SoVote

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:30:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question, and I would ask my colleague to answer yes or no. It is a question so clear that even Stéphane Dion would be satisfied. Is the vote on this motion, which will take place tomorrow, a vote of confidence?

50 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:30:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a vote all of us should be taking very seriously. At the end of the day, I would argue there is a choice. Does the member believe in the civil servants and the security measures in place that provide assurances to Canadians? Does the member believe that the special rapporteur has the integrity to come back to give a recommendation? We can at least wait until we see the recommendation, wait until we see the report. There is all sorts of opportunity, and I hope members will take it seriously.

94 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:30:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague had an exceptionally simple question. Instead of getting a simple answer, we got a word salad. Therefore, I will ask again. Is tomorrow's vote going to be a confidence vote? Yes or no is the only thing the member needs to answer.

48 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:31:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member needs to take a look in the mirror and reflect on what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue. The member previous said that it does not matter what anyone else does. The Conservative Party has taken a position, and it is a solid whipped position from the Conservative Party. We do not need to take lectures on understanding and appreciating the importance of the vote. Canadians have indicated that this is a serious issue, and that is why we are treating it as that. It is a very serious issue.

98 words

Opposition motions

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the question asked by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the member asked if we believe in the measures that have been put into place since the events. I would like to ask him if he believes in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. It has approached the government time and time again, and time and time again, the government has simply done nothing. Does the member believe in CSIS?

78 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:32:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for our civil service, which is why I listed off the many agencies and groups that are there to ensure Canadians can have confidence. They can have confidence because it is very clear that nothing ultimately impacted the outcome of the elections.

51 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 5:33:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two process questions for the member. The actions of committees are independent. Should the House be involved in making decisions on who is invited, and where the committees do their work? There is also this place, a place of partisan debate, where we make points politically versus looking at the overall outcomes. There is, in one case, an independent committee with its studies. In the other case, there is an independent inquiry into how democracy is being protected in Canada. How important it is to keep distinguished the different roles of the different groups within the House.

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:33:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to address the PROC committee, which is dealing with this. A lot depends on the makeup of the committee and the real agenda of the committee membership. I would have loved to have seen a committee that said, “Look, it is not only China. Russia and other countries are trying to have electoral interference here in Canada and in other countries”. As a committee, it could maybe conduct a more general study on such an important issue. I am sure that would go a long way in providing some wonderful recommendations for the future.

101 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:34:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, often Liberal members get criticized for not answering questions. I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader the simple question for a third time. NDP members last week supported the idea of having the Prime Minister's chief of staff and key witnesses testify in committee on what they knew and how they knew it when it came to Beijing's election interference. Suddenly, they are wavering. Can the member answer the question with a yes or a no? Have they made the vote tomorrow a confidence matter? For the third time, is it yes or no?

104 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:35:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is obviously very curious. He might want to ask individuals in the House leadership. I am not the government whip. I would suggest that the vote tomorrow is going to be important.

36 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

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

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

Mar/20/23 5:45:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his impeccable French on this International Day of La Francophonie. However, that is as far as I will go with my thanks and congratulations, because I have some thoughts I want to share with him. He is quite right in saying that we need to do our best to put partisanship aside when it comes to matters of integrity and ethics, and especially when it comes to our electoral system and the confidence we must have in it. The facts speak for themselves. When the first rumours began to circulate about the Beijing regime's possible interference in the federal election, the Prime Minister always said that there was never any interference. When The Globe and Mail ran a first-page story saying that there had been interference, he asked how that information had been leaked to the media. That is a classic example of shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message. Finally, after changing his mind three times, the Prime Minister decided to appoint a special rapporteur, which confirmed that there had indeed been unacceptable foreign interference. It makes no difference whether there was foreign interference affecting just one vote or an entire government. Can the member acknowledge that his leader failed to lead by example and assume the responsibilities and authority of the office he holds, which is to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians?

245 words

Mr. Kody Blois

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:48:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his excellent French on this International Day of La Francophonie. That is definitely something that needs to be highlighted. He began his remarks by saying that his words would be extremely clear. I am going to ask him the question that I asked his colleague. I felt that my question was very clear, but I did not receive a clear answer. Is the vote a vote of confidence, yes or no?

85 words

Mr. Kody Blois

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 5:49:23 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I must give others the opportunity to participate. Normally, the time given for the answer corresponds to the time it took to ask the question. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

40 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/20/23 5:49:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on behalf of the good folks of Elmwood—Transcona to ask a question of my colleague. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I appreciate all the positive response for Elmwood—Transcona in the chamber here today. I want to say, first of all, that I agree with the member that the kind of partisan circus that has developed around this issue on Parliament Hill has not been helpful for getting to the bottom of the issue that Canadians are rightfully concerned about and deserve answers to. The best way to do that is through a public inquiry. There is no question about it. That is why the NDP was actually the first party to call for a public inquiry. It is why we continue to call for a public inquiry. If his concern is the political temperature in this place and that this is not the appropriate forum to get to the bottom of these things, why is it the case that he and his government have not already called a public inquiry, and when are they going to do it?

194 words

Mr. Kody Blois

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

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

Mar/20/23 5:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I appreciate the enthusiasm from members opposite to hear from me on this important opposition day motion. The motion is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at a parliamentary committee on what she knew and when she knew it with respect to the foreign interference efforts by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing on our elections, specifically in 2019 and 2021. We have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to investigate matters like this in our committees. The procedure and House affairs committee had undertaken a study specifically on this issue. The ethics committee also initiated a set of hearings on foreign interference. That process was under way before we heard all the explosive details that we are now privy to. At the procedure and House affairs committee, the government is engaged in a full-blown filibuster cover-up. It has been going on for nearly 24 hours, and anyone who has watched it has been subjected to anything but dealing with the substantive matter. Canadians have reached out to me. I have heard from them, and they are looking for answers. We know the Prime Minister's chief of staff was named by members of our intelligence community as having received the information with respect to foreign interference attempts. However, that is a departure from what we have heard from the Prime Minister as to what he knew and what individuals in his office knew. Therefore, it is important that we hear from this key witness. Filibustering, obstructing and engaging in cover-ups are parts of a pattern for the Liberal government. We have seen it time and time again, notably with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At that time, The Globe and Mail made allegations with respect to the Prime Minister's attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. Interestingly, the Prime Minister said the allegations were false. It was later confirmed by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, that the Prime Minister had, in fact, been found guilty of breaking the Act for his interference in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This was confirmed in the Trudeau II Report. We saw the same obstruction with the investigation into the WE Charity debacle, where the government tried to give $912 million, nearly a billion dollars, to friends of the Prime Minister. It did this instead of actually delivering on services and supports to Canadians at a time when they needed it most. This is the Liberals' pattern, and so we are not surprised to see that first they deny, then they deflect and then they try to cover it up. We are witnessing the cover-up as it unfolds. On the matter of why Mrs. Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, will not come to committee, the Liberals have said she cannot come because we have ministerial accountability. Therefore, that staff member should not come, and it should be the minister who comes. However, the minister is the Prime Minister. In the 24-hour filibuster that we have endured, we have not heard an amendment proposing that the Prime Minister come to committee. What we know is that the chief of staff has come to committee twice before. This was on the WE Charity scandal and the hearings on the sexual misconduct in the military at the defence committee. We know the chief of staff can come to committee, and Canadians can judge for themselves the quality of the appearances by Ms. Telford. She is a professional, and she is able to handle herself well at committee. We would imagine the same would happen again. What is different this time? What information is the Prime Minister's chief of staff unable to share with Canadians that would be so damaging to the government that it is pulling out all the stops, up to and including potentially declaring an opposition day motion a matter of confidence in the government so that it can strong-arm the fourth party in the House into supporting it? That is the big question that we are faced with. We know that the Liberal government is going to obstruct and to continue its cover-up. What we do not know is what the Liberals' coalition partners in the NDP are prepared to do. Are they going to provide that transparency for Canadians on a matter that speaks to the fundamental, foundational principles of our democracy, that it is Canadians at the ballot box who decide the makeup of Canada's Parliament? Or are we about to witness a cover-up of state actors, in this case the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, putting their thumb on the scale to try to elect preferred candidates to engineer an outcome? In this case, there were reports that they were looking for the return of a minority Liberal government. Frankly, that a diplomat from another country would make that claim on Canadian soil should precipitate a response from the government, and that response should be to expel the diplomat, to kick them out. When someone is bragging about interfering in our democracy, we do not need to substantiate the claim first. They do not get to pass “go” and collect $200. They are declared persona non grata, PNG, and off they go, back to the dictatorship in Beijing. We have not seen that kind of action in the face of incredibly concerning reports in The Globe and Mail and in Global News, with intelligence sources who have laid out for us what we need to be looking at. The response from the government is that now it says it is taking it seriously. However, the Liberals' actions do not demonstrate that they have been serious about it up to this point. The Prime Minister is hedging his bets. He has named an individual who has the ability, we are told, to advise the Prime Minister on whether he should or could have a public inquiry. However, the Prime Minister describes the individual he chose as his adviser as a close personal and family friend and as a member of the Beijing-funded Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which returned a contribution of $200,000, that we know about, back to the dictatorship in Beijing. Are they telling me that with 38 million people in this country, the Prime Minister could not find someone whom he does not call a close personal friend and who does not sit on his family's foundation? Canadians deserve to have transparency and they need to have confidence in the process that is set up. An open, transparent public inquiry is what opposition parties are looking for, and having the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is named in these intelligence reports, testify at committee is essential. We know the government is going to vote against the motion, and I know I am going to get a question from the fourth party. In that question, I hope to hear from them that they are planning to vote in favour of having Ms. Telford testify at committee and vote to end this Liberal cover-up.

1206 words

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

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