SoVote

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

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Order, please. There is a point of order.

8 words

Point

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

The Deputy Speaker

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. Brendan Hanley

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

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

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

Mr. Brendan Hanley

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. Brendan Hanley

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

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

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

Mr. Brendan Hanley

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/20/23 4:48:00 p.m.
Watch

That is a very good point. The microphones are on our desks. If papers or phones are put near the microphones, it gives the interpreters trouble. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

36 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Mar/20/23 4:48:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Liberal members will be voting against the motion. It is not clear what NDP members will be doing, so I hope to convince them to support the motion with my speech. The motion in front of us concerns all members of the House and all parties, including the NDP. In fact, as The Globe and Mail recently reported, former NDP MP Kennedy Stewart was the target of Beijing's interference in the Vancouver mayoral race. Foreign interference is a serious threat. It is a national threat. It threatens our economy, social cohesion, long-term prosperity and the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. It threatens all parties and all candidates. That is the written assessment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. The people engaged in foreign interference are with the government of the People's Republic of China. The PRC is interfering in our elections and in our candidate nominations through tactics like illegally and covertly funnelling money to political parties and candidates. That, too, is the assessment of CSIS. Both assessments, that foreign interference is a serious national threat and that the PRC is behind these threats, did not come to light because the government was transparent about what was going on. They came to light because brave public servants concerned about a serious national threat to the security of Canada decided to blow the whistle and to work with investigative journalists to make these assessments public. They came to light through reports in The Globe and Mail, Global News and other news outlets, and all along the way the Prime Minister has refused to be accountable and to answer questions. Initially, he dismissed the news reports. When that did not work, he changed tactics. He suggested that critics were fomenting anti-Asian racism. He tried going after the whistle-blowers by suggesting that they were the real threat to national security. He tried obfuscation. For example, last month, in response to a Globe and Mail story about how Beijing uses tactics like undeclared cash donations and illegally reimbursing donors, he said, “there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks”. The next day, he backtracked and said that he was not referring to the Globe and Mail story but to comments made two months earlier by his national security adviser, Jody Thomas. His office has tried to block the procedure and House affairs committee from further investigating this matter through a filibuster that goes on as we speak. When all of that did not work, he tried to bury the whole thing in process. He announced he is referring the matter to two government committees, and he is appointing an independent rapporteur to make recommendations about a public inquiry. The Prime Minister has refused to answer basic questions. We still do not know the details of which candidates were targeted in the last two election campaigns and who exactly was involved. Most importantly, we do not know the answer to the following questions: What did the Prime Minister know? When did he know it? What did he do about it? Why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to release this information? Only the Prime Minister can authorize the release of this information. We need to know why he has been reluctant to release it and why he is not heeding the advice of intelligence experts to release it. That brings us to the motion in front of us today. We need to hear from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, and others enumerated in the motion. We need answers to questions, and here is why: Translating intelligence into evidence for a prosecution is often very difficult, but one tool governments can use when intelligence cannot be translated into evidence is sunlight and transparency. Sunlight and transparency would reveal the details of foreign interference threat activities, so that the Canadian public is made aware of these activities so that citizens, parties and candidates can make informed decisions about what is going on. However, citizens, parties and candidates cannot make informed decisions if they do not know what is going on and if they do not know the details of foreign interference threat activities. They cannot make decisions about which donors and donations to reject or about which volunteers they will allow to work on their election campaigns if they do not know who exactly is involved with these foreign interference threat activities. This practice of using sunlight and transparency to counter malevolent threats from foreign actors is exactly what CSIS has been advising the Prime Minister to do. It is written right in its top secret briefing note that was released to the procedure and House affairs committee before Christmas. It is the best practice of the Five Eyes intelligence allies. It is why, last year, MI5 went public about a PRC agent in the U.K. Parliament, Christine Lee. MI5 informed the Speaker about this individual and the threat, and in turn, the Speaker emailed the entire House of Commons with this individual's name, identifying her as a security threat. Members took appropriate action, cut off contact with this individual, and the integrity of the U.K. Parliament was protected. Sunlight and transparency worked, and the integrity of U.K.'s democracy was ensured. However, unlike the U.K. government, this government is failing to heed the advice of its intelligence experts, failing to be transparent and failing to use sunlight to ensure that the details of these threat activities are made public. For a government that came to office promising to heed the advice of experts, this is truly puzzling. We need answers now. We cannot wait for a year or more of a public inquiry before we get answers. We need to know before the next election so that parties and candidates can be equipped with the facts to protect themselves against the kind of foreign interference that we saw in the last two election campaigns. That is why this motion today should be adopted by the House. Then Katie Telford and the others enumerated in the motion would be called in front of committee to testify, give answers and tell us exactly what is going on so we can protect ourselves from foreign interference. Some have suggested that, by raising the issue of Beijing's foreign interference, we are somehow fomenting anti-Asian racism. This is a facile argument, and I say that as someone who knows what it is like to be the target of anti-Asian racism. I was born in this country in 1971 with the last name Chong to a Chinese immigrant father. This was a time in our country's history when there were not very many non-whites in this country, and when we had only recently opened up our immigrant system to non-whites. Attitudes regarding Canadians of non-white origins were very different than they are today. Therefore, I take exception when the Prime Minister suggests that those asking legitimate questions about Beijing's foreign interference in our democracy are somehow responsible for fomenting anti-Asian racism. Frankly, as the first MP of Chinese descent elected to the House of Commons from the province of Ontario, it is beyond the pale. It is bigots who are responsible for fomenting anti-Asian racism, not those who, in good faith, are raising real concerns about Beijing's meddling in our democracy. It is bigots who are taking advantage of Beijing's threats to our democracy to foment this anti-Asian racism, just like they did when the global pandemic was under way. We must counter both anti-Asian racism and the very real threats that Beijing is presenting to our cherished democracy. To do one and not the other is either to abandon our fellow Canadians to racism or it is to ignore the very real threat that Beijing presents to this democracy that we all own. We cannot allow either anti-Asian racism or Beijing's threats to our democracy to stand. I will close by saying this: CSIS has assessed that Beijing's interference in our democracy is a serious national threat. It is for that reason that I implore all members of the House, particularly members of the NDP, to vote for this motion so we can get to the bottom of this matter and shed some light on what exactly is going on.

1410 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 4:58:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of partisan jabbing back and forth, but I do want to ask a sincere question. The member mentioned MI5. That security intelligence agency, on the basis of information that must have become overwhelming, made a decision to go to the Speaker of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom to present those allegations moving forward. However, we talked a little bit today about the idea of evidence and intelligence gathering and actual strong, demonstrable evidence that something is indeed true. I am curious, because the member is quite involved in these types of matters in Canada, what that process would look like. Is CSIS allowed to perhaps come to the Speaker of this House of Commons and be able to do that if, on a balance probabilities, it felt the evidence was strong enough that it could do what happened in the United Kingdom? If not, is that something the member would perhaps like to see moving forward, or perhaps something the special rapporteur could recommend for all of us as parliamentarians to make sure that those agencies have that ability, without undermining the intelligence work that goes on, to actually gather the said information?

203 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Mar/20/23 4:59:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a great BBC article on the case of Christine Lee, dated July 19, 2022, entitled, “Why did MI5 name Christine Lee as an ‘agent of influence’?” I encourage the member and others to read that article because it explains the tactics behind MI5 going public with this information. To answer his question, at the end of the day, CSIS cannot go public with any information to the Speaker of the House of Commons, to individual members of Parliament or to political parties or candidates without the express authorization of the Prime Minister. What has been happening is that the Prime Minister has refused to grant this authorization for CSIS to go public with the details of these foreign interference threat activities. That is why it is so critically important that we use the tools of this House and its committees to compel testimony from individuals like Ms. Telford and others and get them to answer questions about what exactly is going on. We can then heed the advice of Five Eyes intelligence experts to use sunlight and transparency to publicly reveal the details of what is going on.

196 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:00:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with researchers from the Université de Sherbrooke who have been working on the issues of cyber-violence and cybercrime. They informed me that Canada is lagging behind Europe and Australia on this issue. That is what concerns me. This is not about political partisanship. These academic researchers have done some serious research, and they were sounding the alarm by warning me of the dangers. That being said, I am concerned that a study with so many witnesses and so many meetings is just a way to try to cloud the issue. Let me explain. I saw this when the Standing Committee on National Defence conducted a study on sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. What the Liberals did was an affront to democracy. They filibustered to keep us from investigating sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and producing a report. We saw the same thing again last week. The Liberals filibustered so that we could not get to the bottom of the issue of Chinese interference. I am worried that they are trying to cloud the issue. Why not simply propose an independent public inquiry and insist that the government respond to this request from all of the opposition parties?

209 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Mar/20/23 5:01:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think that Beijing poses a real threat to our post-secondary institutions. CSIS has identified that Beijing is a threat in five areas of research and development. It is a threat to our national security and a threat to our intellectual property in the five areas of clean tech, artificial intelligence, biopharma, 5G telecommunications and quantum computing. However, the government has failed to take action to protect the post-secondary research institutions that my hon. colleague referred to. It has failed to provide a directive ordering the CIHR, the CFI, the SSHRC and NSERC, the four granting councils, to ban funding in partnership with entities in the People's Republic of China in these five sensitive areas. That is why we have been lax in protecting our national security. More broadly, the government has failed to step up when it comes to protecting the cybersecurity of Canadians. In the last election, we saw the case of candidate Kenny Chiu, who was the subject of a volume of disinformation that Global Affairs Canada's G7 rapid response mechanism was tracking. The SITE task force failed to release this disinformation during the election to ensure that Kenny Chiu at least had a fighting chance to counter it.

215 words