SECU Committee Report

On September 19, 2024, the Committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to undertake a study on Russian interference and disinformation campaigns in Canada. As per the adopted motion for this study, the Committee invited Lauren Chen to appear before it to discuss her participation in Russian-backed interference and far-right disinformation campaigns intended to manipulate the Canadian public.

The Committee reports the following facts to the House:

After Lauren Chen’s refusal to appear, the Committee adopted a motion on October 10, 2024 (meeting no. 123), to summon Ms. Chen to appear by November 8, 2024.

Ms. Chen agreed to appear at the meeting on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.

During her appearance, Ms. Chen repeatedly refused to answer members' questions, citing concerns about self-incrimination in an ongoing judicial process in the United States.

The Committee notes that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017, on pages 1078-1079, states the following:

“Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them.674 [ref.] 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. 675 [ref.]  The actions of a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House. 676 [ref.]”

Consequently, in response to Ms. Chen’s repeated refusal to answer, the Committee first unanimously adopted the following motion: “That the witness answer the questions of the Committee.” Then, after continued refusals by Ms. Chen to answer its questions, the committee adopted unanimously the following motion: “That the Committee instruct the clerk and analysts to prepare a report to the House, to be tabled by the Chair forthwith, outlining the potential breach of privilege concerning Lauren Chen’s refusal to answer the questions of the Committee.”

The Committee believes it is its duty to bring this matter to the House, as it may constitute a question of privilege, and the House should have the opportunity to examine it.