SoVote

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

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

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:45:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his impeccable French on this International Day of La Francophonie. However, that is as far as I will go with my thanks and congratulations, because I have some thoughts I want to share with him. He is quite right in saying that we need to do our best to put partisanship aside when it comes to matters of integrity and ethics, and especially when it comes to our electoral system and the confidence we must have in it. The facts speak for themselves. When the first rumours began to circulate about the Beijing regime's possible interference in the federal election, the Prime Minister always said that there was never any interference. When The Globe and Mail ran a first-page story saying that there had been interference, he asked how that information had been leaked to the media. That is a classic example of shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message. Finally, after changing his mind three times, the Prime Minister decided to appoint a special rapporteur, which confirmed that there had indeed been unacceptable foreign interference. It makes no difference whether there was foreign interference affecting just one vote or an entire government. Can the member acknowledge that his leader failed to lead by example and assume the responsibilities and authority of the office he holds, which is to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians?

245 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/20/23 5:47:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for the question and his mini speech. I will answer with facts. Today's debate and the process under way in the two House committees are very important for finding answers. We need to investigate and find answers so we can restore public confidence in our institutions. When the government receives the report from the special rapporteur, it will act on the recommendations.

70 words

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

Mar/20/23 5:48:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his excellent French on this International Day of La Francophonie. That is definitely something that needs to be highlighted. He began his remarks by saying that his words would be extremely clear. I am going to ask him the question that I asked his colleague. I felt that my question was very clear, but I did not receive a clear answer. Is the vote a vote of confidence, yes or no?

85 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/20/23 5:48:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from the opposition for his question. I am flattered that my hon. colleague thinks that I am in a position to decide with the government and the government House leader which votes are confidence votes. I do not know what the outcome of the vote will be tomorrow, but I am against the motion for a number of reasons, as I explained in my speech. I am very—

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 5:49:23 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I must give others the opportunity to participate. Normally, the time given for the answer corresponds to the time it took to ask the question. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

40 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/20/23 5:49:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on behalf of the good folks of Elmwood—Transcona to ask a question of my colleague. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I appreciate all the positive response for Elmwood—Transcona in the chamber here today. I want to say, first of all, that I agree with the member that the kind of partisan circus that has developed around this issue on Parliament Hill has not been helpful for getting to the bottom of the issue that Canadians are rightfully concerned about and deserve answers to. The best way to do that is through a public inquiry. There is no question about it. That is why the NDP was actually the first party to call for a public inquiry. It is why we continue to call for a public inquiry. If his concern is the political temperature in this place and that this is not the appropriate forum to get to the bottom of these things, why is it the case that he and his government have not already called a public inquiry, and when are they going to do it?

194 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/20/23 5:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can answer the question to my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I support the idea of going through processes and perhaps including a public inquiry, but let us work our way up to that process. We have two committees that are studying this issue right now. The government has appointed a special rapporteur who is going to look into this and perhaps even provide terms of reference for what could be a public inquiry moving forward. There are already mechanisms at play. Let us let that work itself out. If we need to have a public inquiry moving forward, we can do so, but let us let the existing processes work themselves through.

125 words