SoVote

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

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

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the House of Commons will see a very important vote. It is one that will show Canadians whether the New Democratic Party of Canada is an opposition party that believes in its role to hold the government, the Liberal Party, accountable for its actions, or if the NDP is just a sidekick to the Liberal government that will do whatever it can to uphold the government and support it in its cover-up of getting to the truth on the Beijing interference in our elections. That is what at stake with the vote tomorrow. The stakes are so high, in fact, that just breaking on the news, there are whispers that the Liberals may make tomorrow a confidence vote. That is how desperate the government is to cover up the truth. That is the latest on the news. That may be happening tomorrow to force the NDP's hand. If the Liberals lose that vote, we will have an election in this country. That is how desperate the Liberals are to make sure we do not get to the truth. I implore the NDP to fulfill its duty as an opposition party and hold the Liberal government accountable, no matter what the consequences are tomorrow. That is what its duty to Canadians is. That is what its members were elected to do. What are we debating today? In essence, it is a motion to compel a number of key government witnesses from the Liberals to come to committee, face accountability and be transparent on what they knew, what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and what he did or did not do about about this political interference campaign from Beijing. The number one person on that list is the Prime Minister's long-time chief of staff, who is arguably one of the most powerful women in this country. Her name is Katie Telford. Katie Telford has been the right-hand person to the Prime Minister since he started his political career. All through his election as a Liberal leader in 2013, and through his winning election campaigns in 2015, 2019 and 2021. She has been his ultimate gatekeeper, which is what a chief of staff is, for all of that time. She has been front and centre, a key operator, in every one of his election victories. As chief of staff, she would have had access to every top-level, classified briefing. She is the one who decides the political filter of messaging that goes out and the information that gets to the Prime Minister. I cannot stress enough how important a chief of staff is to the Prime Minister. In fact, I think she has been the longest reigning chief of staff to a prime minister in Canadian history. It shows how influential she is and has been, both in the Liberal wins and within all the ongoings of the Liberal government in the last eight years. She has come to committee before on two occasions. It makes sense. She is such a powerful figure who is wielding so much power in our democracy. Sometimes she will have to come to committee, be held accountable and answer the questions of elected officials. For some reason, the Liberals are so desperate to stop her from coming to committee that they may be threatening a confidence vote tomorrow. For weeks, they have blocked at the committee a motion to bring her forward. That is why we are here debating it because we were able to bring it to the House for official debate today and a vote tomorrow. It really begs the question why they are so desperate to keep her from coming to committee. What does she know? What does she know that the Liberals do not want Canadians to know? If she is not hiding anything, there would be no problem. She has come to committee twice and frankly, left relatively unscathed. She is a smooth, intelligent operator. If she has got nothing to hide, she can easily come, fulfill her democratic duty to be held accountable as a powerful woman in this administration and answer our questions as the elected officials. It is not a lot to ask given what is at stake. I would like to go over what we are talking about and why it is so important. Conservatives had been asking questions, particularly of the Prime Minister, for a number of months regarding election interference from Beijing. However, it was only about a month ago that The Globe and Mail and some of the most prominent journalists in the country, Robert Fife and Steven Chase, broke a groundbreaking story about leaked CSIS documents, which is our spy and intelligence service. It is basically Canada's equivalent of the CIA. There were leaked documents from it. Someone blew the whistle and gave this to Robert Fife and Steven Chase. In those documents, they found that “China employed a sophisticated strategy to disrupt Canada's democracy in the 2021 federal election campaign as Chinese diplomats and their proxies backed the re-election of [the] Liberals”. The article goes on to say, “Drawn from a series of CSIS intelligence-gather operations, the documents illustrate how an orchestrated machine was operating in Canada with two primary aims: to ensure that a minority Liberal government was returned in 2021, and that certain Conservative candidates identified by China were defeated.” This is what our head spy and intelligence service has written. It is fairly significant. We would think that the government would move heaven and earth to open the box and tell Canadians what it knows and what it has done about it, which amounts to really nothing at this point. It goes on to say, “The classified reports viewed by The Globe reveal that China’s former consul-general in Vancouver, Tong Xiaoling, boasted in 2021 about how she helped defeat two Conservative MPs.” We have a diplomat from Beijing bragging about how she helped defeat two of my colleagues, but the Liberal government says there will be no public inquiry. It says that we do not need that, and we do not need the powerful woman who was likely briefed about this to come forward and answer our questions. No, there is nothing to see here. The article in The Globe and Mail also said: Most important, the intelligence reports show that Beijing was determined that the Conservatives did not win. China employed disinformation campaigns and proxies connected to Chinese-Canadian organizations in Vancouver and the GTA...to voice opposition to the Conservatives and favour the [Prime Minister's] Liberals. It went on to say: CSIS also explained how Chinese diplomats conduct foreign interference operations in support of political candidates and elected officials. Tactics include undeclared cash donations [which are very illegal in Canada]...or having business owners hire international Chinese students and “assign them to volunteer in electoral campaigns on a full-time basis.” That is also very illegal, and these are clear violations of the democratic rules we have set for our elections. Lastly, The Globe and Mail also reported: China appears to have targeted [the Liberal Prime Minister] in a foreign influence operation after he became Liberal Leader in 2013, according to a national security source who said Beijing’s plan involved donating a significant sum of money to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Notably, that was $200,000. More than that, the Trudeau Foundation has since returned the money. It has been a couple of years that it has had it, but now that we know all this information, the foundation has returned it. Still, there is nothing to see here and no need for a public inquiry or to engage in the committee process and have the chief of staff of the Prime Minister come to testify. It is important that we acknowledge something in this debate: Why would Beijing want to go through all this effort to interfere in a civic election, as recently seen in reports on this impacting Vancouver, as well as provincially and federally? Why would China be doing all this work? It wants the Canadian government to be sympathetic and supportive of its various agendas, and some of them are extremely serious and counter to everything we believe as Canadians. For example, China wants Canada to accept its claim on Taiwan to annex it by force. It also wants us to accept its draconian 2020 national security law on Hong Kong. It wants us to look the other way with what it is doing in Tibet and its militarization of the South China Sea and sweeping maritime claims in the region. China wants us to do nothing about the fact that it actively threatened Chinese Canadians on Canadian soil, using covert so-called police stations that are operating completely illegally and in violation of our sovereignty. If one does not pay any attention to that, it will help one get elected. At least, that is what is being reported; we could find out more about this if there were a public inquiry and we heard from the most powerful Liberal woman in the country, Katie Telford. I want to conclude with something I found quite moving. Recently, the person who blew the lid off this, who is the whistle-blower from CSIS, wrote in The Globe and Mail. I will conclude with a quote from him about why he would do this. Why would he risk his reputation and going to prison? It would be very severe, if it were ever revealed who he is, what would happen to him. He said: When I first became aware of the significance of the threat posed by outside interference to our democratic institutions, I worked—as have many unnamed and tireless colleagues—to equip our leaders with the knowledge and the tools needed to take action against it. Months passed, and then years. The threat grew in urgency; serious action remained unforthcoming. I endeavoured, alone and with others, to raise concerns about this threat directly to those in a position to hold our top officials to account. Regrettably, those individuals were unable to do so. In conclusion, he said: In the time that passed, another federal election had come and gone, the threat of interference had grown, and it had become increasingly clear that no serious action was being considered. Worse still, evidence of senior public officials ignoring interference was beginning to mount. Those are the words of a very patriotic Canadian. I applaud that individual for coming forward when nothing was being done, despite repeated alarms being sounded, by the Liberal government and by the hard-working CSIS individuals to inform them. I support this member, and I ask the NDP to do its duty and vote for our motion tomorrow.

1819 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/20/23 5:14:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Green caucus is the only one here prepared to say it has not decided how it is going to vote. There are many good and compelling reasons to want some sunshine and daylight on this matter, but the part that makes me not want to vote for the motion is the excessive hyperbole and partisanship and some of the cheap shots at people like David Johnston and at the Trudeau Foundation, calling it Chinese-funded. This sort of thing drives away independent-minded and really committed Canadians. Would the hon. member help me understand how we can approach this issue in committee without it becoming toxic?

113 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Mar/20/23 5:14:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the member and her style. I know it is quite different from that of some of the other members of the House, and I can respect that. At committee, I too act as someone who brings people together. I do understand that. In fact, the opposition parties in many regards have worked together. However, when it comes down to the most important witness in Canada coming forward to tell us what she knows, one opposition party is not acting like an opposition party. It is acting like a sidekick to prop up a government that is trying to cover up what it knows, when it knew it and what it did or did not do about it. On Mr. Johnston, I will say that certainly during his time as Governor General he was very well respected. He is an eminent Canadian in many ways. However, because part of this public inquiry would have to investigate what the Liberal leader knew, I do not believe this individual is the right choice if we look at his record. He is a member of the Trudeau Foundation, for example. He aids in appointing board members and crafting its bylaws. He was also the commissioner of the leaders' debates in 2019, which appointed the WE co-founder Craig Kielburger to the advisory board of that commission. Also, under his leadership, CBC's Rosemary Barton was selected, and then she later sued the Conservative Party in that election. I can go on and on, but I am certainly not taking anything away from his time as Governor General. By all accounts, he did an amazing job. Is he the right person to put the Prime Minister under immense scrutiny when he called him a lifelong friend? I would say no.

301 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/20/23 5:16:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, despite months and months of railing against coalitions, now the Conservatives are asking for support from the NDP. However, I digress. I want to emphasize that the NDP was the first party to openly come out and say a public inquiry is absolutely necessary. We were the first ones to push that. It was the Conservatives after that who said it would be great. It is not that we disagree that there absolutely needs to be a public inquiry. We all know the dangers of misinformation. The member put a lot of emphasis on the rumours that this is a confidence vote. Does the member have documentation or proof that she could bring forward and table on this confidence vote, or is this simply meant to play into the hyperbole the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was mentioning before?

143 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Mar/20/23 5:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member opposite. This is from the Canadian press. It is a mainstream news headline: “Liberals float possibility of making motion on foreign interference a confidence vote”. She can look that up herself and judge if she thinks the news is spreading misinformation or not. I have an issue with the opening part of her question. She mentioned that the Conservatives are asking for the support of the NDP. It is not us asking for it. It is the Canadian people who care about upholding our democratic institutions. They deserve to know about this from the most powerful Liberal woman in the country, who was side by side with the Liberal Prime Minister for every single one of his election wins, who would have been briefed by CSIS multiple times about this and who would have held all the information for the Prime Minister and advised him on how to act. The Conservatives should not have to ask the New Democrats to do the democratic duty they were elected to do on behalf of Canadians as an opposition party and hold the Liberals accountable. We are not asking them. It is their duty to Canadians.

206 words

Opposition motions

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:18:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate and shed light on something. The member is telling us that the government is going to turn this into a confidence vote. Quite honestly, I did not hear the Prime Minister or the government say that. Is it not blackmail to put a gun to our heads and threaten the House with an election if we do not vote with the Conservatives? That is blackmail.

72 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Mar/20/23 5:19:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a sort of figurative gun to our head. We are going to vote either way, come hell or high water. We will go to an election any day. We welcome that, if that is what happens. If the government has lost the vote of this duly elected House of Commons, we will go to an election. That will not stop us, and I do not believe it will stop the Bloc, either, from voting to hold the Liberals accountable. That is why we are here. No one will hold a gun to our head, figuratively of course, on this. Rest assured that we will stand up here and vote tomorrow and do our duty to hold the Liberals accountable.

123 words

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

Mar/20/23 5:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I would like to start off by indicating something very clearly. When one thinks of foreign interference into elections, it is really important that we understand and appreciate that this is not something new. It is something that has been taking place for many years now. In fact, to try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada has not been taking actions on this particular issue is just wrong. There have been a number of actions this government has taken on this issue for years now. If one were to contrast that to the Conservative Party, one would find that even today's leader of the Conservative Party of Canada chose to do nothing when he was the minister of democratic reform and at that time there was foreign interference into elections. It is interesting listening to the member who spoke just prior to me, who talked about wanting Katie Telford before committee. Today's leader of the Conservative Party of Canada argued, a number of years ago, that it is about ministerial accountability and that the chief of staff, or the political people the member today called for to come before committee, should not be coming before committee; it should be the ministers. That is exactly what the current leader of the Conservative Party was arguing just a few years back while he was the minister. As a government, to be crystal clear, we have been very much active on the issue of foreign interference into elections. I want to start off my comments by reading a quote, as others have done. This comes from a CTV News article, which reads: The U.S. Ambassador to Canada says the question of whether or not foreign election interference is happening is less important than whether it’s been successful, and he hasn’t seen any proof that alleged interference attempts by China in Canada’s elections have managed to affect the results. David Cohen told CTV...in an interview airing Sunday, his many years of political experience have led to his developing a “certain level of skepticism and thick skin,” and an “assumption” that both [and I want to emphasize this] China and Russia have been interfering in the elections of several countries [not just Canada] for years. “I almost think it's not even worth asking the question about whether there's interference,” he said. “I think the better question is: what is the interference targeting? Has it had any impact? Has it had any effect? “I've seen nothing that anyone's reported or that anyone has said that’s been able to disclose any impact from any alleged interference by the Chinese in the last couple of Canadian elections.... I think the Chinese and the Russians have been at this for a long time,” he also said. People will ask why I am citing the American ambassador. Let us look at the type of accountability we have witnessed here in Canada on this very issue. Canadians and parliamentarians have already heard on this matter from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, not to mention Elections Canada itself. All the organizations I just listed off have testified that our elections were safe and that Canadians and Canadians alone determined their outcomes. The Conservatives will cite certain things and are very selective in not including the many professionals, apolitical individuals, who have been clear that the outcome of the election was not impacted by foreign interference. The Conservatives know this, but they intentionally disregard it because they would rather ratchet up the rhetoric. We have seen the rhetoric coming from the Conservatives. I would argue that they do it because this is an issue where they are more interested in raising money for their own coffers and using it as a fundraising tool. They do not have any solid ground for what they are arguing today. They say they want Katie Telford to come forward, but where was that argument when they were in government? Then, they argued for ministerial accountability, meaning that if we have something we want to question within a department, we can go to the minister. We have had a number of ministers appear as requested, and like the professional civil servants, they provided the necessary assurances to give a high level of comfort to Canadians, but that is not good enough. It is interesting how the Conservatives like to mock the New Democrats. However, we can look at how the Conservatives have conned the Bloc, which has bought into what the Conservatives have been saying. In fact, they have even doubled down on the special rapporteur, who was appointed by Stephen Harper. He is an individual with impeccable credentials who fully understands what is at stake here. As members know, at least on the government side, and I would suggest and hope others, there is zero tolerance for foreign interference in elections. In investigating this matter, the special rapporteur can come back and say that there should be a public inquiry, and we will respect that. The government has gone out of its way to accommodate our best interests in protecting elections from foreign interference. As I pointed out, we have seen this in many measures the government has taken over the years. We witnessed professional civil servants, who are apolitical, come and make it very clear that there was no impact on the outcome of the election. We should be looking at our electoral system as one of those sacred pillars of Canadian society. The politicization we have witnessed coming from the Conservatives on this issue, for the sake of being able to raise funds, I find disrespectful. Our democracy is worth more than a fundraising letter. I see my time has expired. Hopefully, I will get a question to expand on that.

1024 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:30:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question, and I would ask my colleague to answer yes or no. It is a question so clear that even Stéphane Dion would be satisfied. Is the vote on this motion, which will take place tomorrow, a vote of confidence?

50 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:30:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a vote all of us should be taking very seriously. At the end of the day, I would argue there is a choice. Does the member believe in the civil servants and the security measures in place that provide assurances to Canadians? Does the member believe that the special rapporteur has the integrity to come back to give a recommendation? We can at least wait until we see the recommendation, wait until we see the report. There is all sorts of opportunity, and I hope members will take it seriously.

94 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:30:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague had an exceptionally simple question. Instead of getting a simple answer, we got a word salad. Therefore, I will ask again. Is tomorrow's vote going to be a confidence vote? Yes or no is the only thing the member needs to answer.

48 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:31:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member needs to take a look in the mirror and reflect on what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue. The member previous said that it does not matter what anyone else does. The Conservative Party has taken a position, and it is a solid whipped position from the Conservative Party. We do not need to take lectures on understanding and appreciating the importance of the vote. Canadians have indicated that this is a serious issue, and that is why we are treating it as that. It is a very serious issue.

98 words

Opposition motions

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/20/23 5:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the question asked by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the member asked if we believe in the measures that have been put into place since the events. I would like to ask him if he believes in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. It has approached the government time and time again, and time and time again, the government has simply done nothing. Does the member believe in CSIS?

78 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:32:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for our civil service, which is why I listed off the many agencies and groups that are there to ensure Canadians can have confidence. They can have confidence because it is very clear that nothing ultimately impacted the outcome of the elections.

51 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 5:33:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two process questions for the member. The actions of committees are independent. Should the House be involved in making decisions on who is invited, and where the committees do their work? There is also this place, a place of partisan debate, where we make points politically versus looking at the overall outcomes. There is, in one case, an independent committee with its studies. In the other case, there is an independent inquiry into how democracy is being protected in Canada. How important it is to keep distinguished the different roles of the different groups within the House.

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:33:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to address the PROC committee, which is dealing with this. A lot depends on the makeup of the committee and the real agenda of the committee membership. I would have loved to have seen a committee that said, “Look, it is not only China. Russia and other countries are trying to have electoral interference here in Canada and in other countries”. As a committee, it could maybe conduct a more general study on such an important issue. I am sure that would go a long way in providing some wonderful recommendations for the future.

101 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:34:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, often Liberal members get criticized for not answering questions. I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader the simple question for a third time. NDP members last week supported the idea of having the Prime Minister's chief of staff and key witnesses testify in committee on what they knew and how they knew it when it came to Beijing's election interference. Suddenly, they are wavering. Can the member answer the question with a yes or a no? Have they made the vote tomorrow a confidence matter? For the third time, is it yes or no?

104 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/23 5:35:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is obviously very curious. He might want to ask individuals in the House leadership. I am not the government whip. I would suggest that the vote tomorrow is going to be important.

36 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 5:35:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important issue and debate the opposition motion. I would like to clarify a few things. It is clear that the outcome of the last federal election is not in question, and that there is no evidence that any individual races were decided solely on the basis of these allegations. However, because of these allegations of interference in our democratic processes, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that all proper protocols are in place. I cannot imagine that there is a single member of Parliament who does not take the issue of foreign interference in our democratic process seriously. This is an important issue, but let me say this. The debates I heard today were not at all about the issue of interference and the best way forward for us as Canadian parliamentarians, but rather about partisan bickering. Whether it is China, Russia, any other foreign actor state or otherwise that is seeking to influence outcomes in our democratic process, we should be alert and live to that reality. It is important to note that this issue is not new. In fact, it has been said quite credibly throughout the debates that this is something that had been raised over a decade ago by then CSIS head Richard Fadden, who was reporting at the time to then prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government. In fact, it has been noted that the now Leader of the Opposition was minister of democratic institutions at the time when some of these first allegations were brought forward. I want that not to be a partisan point but for Canadians to understand that this question is not just something that has arisen overnight. This is something that has been contemplated for, as I mentioned, over a decade now. It is also not a question that is just solely pertaining to Canada. We heard the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills today talking about the United Kingdom and where MI5 alerted representatives in the House of Commons about a Chinese agent who was infiltrating in that manner. We know that in Australia and the United States, there are democracies around the world, where the People's Republic of China and its Communist regime is seeking to try to influence and obscure democratic processes. The point is that this has been in the bailiwick for quite some time, and it is not just Canada alone that is dealing with these important questions. I also want to point out that many of the comments made today, especially by the official opposition, treat unsubstantiated allegations as the gospel truth. I completely agree that now is the time to take as long as we need to strengthen our protocols and put in place measures to protect our institutions. However, it is not the time to shoot from the hip, and I have heard that, without the proper information. Some of the insinuations that are being made today, frankly, in my view, are without basis. They actually add to the reality of driving discontent and sowing division in our society. It is our job, all of us, indeed, to be asking these important questions, certainly the official opposition, other parties and other parliamentarians, including those on this side of the House, about what mechanisms we could have in place to protect our institutions. However, to make the insinuation that somehow this is a cover-up, that members of Parliament might be implicated, involved or somehow not loyal to their country that they swore an oath to, is problematic. We need to bring down that level of rhetoric and stay focused on the facts and stay focused on the best process. We may disagree with that process, indeed I have heard it here today, but let us stay focused on that question before just driving partisan wedges in this debate. To that point, there have been suggestions today in the House that somehow the government has not been transparent and that there have been no mechanisms to deal with this issue, which, as I just mentioned, has been fermenting in Canada for over a decade, starting with the former Conservative government. I would argue, respectfully, that this government has put more mechanisms in place to tackle what we knew to be true when Richard Fadden was raising these questions over a decade ago. The fact that we are having a conversation today and that there are proper mechanisms allowing members of Parliament to be briefed is a good thing. It shows there is a strength in our democratic institutions, one of which is NSICOP. Secret security clearance has been given to members of Parliament to get the highest-level briefings there, meaning information sharing among all of the parties. There is the critical election incident public protocol, where senior civil servants, non-partisan civil servants, help preside and make sure that information is shared. That is another mechanism. We also have the security and intelligence threats to elections task force. This is where the RCMP, CSIS and other security agencies bring in information to provide intelligence about whether or not there are threats to our democratic process. There is a recent focus on this topic and the fact that it is a pertinent question not just for China, I would argue, but for other countries. What is missing in part from the text of the Conservative motion today is that this is not just about China. There is a larger playing field here that I think we are missing, and that raises questions about what else can be done. I thought the member for Yukon did a very good job in his remarks of talking about the concept of intelligence versus the evidence to prosecute. There can be intelligence sharing and information gathering that suggest a certain outcome, but there is a certain threshold that one must meet in order to prosecute that evidence. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills gave the example of the United Kingdom. MI5 would have worked with parliamentarians in that government, and they felt it was absolutely necessary to notify the Speaker of the House. That same member, today in the House, insinuated that indeed CSIS was at that nexus with this government. What I did not have a chance to ask him about in a supplementary question was how he is alleging that to be the case. What information does he have to suggest that this is what is happening? We have a protocol in place where this information can be shared, similar to what is happening in the United Kingdom. I certainly appreciate that we have heard allegations and heard reports that I think are important for driving the conversation about what more we can do as parliamentarians. I have read the Globe and Mail op-ed myself, with the individual in question who has “whistle-blown” or shared information and the rationale for doing so. However, as mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North, the head of the security task force to the Prime Minister appeared before committee. We have had ministers. We have had other civil servants. It is not clear to me that the view reflected in The Globe and Mail necessarily reflects the entire view of the agencies we are talking about here today. It is a leap to suggest that one individual somehow represents the entire view of the security apparatus in this country. We need to be very careful about making that jump on the basis of information. Is the information about the allegation serious? Absolutely. Should we be continuing to do work? Yes. That is exactly why we have appointed a special rapporteur. We had two weeks back in our ridings, and I was very disappointed to see the way the Conservatives attacked the integrity of a really genuine Canadian who has served in public service. They could have said they would prefer a public inquiry and that they trust the judgment of Mr. Johnston but are concerned that some of his relationships could create a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, no, it was a character assassination. There is no polish to the way the Conservative Party goes about this. This was a Governor General appointed under Stephen Harper. This is an individual who has served in multiple different roles for different parties that have been in government. I trust this individual. Whether it is a public inquiry or another mechanism, this individual has such a high level of integrity that we as parliamentarians can trust it. Instead, the opposition wants to burn it down. I look forward to taking questions on this. This is a serious matter, and I will stand ready for those questions.

1470 words