Stonewalled committee shows limits of Parliament’s prosecutorial powers: former CSIS analyst

The recent stonewalling of a House committee's investigation into foreign interference by a witness accused of acting as a Russian-propaganda agent has demonstrated the limits of Parliament’s power, says a former intelligence analyst. On Nov. 5, the Public Safety and National Security Committee summoned Lauren Chen to answer questions regarding allegations she accepted millions of dollars to act as a Russian propaganda agent. In September, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed an indictment against two Russian nationals it accused of setting up a right-wing social media outlet as a front for pro-Kremlin propaganda. The indictment alleges the two Russian employees of state broadcaster Russia Today (RT) illegally funneled nearly $10-million into an American company to propagate the Kremlin’s talking points. While the company is not named in the indictment, it contained details which readily identified Chen, her husband Liam Donovan, and the company they founded in 2023—Tenet Media—as the recipients of the funds. After Chen was identified, the committee called her to provide testimony as part of its ongoing investigation into Russian interference. However, during her virtual appearance, after reading a brief statement detailing the legal advice she had received—citing both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 13 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms—Chen told the committee she would be refusing to testify due to concerns over self-recrimination. MPs attempted to question the witness, becoming visibly frustrated as Chen repeatedly responded with “for the reasons outlined in my opening statement, I have no comment,” even when asked to confirm her own name. NDP MP Alistair MacGregor says he isn't sure being called to the bar will loosen her lips, but he 'couldn't let it lie' after Tenet Media's Lauren Chen refused to answer questions at the Nov. 5 Public Safety Committee meeting. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade Following Chen’s appearance, NDP MP Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan–Malahat–Langford, B.C.), his party’s justice critic, tabled a letter in the House of Commons requesting that Speaker Greg Fergus (Hull–Aylmer, Que.) rule on whether her refusal to provide answers qualifies as a breach of parliamentary privilege. If so, Chen would be ordered to attend the bar of the House of Commons following Question Period on Nov. 20, where the Speaker would admonish her and she would be questioned by members. Chen could potentially become one of four people called before the bar since 1913. She would follow Iain Stewart, then-president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, in 2021; and GC Strategies partner Kristian Firth, who was called to the bar this past April and rebuked by the Speaker for refusing to answer questions on the ArriveCan app at the Government Operations and Estimates Committee the month before. Stephen Anderson, the CEO of Global Health Imports and former business partner of Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton Centre, Alta.), could also be called to the bar should the privilege motion put forward by Conservative MP Michael Barrett (Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ont.) be ruled in order once the current privilege motion debate that's scuppered House business for weeks has been dispensed with. Liberal MP Pam Damoff (Oakville North–Burlington, Ont.) also proposed a motion during the committee to re-summon Chen—as well as Donovan—before the committee on or before Nov. 29, to which the group unanimously agreed. Kristian Firth, managing partner of GC Strategies, was admonished by the House Speaker on April 17. Screenshot courtesy of ParlVu MacGregor said that given Chen’s refusal to answer questions at committee, he isn’t sure whether calling her to the bar will be enough to loosen her lips, “but I have to make use of the tools that I have at my disposal.” “By itself, the committee doesn’t have any other follow-up action that we can take to compel someone to answer,” MacGregor said. “So we have to refer the matter back to the House, and then the House as a whole can decide what actions it can take.” An additional complication that may arise is whether or not Parliament will even have jurisdiction over Chen to call her to the bar in the first place. Conservative MP Glen Motz (Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner, Alta.) said the one question he wished he had thought to ask Chen was from where exactly she was delivering her virtual testimony. He said that whether she was connecting from within Canada or the U.S. could limit whether or not she could even be called before the bar. While Chen’s location would make further questioning her challenging, MacGregor said that he “just couldn't let it lie,” given her refusal to answer and the seriousness of the investigation. “I just thought it was unacceptable that she completely stonewalled us,” MacGregor said, noting that members of the committee from all parties unanimously felt similar levels of frustration. Conservative MP Raquel Dancho (Kildonan–St. Paul, Man.), the committee’s vice-chair and her party’s public safety critic, told Chen during her appearance that her refusal to answer questions had made a “farce of this committee and it’s deeply, deeply disappointing.” Damoff echoed those sentiments, adding that she was “deeply disturbed” by Chen’s refusal to answer, even after being summoned, which in itself was a rarity at the committee. MacGregor said that the committee should be held on the same plane as a court of law, and that the parliamentary privilege provided to her should have allowed her to speak freely. “Given how serious the issue of foreign interference is and the fact we know that one of Russia's overarching strategic objectives right now is to sow discord, if her company received money in order to advance the goals of the Kremlin, that's a very serious issue, and we need to investigate,” MacGregor said. Former Canadian Security Intelligence Service analyst Stephanie Carvin said that while parliamentarians and committees should continue investigating foreign interference, they should also recognize their limits. “Obviously, these investigations can provide a lot of transparency and attention to the issue of interference, which is important, but ultimately, what we're looking for is whether or not the police decide to bring some kind of criminal charge,” Carvin explained. Intelligence expert Stephanie Carvin said parliamentarians' time would be better served examining the gaps in Bill C-70 rather than duplicating the work of law enforcement. Photograph courtesy of Stephanie Carvin While Carvin said she understands the MPs' frustrations, she doesn’t think they should be surprised by Chen’s refusal to answer their questions. “The United States and Canada have active criminal investigations, and so her not saying anything is unsurprising,” Carvin explained, adding that while parliamentary privilege may protect people from being sued over their testimony, “you don’t want to give investigators hints.” That explanation mirrors the justification Chen provided to the committee during her opening statement, wherein she referred to legal advice that answering questions could reasonably provide a “link in the chain” toward a possible indictment against her. Given the legal considerations, Carvin advised that parliamentarians “leave the criminal investigation to law enforcement,” and instead focus on what Parliament can do. “You don't want Parliament duplicating the work of law enforcement in this area, but you do want them asking questions about what can be done about it and how it can be prevented,” Carvin said. “Those kinds of questions would be a better use of their time.” Another area of investigation Carvin said the committee could investigate are the apparent gaps in Bill C-70 and the creation of a foreign agent registry, as Tenet Media and Chen would not have been covered under its current provisions for registration. “I’m not necessarily advocating for this, but what they did would not be covered by C-70, so that's the potential gap in the law,” Carvin said. ‘"I’m not sure how they would close that gap or if the government would even want to, but it would need to consult pretty widely before it makes any changes.” Carvin said the only way to otherwise prosecute interference campaigns like the one allegedly conducted by Tenet Media would be to identify a sanctions violation, something she said Canada is “famously bad at enforcing.” “So that’s what I would prefer to see parliamentarians do,” Carvin said. “I’d rather see committees looking at some of the questions about our capacity to enforce sanctions and what the pros and cons of expanding the list of people who have to register in Bill C-70 are.” sbenson@hilltimes.com The Hill Times

Stonewalled committee shows limits of Parliament’s prosecutorial powers: former CSIS analyst

As the Public Safety Committee digs into Russian interference, it has to use all the tools at its disposal to get answers, says NDP MP Alistair MacGregor.