people. Then we're into Friday to reach out to political parties—and which politics parties? Is it just those represented in the House? Are we opening it up beyond that in terms of the parties people wish to speak to? It can't be just names. We will need contact information for all of those witnesses. For political parties, is it just the Conservatives, Bloc, Liberal, NDP and Green, those who are represented in the House, or is it beyond that? The meeting might have a different tone if we have witnesses beyond that.

    I do take your point on “in the order listed”, but it makes it more difficult for the clerk to ensure that we're complying with that.

    I don't know if anyone has any options. It's a logistical difficulty, the way the committee has set it up. If we don't want to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer until the end of the study, we're now looking to hear from him in the fall. If that's the will of the committee, that's fine. We will undertake that, but I don't....

    Madame Normandin.

    I suggest that the parties here today submit as soon as possible, at the very least, a list of people who could represent them, and that we don't plan anything for Thursday's meeting, in case representatives of all parties are available that day. That would be a good opportunity for the committee to meet to begin the study.

     I have Madame Romanado.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    As soon as this becomes public, the Green Party will certainly ask to invite witnesses to speak on the issue. It will be problematic if witnesses invited by a party are not available on Tuesday but only on Thursday, since we only have four meetings. Similarly, if two political parties invite witnesses who are available on Tuesday, and two parties invite witnesses who are available on Thursday, that will take up two meetings, and we voted to hold four.

    So I suggest that the political parties give their list of witnesses to the clerk and that we try to follow the content of the motion, but we also don't want to waste the time we have. I don't want us to end up in a situation where representatives of a political party can't come because they're not available on a given day.

    I want to avoid that to limit logistical problems.

    I do take that point, because I don't want to be in a situation where, for example, the executive director of the Liberal Party is the only one who can appear on Tuesday, and if the Chief Electoral Officer is available to appear on Tuesday as well, it's “we won't hear from you”. We'll be at a point.... If it's the will of the committee to stick to this, my preference would be to give the clerk some flexibility in terms of who we can call to fill up these meetings and have more substantive meetings. I can understand the rationale of wanting the Chief Electoral Officer in the middle, as he's not exactly at the end of the list of witnesses, but he will be back on the estimates, I imagine, and I believe there's another proposed motion as well.

     That would be my preference: to give the clerk some flexibility to fill up these two meetings. If it is the will of the committee to stick to the letter of.... There may not even be a meeting if we can't get those witnesses.

    Go ahead, Madame Normandin.

    I propose that we at least try to see if a certain date would work. There may be one such date, but there may never be one that works for all the parties. If we see that no one is available on Tuesday or Thursday, we can move on to another study and postpone this one until the fall, as I see that there are other proposals on the table. However, with a bit of luck, the witnesses may be available. It would then be appropriate to start our study on Tuesday or Thursday, even though it may be postponed should the time frames be too short.

    I suggest that we at least try that.

     The other item is in terms of how many witnesses per block. Again, for political parties, are you fine to have the main five in a two-hour block? In terms of the other tiers of witnesses as well, how many witnesses...? We can also do one-hour sessions, if we can have that flexibility, as well, in what the committee is looking for on that front. We've all been here when the table is full of witnesses, and it can be a struggle. If it is also acceptable, then, to give the clerk that flexibility to, yes, maybe have a two-hour block on political parties, but maybe it's one hour and one hour.... That's fine. Okay. I'm seeing that.

    Okay. I think we have some marching orders in terms of what's available. I'm worried about the notion that if we can't get witnesses for this one, we can have witnesses on another motion, which has yet to be passed, because we're also putting the clerk in an unfair position. If it's going to be difficult to start making calls today to get a witness on Tuesday, it's going to be more difficult the closer we get to the weekend and the closer we get to Tuesday.

    I will say this again one last time in the hopes that.... I think the easiest witness to get may be the Chief Electoral Officer, but if it's the will of the committee not to hear from him until the fall, that's fine.

    Without seeing anything else—and I'm happy to hear more—my interpretation of the will of the committee is that we will attempt to reach out to political parties to have them appear on Tuesday or Thursday. That will be next week's priority of witnesses, and then we will go from there.

    I would still appreciate witness lists from committee members because, again, this is very open in terms of (b) and (d). If we can set it, is today at 5 p.m. reasonable...for this week, anyway?

     I see worried faces.

    Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

    To the committee, could we say tomorrow? We're already halfway through the day.

    Tomorrow at 10 a.m...?

     That's a big difference. It would give us a bit of a window.

    It's tomorrow at 10 a.m. for the witness lists. Again, the longer we give it, the more difficult it is for the clerk. I want everyone to understand that we're setting this up based on the interpretation that there may be no witnesses. There's not a zero per cent chance of that happening. Keeping that in mind, the limited flexibility leads to that possibility.

    Okay. I think we have a framework of how to begin this study.

    I see that Mr. Cooper's hand is up.

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     At this time, I would like to move the following motion. I move:

    I believe the motion in my name is being distributed.

     We'll suspend.

    The Chair: We're back. Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief.

     This motion is based upon discussions with other parties related to moving forward with work I believe needs to be undertaken by this committee with respect to the issue of foreign interference, and not limited to the recent federal election.

    This committee, for the better part of two years, did extensive work on the issue of foreign interference by the Beijing-based regime during the 2019 and 2021 elections. There was also the question of privilege that this committee studied—involving our colleague MP Michael Chong, who was targeted by the Beijing regime—as well as the cyber-attack that was carried out by the Beijing regime against members of Parliament and senators.

    During the recent federal election, the SITE task force uncovered an information operation from Beijing trying to influence Canadians about Mark Carney by putting him in a favourable light. It took place on WeChat's most popular news account, which, according to intelligence reports, is linked to the Chinese Communist Party's central and legal affairs commission.

     The SITE task force then uncovered a foreign interference operation from Beijing aimed at shifting public opinion among Chinese-speaking Canadians against Joe Tay, the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North. While Mr. Tay was seeking a part of a Conservative nomination in another riding—namely, Markham—Unionville—Hong Kong police announced a bounty of one million Hong Kong dollars, which is the equivalent of $184,000 Canadian, on him. Mr. Tay is someone who has been a vocal critic of human rights abuses and the crackdown against democracy by Hong Kong authorities.

     These are just a few instances of foreign interference identified by the SITE task force.

    Secondly, with respect to the cyber-attack issue, there's the APT31 attack. This committee, prior to the dissolution of Parliament, was seized with the matter. The government had been ordered to produce all documents relating to the APT31 cyber-attack by August 9. That was not satisfied. Instead, the committee received several tranches of documents, including the largest dump of documents, which was received after Christmas. Of course, thereafter, Parliament was prorogued and an election was called. The study was never completed and key evidence was not presented to the committee, despite an order ordering the government to provide all documentation by August 9, 2024.

    These are just a few of the issues that need to be considered by this committee. I had a much more extensive motion that laid out a comprehensive study to deal with some of the issues arising from the recent federal election, as well as outstanding issues from the last Parliament. However, given the fact that we have only one or two days left for this committee to meet before the summer, and having spoken with Madame Normandin, I thought that, at the very least, we could get the evidence put before the committee so that we can reflect upon it over the summer and then come back in the fall and decide how to proceed.

    Go ahead, Mr. Carr.

     Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

     It's certainly the chair's prerogative as to whether or not the chair will allow for questioning from one member to another. The previous chair, whom I know quite intimately, did allow for it. Should you entertain it, I have a question for Mr. Cooper in hopes of gaining some clarity—if Mr. Cooper and the chair agree.

     I certainly don't have any issue whatsoever with looking into these very serious matters, but I'm a little bit perplexed because there are a few contradictions here. One is that it says that the committee—this is at the very end—would “decide what work will be deemed necessary”. However, the determination is being made based on work that's already been undertaken. Effectively, he is asking for the analysts, the clerk and others to take a variety of different studies that have already been undertaken—hundreds of hours' worth of testimony and studies at this committee—compile them all into something that is found in one document, and then present that back to the committee so that the committee can review something it has already reviewed.

     If you're a new member to this committee or a new member to the House, all you have to do is ask your assistant to click on the three or four different studies where this information is available and read them. You will then walk away with everything you need to know about what this committee has done. In other words, the committee is in a position right now to determine whether or not it believes this work is necessary. If members have not read those, so be it. Of course, it's a new Parliament; they need time to do that. However, they can take the time to read them and then come to that determination.

     The second point I want to make is that Mr. Cooper referenced a variety of new pieces of information in his introduction to this motion that reference the 45th election and things that transpired during that election period. None of the information that could become available to us would be found in any type of summary provided by the clerk and the analysts by virtue of the fact that the election took place after those studies. Therefore, there's an inherent contradiction.

     My question for Mr. Cooper, who I think is going to respond to this, is this: Why is this necessary? Why are we spending the time, the money, the energy and the resources that are required to put this into one neat document when all of the information already exists and is publicly available?

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Madame Romanado, I did see your hand up. May I go to Mr. Cooper first? Then I'll go to you afterwards.

     Mr. Cooper.

     Thank you Mr. Chair.

    In answer to Mr. Carr through you, I'll say that it's a fair question, except for the fact that Mr. Carr is not entirely correct in his submission that all of the evidence is publicly available. There was evidence that was tendered in camera. What would be provided would be all of the evidence, not just the public evidence but also the evidence that was heard in camera.

     Second, with regard to the issues around the federal election, very simply, there hasn't been any study conducted on the issues around the recent federal election. Obviously, there is no evidence before the committee because it hasn't happened yet. However, that is something that, certainly, the committee could wish to proceed with in the fall.

     What this motion simply does is ensure that what has been done, what has been studied and the evidence brought before the committee is, in its entirety, presented to members for their consideration over the summer.

    Mr. Chair, for further clarity.... I understand the point that Mr. Cooper is making, so this raises an important question. Is the suggestion that the information that was available to members in camera during the last session be put into a document that is then made public? In other words, in terms of the in camera testimony, is the suggestion that it now be made public in the form of a summary that the committee considers with public knowledge, or is the suggestion simply that in camera testimony from the previous session be provided in a summary document in camera?

     My follow-up question is more technical and for the clerk—because I don't remember. I haven't read the rule book in a little bit. Would a new member of PROC, who did not sit on PROC in the previous session, not have access to in camera conversations that took place?

    For example, Ms. Normandin wasn't here.

     Does she have the ability to go back and read transcripts of in camera testimony that took place? If the answer to that is “yes”, it renders what he is asking moot. If the answer to that is “no”, then it's a different conversation.

    As I mentioned, the second area where I think we need some clarity is this: Is he asking for information that was previously deemed private, by virtue of the fact that it took place in camera, to now be made public?

    Those are two points that I think we need some clarity on, either from Mr. Cooper in terms of his argument or from the clerk in terms of the technical component.

     I can get an answer from the clerk, but I'd like to turn to the analysts for a second to explain what they can compile, based on whether or not it's within their scope to be able to do this.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    There are three separate but related studies on foreign election interference that PROC conducted in the previous Parliament. The first was called “Foreign Election Interference”. The second two were questions of privilege. PROC never concluded the first study. It paused to undertake the study about Mr. Chong, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North, which PROC did report to the House on.

    Summaries exist. We have a witness summary for the first study, which was paused. We have a report for the second study. The third study, which was the APT31 matter, PROC did not conclude. My colleague and I did a lot of work to summarize that, to be ready for a report that never came to light. In fact, we're fairly close to having a lot of this already.

    If I may, we would like clarity on the in camera portion of that matter, because there were some witnesses, some national security officials, who appeared in camera, and the House as well.

    Was that evidence conducted under the understanding that it was an issue of national security to have those meetings in camera?

     Yes, it was. I'll leave it at that. I would talk to the chair after. I could say something that would be helpful, but I can't say it in public.

    Fair enough. I think we have some sensitivities on this that need to be....

    We'll suspend for a couple of minutes and get an answer to Mr. Carr's question.

     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.

     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?

    That is correct.

    Okay.

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

     Thank you so much.

    Madame Normandin.

    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?

     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.

    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?

     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?

     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.

     Are there any further discussions?

    I have Madame Romanado.

     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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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)

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

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Great meeting, everyone.