Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my colleagues, I am rising on a question of privilege that I raised with the table earlier this morning, in relation to the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which was tabled by our chair this morning during routine proceedings. I am rising at the earliest opportunity to make the case for this question of privilege.

This is concerning the refusal of a witness, Ms. Lauren Chen, who is one of the co-founders of Tenet Media. Ms. Chen appeared before our committee on Tuesday this week, and subsequently refused to answer any and all questions that were posed to her. In the committee's report, which was tabled this morning, it did cite the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, on pages 178 to 179. It states:

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.

That is what is being done today. I should note that the motion authorizing the tabling of this report was unanimous. Ms. Chen was given every single opportunity, and she was reminded of her obligations before the committee. She was also warned on a number of occasions that the process could escalate and could eventually find itself on the floor of the House.

To put this briefly in context, the study that the public safety committee is currently engaged in is with regard to Russian disinformation campaigns. We, as a House, know of the foreign interference by a number of countries; Russia, India and China are probably the top three. This is a very serious topic. We know this from multiple witnesses who have appeared before our committee. These are current and former national security experts, and people who work in academia. We know that Russia's overarching strategic goal with respect to Canada is to sow discord and discontent.

There is a very serious United States indictment that lists Ms. Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan, as the co-founders of Tenet Media, and accuses that company of having received almost $10 million directly from the Russian government through its subsidiary, Russia Today, with the express purpose of paying certain YouTube influencers and personalities to sow discord and discontent, and to spread disinformation and misinformation. The subject matter is very important.

I want to remind everyone, with respect to non-answers, it is important that we understand that under the Constitution Act, the House of Commons and its committees have an incredibly important role to play. I would put them on a level with our courts. Our standing committees are allocated certain subject studies, and they are allowed, by virtue of the Constitution, to conduct inquiries, to send for persons and papers, and to demand answers.

Given the serious nature of disinformation and of foreign interference, I believe that Ms. Chen's refusal to comply with the questions that were posed to her represents a very serious breach of the privileges of this House, and particularly of the standing committee on public safety. It is not something that we can conveniently ignore. Indeed, in many parliaments, precedent has been set where this matter has been referred to the House.

I understand, given that Ms. Chen and her husband are referred to in a United States indictment, that certainly they do have some legitimate fears about testifying on a sensitive subject. I would argue that they put themselves in this position, but it is important to recognize that when a witness appears before a duly constructed standing committee of the House, the parliamentary privilege that the members enjoy, both in this House and at committee, to be able to speak freely, also extends to witnesses.

I will quote from our procedure and practice material:

The privilege of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is generally regarded as the most important of the privileges enjoyed by members of Parliament. This right is protected by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act.

Freedom of speech permits members to speak freely in the conduct of a proceeding of Parliament, such as in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings, while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they make. In order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony, this right is also extended to individuals who appear before the House or its committees. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its members, and witnesses appearing before House committees, were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by any outside body.

I believe Ms. Chen was extended every courtesy and was made to understand the consequences of her non-actions. Indeed, during Tuesday's committee proceedings, I noted the increasing frustration displayed by members from all parties sitting around the table. That is why, when it came to my second round of questions and I had the chance to move a motion to refer this back to the House, there was quick and unanimous agreement.

With those reasons in mind and indeed the precedent that has been set by other examples, I believe if you were to take this matter under advisement, you would find a prima facie case for a breach of privilege. I would then be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Alistair MacGregor

$600,966.00