SoVote

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

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

Mar/20/23 12:57:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will ask the minister a very simple, non-partisan question, and I would refer him to the NSICOP annual 2019 report which, in chapter 2, has over 50 pages on foreign interference. Specifically, it has six key findings and three key recommendations, all unredacted and available to the public. This is a report that went straight to the Prime Minister. I have a two-part question. First, why has this government not taken any action on those three recommendations put forth by the non-partisan NSICOP committee? Second, the last recommendation in particular refers to the very first report NSICOP produced around the Prime Minister's trip to India and the allegations tied to that, which reads, “In the interest of national security, members of the House of Commons and the Senate should be briefed upon being sworn-in and regularly thereafter on the risks of foreign interference and extremism in Canada.” I think it would be unfair to ask the minister how many times since the start of the government, but since he has become the Minister of Public Safety, has he personally ensured that opposition members have been briefed, upon being sworn in at the appropriate level, on foreign interference in Canada?

209 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 12:59:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my commitment to work with my hon. colleague and all members in the chamber to ensure they are briefed in the appropriate forums, including when it comes to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Again, it is a committee that the government created not only to raise the bar of transparency but also to promote and foster greater collaboration across partisan lines. My colleague cites recommendations, but he then posits that no action has been taken. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, we are acting on a number of recommendations that have been put forward by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, including, most recently, and I would highlight for his benefit, the creation of a national coordinator who will be situated within my ministry to combat foreign interference. Is there more work to be done on those recommendations? Without question there is, but again, it is my commitment to him and to all members of the chamber to work without any prejudice towards partisanship to do this work together when it comes to fighting foreign interference.

185 words

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

Mar/20/23 1:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech and found it very strange. Just think about the Chinese interference issue. Back when the first reports came out and questions started to be asked, the government simply said that there was no issue. It claimed that asking questions meant we were anti-Chinese, that we were, in essence, racist. That was the government's response. Now, with everything that has come out in the media, the government has been backed into a corner, so it has decided to appoint a special rapporteur. It thinks that that will be enough, that everyone will be happy and move on. The whole thing is a farce. We keep asking questions, and the minister claims that we are making partisan attacks. However, the people are also demanding a public inquiry into Chinese interference. Is the entire population partisan too? I am trying to understand the logic behind the minister's speech.

158 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 1:01:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The government takes the issue of foreign interference very seriously. All of our legislation demonstrates our commitment to this issue. Consider for example Bill C‑59, which granted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service new powers to reduce threats caused by foreign interference. Another example is Bill C‑76, which targeted foreign funds that could pose a threat to our democratic institutions. My colleague is quite right to ask questions. That is the purpose of this House. The point of this place is to shed light on how we carry out these duties. At the same time, it is fair to point out that, for the government and for everyone else, partisanship is not good for debate. I hope we can set partisanship aside as we move forward.

140 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Mar/20/23 1:02:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians find these allegations of foreign interference in our elections extremely troubling, and seven in 10 Canadians want to see a public inquiry. In fact, the Prime Minister's own former principal secretary believes a public inquiry into this matter is needed. We have an established process in Canada for getting to the bottom of questions like this, and I think most people are quite confused that the Liberals have, instead, chosen such a convoluted path to get to uncovering the truth. Could the minister shed some light on why the Liberals continue to drag their feet instead of getting the transparency that Canadians deserve on our elections and the potential for foreign interference?

116 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 1:03:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say respectfully to my colleague that we have been very proactive when it comes to both the way in which we are fighting foreign interference and being upfront with Canadians as to the various manners in which we do that work. Without wasting any time, we have created new powers but we also introduced the committee of parliamentarians. My colleague makes reference to some confusion around the next steps. We said, less than two weeks ago, that we had an intention of appointing a special rapporteur, an eminent Canadian who possesses the credibility and the qualifications to map out the next steps to better shield our democratic institutions, including elections, from the allegations of foreign interference. They are fair questions. We have now appointed that individual, and I am encouraged that the New Democrats have not gone down the path of the Conservatives and have not been partisan with regard to Mr. Johnston but, rather, see that he is qualified to do this important work. Now we will do whatever we can to support him in his wide mandate so we can shine a light on additional steps, if any, including and up to a public inquiry, so there can be confidence in our institutions, most particularly our elections.

213 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 1:04:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to express my heartache at the horrific stabbing that happened this morning in my riding, at Charles P. Allen High School. At the moment, there are three victims in the hospital and a student in custody. My prayers and heartfelt thoughts are with the victims. Special prayers go to them, as well as to the brave Halifax Regional Police officers who responded. Could the minister please explain to the House and to Canadians the role of the special rapporteur?

87 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 1:05:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I extend my condolences to the member's community. The role of the special rapporteur will be to provide advice on what, if any, additional steps need to be taken, given allegations of foreign interference that have been raised with regard to the 2019 and 2021 elections, but with sufficient flexibility to offer additional recommendations and suggestions on how we can better fight against foreign interference. As I said in my last response, that could include a recommendation for an independent public inquiry. It is not the only way in which that work can be done, but it is certainly an option that has been deliberately and consciously left on the table by the government. I would point out, importantly, that the government will respect whatever recommendation Mr. Johnston puts forward.

134 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Mar/20/23 1:06:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it very fascinating to sit here and listen to the minister talk about how great he now believes former prime minister Stephen Harper is. It is really quite fascinating that he has such great and sage wisdom to be able to appoint this wonderful person, the former governor general. I would suggest that a former governor general really does not necessarily make the appropriate person to investigate these very serious allegations. In spite of the fact that there is a lot of talk and wonderful words on that side of the House, Canadians just want to know the answer. Canadians want to know if the Communist government of China interfered in elections here in Canada. They want to know the answer. The other thing that is quite fascinating is that the member talked about the great work in the PROC committee. Is he suggesting that reading the phone book is great work and a great use of Canadians' money? It is insane. What is the answer?

170 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Mar/20/23 1:07:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would point out that, in addition to serving as the governor general for seven years, Mr. Johnston was also the head of a number of Canadian institutions, university institutions. He is also an extensive and accomplished lawyer and professor of law. He will be well qualified to navigate this. Yes, the hon. member is quite right. I did make reference to Stephen Harper and his acknowledgement that Mr. Johnston is the best of Canadians, in the spirit of taking this out of the domain of partisanship.

89 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

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