Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on November 7.
I, too, attended the November 5 meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security at which Lauren Chen was called to testify. I have to say that, like all my colleagues from all parties, I was rather shocked and appalled to see Ms. Chen systematically refuse to answer members' questions, despite the fact that she was unanimously and formally ordered to do so. The committee was asking the witness about what I believe is an extremely serious and important issue regarding Russian interference and the disinformation campaign in Canada. Lauren Chen was named in an indictment against two employees of the Russian public broadcaster in the judicial district of New York, in the United States.
I will provide some context. Ms. Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan, own Roaming Millennial Inc., based in Pointe-Claire, Quebec. This business is cited in a 32-page indictment brought a few weeks ago, in September, by the U.S. Attorney General against two Russian employees of the RT television network. These employees are charged with making illegal payments of $10 million to businesses owned by Quebec YouTuber Chen and her husband through a complex network of shell companies. The money went to hire very popular right-wing influencers to disseminate content and messaging reflecting the secret intentions of the Russian government to an American audience, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
Ms. Chen was summoned to appear before a committee. It took several invitations before she finally agreed to come testify. Accompanied by her lawyer, she came on November 5 and read a statement that she had sent us previously. Afterwards, she declined to answer any of the questions put to her by the committee. Ms. Chen was so obstinate in her systematic refusal to answer that she even refused to answer a very simple question that I asked. I asked her for her first and last name. She refused to answer. I asked her for her nationality. Here again she refused to answer. Understandably, the committee members found this somewhat frustrating. We were fully prepared to ask her serious questions about her involvement in Russian disinformation campaigns in Canada, but she refused to answer.
If we recall the House of Commons' tradition and procedural rules associated with parliamentary privilege, persons testifying before a committee enjoy the same protection as members, which is to say free speech so that they can express themselves freely without fear that their words might be used against them in another proceeding. This immunity derives from section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. The courts confirmed that this immunity must extend to persons appearing before the House or one of its committees, the aim being to encourage people to communicate all information they possess in a frank and transparent manner. Otherwise, it is clear that Parliament would be unable to carry out its work effectively and unimpeded.
Thus protected, the people who testify before a parliamentary committee must answer the questions asked, save for one exception. A witness may derogate from this rule by raising an objection concerning a question asked by a member of the committee. However, if the committee finds that the question requires a response, the witness must comply and answer, failing which they may be reported to the House. If the committee reports the witness to the House, they may be accused of breach of parliamentary privilege or contempt of parliament. This is what the House decided in the case of Kristian Firth, who refused to answer questions put to him by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and whose answers to some questions appeared to the committee to be lies. Here we are referring to the order adopted unanimously by the House of Commons on April 8.
In the Bloc Québécois's opinion, today's matter is akin to a breach of privilege or, at the very least, contempt of Parliament, since Lauren Chen refused to answer any of the committee's questions, although she was fully aware of House procedure and practice. She herself mentioned House practices in her opening speech. Thus, the Bloc Québécois believes it is important that the House seriously discuss the matter so that this type of scenario, which unfortunately appears to be increasing in frequency, does not happen again.
However, the Bloc Québécois finds that the reason provided by Ms. Chen to justify her systematic refusal to answer might require an analysis of whether the immunity relating to freedom of speech extended to Canadian defendants applies before a body having jurisdiction in another country, in this case the United States, considering that Ms. Chen is currently being investigated in a criminal matter in that country following allegations. I am referring to United States v. Kalashnikov et al., 24CR519, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
Ms. Chen also mentioned that in her preliminary statement. She frequently referred to the possibility of invoking the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, as is done in that country to avoid answering questions. We know that that does not apply here in Canada. What we can glean from her testimony, or at least from the little she provided as testimony, is that she was afraid that what she said before a House of Commons of Canada committee could be held against her in the United States. In that case, I think it is important to take that into account. We believe that the case should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.