44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2023 11:00AM
- Mar/20/23 12:20:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have asked the member this question at the procedure and House affairs committee. I have encouraged him to address it on a number of occasions and he has not, so I will put the question very clearly to him today. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe referred to a sitting member of this House as an agent of Beijing. Does the member think that any MP who currently sits in this House is an agent of Beijing?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:34:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this House takes the issue very seriously and would like to see conclusions and proper recommendations on what we can do to improve our resiliency against foreign interference.
I think the issue before us right now is the manner in which the opposition is trying to create political theatre, so to speak, by demanding that chiefs of staff come for three hours alone, without anyone else with them, and be sworn in beforehand. These are quite literally unprecedented moves.
There are countless people out there, including Conservatives, former Conservative campaign managers, former Conservative senators and the leader of the NDP, who do not think the committee is the best place to deal with this. The leader of the NDP recently said that he did not think that the committee was the best place to deal with this because of the way the opposition is trying to score political points.
Could the member from the Bloc weigh in on what he thinks is the best place for this discussion to occur so that we have impartiality and Canadians get the answers they are looking for?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:59:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Saturday, on The House on CBC, the leader of the NDP said, “up to this point...I have seen the committee and the way [it operates] is more...a forum for scoring [political] points on each other. The Conservatives are trying to score points on the Liberals”. He goes on to say, “and so, that to me is the wrong use of...resources, the fact that a committee that is being used [for] a partisan way to score points on something as important as democracy”.
This member actually said, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on February 21, “I caution on the issue of inviting staff.” He further goes on to say, “Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did and what they knew—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:37:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I tried to ask the member this question before, but he did not answer it, so I want to give him another opportunity.
The leader of the NDP said, “up to this point...I have seen [that] the committee, and the way it is operating, is more so a forum for scoring [political] points on each other. The Conservatives are trying to score points on the Liberals”. He went on to say, “And so, that, to me, is the wrong use of our resources. The fact that a committee is being used in a partisan way to score points on something [is inappropriate].”
As a matter of fact, this member, on February 21 in the PROC committee, said, “I caution on the issue of inviting staff [to committee].” He went on to say, “Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did [and why].”
Given that this motion is all about inviting staff to committee, can the member give some insight into why the NDP is even considering whether to support it, given his comments in committee and the comments by the leader of the NDP? He did not answer the question the last time I asked. I am really hoping that he can actually answer my question this time.
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:52:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is one thing to say “through you” and then suddenly turn to direct all comments and point fingers at another member. It is pretty clear what is going on.
I do not think that the member was saying all of that to you personally, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps he would want to reflect on the rules of the House.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:00:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is making a point of order. At the end, he said that simply saying “through you, Mr. Speaker” does not allow members, given what the rules are, to start speaking to somebody directly.
An hon. member: Debate.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: How is that debate? I am literally talking about a point of order.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:10:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member has indicated that the government has been trying to hide at every turn, which could not be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, we have had two ministers already come and answer questions by committee on this. We have told Canadians about a number of different measures we are going to take. The issue for me is inviting staff and requiring them to come to a committee, when at the end of the day, ministers are responsible, not staff. The member does not have to take this just from me; she should listen to her boss, the member from Carleton and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2010, he said:
...ministers answer questions on behalf of the government and not staff. We are not going to be changing 300 years of history all of a sudden at the behest of the coalition parties. We are not going to have the staff members appear in question period to answer on behalf of the government. We are going to do it the old-fashioned way, the way it has always been done right up until the last several months. We are going to keep ministers, the guys in charge, responsible for their duties.
That was the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, who said that not staff but ministers come to committees. Why is it okay now to do this, but it was not for the member for Carleton back then?
248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:16:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon today.
I would like to start today by speaking directly to the seriousness of these allegations, the seriousness of foreign interference generally and what the government has been doing.
I would say to the member who spoke just before me that the claim that we have done nothing is absolutely ludicrous. I would remind the member that on December 18, 2020, the then minister of public safety mailed a copy of a public report regarding election interference specifically as it relates to China to every single member in this House of Commons. I am sure that she received and reviewed it, as did all Conservative MPs, yet they have the gall to stand up in this House and suggest that we are being secretive or that information is not being shared with them.
In addition to that, what has this government done? We created NSICOP, which specifically allows parliamentarians and senators to review highly classified information. We passed the Election Modernization Act to help tackle foreign interference, Bill C-76, which Conservatives voted against. We created a panel of experts to monitor in real time what was going on with respect to foreign interference during an election and gave them the ability and the power to act on it.
We put in tighter controls on advertising and online platforms. We closed fundraising loopholes to keep foreign money out of elections. We enhanced the integrity of the voters list.
Foreign election interference has been going on for about 10 years. Now, as a result of the real concerns that Canadians have, and rightly so, it is at least being talked about a lot more in the mainstream, as we have seen in other countries.
The Prime Minister and indeed this side of the House are seized with what is going on. We take this very seriously. That is why the Prime Minister empowered NSICOP and NSIRA to specifically look into the issue of foreign interference and why he has appointed an incredible Canadian, David Johnston, to look at the issue and recommend to the Prime Minister the best course of action to move forward, which very well might be a public inquiry. This government has already said, in advance of knowing what any of those recommendations might be, that we will accept and implement them.
Therefore, for the member for Thornhill to come in here and suggest that this government has done absolutely nothing about foreign interference and has been secretive is just completely untrue.
I find it very interesting that we are getting this lecture from the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, and his MPs about sending staff to committee. It was the member for Carleton who, in 2010, said this to the CBC. I will read it out again because I think it is just so telling, and the video is widely available for anybody to go back and review.
He said:
...ministers answer questions on behalf of the government and not staff. We are not going to be changing 300 years of history all of a sudden at the behest of the coalition parties. We are not going to have the staff members appear in question period to answer on behalf of the government. We are going to do it the old-fashioned way, the way it has always been done right up until the last several months. We are going to keep ministers, the guys in charge, responsible for their duties.
I always get a kick out of the use of that terminology, “the guys in charge”. Of course the member for Carleton would phrase it like that.
That was the member for Carleton when he was in government. He was answering a question as to whether staff, in particular, Dimitri Soudas, the then prime minister's director of communications, would go to committee.
I think the hypocrisy here is literally oozing out of that side of the House and dribbling down towards the aisle here when I listen to what is coming from over there.
At the time, the NDP, I believe with other political parties, were able to get through a motion to require Mr. Soudas to appear before committee, yet he never did. Do members know who appeared? Stephen Harper sent John Baird, one of his ministers at the time, to deal with the situation.
In response to Mr. Easter asking why he was there and not the person who was called to the committee, Mr. Baird said, “the government believes the opposition is playing politics with parliamentary committees and is not respecting due process and fair play.”
Does that sound familiar? “They are conducting random interrogations without due process or any rules of fairness. That might be how things work in the United States Congress, but it's not the Canadian tradition. In Canada the constitutional principle is ministerial responsibility.” That is what John Baird said when Stephen Harper defied the request of Parliament for Dimitri Soudas, the director of communications in the Prime Minister's Office, to appear before committee.
This new-found approach from the Conservatives is to suddenly be so incredibly hypocritical. I will not even hold it against the new members who have come along since 2015. However, in particular, the member for Carleton was not just an MP who happened to be around the House at the time, but he was actually leading the file. Is he suddenly standing here saying it is completely appropriate now?
I asked the member for Thornhill, just before my speech, why it is okay now, and she was totally unable to give an answer. Her answer basically was that the chiefs of staff have already come forward from the government. What she is basically saying is that we should never have set the precedent, because now Conservatives are running rampant all over it, using every possible opportunity. Where does it end from here? That is the question.
Every time Conservatives want to drum up a fake scandal, they are going to run in here and use the same language they are using now. No one is doing China's work better for them than the Conservative MPs right now, who are sowing the seeds of distrust in our democratic institutions. That is what is happening right now, and it is Conservative MPs' responsibility for all of it.
This comes down to politics, and I am not the only one saying this is politically motivated. Push aside all the people who are Liberal, NDP and non-partisan. Push them aside for a second and let us just talk about Conservatives who are calling out this rhetoric. Fred DeLorey, the campaign manager from a year and a half ago, is on nightly. It is like he is lining up to get on every talk show or every panel he can on CTV and CBC. He is everywhere right now, basically saying that the Conservatives are just trying to score political points.
Vern White, a former Conservative senator, has referred to what is going on as “BS”. That is what he actually said. He is a former Conservative senator because at some point he came to the realization that this political party is way further to the right than where it had been when he was appointed a senator, if we can believe that. Former senator Hugh Segal, who represented my area and whom I have an incredible amount of respect for, has also—
1264 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Listen to them heckle, Mr. Speaker. They have no idea of the incredible things that Hugh Segal has done just for my area. He is a great champion of a basic income guarantee. He referred to what the Conservatives are doing as the “Chicken Little” nature of the opposition. This is a Conservative. It goes on.
Then, of course, there is the most recent comment by the member for Carleton himself, which I found very telling and which highlighted the politics of this, when he, the Leader of the Opposition, said he did not want a briefing. He was asked whether, if he were offered a briefing, he would take that briefing on what was going on. He said he would not do that because that means it would be illegal for him to speak out.
We basically have the Leader of the Opposition saying he does not want to know the information, even though it might be helpful to Canada, that he would rather be oblivious so he can continue scoring political points and because it works a lot better in his fundraising emails that he blasts out every day. That is what he would much rather do.
This really does fall in the hands of the NDP. The NDP gets to decide what happens here. Do we keep playing political theatre, which is exactly what China wants, or do we actually look into this is in a meaningful way that can get answers for Canadians and that can get Canadians confidence in the system, in particular, the strong fundamental institution of democracy that we have here?
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:27:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we can see the politics of it right there. When he was trying to define what the Prime Minister was saying, he put it in quotes. He said, “We need to get re-elected”. The Prime Minister never said that.
He cannot provide me with a single time the Prime Minister actually said that. The member is just making assumptions and trying to put it in quotes as though it is something that actually happened.
He talked about a track record. He is absolutely right that we have a track record. We have a track record when it comes to dealing with foreign interference.
We have actually made election security a priority. We have put in an oversight process over elections. We have tasked NSICOP with ensuring it has oversight from a parliamentarian perspective. We have tightened up fundraising loopholes. We have cracked down on the wild west advertising schemes that used to exist. We have ensured the integrity of the voters list and we have appointed a special independent expert to specifically look at this issue that we are seized with today, foreign interference.
Yes, we have a track record when it comes to that.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:29:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if this member wants to attack the credibility of David Johnston, that is entirely her prerogative, but I think nobody said it better than Chantal Hébert, who said that, if she had the accomplishments of David Johnston and she lived to be 81 years old, she wouldn't give a darn about what Pierre Poilievre or anybody else said about her—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:30:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I apologize.
Yes, I do not think that David Johnston should really care about what the Leader of the Opposition or any Bloc member says. I think that his record and his incredible accomplishments throughout his career, at 81 years old, speak for themselves. If people would like to challenge that, well, that is their prerogative.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:31:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not recall seeing the member at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If he had been there, he would have heard various experts coming forward, including Conservative supporters and the national security experts, basically everybody. There was not a single expert who came forward and said that the best place to discuss national security is in a public inquiry. It did not happen.
To the member's point, yes, there will be a very important decision for the NDP members to make tomorrow. It is entirely up to them, but I would refer him back to his House leader, who actually said in that committee that staff should not be called before committee and that the only people who should be called before committee, as it relates to the political arm of government, are ministers.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:32:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I said I was sharing my time, but I just want it to be known I was just the opening act for the member for Yukon.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 6:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard Conservative members talk about and try to defame the reputation of David Johnston.
Fred DeLorey, the former campaign manager for the Conservatives, was on a panel recently. I found it interesting. He said that, back when they appointed David Johnston as Governor General and to various different positions, he was accused of being too close to Conservatives. Now I am hearing Conservatives say he is too close to Liberals.
I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not he thinks that David Johnston, despite his connections to anybody, has the ability to properly execute the role he has been put in charge of, regardless of the fact that he happened to live on a street that somebody grew up on, that Stephen Harper happened to appoint him as governor general, or that Stephen Harper happened to appoint him as head of an inquiry back in the day.
Does the member think that David Johnston has the ability to be impartial and to do that job to the best of his ability?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
