44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2023 11:00AM
- Mar/20/23 12:35:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague across the way talk about the importance of trust in institutions and respect for institutions. Then I saw on his own social media, and indeed he raised it again today, questions about the integrity of someone who was a governor general in this country, who was appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper when that member sat exactly where the the Speaker of the House is right now.
I can certainly consider that the Conservative Party may not agree with the approach the government has taken and might like to see different elements, but to be able to denigrate the integrity of the gentleman who was appointed by a Conservative prime minister and has been involved in public life in a really important way is completely unfortunate and is emblematic of where the Conservative Party is right now.
I will give this member the opportunity on the floor of the House of Commons to say he does not believe in the approach the government has taken but that he will walk back his comments on how he has denigrated the integrity of a gentleman who is widely respected in this country.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:58:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of partisan jabbing back and forth, but I do want to ask a sincere question.
The member mentioned MI5. That security intelligence agency, on the basis of information that must have become overwhelming, made a decision to go to the Speaker of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom to present those allegations moving forward. However, we talked a little bit today about the idea of evidence and intelligence gathering and actual strong, demonstrable evidence that something is indeed true. I am curious, because the member is quite involved in these types of matters in Canada, what that process would look like.
Is CSIS allowed to perhaps come to the Speaker of this House of Commons and be able to do that if, on a balance probabilities, it felt the evidence was strong enough that it could do what happened in the United Kingdom? If not, is that something the member would perhaps like to see moving forward, or perhaps something the special rapporteur could recommend for all of us as parliamentarians to make sure that those agencies have that ability, without undermining the intelligence work that goes on, to actually gather the said information?
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:35:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important issue and debate the opposition motion. I would like to clarify a few things.
It is clear that the outcome of the last federal election is not in question, and that there is no evidence that any individual races were decided solely on the basis of these allegations.
However, because of these allegations of interference in our democratic processes, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that all proper protocols are in place. I cannot imagine that there is a single member of Parliament who does not take the issue of foreign interference in our democratic process seriously.
This is an important issue, but let me say this. The debates I heard today were not at all about the issue of interference and the best way forward for us as Canadian parliamentarians, but rather about partisan bickering.
Whether it is China, Russia, any other foreign actor state or otherwise that is seeking to influence outcomes in our democratic process, we should be alert and live to that reality. It is important to note that this issue is not new. In fact, it has been said quite credibly throughout the debates that this is something that had been raised over a decade ago by then CSIS head Richard Fadden, who was reporting at the time to then prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government.
In fact, it has been noted that the now Leader of the Opposition was minister of democratic institutions at the time when some of these first allegations were brought forward. I want that not to be a partisan point but for Canadians to understand that this question is not just something that has arisen overnight. This is something that has been contemplated for, as I mentioned, over a decade now. It is also not a question that is just solely pertaining to Canada.
We heard the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills today talking about the United Kingdom and where MI5 alerted representatives in the House of Commons about a Chinese agent who was infiltrating in that manner. We know that in Australia and the United States, there are democracies around the world, where the People's Republic of China and its Communist regime is seeking to try to influence and obscure democratic processes.
The point is that this has been in the bailiwick for quite some time, and it is not just Canada alone that is dealing with these important questions.
I also want to point out that many of the comments made today, especially by the official opposition, treat unsubstantiated allegations as the gospel truth. I completely agree that now is the time to take as long as we need to strengthen our protocols and put in place measures to protect our institutions.
However, it is not the time to shoot from the hip, and I have heard that, without the proper information. Some of the insinuations that are being made today, frankly, in my view, are without basis. They actually add to the reality of driving discontent and sowing division in our society.
It is our job, all of us, indeed, to be asking these important questions, certainly the official opposition, other parties and other parliamentarians, including those on this side of the House, about what mechanisms we could have in place to protect our institutions. However, to make the insinuation that somehow this is a cover-up, that members of Parliament might be implicated, involved or somehow not loyal to their country that they swore an oath to, is problematic.
We need to bring down that level of rhetoric and stay focused on the facts and stay focused on the best process. We may disagree with that process, indeed I have heard it here today, but let us stay focused on that question before just driving partisan wedges in this debate.
To that point, there have been suggestions today in the House that somehow the government has not been transparent and that there have been no mechanisms to deal with this issue, which, as I just mentioned, has been fermenting in Canada for over a decade, starting with the former Conservative government. I would argue, respectfully, that this government has put more mechanisms in place to tackle what we knew to be true when Richard Fadden was raising these questions over a decade ago.
The fact that we are having a conversation today and that there are proper mechanisms allowing members of Parliament to be briefed is a good thing. It shows there is a strength in our democratic institutions, one of which is NSICOP. Secret security clearance has been given to members of Parliament to get the highest-level briefings there, meaning information sharing among all of the parties. There is the critical election incident public protocol, where senior civil servants, non-partisan civil servants, help preside and make sure that information is shared. That is another mechanism. We also have the security and intelligence threats to elections task force. This is where the RCMP, CSIS and other security agencies bring in information to provide intelligence about whether or not there are threats to our democratic process.
There is a recent focus on this topic and the fact that it is a pertinent question not just for China, I would argue, but for other countries. What is missing in part from the text of the Conservative motion today is that this is not just about China. There is a larger playing field here that I think we are missing, and that raises questions about what else can be done.
I thought the member for Yukon did a very good job in his remarks of talking about the concept of intelligence versus the evidence to prosecute. There can be intelligence sharing and information gathering that suggest a certain outcome, but there is a certain threshold that one must meet in order to prosecute that evidence.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills gave the example of the United Kingdom. MI5 would have worked with parliamentarians in that government, and they felt it was absolutely necessary to notify the Speaker of the House. That same member, today in the House, insinuated that indeed CSIS was at that nexus with this government. What I did not have a chance to ask him about in a supplementary question was how he is alleging that to be the case. What information does he have to suggest that this is what is happening? We have a protocol in place where this information can be shared, similar to what is happening in the United Kingdom.
I certainly appreciate that we have heard allegations and heard reports that I think are important for driving the conversation about what more we can do as parliamentarians. I have read the Globe and Mail op-ed myself, with the individual in question who has “whistle-blown” or shared information and the rationale for doing so. However, as mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North, the head of the security task force to the Prime Minister appeared before committee. We have had ministers. We have had other civil servants. It is not clear to me that the view reflected in The Globe and Mail necessarily reflects the entire view of the agencies we are talking about here today. It is a leap to suggest that one individual somehow represents the entire view of the security apparatus in this country. We need to be very careful about making that jump on the basis of information. Is the information about the allegation serious? Absolutely. Should we be continuing to do work? Yes. That is exactly why we have appointed a special rapporteur.
We had two weeks back in our ridings, and I was very disappointed to see the way the Conservatives attacked the integrity of a really genuine Canadian who has served in public service. They could have said they would prefer a public inquiry and that they trust the judgment of Mr. Johnston but are concerned that some of his relationships could create a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, no, it was a character assassination. There is no polish to the way the Conservative Party goes about this.
This was a Governor General appointed under Stephen Harper. This is an individual who has served in multiple different roles for different parties that have been in government. I trust this individual. Whether it is a public inquiry or another mechanism, this individual has such a high level of integrity that we as parliamentarians can trust it. Instead, the opposition wants to burn it down.
I look forward to taking questions on this. This is a serious matter, and I will stand ready for those questions.
1470 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:47:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for the question and his mini speech.
I will answer with facts. Today's debate and the process under way in the two House committees are very important for finding answers. We need to investigate and find answers so we can restore public confidence in our institutions. When the government receives the report from the special rapporteur, it will act on the recommendations.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:48:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from the opposition for his question.
I am flattered that my hon. colleague thinks that I am in a position to decide with the government and the government House leader which votes are confidence votes. I do not know what the outcome of the vote will be tomorrow, but I am against the motion for a number of reasons, as I explained in my speech. I am very—
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:50:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can answer the question to my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona.
I support the idea of going through processes and perhaps including a public inquiry, but let us work our way up to that process. We have two committees that are studying this issue right now. The government has appointed a special rapporteur who is going to look into this and perhaps even provide terms of reference for what could be a public inquiry moving forward. There are already mechanisms at play. Let us let that work itself out. If we need to have a public inquiry moving forward, we can do so, but let us let the existing processes work themselves through.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
