SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 1:30:50 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that we do not refer to current members by name in the House. The member for Trois-Rivières.

25 words

Mar/20/23 1:30:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the close relationship between the Prime Minister and the rapporteur is troubling. It concerns me from an ethics standpoint. I think it would be in the government's interest not to rely on this rapporteur to shed light on the matter. There are too many grey areas at this time, and we do not like that. It appears as though he will be the judge and jury. That may not be the case, but that is what it looks like. That is what I am hearing from the people of Trois-Rivières. It is in my interest to ensure that my constituents understand what is going on. For them to understand, we need to get to the bottom of this. What will the rapporteur actually do? The rapporteur could call for a public inquiry. If that happens, we will have wasted time. The rapporteur could say there will be no public inquiry. In that case, I do not know what will happen, but something will have to be done, because it does not make sense. A public, independent and transparent inquiry is necessary. This is interesting, philosophically speaking. The word “necessary” refers to something that must be done, so we intend to push for an independent public inquiry and get to the bottom of this. Before I close, I would like to say a few words about the committee. The committee is sovereign and can choose its mandates. In this case, the mandate is coming from the House. It is prepared to tackle it. I hope I can count on the collaboration of my colleagues, whom we will support, so that we can reduce the number of witnesses and add certain other witnesses who are just as important. When we look at something like this, as Oscar Wilde said, “the truth is rarely pure and never simple”. To remove any doubt, the Prime Minister needs to call public, independent and transparent public inquiry. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion, but not just any motion.

353 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Mar/20/23 1:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments by my colleague from Trois-Rivières. His professional experience is very useful to us in this debate. Earlier he mentioned the rapporteur. I would like to come back to that. I think that all Canadians recognize that the person the Prime Minister appointed as rapporteur is a great Canadian who has had an admirable career and is well known for his charity work. Indeed, people are entitled to have friends and to be a friend of the Prime Minister. However, when someone is called to take a close look at the Prime Minister's work and the impact it had, that is where things change. The current rapporteur appointed by the Prime Minister is on the board of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. We have nothing against the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, but let us not forget that the foundation received $200,000 from people who are very close the Communist government in Beijing. This is my question for my colleague from Trois-Rivières whose job it is to analyze matters of ethics and conflict of interest: Why does he think that the Prime Minister's appointment does nothing at all to reassure Canadians?

206 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/20/23 1:34:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question. The appointment of a rapporteur who has ties to the Prime Minister will not in any way protect the Prime Minister from himself. As an ethicist, I think this decision is a huge red flag. I believe that in this situation, we must make it possible for people to once again trust the government, and that is not possible with these perceived ties—which are not just perceived, they are actually real. I am not questioning Mr. Johnston's competence. I am saying that, in these circumstances, this appointment is unacceptable.

104 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

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

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/20/23 1:35:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although it pains me to say so, I have to admit that I agree in part with my colleague. We must determine what is the best forum, but I will go a little further. This matter must not be addressed in a partisan way because it is an issue of public interest. In the interest of the public, we must get to the bottom of this so we can take action. I believe that the forum is not as important as the fact that we must take action by rising above partisan sparring and seeking out this care for the public interest, which is sorely lacking on both sides of the House.

114 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Mar/20/23 1:36:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was well-thought-out, as usual. We agree on the need for an independent and transparent public inquiry into foreign interference. The NDP is concerned that the focus here is on just one state, namely the Chinese government. Yes, there are very serious allegations involving China, but focusing solely on China stigmatizes Quebeckers and Canadians who are Chinese nationals. We hear that a lot from people on the ground. Does my colleague agree that the mandate should be expanded to include all foreign interference, including that of Iran or Russia, for example?

102 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/20/23 1:37:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy hearing from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. China does not have a monopoly on interference. That would be my first point. Also, we have to be very careful because, when we talk about the Chinese Communist Party interfering, we are not saying that allegations should be made against Chinese Canadians. That is very different. We have to be careful not to stigmatize people unnecessarily by stigmatizing a community. It is the Chinese Communist Party that is the problem here. I agree with my colleague that China does not have a monopoly on interference.

101 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/20/23 1:37:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk more about the NDP and our position on holding a public inquiry. I recently had the pleasure of attending meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when our usual representative, the member for North Island—Powell River, was in her riding. Unfortunately, at that time, attending meetings virtually was not an option. As a result, I spent several days with my colleagues from the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As everyone already knows, the NDP succeeded in passing a motion that was then debated in the House. This week, perhaps even tomorrow, we intend to introduce this motion which calls for a public, transparent and independent inquiry. That is extremely important. Later in my speech, I will read the motion that we hope to introduce in the House tomorrow so that the vote can take place in the coming days. There is no doubt in our minds. The member for Burnaby South, our national leader, has already stated numerous times that holding a public, transparent and independent inquiry is extremely important. Nothing less would satisfy Canadians' need for answers to all the questions raised as a result of all the articles published not only over the past few weeks but also over the past few years. As members know, there was a convoy last year that had a stranglehold on Ottawa. It was a very dark and sad time for the residents of Ottawa. Seniors could no longer go grocery shopping, people with disabilities could not get their medications and there was the incessant noise, which prevented families from sleeping at night. Furthermore, hundreds of businesses had to remain closed. After the departure of this so-called freedom convoy, which breached the freedoms of the people of Ottawa, we learned from a series of articles published in Canada's National Observer that there were ties to Russian actors and the Russian government and its institutions. There is no denying that the issue of interference has been simmering for a long time. It is something that must be on people's minds. When we look at recent reports of interference by the Chinese government and other state actors, some very worrisome facts have come to light. Although everyone agrees that this did not affect the outcome of the election, the allegations are serious. It seems as though the Chinese government interfered in Canada's affairs. Furthermore, some of these revelations raise concerns that election laws may have been broken. We really need to take this seriously. I remember some election laws being violated under the Harper government. Examples include the in-and-out scandal and the Dean Del Mastro situation. Such violations of election laws are criminal. We are talking about allegations of money being given, services and goods being provided and boundaries being crossed. These disturbing allegations truly call for a transparent and public national inquiry, in my view and that of our caucus and our party. It it worth noting that this is exceptional. Our election laws protect us all. There are strict election spending limits. We are not like the United States, where people can spend as much as they like. Candidates can receive secret donations, donations that are not transparent. Our election laws place limits on how much people can spend. In my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, my 100,000 constituents are my bosses. They are well aware that all candidates are limited to spending roughly $100,000. This limit is strictly enforced, as we saw in the Dean Del Mastro situation. The former Conservative MP did jail time because he tried to hide the fact that he had exceeded the spending limit. Allegations of involvement by the Chinese government or Chinese agents mean that this spending limit could have been exceeded. Second, the fact that candidates can only receive donations from Canadian citizens or Canadian residents is an aspect of the Elections Act that is strictly enforced. Gone are the days when people could give $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 to a candidate or party. There are strict limits. This year, the limit on the amount people can give is $1,675. That cannot be exceeded. Whoever tries to exceed it is breaking the Canada Elections Act. Under the previous Harper government, the Conservative Party tried to play around with that, but donations are strictly limited by the act. The third aspect that is also important is the issue of donations of goods or services. Again, the limit is $1,675 for someone who wants to donate services or contribute in that way. It is the business value that counts. For example, a business owner who wants to donate space to any party is limited by the commercial value of that property. If the commercial value of the property exceeds $1,675, it is clearly a violation of the Elections Act, as it is not permitted. The candidate must give, must provide, must pay the full commercial value. Contributions of goods and services must be strictly limited. These are contributions that are limited to a value to $1,675, as are financial contributions. These three limitations are consistent with the law. They cannot be exceeded, and to do so is an unequivocal violation of the law. The allegations reported by The Globe and Mail and Global News are troubling, because they point to a possible attempt to circumvent election laws. We cannot just leave it at that. We really need to get to the bottom of things. That is why the NDP called for a public inquiry and why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed that one was necessary. Tomorrow, the NDP will move a motion that I believe reflects the will of the vast majority of Canadians. There is no doubt about it, because people want answers to all the questions about the allegations reported by The Globe and Mail and Global News. They also want answers about the allegations of Russian interference reported last year by the National Observer. These are all important aspects. It is not just the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, who called for a national public inquiry that is both independent and transparent. The former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden, also said that a public inquiry was absolutely necessary. Jean‑Pierre Kingsley, a man for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, also called for a national public inquiry, as the former head of Elections Canada. Artur Wilczynski, a former senior official at the Communications Security Establishment, is calling for an inquiry as well. These people certainly talked about interference by the Chinese government, but also interference by the Russian government and that of Iran. All of them support the NDP's call for a public inquiry. That will be tomorrow's debate. That is what the NDP wants to propose. We want every MP to be able to vote this week on having a national public inquiry. The government says it appointed a rapporteur and that is why it is setting aside the idea of a national public inquiry, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It is true that under the former Harper government, a rapporteur was appointed to address the scandals around Airbus and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, but, as we know, this very quickly led to a public inquiry. It is very clear, in my opinion, that the idea of appointing a rapporteur does not preclude this possibility and this need to launch a national public inquiry. That is what our leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus will be speaking about tomorrow in the House. We will argue that this requires a national public inquiry, as indicated by all the people I have mentioned. Today's motion is nothing like any motion the NDP would have moved. It does include some positive aspects and others that are curious, such as the request to call the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the long list of people to call. The list does not necessarily offend me, in the sense that there is some logic to it. However, it omits a lot of people. For example, the NDP introduced a motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to call certain witnesses identified in the Conservative motion, as well as others. I thank the chair of this committee for her work, because long meetings were held over several days. To be clear, the allegations concern both the Liberal and Conservative parties. It is important to remember that nine Liberal candidates and two Conservative candidates were the subject of allegations of foreign interference. Since both parties are implicated, we suggested to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the Conservative and Liberal national campaign directors be called as witnesses. We also talked about inviting Jennie Byrne, given the allegations that I already mentioned about the Russian government's involvement in the so-called freedom convoy, as reported in the National Observer. So many people in Ottawa were robbed of their freedom during that time. These are important details. Now, I want to take the time to read the report that we hope to table tomorrow and to talk about various principles in the Conservatives' motion that appear to be somewhat contradictory. First, I want to read, for the record, the report that the NDP is tabling tomorrow. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, March 2, 2023, the committee has considered the matter of foreign election interference. Your committee calls on the Government of Canada to launch a national public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, including but not limited to allegations of interference in general elections by foreign governments; That this inquiry be granted all the necessary powers to call witnesses from the government and from political parties; That this inquiry investigates abuse of diaspora groups by hostile foreign governments; That this inquiry have the power to order and review all documents it deems necessary for this work, including documents which are related to national security; That the individual heading this inquiry be selected by unanimous agreement by the House Leaders of the officially recognized parties in the House of Commons; and That this inquiry does not impede or stop the committee’s study on foreign election interference, including the production of documents and the calling of witnesses. The 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is what the NDP will be tabling in the House tomorrow for debate and for a vote. At this point, we are certainly hoping that there will be a consensus from the House of Commons, to say, very clearly, to the Prime Minister that a national public inquiry is needed. A final point that I want to make is on the contradiction between the Conservative motion today and their past principles, in terms of ministerial responsibility. I want to cite the member for Carleton, who answered a question in the House back in 2010. I certainly remember that. The idea was that, instead of summoning the minister who was responsible, it would summon a member of staff. The member for Carleton said, “Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that for hundreds of years, the principle of ministerial accountability has been paramount here in the House and in its committees. We will continue to respect that principle in order to improve and build a Canada where politicians are accountable.” At that point, he was saying no, of course, to having staff appear at committee. It is a bit of a contradiction now. I think I have outlined the importance of what the NDP will be bringing to the House tomorrow on the public inquiry. That is certainly where most Canadians are. Canadians want to see a public inquiry that is transparent and independent. The NDP has made that happen at the procedure and House affairs committee. It will really be up to all members of Parliament to heed the debate tomorrow and to also ultimately vote on that question this week.

2060 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/20/23 1:58:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the NDP House leader's speech, and I am interested in the motion and debate that will take place on what they are going to put forward tomorrow. Today, we are talking about the Conservative opposition day motion, and that is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, testify at committee on what she knew, when she knew it and whether the Prime Minister was briefed on that. My question is very clear, it will not take much time and we will be able to get to the next item on the rubric at 2 p.m., right on time, because he can answer yes or no. Will the NDP members be propping up a corrupt government, or will they be on the side of Canadians and voting for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify, yes or no?

153 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/20/23 1:59:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is actually citing his leader, the member for Carleton, who would have voted no for the Conservative motion back in 2010, which is why I was quoting this Conservative contradiction that the member for Carleton voted no on the same principle of the motion back in 2010. We have this contradiction with what Conservatives have said, what they have done in the past and what they are proposing this time.

74 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 2:00:21 p.m.
Watch

I need to give a few seconds to the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to answer.

18 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/20/23 2:00:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the right use of resources is putting into place a national public inquiry on foreign interference now, to make sure it is independent and to make it transparent. That is what the will of the House, I think, will be this week, and that is why the NDP is presenting the motion tomorrow.

55 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 2:00:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today is Nowruz, which means “new day” in Persian. Yesterday, I was pleased to host a Nowruz celebration on Parliament Hill with the participation of about 700 Canadians of Iran, Azerbaijan, Afghan, Turkey and Kazak heritage, and other Canadians. Nowruz is a time of renewal, new beginnings and shared aspirations of hope and optimism for the year ahead. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the many communities that observe Nowruz and the important contributions they make to Canada. I would also like to recognize Alma Rahmani for her hard work in assisting my office in organizing the Nowruz event. I would like to recognize Mendi Fallahi and Nigar Aliyeva who received an award for their service to their communities in Canada.

128 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

Mar/20/23 2:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in over 70 countries today, the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer individuals are criminalized. In 12 of those countries, consensual same-sex conduct may be punished by death. Their only crime is being themselves. On July 1, 1960, on the eve of the passage of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Prime Minister Diefenbaker declared, in this House, his pledge to uphold our heritage of freedom for all mankind. That pledge was a call to action for all Canadians. In our world today, the LGBTIQ community is not free. Prime Minister Diefenbaker's call to action rings true again today. Each and every one of us is called to make Canada more than a mere symbol of freedom. Canada must be a champion for freedom, human rights and dignity for all people, not just here but around the world.

144 words

Mr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 2:02:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today is the International Day of La Francophonie. More than 320 million francophones around the world celebrate this day. I particularly want to recognize the work of organizations such as the FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada; the FESFO, the Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne; the AFO, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario; the ACFSOs in Prescott and Russell, Ottawa and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; and all other Canadian organizations that every day advocate for the protection and promotion of the French language. Art and culture promote and disseminate a language. That is why I encourage all Canadians to discover our francophone artists in person or online. I am thinking in particular of artists such as Prospect Nelson, Les Rats d'Swompe, Melissa Ouimet and, of course, Katherine Levac. All these artists are from eastern Ontario. As the international president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF, and as a proud Franco-Ontarian, I wish the 91 member branches of the APF an excellent International Day of La Francophonie. Long live the Francophonie.

199 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/20/23 2:03:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the International Day of La Francophonie was created in 1988 by the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie to give the 88 member states an opportunity to celebrate their common bond: the French language. At home in Trois-Rivières, we celebrate La Francophonie all year long. We have the International Poetry Festival, a book fair and the Association des écoles festives de théâtre. In addition, this year, two well-known people from my riding will be awarded the Ordre de la Pléiade. This honour recognizes the work of Robert Aubin, former member of Parliament for Trois-Rivières, as well as Louise Lacoursière, a best-selling author from Trois-Rivières. They have both made their mark by supporting and promoting the ideals of the francophone community. La Francophonie is not France. La Francophonie is all those who speak, think, live and study in French, wherever and whoever they are. La Francophonie is a shared language, culture, identity and set of values. I want to personally invite everyone in Trois-Rivières to participate in the activities celebrating International Francophonie Day. Together we speak French and together we are stronger. Long live La Francophonie.

209 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 2:05:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at 5:24:28 p.m. today, 300 million people around the world will gather around the haft-seen table to mark the Persian new year, Nowruz. Celebrated by many ethnicities, religions and countries, Nowruz embodies a brighter future and victory over darkness. This mirrors what is unfolding in Iran, as its people are on a quest for a free and peaceful nation. In the name of the “women, life, freedom” movement, we, in my household, are symbolizing the seven items of the 1402 haft-seen table in the following way: sabzeh, the rebirth of a nation that fosters liberty; samanu, the power and strength of Iranian women and youth; senjed, the love of Iranians for their motherland; seeb, hospitality and compassion for the Iranian people; serkeh, decades of perseverance in the face of repression; sekkeh, a future full of opportunities for young people to prosper; and finally, seer, the health and well-being of Iran as a nation. [Member spoke in Farsi]

167 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Mar/20/23 2:06:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and an ardent defender of the French fact, today, March 20, I am proud to mark the 53rd International Day of La Francophonie. This year, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie chose “321 million francophones, billions of cultural content” as their theme in order to celebrate the diversity of francophone cultural creation and emphasize the importance of ensuring that it can be easily accessed online. Language does not belong to a country or region. It belongs to the individual, and only the individual can determine its future and survival. The modernization of the Official Languages Act is one way to stop the decline of French, but we also all need to do our part to stop the decline of French. As francophones, we need to establish a strong presence, while respecting the other language. We need to work together to keep our country bilingual. The French language is not a rival; rather, it is a distinctive force. Let us be proud of our country's English-French bilingualism today and throughout the year. We need to take action now.

193 words