SoVote

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

Mar/20/23 1:08:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to ask to share my time with the member for Trois-Rivières. I understand that there is agreement. This is an extremely serious subject. There are times in the House when members rise and talk about witnessing a moment in the history of Quebec or Canada. I believe this is the case today. This is extremely serious. Democracy has been hit hard; I am talking about the Quebec and Canadian democracy. The power of the people, their power to decide who will represent them, is an outstanding system, if there is one. My colleagues who, like me, have gone door knocking know that some people say that they are not sure whether they will vote. We then tell them that they need to vote and that it is important they do their civic duty. Sometimes, voters say that they do not feel like it. They ask whether it matters. We try to convince them that democracy is important to ensure that the country is managed the way people expect it to be. While we are there, we try to encourage them. People often respond that they have lost faith in democracy. We see that the voter turnout rate continues to decline. Now, we are facing a totally crazy situation in which Canada's democracy has been attacked. It is important to be careful; we are talking about the Chinese government. We have learned that the Chinese government is attacking our democracy and trying to influence the vote. Who would have believed that another government, elsewhere in the world and even one far, far away, even if it is extremely powerful, would one day wield such influence? It is absolutely essential then—

293 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 1:10:07 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask any members who want to have a conversation to go out to the lobby. The hon. member for La Prairie.

31 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Mar/20/23 1:10:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we could discuss it, but I think that the guardian of democracy in Canada is the Prime Minister of Canada. No one needs to be a math whiz or have a PhD to know that. We expect the Prime Minister to take to the trenches to defend democracy. Defending democracy means defending everyone here. It justifies our presence here and allows me to say that I was duly elected by the citizens of La Prairie. Earlier, the Minister of Public Safety said that we should set partisanship aside. I totally agree. I would say that that has been the Bloc Québecois’s modus operandi from the outset. We have to be honest, though. It is all well and good to say that we should set partisanship aside, but at some point we have to address the elephant in the room. Last November, Global News reported that there was interference in 11 ridings in the 2019 election. They figured that was normal. First, they were unfamiliar with the ridings. They do not know whether the candidates promoted by the Chinese government were elected or not. They do not know how they did it. Our first reaction is that there should be an investigation. We asked the Prime Minister to do something, but he refused and said nothing happened, the election was entirely above board, and we should not challenge the results. Then, the man who told us that we should set partisanship aside accused us of being anti-Chinese racists. Then, he told us that we were like Donald Trump and would be challenging the election. Speaking of partisanship, let us just say that the Prime Minister is pretty good at it. He says he has no idea what we are talking about. He went to the G20 summit, where he followed the Chinese president around like he desperately needed a friend. He absolutely wanted to speak with him. When asked what he wanted to talk about, he said that he wanted to talk about Chinese interference, yet here he says that there was no interference. He told us we should not say that because it is not true, but the first chance he got to talk to the Chinese president, that is what he talked about. We were a bit confused, but let us move on. That was just the tip of the iceberg. On February 17, we learned that the Chinese government also interfered in the 2021 election because it wanted us to elect a minority Liberal government, since it believes that a minority Liberal government is more sympathetic to its cause. That is what we learned from the media. We figured it was getting serious. It was no longer speculation. It was getting very serious. On February 28, we learned that Chinese millionaire Zhang Bin, under pressure from the Chinese government, had given $1 million to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and McGill University. We figured there were ties with the government and perhaps the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. I know that we are not supposed to say the Prime Minister’s name in the House, but it is sounds a bit like that. We figured there was a problem. Madam Speaker, I am looking at you carefully, because I am going to talk about your riding and, no surprise here, Chinese police stations. We knew that there were five of them in Canada, but on March 9 we learned that there were two more in Quebec, including one in the riding of Brossard—Saint-Lambert. This is worrisome, because we hear that Chinese police stations may have influenced the election results. I am not talking about you, Madam Speaker. I know that you fully earned your presence here, but since I am in the neighbouring riding, I see what is happening and it looks funny to me. Let me continue. On March 16, we learned that Vancouver City Hall may have also been targeted by Chinese interference. An open letter from an unnamed CSIS agent caused an absolute uproar. In this anonymous letter, the agent said that what is happening in Canada is so serious that it represents the “gravest threat” to national security. He said that he was leaking this information because he loves his country, that he has voted for the Liberals in the past and that he has nothing against them, but that there are things going on and the government needs to take action. He said that CSIS keeps sounding the alarm, but that the government is not doing anything. According to him, the government did nothing when it was told that there was interference in 2019; it did nothing between 2019 and 2021 when it was told what was happening; and it did nothing in 2021 when it was told that there was interference and attempted influence. I have only two minutes left and I want to talk about David Johnston. The way people have been talking about him, one would think he is Spider-Man. People are saying that he is going to fix everything because he is a great guy, when in fact, David Johnston once said that he feels at home when he goes to China. He is also a friend of the Prime Minister and his family, so we are not off to a very good start. David Johnston was a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which is also not good. He was also the commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission in 2021. During the debate, the moderator suggested that Quebeckers are racist. He was the commissioner for the organization. Clearly, he is no Spider-Man. In committee, I asked him if he realized that Quebeckers were called racist during a debate he was running. I told him that an apology was called for, but he was never willing to apologize. We are calling for an independent public inquiry because that is the right thing to do. The government needs to revoke the appointment of David Johnston as special rapporteur. He is not the right person for the job. This was a bad casting call. The Conservative motion has its flaws, and my colleague will talk about them in more detail later. It is not perfect. We would have liked for the Conservatives to call for an independent public inquiry. Time is of the essence. Given that we have a minority government, an election could be called tomorrow morning, before we have dealt with the issue of Chinese interference and developed the tools we need to hold a proper election where the dice are not loaded.

1112 words

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

Mar/20/23 1:18:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the 2019 annual report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the committee recommended to the Prime Minister that MPs should be briefed regularly on foreign interference. I asked the minister the same question earlier in the debate, and he refused to answer. I have a simple question for my colleague from the Bloc. How many times in the past three years has the Bloc Québécois been briefed by the Liberal government on foreign interference in our elections?

87 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Mar/20/23 1:19:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. If I check my notes, I see that that answer is zero.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 1:19:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we listened in particular to the Conservative and the Bloc opposition members, we would think that international interference is new to Canada. Not only has international interference taken place to some degree, whether in Canada, the United States or other allied countries, but we also know for a fact that there are countries that interfere. It is not just China; there are other nations that do likewise. The member stands in his place asking what we are doing, but the government has done far more than whatever Stephen Harper and even the current leader of the Conservative Party did. We have put safeguards in place. Would the member not, at the very least, recognize that international interference has been taking place and that, for the first time, we actually have a government that is doing something on it?

141 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Mar/20/23 1:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague says that interference is an international phenomenon and that more than one country is doing the interfering, and I agree with him. The problem is so bad and so prevalent that we should be taking steps to keep it from happening. He is essentially saying that the situation here is no worse than anywhere else. I am sorry, but he is wrong. The Americans are very worried about what is happening in Canada, in their backyard, because we are doing nothing. He says that tools have been used and created, but that is not true. If it were true, that official from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would not have written an open letter. These people are dedicated to their cause. If the government had done its job, that official would not have blown the whistle to alert the media and the public to the fact that what is going on in Canada is critical and that we need to wake up because the government is doing nothing. If it were true that the government had used and created tools, the official would not have blown the whistle. On this issue, I trust him far more than I trust anyone else.

205 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Mar/20/23 1:21:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, electoral reform is very serious for all democracy, not only internationally but also domestically. One of the things we did as an improvement was to get union and large corporation donations, which were there before, out of the system. In the past, foreign subsidiaries used to make massive donations to political parties. In addition, we have even seen electoral issues domestically. We cannot forget that in 2011, we had the robocall scandal with the Conservative Party of Canada; later we had Dean Del Mastro led away to jail for electoral issues. Most recently, even some of the campaigns for electoral leaders have had interventions. With regard to the international component, what other countries is the hon. member concerned about? What about the diasporas and other groups that are perhaps going to be blamed for some of the interventions by other state governments? I think it is important to recognize that we could have victimization of some individuals just because of the actions of politicians opening themselves to this; at the end of the day, foreign governments are really responsible, not Canadian citizens.

184 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

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

Madam Speaker, clearly, with respect to Chinese police stations, it is paramount that we protect the people who are victims of the Chinese government's influence even though they no longer live in China and have become Canadians. Yes, we must ensure that these people can be protected from foreign interference. The government must create an independent commission of public inquiry because individuals are at risk from this interference. That is why serious measures must be introduced to eliminate any form of interference on Quebec and Canadian soil.

88 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/20/23 1:23:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, foreign interference is a subject that we all agree on. Last week, when we were in our ridings, my constituents in Trois-Rivières talked to me about this at length. They have doubts, and when doubt gains a foothold, it is not a good thing for society, because anything can happen. I believe that we must all act in the public interest to dispel the doubts. When doubts persist, mistrust creeps in, and often defiance takes over. We do not want to see that. We do not live in Donald Trump's world. We do not want that. If we want to understand a situation, we must evaluate what is happening and avoid making three mistakes. The first is to speak without being asked, which in itself is impertinent. The second is to remain silent when asked to speak, which is disingenuous. The third is to speak without taking note of the other person's reactions, which is being wilfully blind. Disingenuousness and willful blindness are what led to today's discussion. It was the Prime Minister who was being disingenuous and willfully blind by insisting for weeks that there was nothing going on and that everything had been taken care of. Suddenly, at the press conference announcing the miraculous advent of the special rapporteur, the government admitted that the same thing had happened in 2016, 2017, 2019 and other years. At last, as if by magic, something came out. Personally, I do not go in for disingenuous behaviour and willful blindness. Let us look at the motion before us today. The Conservative Party, in the person of the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, is proposing that all of the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship be referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It is an ambitious motion. One thing I noticed is that the motion calls for numerous witnesses to be invited to speak for several hours. I think it is calling everyone but my brother-in-law Luc. I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We already have our own work to do. We would be happy to take on this additional task, but things need to be done in the right order. Right now, we are conducting a study on foreign interference. The motion says that we would receive the work that has already been done, but, at the same time, it gives us a very long list of witnesses to hear from. The committee does have some experience in this area, and in my opinion, these witnesses will confuse the issue. Not only is the list of witnesses long, but it is also missing a lot of relevant names, which is worrisome. We are okay with taking on the study in committee, but judging from the way this motion is written, I think we would still be at it in October 2025. It is unrealistic to think that these people will all come and provide helpful testimony in good faith and that we will achieve a result. I believe that it is an understatement to say that our Prime Minister and his government are not particularly interested in foreign affairs. That is not what they like to do. In the span of a few years, we have seen several ministers come and go, yet when we know that diplomacy takes time, patience, and relationship building. One advantage that China has over Canada is that the Chinese Communist Party was in power 50 years ago and will probably still be in power 50 years from now. It has the luxury of time. We, on the other hand, are in reactive mode. Our Prime Minister has successfully leveraged Twitter diplomacy, but apparently he was the only one who did not know that interference was already happening and that things were going on. Everyone knew it, I knew it, and my brother-in-law Luc knew it too. Last week in committee, we started studying foreign interference. I asked all the witnesses whether they thought the Canadian government understands China. The response was unanimous. There were Chinese Canadians, academics. They all said that the government does not understand China. I then asked whether the government knows China, and they said that it does not know China very well. There is clearly a need to look deeper and reclaim relationships. China is moving slowly and stealthily, while we are trying something more spectacular. China's actions are a bit like a silent transformation, like erosion. We might pass by a place one day and, several years later, the shoreline might look very different. The transformation is silent. We might not see the change, but it is happening. It is the same with interference. We do not see the change, but it is happening. What should be done about this? Like everyone else, we in the Bloc Québécois want to know what happened. We want to know what happened, when it happened, who was involved, and who knew about it. We want to find out, but without too many witnesses and too narrow a focus. We are talking about interference in elections, but also in scientific research and technological patents on society itself. Several subjects are involved, so the focus can be much broader. Interference is not only electoral. Incidentally, for those who believe that China would ever try to dominate Canada, I think they are wrong. Influence is a problem, but there is more to it than just the election issue. If this motion is adopted, I would also like for us to try to find out the truth in the interest of the public good and not in the interest of finding someone to blame. Some people might like to find someone to blame, but that does not get us very far. It is good to know what happened in the past so that we do not make the same mistakes, but what really interests me is what is happening in the present. What are we going to do so that these types of things do not happen again in the future? That is another aspect. As I was saying, before the special rapporteur was appointed, the Prime Minister did not know anything. Since then, he has admitted to taking several steps. I also have a problem with the special rapporteur. I worked in the field of ethics long enough to understand that a conflict of interest does not necessarily exist just because someone knows someone. However, when there are serious reasons for doubt, then appearances would suggest that there is something there. Ethically speaking, the close ties between Mr. Johnston and Mr. Trudeau are unacceptable.

1154 words

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

Mr. René Villemure

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