SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 169 - Mar/20/23

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/20/23 12:21:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is my first time standing in the House this week, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge the two fallen police officers who lost their lives last week in Edmonton: Constable Ryan and Constable Jordan. I want to acknowledge the service they gave and the ultimate price they paid, as well as give my deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of both of these constables. I would like to ask the member a quick question. At PROC, there was a motion brought forward by the NDP to expand the scope of the study to ensure we were looking at not just Chinese interference but interference by Iran, Russia and other countries that we know have influenced or have tried to influence previous elections. The member voted against it. I wonder if he would now say it is important for us to look at not just the 2021 and 2019 elections, but all of our election processes and the attempts by other countries to influence our electoral processes.

174 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Mar/20/23 12:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, I associate myself with the comments by the member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the horrific killing of two great Edmonton police constables, constables Jordan and Ryan. My thoughts and prayers are with their families and the entire Edmonton Police Service. It illustrates how the men and women in law enforcement put their lives on the line every single day. Constables Ryan and Jordan did just that, and they will always be remembered for their service to protect our community in Edmonton. I acknowledge that foreign interference from Russia, Iran and other countries, other bad actors, is a real problem. However, we have very specific reports of very specific interference in two very specific federal elections, and we need to get to the bottom of these issues. The way to do that is to have a focused study at a parliamentary committee that can call witnesses to get the answers Canadians deserve That includes a full and independent public inquiry, not the smokescreen the Prime Minister has offered to cover up the truth.

175 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Mar/20/23 12:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He may have said things differently than I would have, but the main ideas are there. The reasons are there and they are valid. There is one thing that I wish my colleague had talked about. I heard him criticize the NDP and the Liberal government a lot for their complicity in the fact that there still has not been a public inquiry on Chinese interference, which is a major problem. I would like to know what reasons the government and the NDP could have for refusing to open such an inquiry when the public is calling for one.

108 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Mar/20/23 12:24:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very disappointing that the NDP has stood in the way of getting answers. This is an NDP opposition party that might as well be called the NDP government, as it is joined at the hip with the Liberal government. The New Democrats have propped up the Prime Minister every step of the way, so this motion puts them to the test. They will have to stand up, one by one, and vote to either prop up this corrupt Prime Minister or get to the bottom of Beijing's election interference. The choice is theirs. Only one choice is the right one: to vote for the motion.

110 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Mar/20/23 12:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to follow my esteemed colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, who has really been leading the charge along with several colleagues trying to shine a light on what the Liberals are trying to hide. One thing we know by now is that it must be really bad because the Prime Minister has gone to such great lengths to keep the truth from coming out. One does not go to such great lengths if it is just some kind of a minor technicality or if it is a small point of difference between two political parties. They send in their members of Parliament to embarrass themselves at committee and carry on a filibuster, insulting the intelligence of Canadians and other parliamentarians and denigrating the institution of Parliament, which is meant for the one fundamental purpose of holding the government to account. When they do that and the government throws up all kinds of contrived barriers to that investigation, it tells us something, and that is that the Prime Minister must be hiding something really big. We need to know who knew what and when about allegations of the Communist regime in Beijing interfering in Canadian elections. Canada is a wonderful country with a proud heritage and history, and Canadians are well served by strong democratic institutions that, over the course of years, we have refined and improved. Because it is run by individual human beings, it will never be perfect, but Canadians can have great confidence in those institutions if the politicians who hold those public offices treat those positions with respect because there is nothing magical in the air, the water or the trees of our wonderful country that will keep those institutions strong if politicians who undermine them get away with it. That is why every generation of Canadians, both voters and elected officials, have to treat those positions with respect and hold individuals accountable when they do not. We did not come to the House today to debate this motion based on rumours, and we did not come here to debate this motion based on what we overheard in committee proceedings. We are basing this motion on the fact that high-level national security officials have taken the unprecedented step of blowing the whistle on the government. For someone who works at CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to go to journalists with sensitive information puts themself, their family and their career in grave jeopardy. There are serious consequences in law, and well there should be, for people who divulge sensitive information, but as we learned over the weekend from the official who took the extraordinary measure of explaining his actions to the Globe and Mail, this individual was so compelled to blow the whistle because of the inaction of the government. For multiple years, our intelligence security officials, who often put themselves in real imminent danger when they carry out their duties, have been warning the Prime Minister. We have multiple reports. I am reading here from a Global News story of March 8 highlighting a special report prepared by the Privy Council Office for the Prime Minister's government that was date-stamped January 2022, well after the 2021 and the 2019 elections. The memo was also finalized, suggesting it was intended to be read by the Prime Minister and his senior aides. Global News also learned of an earlier high-level warning about clandestine funding of China's “preferred candidates” that came from a bipartisan panel of parliamentarians two months before the 2019 election. The information came from Canada's National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which reviews national security matters and promotes government-wide accountability. Who does that committee report to? Who reads those reports? That committee reports to one person: the Prime Minister. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister did not receive that report, yet on multiple occasions the Prime Minister has stood in this place and claimed he had no knowledge about funding coming from the Communist regime in Beijing flowing to candidates here in Canada, despite at least two reports that highlighted exactly that, which went to him personally. That is why we need this motion. That is why we need to break the logjam the Liberals have imposed upon members of Parliament at committee by filibustering, delaying and pulling out every trick in the book, including reading the phone book into the record, just to prevent important key officials from testifying. Some people might ask what would be the cause of this. We know that the Prime Minister admires the Communist dictatorship in China. He was asked once, other than Canada, which country he admires the most. He did not say he admired China because of its natural beauty. He did not talk about the history of China. He talked about admiring the basic dictatorship of China. Those were his words. Let us look at the policies of the Prime Minister upon coming to office. The Chinese government has invested heavily in something called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This is a development bank that pays for large-scale infrastructure projects throughout Asia. Many security experts and foreign affairs experts call this Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank the development arm of the foreign affairs policy of the Communist Party in Beijing. The Prime Minister decided to take $250 million of Canadian taxpayers' money and give it to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to help promote the national interests of the Communist Party in Beijing. We know the Prime Minister took years to make a decision on Huawei. When all our major trading partners and security partners were banning Huawei from the next generation of telecommunications, the Prime Minister dragged his feet. The Liberals have not kicked out a single diplomat. We have heard about illegal police stations operating on behalf of the government of Beijing, and reports of intimidation and harassment of people from China, the coercion and pressure upon them to vote the right way to support a certain nomination candidate. These are serious reports that do not come from other political parties, they come from our national security experts. The Prime Minister has known about this for months. The Liberals have not closed down a single one, and they have not expelled a single official of the Communist regime. What did the Prime Minister do last week in the face of mounting pressure, backlash, and more and more Canadians asking the tough questions about what the Prime Minister knew and why he has done nothing about it? He appointed a special rapporteur. I can just imagine the marketing department of the Liberal Party. Maybe the Liberals whiteboarded “interlocutor”, and then thought that nobody would go for that. Maybe they thought about calling that person an “inspector general”. They landed on rapporteur, and they picked a close family friend of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister who has proven to be allergic to preventing conflicts of interest has appointed a family friend, someone who brags about their growing up together, as families, in the ski chalets of the Laurentian Hills. Could there be anything more emblematic of the Laurentian elite here in Canada than the Prime Minister appointing a family friend from his background in the Laurentian Mountains, at his ski chalet, to investigate whether or not there should be a public inquiry into his handling of the foreign interference? It is unbelievable. Not only is he a close family friend, but he is also someone who sits on the board of the Trudeau foundation, the very foundation that accepted money that flowed from the Communist regime in Beijing and has only paid it back seven years later. Today is about something else. This motion would shine a light. It would ensure that the ethics committee could shine a light on what the Prime Minister knew. This is a very important decision for the New Democrats. The NDP used to believe in things. I come from Saskatchewan. Many people consider Saskatchewan to be the birthplace of the NDP. We can look back at the history of leaders of the NDP, whether it was Jack Layton, who I served with, Ed Broadbent, or someone before that. We may have disagreed on principles, but we at least recognized that the NDP had principles. We would disagree over policy, but we could respect that they believed in something. One of the things the NDP used to believe in was openness and transparency. For some reason, over the past few weeks, the New Democrats have decided to put their own partisan interests ahead of the national interests. I challenge the NDP members today, if they are serious, and if they want to look Canadians in the eye to say that they believe in ethics, openness and transparency, then they must vote for this motion. If they do not, they will be signalling that they are okay with Liberal corruption.

1500 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

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

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/20/23 12:37:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who has done such a disservice to the former governor general. That is who should be apologizing to Canadians for dragging David Johnston into this. The fact of the matter is that David Johnston sits on the board of the Trudeau foundation. This is the very foundation that is at the hub of allegations of money flowing from the Communist regime into Canada. Do not take my word for it. The foundation itself admitted that when it repaid part of the money it received. David Johnston himself talks about being a close family friend of the Prime Minister. Just because he may have been qualified to serve in one role years ago, as governor general, which is a non-partisan role and one that rises above the back-and-forth, does not mean he is suitable for this role. It is that point the Conservatives are highlighting when we talk about the conflict of interest.

162 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Mar/20/23 12:38:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to extend my condolences to the people of Amqui and to the family of the police officers who were killed in Edmonton. You talked about the integrity of elections. We know that there was a foreign interference campaign. The Prime Minister did nothing. He completely ignored the warnings from CSIS. What do you think about the government's inaction, and what would you do if you were in government?

79 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 12:39:02 p.m.
Watch

I would say to the hon. member that I would do nothing at all and remind her to address her comments through the Chair and not directly to her colleague. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

38 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/20/23 12:39:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. It is the question that all Canadians are asking themselves at this time. What is going on? Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to launch a public inquiry? When there is nothing to hide, it is very easy to provide documents to be reviewed because there is nothing to fear. Given that the Prime Minister is going to such great lengths to block the committee's investigation, we can only come to one conclusion: He has something very serious to hide.

90 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/20/23 12:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been clear from the beginning of this issue that nothing less than a thorough public, transparent and independent inquiry would suffice to give Canadians confidence in our democracy and make sure future elections are free of foreign interference. In fact, we were the first party in the House to call for that. I happen to sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, and although, of course, there is much I cannot say, what I can do is point all members of the House to a report that was issued on foreign interference several years ago. It is clear in that report, to anybody who wants to read it, including my hon. colleague, that there are numerous countries alleged to be involved in foreign interference in this country. Will the motion tabled, which he is supporting today in the House, be broad enough, in his view, to encompass foreign interference by any country in Canadian democratic processes, or does he intend his motion to be restricted only to the government of China?

181 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/20/23 12:41:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague can read the motion, look at the terms within it and decide for himself whether he thinks it is worthy of support. I hope he does support it. It is easy to call for things. We can walk outside in the foyer and we can call for whatever we like, but tomorrow there will be a vote, and that member and his caucus will have to show action. The difference between being the fourth party and being the opposition party, and the future governing party, is that we have to back up our words with action.

101 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 12:41:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the opposition for this opportunity to speak to this motion. Protecting Canadians means protecting the country's institutions. It is an important responsibility for all governments, but some are trying to exploit the freedoms we enjoy as Canadians to sow division and compromise our democratic values. It is for that reason that this motion is so important. I assure all members in the chamber that this government takes foreign interference with the utmost seriousness. The threats that it poses to our economy, to our academic and research institutions, to our critical infrastructure and, indeed, to our democratic institutions, including most especially our elections, is of paramount importance and work in which I hope all members will be united. Although I have identified these priorities, they are indeed the pillars of our democracy. The people who who work within these institutions, Canadians who contribute, is sacred. I understand that there has been a substantial amount of heat and passion in this subject matter. At times I think it has been regrettable to see that the discourse has strayed far too much into partisanship. I do not believe any of us benefit from that. It is my sincere hope that we would be able to have a debate on this motion, on the merits, on the principles, on civility and respect, because only together united can we fight against foreign interference and protect our institutions and our democracy. There are two primacies to this motion. One is that we need more transparency. I am going to speak to that and about the ways in which this government is raising the bar and shining a light on the way in which we protect our national security. The second is the questions around what this government is doing to fight against foreign interference. Let me start with the latter. Since taking the reins of government, we have been very proactive in putting in place the people, the resources, the technology, the powers and the authorities to equip all of the agencies that work within our national security and public safety apparatuses to protect our institutions. By way of example, that includes legislation like Bill C-59, which gave CSIS new threat reduction measure powers to address and mitigate; in other words, reduce threats that may be caused by foreign interference or other hostile activities that could be used to undermine our democratic institutions. We put that legislation into place. This government also introduced Bill C-76 to crackdown on foreign funding that could be used to interfere with our elections. It has become a useful tool to deter and disrupt those efforts as a way of safeguarding our democratic institutions. Very recently, I launched a public consultation that will see the creation of a foreign-influenced transparency registry, so we can promote legitimate diplomacy and foreign activities on Canadian soil, while at the same time deterring and stopping any efforts that go beyond legitimate diplomatic activities here at home. Even as we have done that, this government has raised the bar on transparency. We have done that through the creation of a number of new committees and agencies. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is there to study matters related to security and intelligence. This new committee was created by our government to increase collaboration between all recognized parties in the House of Commons and with the Senate. Under the leadership of one of my colleagues on the government side, many recommendations were made in a unified, cohesive manner to fight foreign interference. The government is in the process of implementing some of those recommendations. What is more, we created the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. The purpose of this agency is to review all the work that is done by our national security agencies. It has access to top secret information so that it can review our agencies' national security and public safety activities, in order to assure everyone that the work is being done properly or, if not, to provide meaningful recommendations that will benefit everyone. By creating these bodies, we have raised the bar of transparency. We are benefiting from their work. We are doing so in a way that is bipartisan. In other words, we are finding ways to collaborate across the aisle in this chamber. In addition to that, vis-à-vis our democratic institutions and specifically our elections, our government created the critical election incident public protocol, as well as the CEIPP panel, which is made up of our top, non-partisan, independent, professional public servants. They are there to ensure that during the course of an election that all the checks, balances and protections are doing their job to preserve the integrity of our federal elections. That is precisely what not one but two independent panels confirmed after they examined the circumstances of the federal elections in 2019 and 2021. In short, they certified that those elections were free and fair, libres et justes, and my hope is that Canadians will take assurances in those conclusions, not to give rise to some sense of complacency but rather so we can be sure we are on the right track when it comes to putting in place the mechanisms necessary to shield our democratic institutions from foreign interference. We need to do more. That is why, in addition to all of those mechanisms, just last week we announced the appointment of David Johnston, a former governor general appointed by Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister, and an individual with unimpeachable qualities and characteristics, to fulfill the role and to give us concrete advice on what the next best practical steps ought to be, given some of the questions around the 2019 and 2021 elections. This builds on the two reports that were filed by James Judd and Morris Rosenberg, two former public servants with distinguished records, in a non-partisan, independent way, contributing to the dialogue in this important area with tangible, concrete recommendations on which the government has committed to act. Indeed, in the case of Mr. Judd, we have acted on all but one of the recommendations. With regard to Mr. Rosenberg's report, we have heard my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who has committed to implementing those recommendations as well. In the event that there are any questions about Mr. Johnston's qualifications, which I again believe are unimpeachable, let me quote from a number of Conservatives who have said the following. I believe it was Fred Delorey, the former national chair of the Conservative Party campaign in 2021, who said that there was nobody better qualified. I believe it was Stephen Harper who said that David Johnston was the best of Canadians. We can place trust and confidence that he will, without any pride or prejudice toward political parties or partisanship, put forward the best possible recommendations when it comes to the important subject matter of fighting against foreign interference. I will say a few concluding words about the work that is being done by PROC, another forum in which the government is putting forward witnesses to again shed light on the way in which we are doing the work around foreign interference and national security. Most recently PROC heard from the Prime Minister's national security intelligence advisor, the deputy ministers from Global Affairs and the former deputy minister from Public Safety, as well as from my colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. All of them were able to certify that the federal elections in 2019 and 2021 were free and fair, but acknowledged that foreign interference was a significant challenge that required a proactive posture, one that continues to study, very thoughtfully and carefully, the types of tools and mechanisms we need to put in place to combat against those hostile actors who would try to undermine our democracy. Our government will continue to co-operate with that committee. It is important that we demonstrate a willingness to work with all parliamentarians so we can offer evidence and advice and put our collective minds together to navigate this challenge. Beyond Parliament, it is important that we engage Canadians. I want to take a moment to underline that in the conversations I have had with a number of communities around how we create new tools, including the foreign agent registry, expressions of concern have been articulated to me, concerns that we do this work in the right way, that we do it transparently, and that the ways that we draft and craft our laws are done consistent with the principles that are espoused in the law and in the charter. That has to be the bedrock of the way in which we put pen to paper when we draft our legislation. It is technical work. It is complex work. It is challenging to define and get the parameters right for how these authorities are triggered, used and then accountable in the use of those authorities, to be sure they are exercised reasonably and then accountable thereafter in the public reporting of it all. With respect to Bill C-59, that is precisely why, when we created the new threat reduction powers for CSIS, we did so concurrently with the creation of NSIRA, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, so we could be accountable and transparent, so if any questions were raised legitimately about how these powers were being used, we could make the necessary course corrections to maintain trust and confidence in all Canadians when it came to the way in which we did the work around national security. The Conservatives have gone to some length at times to be political and to be partisan, and that is regrettable. I do not believe that any of us profit from trying to score political points. We are a democracy. This is a chamber that sees some vigorous debate every single day, and it is a privilege to be part of those debates. Through those debates, my hope is that we are able to refine our ideas and advance them for the national interest. However, when it comes to foreign interference, whether from the People's Republic of China, Russia or any other hostile actor that would attempt to undermine our institutions, it is important we take a team Canada approach. We all have a vested interest in protecting the rules, principles and values that underpin our democracy. My sincere hope is that we will be able to continue to do this work in a way where, yes, there is fierce debate but it does not stray into partisanship and into the unnecessary politicization of an issue that should transcend it, so that we can do whatever is necessary to protect our democracy from all the threats that lie on the horizon.

1816 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Mar/20/23 12:57:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will ask the minister a very simple, non-partisan question, and I would refer him to the NSICOP annual 2019 report which, in chapter 2, has over 50 pages on foreign interference. Specifically, it has six key findings and three key recommendations, all unredacted and available to the public. This is a report that went straight to the Prime Minister. I have a two-part question. First, why has this government not taken any action on those three recommendations put forth by the non-partisan NSICOP committee? Second, the last recommendation in particular refers to the very first report NSICOP produced around the Prime Minister's trip to India and the allegations tied to that, which reads, “In the interest of national security, members of the House of Commons and the Senate should be briefed upon being sworn-in and regularly thereafter on the risks of foreign interference and extremism in Canada.” I think it would be unfair to ask the minister how many times since the start of the government, but since he has become the Minister of Public Safety, has he personally ensured that opposition members have been briefed, upon being sworn in at the appropriate level, on foreign interference in Canada?

209 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 12:59:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my commitment to work with my hon. colleague and all members in the chamber to ensure they are briefed in the appropriate forums, including when it comes to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Again, it is a committee that the government created not only to raise the bar of transparency but also to promote and foster greater collaboration across partisan lines. My colleague cites recommendations, but he then posits that no action has been taken. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, we are acting on a number of recommendations that have been put forward by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, including, most recently, and I would highlight for his benefit, the creation of a national coordinator who will be situated within my ministry to combat foreign interference. Is there more work to be done on those recommendations? Without question there is, but again, it is my commitment to him and to all members of the chamber to work without any prejudice towards partisanship to do this work together when it comes to fighting foreign interference.

185 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Mar/20/23 1:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech and found it very strange. Just think about the Chinese interference issue. Back when the first reports came out and questions started to be asked, the government simply said that there was no issue. It claimed that asking questions meant we were anti-Chinese, that we were, in essence, racist. That was the government's response. Now, with everything that has come out in the media, the government has been backed into a corner, so it has decided to appoint a special rapporteur. It thinks that that will be enough, that everyone will be happy and move on. The whole thing is a farce. We keep asking questions, and the minister claims that we are making partisan attacks. However, the people are also demanding a public inquiry into Chinese interference. Is the entire population partisan too? I am trying to understand the logic behind the minister's speech.

158 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 1:01:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The government takes the issue of foreign interference very seriously. All of our legislation demonstrates our commitment to this issue. Consider for example Bill C‑59, which granted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service new powers to reduce threats caused by foreign interference. Another example is Bill C‑76, which targeted foreign funds that could pose a threat to our democratic institutions. My colleague is quite right to ask questions. That is the purpose of this House. The point of this place is to shed light on how we carry out these duties. At the same time, it is fair to point out that, for the government and for everyone else, partisanship is not good for debate. I hope we can set partisanship aside as we move forward.

140 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Mar/20/23 1:02:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians find these allegations of foreign interference in our elections extremely troubling, and seven in 10 Canadians want to see a public inquiry. In fact, the Prime Minister's own former principal secretary believes a public inquiry into this matter is needed. We have an established process in Canada for getting to the bottom of questions like this, and I think most people are quite confused that the Liberals have, instead, chosen such a convoluted path to get to uncovering the truth. Could the minister shed some light on why the Liberals continue to drag their feet instead of getting the transparency that Canadians deserve on our elections and the potential for foreign interference?

116 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 1:03:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say respectfully to my colleague that we have been very proactive when it comes to both the way in which we are fighting foreign interference and being upfront with Canadians as to the various manners in which we do that work. Without wasting any time, we have created new powers but we also introduced the committee of parliamentarians. My colleague makes reference to some confusion around the next steps. We said, less than two weeks ago, that we had an intention of appointing a special rapporteur, an eminent Canadian who possesses the credibility and the qualifications to map out the next steps to better shield our democratic institutions, including elections, from the allegations of foreign interference. They are fair questions. We have now appointed that individual, and I am encouraged that the New Democrats have not gone down the path of the Conservatives and have not been partisan with regard to Mr. Johnston but, rather, see that he is qualified to do this important work. Now we will do whatever we can to support him in his wide mandate so we can shine a light on additional steps, if any, including and up to a public inquiry, so there can be confidence in our institutions, most particularly our elections.

213 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 1:04:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to express my heartache at the horrific stabbing that happened this morning in my riding, at Charles P. Allen High School. At the moment, there are three victims in the hospital and a student in custody. My prayers and heartfelt thoughts are with the victims. Special prayers go to them, as well as to the brave Halifax Regional Police officers who responded. Could the minister please explain to the House and to Canadians the role of the special rapporteur?

87 words