SoVote

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

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

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Mar/20/23 3:41:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks, since these stories started to break and since the leader of the official opposition started asking questions about this very important issue, I have heard from many constituents who have found that the faith they need to have in our democratic institutions has been shaken. My question for the member from the NDP is simple. Can we count on his support tomorrow so we can get the answers required for Canadians to have that trust in their democratic institutions restored?

88 words

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Mar/20/23 3:42:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thornhill. It is a privilege to speak in the House on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant on our Conservative motion, which would essentially compel the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to appear as a witness. Canadians have heard numerous media reports on foreign interference in our democratic processes, particularly by the Communist regime in Beijing. We, as a society, cannot allow foreign governments to manipulate our elections and influence the will of our people. Any interference tries to undermine the very foundation of our democracy and threatens our sovereignty, especially when it is plotted by authoritarian regimes. The CSIS whistle-blower who leaked the story did so at great professional and legal risk. He or she put country over career and country over everything, which is the Canadian way. That is how our society should work. This is a serious matter that requires our full attention and immediate action. Canadians deserve the truth and nothing less. From day one, our leader called on the government and all parties in the House to launch an open public inquiry that would answer all the questions and concerns that people have. In this case, only two people can provide us with answers: the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, Katie Telford. As always, the Liberals decided to use their tactics of denial and deflection. Rather than explain what he knows, the Prime Minister is suggesting there should be an investigation into what he already knows. After all these years and numerous scandals, particularly those of SNC-Lavalin and WE Charity, accountability was never the goal of the Liberal government. Its goal is to prolong the scandal as much as possible until no one can remember why it matters. For the past several weeks, the Liberals have been unnecessarily fighting attempts to have Telford appear before committee to testify. They have delayed votes, given long speeches to run out the clock and even refused to show up for meetings, all in an attempt to block Telford from appearing. Almost 24 hours of committee work has been wasted for this single cause. Hearing from Katie is vital to any investigation into the Global News story because she would have been the top advisor who CSIS would have advised in 2019 in providing a brief on concerns about the Liberal candidate and his ties to the Chinese foreign interference network. She has been chief of staff since 2015, and she has the top secret clearance needed to be briefed. The Prime Minister rightly said that voters, not intelligence services, get to pick who represents them, but if those intelligence services believe a candidate is compromised by a foreign government, voters should know that before casting their ballots. Having Telford come before the committee to tell MPs what the government did with the intelligence, if anything, is a necessary step in restoring confidence in our democracy. The fact that the Liberals refuse to allow this to happen may tell us a lot. Probably what she has to say would shake what is left over of that confidence even more. It is time to end the Katie cover-up. The New Democrats have a choice to make: Will they vote for transparency and answers on Beijing’s interference in our elections, or will they again prop up the Prime Minister? We insist that Canadians must hear from Katie Telford and learn what the Prime Minister knew, when he first knew about it and what he did or failed to do. Katie is the highest ranking political staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office. She supports not only the Prime Minister but also his entire cabinet. It is a powerful, yet largely behind-the-scenes role. Unlike other public servants, her job is a political one. She works not only for the PMO, but also for the Liberal Party during elections. Calling political staff, current or former, to testify is not something extraordinary. She testified before the finance committee on the WE scandal and on the sexual misconduct in the military in 2021. Last year, she testified before the Rouleau commission. Any international attempts to interfere in our elections should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that the Liberals are making it one and trying to stop investigations should make everyone question their motives, and today we call on all parties in the House to support our motion and stop the endless filibustering by Liberal members, who are deliberately blocking the Prime Minister’s chief of staff from testifying While the Prime Minister claims that his approach to the issue is “grounded in facts and independent decision making,” he is the one who is playing the partisan games in the hope of delaying any serious investigation or discussion about interference. As revelation after revelation reveals, the Liberal government knew about China’s election interference. It had four years. It did not inform the public. It did not recall any diplomatic staff. It did not pursue any legal remedies. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Canadians are concerned about China's attempts to meddle in our elections. A recent Abacus Data poll showed that 67% of Canadians support a public inquiry into that issue, and in fact, 70% of Liberals support it. It is irresponsible to silence a matter of a foreign government attempting to corrupt our election by pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora. If that does not qualify for the fullest and most public examination, then one must ask oneself this question: What will? There are lots of questions the Prime Minister does not want to answer. Number one, were the Liberals briefed by national security officials that at least one Liberal candidate in 2019 was allegedly part of the interference network from Beijing? Two, did they wilfully ignore that warning because it was to their advantage? Three, did they know that 11 candidates in that election, nine of whom were Liberals, were favoured by Beijing? Four, were Trudeau and his advisors also briefed about China working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021—

1035 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/20/23 3:48:57 p.m.
Watch

Members cannot use the names of other members. The hon. member used the Prime Minister's name.

17 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Mar/20/23 3:49:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. Were the Prime Minister and his advisors briefed that China was working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021 so that a Liberal minority government would be elected? Five, did they know that the former Chinese consulate general in Vancouver bragged in 2021 about helping to defeat two Conservative candidates? The heart of this scandal is not that there has been electoral interference, it is that the Liberals allegedly knew there was electoral interference but did nothing because it was to their benefit. CSIS leaked a quote from a Chinese consulate official who said, “The Liberal Party of Canada is becoming the only party that the People's Republic of China can support.” The best guarantee of good government is still vigilance of an effective parliamentary opposition. It does not matter to Liberals that the opposition has not actually suggested that the outcomes of the previous two elections are in question. Liberals are at best misguided in seeking to demonize the opposition using the very partisanship and rhetoric they denounce. The Prime Minister seeks to wedge the issue out of legitimate opposition concerns for the safety and integrity of Canadian elections. He does a grave injustice to our system of democracy by doing so. The role of opposition is to hold the government’s feet to the fire, not so that they can get warm and toasty, but so they can feel the heat of parliamentary scrutiny. It seems like the Liberals are playing all the cards when it comes to burying the story. Number one, the Prime Minister used the Trump card when he said that giving reasons to mistrust elections is not good for society and is something that we have seen from other elections, echoing a senior Liberal who more openly accused the opposition of Trump-style tactics. Number two is the “nothing to see here” card, which he played when he said, “Canadians can have...confidence in the integrity of our elections.” Number three is the partisanship card. The Prime Minister accused the opposition of sowing confusion and mistrust by even raising the allegation. Number four is the “it is all lies” card from when he said, “We are very concerned with the [Global News] leaks, particularly because there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks.” Number five, and the most disturbing, is the racism card. The Prime Minister referred to a rise in anti-Asian rhetoric to deflect a question on the subject. The Liberal MPs have been successful in blocking a vote for far too long. Canadians must know that Katie Telford has the information that she received from CSIS, but she has either made the decision to keep the Prime Minister in the dark, as she did during the scandal of sexual misconduct in the military, which is disturbing on its own, or maybe she did notify the Prime Minister and he kept quiet about it. Either way, people need to know what is going on in this country. Lastly, I turn to the leader of the third party, the leader of the NDP and his caucus. Through you, Mr. Speaker, you have got an extremely important choice. When you were elected, you were elected to represent all of your constituents, not just those constituents who voted for you. It is time for you to make a decision. Will you support this country, get to the heart of this matter and deal with this appropriately, or will you continue to prop up the government?

595 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/20/23 3:52:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is one thing to say “through you” and then suddenly turn to direct all comments and point fingers at another member. It is pretty clear what is going on. I do not think that the member was saying all of that to you personally, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps he would want to reflect on the rules of the House.

69 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/20/23 3:52:53 p.m.
Watch

I remind members not to speak directly to one another. They should speak to the Chair and through the Chair when speaking to individuals. I will let the hon. member for Brantford—Brant finish up the last 30 seconds of his speech.

43 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Mar/20/23 3:53:12 p.m.
Watch

I have a point of order.

6 words

Point

Mr. Larry Brock

Mar/20/23 3:53:12 p.m.
Watch

Everything that I said in my last 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, was always through you. The fact is that I turned and looked at NDP members. Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the leader, but, notwithstanding that, the choice is there. Will the New Democrats continue to prop up the government, or will they get to the heart of the scandal and find out what Katie Telford knew?

67 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/20/23 3:53:42 p.m.
Watch

I know we have a point of order, but I will bring up that members cannot say whether a member is in the chamber or not, and they cannot speak directly to a person and must speak through the Chair. Those are some basic rules that we follow in the House of Commons, and I want to remind everyone of them. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

73 words

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

Mar/20/23 3:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts on the inconsistency that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party. When he was the minister responsible for elections and democracy in Canada, we know there was foreign interference. Today's leader of the Conservative Party had the opportunity to do something about it and he chose to do nothing. If we look at the motion the Conservatives are proposing today, the leader of the Conservative Party indicated back then that it is not the staff but the ministers who go to committee. Once again, we have the leader of the Conservative Party saying one thing when he is in government and saying something totally different when he becomes the crown prince of the Conservative Party. I am wondering if the member shares my concerns about consistency and hypocrisy.

142 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Mar/20/23 3:55:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The irony is that Liberal members have been pretty quick to point out anything that comes close to skirting the rules and procedures of this place. I would ask for guidance as to what the member just stated regarding the Leader of the Opposition.

53 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/20/23 3:55:28 p.m.
Watch

We all need to remind ourselves that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are really important to us, and we should all follow them as closely as possible. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

37 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Mar/20/23 3:55:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint my friend, but there is very little my friend says that I agree with, and it should come as no surprise to my friend that I completely disagree with the characterization of his question. The point of the matter is that Katie Telford, as the chief of staff, is not an ordinary staffer. She is a staffer who has been so closely intertwined in everything the Prime Minister has done. When he was leader of the third party in Parliament, she was responsible for all of his elections. She is his principal, primary adviser. She is the one at the heart of the matter who can finally shed some light on the mystery shrouding the Liberal government and fostering mistrust. In my opinion, both she and the Prime Minister ought to be testifying, because the Prime Minister has much to answer to as well.

151 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Larry Brock

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

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/20/23 3:58:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for an important intervention, but to clarify important facts, the New Democrats stand firm on our call for a public independent inquiry into foreign interference. Why politicize all of this and not talk about other foreign actors like Russia, for example? In committee, we mentioned foreign interference by forces like Russia. The Conservatives played defence for them and said they are not the problem and we need to look at China. We fully agree that China is a serious problem. However, would the member agree that foreign interference by other countries is also worth investigating? Would the Conservatives join our call for a public inquiry into all foreign interference?

116 words

Mr. Larry Brock

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

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Mar/20/23 3:59:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the member would like to speak to me directly about these questions, I would be very happy to speak to him directly. However, simply saying “through you”—

38 words