So V ote

Mar/20/23 4:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if this member wants to attack the credibility of David Johnston, that is entirely her prerogative, but I think nobody said it better than Chantal Hébert, who said that, if she had the accomplishments of David Johnston and she lived to be 81 years old, she wouldn't give a darn about what Pierre Poilievre or anybody else said about her— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

71 words

Mar/20/23 4:30:04 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member knows full well that he is not supposed to use the proper names of the members, so he can say “the member of the opposition”, “the Leader of the Opposition” or whatever he wants to do. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

48 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Mar/20/23 4:30:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Yes, I do not think that David Johnston should really care about what the Leader of the Opposition or any Bloc member says. I think that his record and his incredible accomplishments throughout his career, at 81 years old, speak for themselves. If people would like to challenge that, well, that is their prerogative.

58 words

Mar/20/23 4:30:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not here to get down that rabbit hole on David Johnston, but I will make one thing clear: I do not recall anybody asking for a special rapporteur. The hon. member suggests that it is our decision, but they have a decision they can make. They can call a public inquiry. They can allow an independent body to dig into this. They can have the Prime Minister commit to testifying at committee, if they believe in prime ministerial accountability, or they can have Telford testify. Those three choices have been put on the table at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What will the government do and what will the hon. member have to say when this comes up tomorrow? He had the choice, yet they chose not to take this action and instead appointed the special rapporteur that nobody in the House asked for.

152 words

Mar/20/23 4:31:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall seeing the member at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If he had been there, he would have heard various experts coming forward, including Conservative supporters and the national security experts, basically everybody. There was not a single expert who came forward and said that the best place to discuss national security is in a public inquiry. It did not happen. To the member's point, yes, there will be a very important decision for the NDP members to make tomorrow. It is entirely up to them, but I would refer him back to his House leader, who actually said in that committee that staff should not be called before committee and that the only people who should be called before committee, as it relates to the political arm of government, are ministers.

141 words

Opposition motions

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 4:32:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a little intimidating to follow the convincing fire and brimstone of my hon. colleague. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

23 words

Mar/20/23 4:32:48 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. There is a point of order.

8 words

Point

Mar/20/23 4:32:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I said I was sharing my time, but I just want it to be known I was just the opening act for the member for Yukon.

33 words

Mar/20/23 4:33:10 p.m.
Watch

That is descending into a bit of debate. I just want to make sure everybody is ready. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.

25 words

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

Mar/20/23 4:33:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will add my thoughts on this important matter of election interference and its potential impact on Canada's democracy, a democracy thousands of Canadians have literally died for, and which many around the world look upon with envy and admiration. What I would like to do in the next few minutes is reflect the voices of my constituents on this matter, combined with my own thoughts on what our government has achieved so far to tackle this complex threat and what steps lie ahead of us. In so doing, I would like to take the temperature down a few notches as I am certainly feeling the heat in the House. This is an issue we should debate vigorously and, through parliamentary process, find a way to restore and maintain Canadians' trust in our democracy and in our democratic institutions. This is no time for scoring partisan points, and Canadians have little appetite for such political sport. Indeed, I cannot help but reflect on the recent words of our departing member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, who urged us to come to the House every day with a firm intention of showing respect for our colleagues and for this extraordinary place. We know that foreign actors in particular, but not exclusively the People's Republic of China, have attempted to interfere in the last two federal elections and may well be targeting other levels of government as well. Many Canadians and many in this chamber, myself included, were deeply disturbed by recent and various allegations of attempted interference. Even more disturbing are the allegations that these efforts at interference may have had an impact, despite the reassuring evidence that the outcome of our elections has not been affected. These allegations have left parliamentarians and Canadians with questions and concerns, questions arising not just among us but also from constituents, as I am sure most of my colleagues are receiving. In following the reportage and discussions over the last few weeks, one of the most important subjects has been the need to distinguish between intelligence and evidence. Thus, what we are hearing about election interference is based largely on intelligence-derived information. Evidence to form the basis for response to and against interference requires more than the threads of information that intelligence provides. It is therefore imperative to underline both that these threads are for alleged incidents and that the pieces of intelligence chosen to back them may not be providing a full picture. Nevertheless, the allegations are serious and disturbing, and they oblige us as a government to ensure we are taking the necessary steps to keep our institutions and our democracy, safe, trusted and secure. When it comes to national security, we should remember and respect that answers to some questions must be kept confidential in order to protect the work of our security services and their sources. We must also continue to protect our relationships with Canada's allies, with whom we do, of course, share sensitive information. Unquestionably, some questions can be answered. As we have already seen from the last two reports of the critical election incident public protocol and other recent work done by parliamentarians, civil servants and experts, it is clear changes must be considered to further strengthen our system and improve our response to these threats while providing as much transparency as possible to parliamentarians and the Canadian public. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. I would venture that, when potentially explosive allegations are raised, we all may have a tendency to back into our partisan corners and raise our fists in defence. This is not helpful from any side of the House. It is particularly disappointing to see shameful accusations of collaboration with Chinese officials directed at our leader, and such fear-based politicking must be called out. At the same time, we all have a responsibility to approach this issue with honesty and a commitment to do better where gaps in our protections still remain. Surely, our ultimate goal is to unpack these allegations and understand where these are coming from and how we can continue to improve measures to protect the integrity of our democracy. After all, amidst purposeful innuendo and confusion, amidst Canadian politicians raising doubts about the integrity of our democracy or the loyalty of Canadians, the only entities that win are our various totalitarian adversaries outside our borders, which we know are looking for ways to promote uncertainty and undermine our institutions. Although it was before my time in office, the government, much to its credit, has taken important steps to address these very national security issues in a secure and responsible manner while providing as much transparency as possible. NSICOP is one key institution, a group of up to 11 parliamentarians from both houses granted the necessary clearances to examine matters related to national security, and they have begun looking into this. The critical election incident public protocol, a group of civil servants tasked with reporting to the public about elections and potential threats, recently published their report on the 2021 election and found that while attempts at interference were made they did not change the outcome of the election. The protocol made several recommendations to improve their effectiveness in addressing potential threats. I look forward to those changes being considered and implemented as quickly as reasonable. In addition to the ongoing work surrounding these bodies, I was pleased to see the Right Hon. David Johnston, Canada's 28th Governor General, an eminent legal scholar and upstanding Canadian, appointed to examine the issue of foreign interference in our elections and to make recommendations on how to uphold or restore Canadians' confidence in those institutions. The appointment of a non-partisan figure to examine this matter and to recommend appropriate next steps is critical, because we need to take partisanship out of the issue. I think it is incumbent on all of us to wait for Mr. Johnston to present his recommendations before assuming what he will or will not conclude. As I have discussed with my constituents, though I have reservations, I am not opposed to some form of public inquiry or public engagement on some of the issues we are discussing, but I am mindful of the limitations of a public inquiry into issues related to security. Once again, I would point to bodies and mechanisms like NSICOP, parliamentary committees and others, which exist to examine not only specific allegations but also the issue, risks and responses to foreign interference, more broadly. In addition to Mr. Johnston's upcoming work, and that of NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is reviewing intelligence related to foreign interference, as assessed by Canada's security agencies, up to, during and following the last two elections. The CEIPP report offers several recommendations that deserve consideration for implementation to make the process more transparent and make our democracy safer. The debate we are having today reflects the work of several parliamentary committees. Committees should be the ideal bodies to select and to hear from witnesses and experts to inform recommendations for concrete steps to make Canadians safer. I believe committees are best suited to determine who they call as witnesses. Therefore, I am disappointed that we must hold a vote in the House on who to call. I will not be supporting this motion, as I feel this is the responsibility of the committees. Efforts to circumvent this process should be stopped so that the work of the committees in question and the work of the House could continue unimpeded. While announcing the role Mr. Johnston would occupy, the Prime Minister also announced that the Minister of Public Safety would be launching long-awaited consultations on a foreign influence registry. These consultations will be completed in early May, and I hope they will be able to be legislated expeditiously. I understand the frustration of victims of foreign interference and of those who are concerned about it. Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants every citizen the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and none of the present allegations come close to that. Canada has an unfortunate history where we have maligned, marginalized and persecuted people in the past, and questioned their loyalty based on where they come from. In these recent storms of allegations, some have tended to get carried away and abandon due process based on fears stoked by irresponsible individuals. Too often in Canada's history, we learned that rash conclusions can bring devastating and long-lasting effects. Let us take partisanship out of this issue. Let us commit to working co-operatively to respond to the situations. Canadians are expecting nothing less.

1462 words

Mar/20/23 4:42:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my specific question, I do want to quote Sean McFate, The New Rules of War. He wrote, “Secrets and democracy are not compatible.... Democracy thrives in the light of information and transparency”. My colleague spoke about the importance of transparency around that and about the needed action in taking the partisan rhetoric out of it. NSICOP's 2019 annual report to the Prime Minister was tabled here in the House in a redacted form, although the findings and recommendations under its 50 pages tied to foreign interference are all unredacted. It made three recommendations to the government and to the Prime Minister to take moving forward. The third one was something the same committee made to the government in its very first report to the Prime Minister on his trip to India, which was around the need to brief opposition MPs on foreign interference: read them in, get them the appropriate clearances and brief them. I want to ask the member why this has not yet happened. It has been five years since it was first recommended to the Prime Minister.

189 words

Mar/20/23 4:43:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, we have processes in place. We have intelligence access through NSICOP and other bodies to access intelligence and confidential briefings. These processes are in place, and I welcome further recommendations from our special rapporteur when that takes place.

41 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/20/23 4:43:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said at one point in his speech that a non-partisan individual had been selected. He was of course referring to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston is a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. He has a cottage next to the Prime Minister's. He is a family friend. He is a close personal friend of the Prime Minister, a friend since childhood. Can anyone seriously try to tell us that Mr. Johnston is truly a non-partisan person?

84 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/20/23 4:44:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. I would point out that Mr. Johnston's appointment is supported by a wide range of people. The reputation of Mr. Johnston is above reproach, and we can be confident that he is perhaps the best choice that we could think of among all Canadians to give us an objective, non-partisan report.

64 words

Mar/20/23 4:45:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a very thoughtful speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the health committee, so I am used to his logical and fair interventions. The member raises some interesting concepts that I would characterize as comprising the rule of law. Everybody in the House and Canadians like to use that phrase. We all believe in the rule of law. It is the foundation of our democracy. The rule of law comprises a number of principles: the presumption of innocence; the burden of proof, as he who alleges must prove; the right to face one's accuser; the right to test evidence by cross-examination; the right to adjudication by an impartial adjudicator. The allegations of foreign interference are very serious and ought to be taken very seriously, but it is important to situate them. What we have right now are anonymous sources of allegations of what might have happened. Given that, I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us what he thinks would be the best way to proceed to ensure that we can get to the bottom of these serious allegations while respecting the cherished principles of the rule of law.

203 words

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

Mar/20/23 4:47:24 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Climate Change.

54 words

Adjournment

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Mar/20/23 4:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to remind my colleagues to be careful with papers near the microphones, as it is bad for the interpreters' ears. They mentioned it during the last speech.

40 words