44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 6:41:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what is disgraceful is the Leader of the Opposition—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:41:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what is disgraceful is that the Leader of the Opposition would actually suggest, as he did a moment ago, that the Prime Minister of Canada would willingly and openly allow foreign interference within the democratic process in Canada.
In 2013, when the member was the minister of democratic reform, he received a public document from CSIS stating that foreign interference was here and was something that would continue into the future. For two years, the former Conservative government did absolutely nothing about it. My question for the member is this: Can he let this House know what he did as the minister of democratic institutions in 2013?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his intervention, the member said that the executive branch failed to disclose information and sat on it for two years. Saying that is indirectly saying that the Prime Minister has lied, because when he was in this House, the Prime Minister said that he found out about this last Monday.
We are supposed to treat all members as honourable and take their word. When the member for Wellington—Halton Hills says that he did not know for two years, we believe him. Why do we afford that luxury to some members, but when the member for Papineau gets up and says the exact same thing, that he did not know about it for two years, somehow we are not supposed to believe him?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:10:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would hate for a former political science student to school another former political science student who is trying to school him, but the executive branch is the monarch, the Governor General and cabinet. That is the executive branch.
Nonetheless, I was very glad to hear the member say that he does not believe that the Prime Minister was lying and that the Prime Minister in fact did not know until Monday. Can he confirm that indeed he does believe the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister says that?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:39:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member just referenced the absence of a minister from the House at a particular time. Perhaps he would like to rephrase that.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us just recap for a second.
In 2013, the Conservatives and the former democratic reform minister, the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition, received a report from CSIS saying that election interference was real and was going to continue. He did nothing for two years and literally sat on the report.
Later on, in 2017, after we came into government, we introduced Bill C-76, which limited funding from foreign actors. The Conservatives voted against it. We introduced Bill C-22 shortly before that, to create NSICOP. Conservatives would not even let it go to committee. They voted against it after the first or second reading.
I am wondering how the Conservatives can actually stand here and try to claim that they have any credibility on the issue of foreign interference, when they did nothing and routinely voted against every measure that we brought forward.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:44:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I apologize if I was not here at the time, but on Thursday, after question period, I rose to clarify my comment and apologize, not only to that member but also to all members of the House and to the Speaker. I would, therefore, appreciate the member's withdrawing his characterization of me at this time.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:46:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I unreservedly apologized, and I clarified what my intent was. Anything else the member is trying to suggest is just factually inaccurate and actually goes to my integrity as a member, by his continuing to say this after I apologized.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 8:07:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said at least three times that the government knew about this and sat on this information for two years. It is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has recently said, in an interview that he gave outside this place, that he was informed by the national security adviser that both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's chief of staff knew nothing about this until last week.
I asked this same question to the member for Perth—Wellington and he stepped back from that because he realized that he was going beyond where reality was. Therefore, I will ask this member the same thing: Is the member saying that, when the Prime Minister stands in this House and says that he did not have that information prior to last week, he is lying to this House?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 8:15:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in attempting to answering my question, notwithstanding the fact that he did not, the member said that according to Ms. Telford, who came before the PROC committee, the Prime Minister received and looked at everything. That is not what she said.
What Ms. Telford said was that she shares everything that she knows about and sees with the Prime Minister. We also know that she did not receive this information, nor did the Prime Minister, as cited by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills just outside this building in a media interview.
I will give the member another opportunity to try and answer my question. Why are we supposed to take all members at their word in this House, except when it is the member for Papineau? Why is he not afforded the same luxury that we afford to everybody else?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 8:37:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, foreign interference has been reported publicly through CSIS since as early as 2013, when Conservatives were in power. The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, was then the minister responsible for receiving that report. Conservatives did nothing for two years.
Since then, we brought in Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which tightened up rules around donations to campaigns, specifically limiting foreign donations. We brought in Bill C-59, which established NSIRA, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. We brought in NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, to oversee national security.
Conservatives voted against all of that, everything, and at times they would not even vote to let the bills go to committee. How is it they can come in here and be so interested and speak so passionately about protecting democracy against foreign interference when they have routinely and systematically voted against every single initiative?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 8:39:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although I am very appreciative of that recognition, I did not apologize for victim blaming. I was not victim blaming anybody, and the member is impugning my character by suggesting that.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 8:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the response to my last question. She indicated that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff did not know, and she questioned why on earth this information would not have made it up there, as it relates to any MP.
I think that is a very good question and something that, when this gets to committee, the committee could seek to clarify and understand. I certainly do not think it is something that just started. It is not as though the Prime Minister told CSIS not to bother telling him about anything that has to do with an MP. There were obviously thresholds and benchmarks that CSIS determined it needed to meet in order to elevate things to certain levels.
There may be other avenues we could explore to further enhance our protection and ensure that interference like this does not occur. In the vein of trying to better protect members of Parliament in relation to these types of activities, could the member comment on other avenues that the PROC committee might want to explore when doing their work?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member referenced that I was pining over the fact that the member for Carleton or the previous government had never done anything about this. However, that was just the context I was using to set the stage for telling members about all the things we did do, as well as all the things we have done since becoming elected, that Conservatives have routinely voted against, including this member.
Bill C-22 created NSICOP, which he now speaks so highly about. Conservatives voted against it. Bill C-59 created and established NSIRA. Conservatives voted against it. Bill C-76 limited foreign ability to influence elections through monetary contributions. Conservatives voted against it.
Conservatives have routinely voted against initiatives that the government has brought forward to combat foreign interference. The fact that the previous Conservative government did nothing is just the context to set in order to highlight everything that we have done.
Could the member share with the House why he and his colleagues voted against all those measures?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:11:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point of order at least three times now for the same member who has been raising the same points. He knows full well that I have since explained what I was intending to say and that I have apologized unreservedly to that member, to all Conservatives, to the Speaker and to this House for that comment. I think it has already been ruled to that effect, and I think you should reinforce that ruling, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: It's not a point of order.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:14:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about a member entering the chamber, which he should know he should not be doing.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:21 p.m.
- Watch
And then we won three elections.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Earlier today, when I raised a similar point, the Speaker who was in the chair at the time agreed, and the member actually ended up changing what he had said.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am literally stating what happened earlier. If that happens to be contrary to what the member is saying right now, what can I do? I am not saying that he is lying; I am just saying that he is factually incorrect.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:29:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in response to my heckle, the member indicated how he is not well informed about what has been happening in this House. As a matter of fact, I did not just remove a couple of words; I actually went on to explain what I had said and how I understood it was a misrepresentation of what had actually happened, and then I apologized to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all Conservatives and the Speaker. This was all on a point that had been raised by the whip for the Conservatives. Then, today, when answering a question of mine, she actually got up and thanked me for doing that unreservedly. So it seems like everybody can accept it except this member, who keeps getting up and saying it over and over again.
Nonetheless, my question for him is this. If we are to give all members in this House the benefit of the doubt when they say something and to accept their word for it, as I think he would agree, why do we not lend that same luxury to the member for Papineau, who comes before this House and says that he just learned of this last Monday? Why does Conservative after Conservative get up—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor right now, just so the member knows.
Why does Conservative after Conservative continue to get up and insist that the government has known about this for two years, when that is just not the case?
259 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
