SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23

Mar/22/23 6:34:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits with me on the the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as he mentioned. I have to say that he always considers the public interest, which is remarkable. I will therefore consider his question carefully. The question was whether credibility or legitimacy is at stake here. In terms of credibility, Mr. Johnston's reputation is impeccable. However, the relationship between Mr. Johnston and the other interests is not. It is somewhat obscure or murky. In a matter as important as foreign interference, where information is being revealed in dribs and drabs every day, there is nothing better than to be lily white. One has to be beyond reproach, and that has nothing to do with credibility. It is something else. Therefore, I hope that we will have an independent and impeccable inquiry.

145 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Mar/22/23 6:35:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about objectivity and subjectivity. People sometimes say that objectivity is just mass subjectivity. I would like my colleague to expand on that.

28 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:35:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thought he was a friend. To some extent, subjectivity is how one views an object. At the same time, we know that there are 360 degrees, and I believe that views can vary somewhat. I am not convinced that subjectivity could be combined, nevertheless we must take inspiration from the fact that there are a number of viewpoints and we cannot neglect any of them. That is why we must be impeccable.

76 words

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

Mar/22/23 6:35:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech. It was inspiring as usual. It leads me to draw a parallel. In 2022, I had the opportunity to visit a city in the former East Germany. While I was there, one of the first things I went to see was the famous Stasi Museum. The Stasi is the secret police that existed when the Soviet Union controlled East Germany. At one point, there were as many as 95,000 Stasi agents and 175,000 informers in East Germany. They were everywhere. The strength lay in the fact that nobody knew who they were, and that is how they managed to impose their reign of terror. No one knew who the Stasi agents or informers were. Basically, their strength lay in secrecy. The government does not want to launch a public inquiry, which I think would bring secrets to light. That is pretty much what we are seeing with the Chinese regime right now. I am trying to understand why the government would want to maintain that secrecy when what would weaken a regime like that the most is greater transparency.

192 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2015, I heard someone say that light was the best disinfectant. It seems clear to me. We could apply that concept today. When I was young, there was a dictionary we used at school that was called Je doute, je cherche, je trouve, which literally translates to “I doubt, I seek, I find”. Right now I doubt. The government does not want to seek, so we may not find. What I would like right now is an independent public inquiry.

85 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Mar/22/23 6:37:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, early on in this, there was some discussion about how this information was being leaked and the sensitive nature of it, as it is about national security. However, given the recent revelations, or at least what is being reported on and alleged, and I have to make it clear it is an allegation at this point, could the hon. member share, with his subject matter expertise on ethics, the importance for institutions such as the federal government to have built-in, whistle-blowing protections for civil servants? Even sometimes in the highest, most sensitive breaches, should they come across thresholds that may breach criminality, whistle-blower protections would be an essential foundation or component of protecting our democracy.

120 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:38:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an exceedingly difficult topic. Protecting whistle-blowers is something many people are concerned about, but they are not doing anything about it. We need to get to the heart of the matter. It is important to understand that, at CSIS, for example, a whistle-blower is a person who has reached the limit of what they can tolerate. CSIS members serve the government, and as someone who knows a few of them, I can say that they care very deeply about their country. When they reach that limit, the situation becomes intolerable. When they speak out, they are doing their duty. They are not criminals; they are heroes. We should come up with a system. It is hard to understand, but we really need to consider creating a proper system for protecting whistle-blowers. If not, what is going to happen? There will be more situations like this one. Today, more allegations have been made by Global News. I have only one word to describe them: devastating. To add insult to injury, at a certain point, I think an independent public inquiry becomes unavoidable. We need to think about what will happen in the wake of this, such as a system for protecting whistle-blowers.

219 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/22/23 6:39:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could the member provide his thoughts on other international players? It is not just China that is involved in doing this. Could he provide his thoughts on that matter?

31 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:40:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that foreign interference has become more common in recent years because of technological advancements, but the tried-and-true persuasion techniques have always worked. Earlier I mentioned Iran, China, obviously, Russia and other countries. The United Arab Emirates are now surveilling more countries than anyone else. They have the technology, and they are open about it. They are among the most prolific spies in the world in terms of the number of countries under surveillance. No one is worried about them. Whether they are spying on Canada, I have no idea. One thing is certain, though: Surveillance is becoming increasingly common, increasingly harmful, and increasingly intrusive. To be honest, I would look much further afield than just China.

122 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Mar/22/23 6:40:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River. I am glad to rise on this important issue. Time and time again I have stood in the House to talk about the importance of standing up to strengthen our democracy and our democratic institutions, and to talk about foreign interference being a persistent and real threat. The problem we are seeing throughout this debate, and I have been a regular at the PROC committee these days, is that the Conservatives have tried to make the issue of foreign interference a partisan issue when it is in fact a Canadian issue. Every single Canadian in this country, regardless of who they vote for, should be able to know that their democratic institutions are strong and that they protect against foreign interference. However, we have seen that the Conservatives stood by for years. They closed their eyes and covered their ears to any sort of issue around foreign interference until they felt it could be in their political interest. It was not a surprise to me, but it should be shocking to Canadians, that when the Minister of Democratic Institutions asked the Leader of the Opposition why, when he was the minister of democratic institutions, he did nothing to protect and safeguard our institutions and elections, he said it was not in Conservative partisan interests to do so at the time. That should tell Canadians everything they need to know about how reckless Conservatives are when it comes to national security and foreign interference. They keep speaking about how it is a cover-up or there is something Liberals are trying to hide. Talk about an incompetent opposition. They are claiming a cover-up when a 2019 NSICOP report that was tabled in this very House raised the issue of foreign interference. Talk about hiding in plain sight. I guess Conservatives prefer not to read the reports that are tabled in the House. We have not only been busy working on addressing foreign interference but we have also taken additional steps. The mandate letter of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities talks about strengthening our democratic institutions from foreign interference. However, the Conservatives once again pretend this is something we have never talked about, that we have never discussed and that we are not seized with, but there is documented evidence that we are the only government that has put forward the most concrete steps to strengthen our democratic institutions. That is not to say that more is not needed to be done. In fact, we supported the study at PROC to look at additional ways and measures, and things that we could be continuously doing. The fact remains that foreign interference is going to be pervasive, and it is going to constantly change, so any member in the House, or any Canadian, who thinks they have the answer and we will never need to look at this again, is wrong. This is something that Parliaments and governments around the world have to ensure they are constantly staying on top of so these pervasive threats do not take hold. I also find it interesting that the Conservatives proclaim they support our national security community, yet our national security community has said that Canadians, and Canadians alone, determine the outcome of our elections, but Conservatives continue to undermine that fact. The non-partisan national security community has stated it time and time again at committee, but Conservatives try to undermine that. They try to sow doubt in our non-partisan public service. We do not believe in that. We trust that these officials are seized with keeping Canadians safe. Our national security community wants to ensure that national security documents are handled with the care and protections that national security documents require. The Conservatives would have us believe that they should just release all of this information because a few members on PROC feel like looking at it, instead of going to the appropriate location, which is NSICOP, where every member of that committee has national security clearance, where there is extreme care given to the documents that are provided and handled, and where an enormous amount of information is provided. The committee is extremely independent, it tables reports and is extremely professional. Might I add, the secretariat is above all. I actually served on this committee, so I can speak with extreme passion and knowledge to the fact that the NSICOP secretariat is a professional resource that parliamentarians now have. In fact, NSICOP's reports have been regarded around the world for the work it has done, and the Conservatives want to ignore that fact and undermine the work that has been done. It is a multi-party committee, with representation from all parties and the Senate, so I find it interesting that the Conservatives do not want to use this committee that, in fact, we ensured was created in the House, where parliamentarians could access these top secret security documents in a way that is responsible. I think every Canadian would want their parliamentarians to treat national security with the seriousness and responsibleness that national security deserves. It keeps not only us as Canadians safe but those who have stepped up to serve and protect our country. However, the Conservatives, once again, continue to be reckless with our national security community, and I think Canadians have seen through that time and time again. It is also no surprise to me, but it is interesting that members of PROC and my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, mentioned the behaviour of one individual on that committee who was actually pulled off. I also find it interesting that the behaviour and conduct of several members of the Conservatives at that committee has been absolute chaos. It has been partisan and has resulted in nothing. There is so much turmoil, and I guess Conservatives just going in circles, that Conservatives are abandoning their PROC members and saying, “Ah, maybe we should take this to ethics” where maybe their members can get it through the finish line, I do not know. However, Conservatives themselves are infighting and cannot seem to even stay on track with what their objectives are, because their objectives are not to strengthen our democracy; their objectives are to simply throw partisan grenades, and it is not working. I think that if we want to have reasonable and serious debate about— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1089 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:49:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives had come to this debate with the seriousness that it deserves, not only would their leader and House leader have not abandoned their PROC committee members in trying to punt this to ethics, where they might have a different result, but Canadians would also have more faith. The fact is that this is nothing more than a Conservative partisan ploy, just like their leader confirmed on why he never did anything when he was the minister of democratic institutions—

85 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:50:19 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Mar/22/23 6:50:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has twice put this piece of information out there, which seems to be a back channel way of—

24 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:50:43 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

10 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:50:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this proves the point that Conservative members have the weakest chin I have ever seen. They sit here and throw insult after insult to members, and the second I stand up they have a point of order because they are unhappy with the comment their own leader made. I would ask the hon. member to check Hansard, and to also toughen up, because if they can dish it, they should be able to take it. I will conclude with the fact that our government takes this issue incredibly seriously. That is precisely why we have implemented a committees such as NSICOP and the critical election incident public protocol, or CEIPP. This continues to be in the minister's mandate letter. We want to study this and continue to have more recommendations. That is why we have appointed a special rapporteur. We look forward to, and we will accept, all of his recommendations.

154 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Mar/22/23 6:51:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how can the parliamentary secretary stand in this place after filibustering with her Liberal colleagues for 24 hours to prevent the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying before the committee? My question is very simple. What is the government hiding from Canadians?

46 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:52:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government is hiding absolutely nothing. In fact, what I think, certainly from my— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Madam Speaker, the members can laugh; it means nothing. In many speeches at PROC, I actually highlighted the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party, the fact that foreign interference has been happening for years and the Conservatives did nothing, and the fact that former Conservative political staffers have come out criticizing the Conservatives on this issue. I continue to point out that the Conservatives do not actually call out the members of their own caucus who sat down with an alt-right member of a foreign government, and did not call out the attempts of foreign interference amongst their own ranks. At PROC, I called out Conservative hypocrisy and I continue to do so now.

140 words

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

Mar/22/23 6:53:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech by my colleague opposite. First, in listening to her speech, one would have thought that this debate was initiated by the Conservatives. That is quite something. I am not a Conservative supporter, but we must set the record straight— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:53:53 p.m.
Watch

It is not time to make comments. Order. The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

21 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Mar/22/23 6:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was saying that I wanted to set the record straight. The NDP asked for this debate. It seems that the Liberals are afraid to mention it because the NDP is a member of their coalition. Now for my question, which is about partisanship. In her speech, my colleague used a certain word about every three sentences, perhaps even in every sentence, and that word is “partisan”. She was once again accusing the Conservatives of partisan politics. I do not understand why she is only targeting the Conservatives, because the Bloc is also asking for a public inquiry into Chinese interference. The NDP is now asking for the same thing. Many people in civil society are asking for the same thing. It is as though anyone who asks for something the Liberals do not want is being partisan. I am trying to understand this. Is it not the other way around? Is it not the Liberals who are being partisan and have things to hide or partisan interests to protect?

176 words