44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2023 11:00AM
- Mar/20/23 12:24:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He may have said things differently than I would have, but the main ideas are there. The reasons are there and they are valid.
There is one thing that I wish my colleague had talked about. I heard him criticize the NDP and the Liberal government a lot for their complicity in the fact that there still has not been a public inquiry on Chinese interference, which is a major problem. I would like to know what reasons the government and the NDP could have for refusing to open such an inquiry when the public is calling for one.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 12:39:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. It is the question that all Canadians are asking themselves at this time.
What is going on? Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to launch a public inquiry? When there is nothing to hide, it is very easy to provide documents to be reviewed because there is nothing to fear. Given that the Prime Minister is going to such great lengths to block the committee's investigation, we can only come to one conclusion: He has something very serious to hide.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:33:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, people are wondering why it is taking so long for the Prime Minister to launch a public and independent inquiry into allegations of foreign interference. Such suspicions are serious and deserve a serious response.
It is all fine and well to appoint a rapporteur, but it will mean nothing if his mandate does not include a public and independent inquiry to get to the bottom of things. That is essential to getting answers and reassuring people about our electoral system.
Will the Prime Minister mandate his rapporteur to hold a public, independent and transparent inquiry on foreign interference?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is being disingenuous. I absolutely did answer the question, but he did not like the answer.
The reality is that if we ask Canadians from coast to coast to coast what they want to see, they want to see resources invested now in a national public inquiry that is transparent and independent. I am answering this question now for the second time. It is the same question he asked, and I am giving the same answer. Resources need to go to a national public inquiry now. That is what Canadians want.
My question back to the member for Kingston and the Islands is simply this: Why is the government stonewalling something that Canadians want, and want to see now, and why is the government not investing those resources so that we can have the national public inquiry that so many Canadians want to see?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:40:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the fact that my colleague from Waterloo spoke in French and I also appreciate the work that she does as the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The reality is that we are calling for a public inquiry. As the member is well aware, the NDP proposed to the committee a broader public inquiry on foreign interference. The Conservatives tried to amend the NDP's motion and reduce the scope of this public inquiry by removing the allegations of interference that we have already seen, even though the agencies have indicated that they are just as worrisome. Take, for example, the interference by Russia, Iran and other countries. I do not know why the Conservatives wanted to reduce the scope of this inquiry.
The NDP is proposing a broader scope. It is important that the government take action now to set up this public inquiry, which should absolutely be transparent and independent.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:42:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the NDP is presenting its motion on the public inquiry. Tomorrow, Conservatives will have a chance to vote for the NDP motion. The Conservatives have been all over the map on this, trying to pull apart the NDP proposal for a vast and extensive public inquiry into foreign interference. I hope that tomorrow Conservatives will support the NDP motion.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:56:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We know that China thinks that the Liberals will go easier on them. Given everything we have learned, the leaks, we see that China is probably right in thinking that. The government knew about this for a long time but did nothing.
That said, I would ask my colleague why he did not take this opportunity today to ask, instead, for a public and independent commission of inquiry. The motion before us could have been discussed in committee; it is a committee motion.
Why not ask for a public and independent commission of inquiry?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:57:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was very clear in my speech. The leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition has always been very clear on this point. We fully support an independent public inquiry that has subpoena power. We would not be in this particular situation if the justice assigned to the public inquiry could subpoena the Prime Minister and Katie Telford. We would not be in this mess.
To answer the member's question, yes, that is the ultimate outcome that we as Canada's Conservatives would like to see, but until such time as that becomes reality, if at all, we need to have Katie Telford testify.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:59:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that there are problems with foreign interference by other nations, and this is not exclusive to China. Russia is one of them. However, this particular motion is narrowly defined. We are here to discuss China, not Russia and not any other nation.
Insofar as the member's overall goal for a public inquiry goes, this motion is not about a public inquiry. This motion is very specific to Katie Telford. I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether this member will address the constituents in his riding in Alberta who are calling for Katie Telford to shed some light on this controversy. Will he speak for those constituents?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the hon. member's assessment and that, at every turn, the current government has hidden the truth, and we want to know what that is. It has hidden what the Prime Minister knew about the potential election interference that is now splashed over the pages of our newspapers from foreign intelligence officers, and it has done nothing about it. In fact, it has kicked the can down the road even further to have a plan to maybe look into it or to appoint somebody who will then tell us that they could possibly have an inquiry. Canadians deserve the truth. The time is up for these guys.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:46:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share the pleasure of working on the health committee with my hon. colleague, who always brings thoughtful questions and comments to committee.
This is complex. As I said in my discourse, there are limitations to what a public inquiry can reveal versus what can be discovered in a more secure environment such as NSICOP. Therefore, it is a question of addressing the complexity. I certainly will await the recommendations of Mr. Johnston, as the special rapporteur, to see in what additional ways we can reassure and restore confidence in our democratic institutions.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:16:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, despite months and months of railing against coalitions, now the Conservatives are asking for support from the NDP. However, I digress.
I want to emphasize that the NDP was the first party to openly come out and say a public inquiry is absolutely necessary. We were the first ones to push that. It was the Conservatives after that who said it would be great. It is not that we disagree that there absolutely needs to be a public inquiry.
We all know the dangers of misinformation. The member put a lot of emphasis on the rumours that this is a confidence vote. Does the member have documentation or proof that she could bring forward and table on this confidence vote, or is this simply meant to play into the hyperbole the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was mentioning before?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 6:02:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem is that Canadians are going to question the appointee because the Prime Minister has said that this individual is a close friend of his. The problem is that the appointee sits on a foundation that has the same name as the Prime Minister.
It is the appearance of the conflict of interest that is going to cause Canadians to doubt the integrity of that process. It taints everything downstream from it.
That is why an independent, transparent public inquiry is important, and that is why we need to hear from Katie Telford at committee.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
