SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23

Mar/22/23 5:47:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize, first and foremost, that Canada is not the only country where election interference allegations have been levelled. It is also important to recognize that China is not the only player. The Conservative Party always seems to want to raise the issue of China, whether it is over the pandemic or whatever it might be. I find that most unfortunate. At the end of the day, we need to remain focused. What has been assigned to our special rapporteur is something the Conservatives should be a little more patient and respectful about. Let us see what comes from Mr. Johnston.

107 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/22/23 5:48:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk this week about the special rapporteur. People keep saying that he is independent. I have my doubts about that. I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North a question. If the rapporteur is independent, is he objective? I am asking him the difference between independence and objectivity.

58 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/22/23 5:49:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe that if we take a look at what Mr. Johnston has done over the years as an individual, a great Canadian and someone who has contributed, he is virtually second to no other in the capacities and roles he has had in our society. At the end of the day, I believe in his integrity and look forward to ultimately seeing his report. I suspect the member will see a government that is very proactive in acting on the recommendations that are brought forward. However, whether one is a member of the Bloc or Conservative Party, trashing this individual and throwing him under the bus or sandbagging him is very much disrespectful and completely uncalled for.

120 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/22/23 5:49:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives blocked our efforts to have an inquiry into foreign interference in the election system. Today, we are calling on the government to do the right thing, because we have to restore public confidence in our institutions. We just heard very disturbing allegations that a sitting MP gave advice about the treatment of the two Michaels. These were two innocent Canadians held illegally by the Chinese government. To think that in any way they could be treated as political pawns for the advantage of either the Conservatives or Liberal Party is shocking. We need to get this to an inquiry that has the tools to draw witness testimony and that can do this in a transparent manner so that Canadians get answers. It would also stop the Conservative leader from his character assassination against people like David Johnston, who have served our country with integrity. I have no problem with Mr. Johnston. I have a problem with the lack of a full inquiry, and I am asking the Liberals to do the right thing and restore confidence among the Canadian people at this time given the shocking allegations we just heard.

195 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/22/23 5:51:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I was to take a hybrid approach to what NDP members are proposing, I would suggest that one thing I like about their suggestion is that this be broadened to go beyond any sort of foreign interference in elections by China, because there are a number of players. I would also suggest that we take into consideration that Canada is not alone in this as a democracy. There is a much bigger picture to look at. I have full trust and confidence in Mr. Johnston being able to do what is necessary to provide Canadians a great level of comfort through the recommendations he will be coming forth with. I believe that will be happening before the end of May.

123 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Mar/22/23 5:51:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to represent the interests of the good people of Regina—Qu'Appelle and represent my caucus as the opposition House leader. We need to frame what is going on here because what we saw over the last few weeks was a despicable display at committee, a mockery of the parliamentary process. We found out that the Prime Minister has known for years about allegations of foreign interference from the Communist regime in Beijing, specifically helping the Liberal Party. Chinese representatives of that Communist regime here in Canada said they preferred a Liberal government, and there are reports coming from The Globe and Mail, citing CSIS reports and national security committee reports, indicating that there is a large “clandestine network” of funding of candidates that is coming from the Communist regime in Beijing. Conservatives have been trying to shine a light on this at committee. We have all seen the lengths that the Liberals have gone to. Today is what is called an opposition day. Today is the supply day when opposition parties are allowed to introduce a topic and have a debate on something. Normally the government gets to set the calendar. This is its right, as it brings forward legislation, but a certain number of days throughout the year are allocated to each opposition party. For today, the Conservatives put forward a motion to call on the government to abandon its plan to increase taxes on beer, wine and spirits. That is what we are supposed to be debating right now. On Monday, we had a fulsome debate on this whole issue of foreign interference, and I should point out that Conservatives, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, indicated to the NDP that we are totally fine with expanding the scope of the investigation. We believe that if there are allegations of foreign interference coming from any country, they should be investigated. We were willing to work with the New Democrats on that. We were hoping that they would vote in favour of our motion on Monday calling on the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee. The problem was that they did not let us know. They kept ragging the puck. It was a very simple question. It was the exact same motion that we had proposed at committee. Even the NDP House leader had indicated his support at committee. It kind of reminds me of something that happened a little while ago. I was in the chamber and I saw the NDP House leader get up and try to indicate that the NDP opposed certain amendments at committee when it was dealing with Bill C-21. Of course, Bill C-21 is the piece of legislation that would massively expand the power of the government to take away lawful firearms from Canadians. I am not trying to mix topics too much, but the reason I am talking about this is that Conservatives recognized instantly what was going on. We saw it at committee. We said it was going to make unlawful so many firearms that hunters and indigenous communities use every season for their long-held Canadian heritage and history of using firearms legally. What happened was that Conservatives at the committee saw that not only were these bad policy amendments, but they were also out of order, beyond the scope of the bill itself, so at the committee, almost immediately, we asked the chair to rule those amendments out of order. The chair said no. The Liberal chair said that the amendments were in order. Why do I bring this up? At committee, the Conservatives challenged the chair. We asked our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP to please support us on this as the amendments were out of order. The NDP voted no. The NDP voted to keep those amendments in Bill C-21, yet the NDP House leader came to this chamber and asked the Speaker to do what his team actually voted against at committee. He tried to take credit, saying they were bad. It was only after their MPs heard from their constituents, who told them how terrible it was. This is exactly what we are facing here today. We have tried to give the opportunity to the NDP members multiple times to hold this government to account and yet, time and time again, they are showing Canadians that they would rather prop up Liberal corruption and help keep the truth covered, instead of shining a light. It is very disappointing. It is very disappointing that we see the NDP here on an opposition day move this motion. They are trying to come up with this phony story. Conservatives want a public inquiry. We have called for it. We were trying to get this report back in the House; we could have dealt with this last week. They are the ones playing procedural games and we are not going to let them get away with it. We are going to highlight to Canadians the hypocrisy that the NDP has been showing. I just want to indicate that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton. In closing, I want to make a couple of points about this. I hear from colleagues across the way who are throwing all kinds of baseless allegations that are just not backed up by facts. Conservatives have been calling for a public inquiry. The first time the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue in the House, the Prime Minister said that he did not know anything about it, so we started to press. We started to call for this. We started to call for a full, independent public inquiry. What did the government do? It appointed a special rapporteur. I understand. I understand the hon. government House leader and I am hoping to have a discussion with him in a few moments, but it is important to set the stage for it. I will wrap it up with this. It is impossible to restore the confidence that has been shaken by the Prime Minister's inaction on this file without a public inquiry, not a special rapporteur with close family ties to the Prime Minister, not someone on the Trudeau Foundation board. We support the call for a full public inquiry and we are just disappointed that it took so long to drag the NDP kicking and screaming to ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testifies at committee.

1103 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Mar/22/23 5:59:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we heard the hon. member speak at length, in fact, trying to make his party a going concern in this conversation, when even in its own opposition day motion, which, by the way, turned out to be useless, its own leader did not even vote for it. Could the hon. member please tell all Canadians, with all the bluster the Conservatives have just had over the last week, why, if their opposition day was so important, their own leader did not even decide to show up and vote for it?

92 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/22/23 5:59:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we just replay what happened on Monday, if the NDP had just indicated that it was going to support our motion right from the beginning, the Prime Minister would have realized it was inevitable and we could have addressed— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

48 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:00:13 p.m.
Watch

Order. I just want to remind members again, and I am sure those members were already in the House a while ago when I mentioned this, that when somebody else has the floor, it is not an option for them to speak. If they have other questions and comments, they should wait until I ask for questions and comments. The hon. official opposition House leader.

65 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/22/23 6:00:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, if the NPD members had not turned their phones on silent and stopped reading their emails as we were trying to work with them to get their support, and if they had said, “Yes, we are going to support your motion and we are going to tell our coalition partners that we are going to support your motion”, we could have had all of this taken care of on the weekend and we would have been happy to move a different motion on Monday. If anybody was wasting the House's time with that, it was the NDP, taking so long, getting dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. That is why that happened on Monday.

126 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Mar/22/23 6:01:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just after watching that exchange there, I cannot be more struck by the difference in position in 2004, 2005 and 2006 with the NDP leader at that time with the sponsorship—

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:01:30 p.m.
Watch

There seems to be some cross-debate here and I would just ask members to please wait until it is time for questions and comments, and for the hon. member who is going to answer the question to maybe listen to the question, so that he will know what he is responding to. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

60 words

Hon. Mike Lake

Mar/22/23 6:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want the hon. member to comment on the difference in the NDP approach right now versus the NDP approach back in 2004, 2005 and 2006, around the sponsorship scandal. Those two positions, those two approaches, around transparency and holding the government of the day to account could not be more different.

55 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/22/23 6:02:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague was very active in politics. I think he joined the House in 2006, but of course he would have been watching all that unfold in 2004. Finally, at the right time, the leader of the NDP at the time suddenly realized that he could not keep propping up a government that was under that kind of scandal and with that cloud hanging over it, which ultimately worked out for the NDP down the road. The NDP ended up having a bigger caucus in the 2011 election after standing on that principle. We have seen what has happened in the last few elections under the current NDP leader, when the caucus has diminished after every election. I think the two things go hand in hand, and I appreciate the hon. member's pointing that out.

139 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Mar/22/23 6:03:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again the member will not answer the question. The question was this: If the Conservatives' opposition day motion was so important, to get Telford to the ethics committee, which I am on, by the way, and it was because of the NDP that we actually got Telford to PROC, not their useless motion, why can the member not stand up today and explain to all the Canadians who are watching this why the leader of the official opposition could not even be bothered to vote on their own motion?

91 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Mar/22/23 6:03:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why did it take the leader of the NDP two weeks to decide that he was going to do the right thing and ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testified? If the hon. member wants to talk about why this or that happened, why does it always take so much public pressure to get the NDP to do the right thing? That is what the Canadians who used to vote for the New Democrats want to know. I come from Saskatchewan, the home of the NDP. Since the New Democrats decided to sell out their core principles, as they used to be in favour of transparency and ethics, they have been shut out of Saskatchewan. Their caucus has diminished in every single election. If they want to continue to show Canadians that they are way more excited to be part of the club, that they can make deals with the government and move pieces around and feel like they are more relevant than they have ever been while they are selling out their core principles, they can fill their boots.

185 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Mar/22/23 6:04:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrence motion, which was strengthened considerably as a result of the Conservative amendment brought forward at the procedure and House affairs committee. In the face of the alarming revelations of Beijing's interference in two elections that took place under the Prime Minister's watch, Canadians deserve answers. This interference has been characterized by Global News and The Globe and Mail based upon their review of CSIS documents as a vast campaign of interference in the 2019 election and an orchestrated machine in the 2021 election to help the Liberals secure a minority government and to defeat certain Conservative candidates. Canadians deserve to know about the scale of Beijing's election interference and what is really at the heart of this scandal, namely: What did the Prime Minister know, when did he know it and what did he do or fail to do about Beijing's attack on our democracy? In order to get to the truth, two things need to happen. First, the procedure and House affairs committee, which is seized with a study on Beijing's election interference, must be able to do its work unimpeded. It must do its work without the obstruction that we have seen over the past several weeks, driven by the Liberals but often supported by the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP. It is important that an independent public inquiry be called. This is a position that Conservatives have consistently supported. Indeed, we strengthened the very weak NDP motion at the procedure and House affairs committee, which I will get into momentarily. On both of these questions, what is the NDP's track record? Well, it is a pretty pathetic one. At the direction of their boss, the Prime Minister, NDP members joined with Liberal MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee to block the testimony of Katie Telford. They worked with the Liberals not once, not twice, but three times to block Katie Telford from coming to the committee. She is a key witness for getting to the bottom of what the Prime Minister knows and what he failed to do about Beijing's election interference. Again, it is what one would expect of the junior partner of the cover-up coalition. Then NDP members, no doubt facing public pressure, suddenly flip-flopped and indicated that they were supporting my straightforward motion to have Katie Telford appear at the procedure and House affairs committee. One would think that if they were posturing their support that they would welcome the Conservative motion that was brought forward in the House. However, all of a sudden, they flip-flopped again and voted against that motion. Now, in fairness to NDP members, they did ultimately support my motion when the Liberals finally ended their filibustering. Still, it took weeks of pressure from the public and Conservatives before they finally did the right thing and supported bringing Telford to committee. However, it must also be noted that they voted against a much stronger motion that Conservatives put forward in the House, which was voted on yesterday. The NDP, the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, sided with the Liberals and voted against a motion that had considerably more teeth than the PROC motion does. In addition to that, as the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP has worked with the Liberals to cover up the production of documents at the procedure and House affairs committee, not once but twice. They voted against a Conservative motion proposing that the independent parliamentary inquiry review relevant documents, having regard for national security and other considerations. This independent review would have been instead of giving the government; the PMO; and the Prime Minister, who has so much to answer for, a veto over what is produced to the committee. The NDP voted against that. They joined the Liberals in blocking the production of documents. The NDP talks a good game about a public inquiry, but the motion they put forward at the procedure and House affairs committee was considerably weak. It would have given the Prime Minister the unilateral power to appoint the commissioner of the inquiry. What Conservatives put forward as an amendment was to say no, that the Prime Minister should not have the only say. If there is to be a public inquiry, as we believe there should be, such an inquiry must be truly independent. Moreover, it must be perceived to be independent. Therefore, our amendment provided that all recognized parties in this House should agree upon the head of the public inquiry to ensure not only the independence of that inquiry but the perception of its independence. In that regard, Conservatives considerably strengthened the very concurrence motion that this House is debating today. By contrast, the NDP were prepared to let the Prime Minister have a do-over of Rosenberg. There, the Prime Minister appointed a Liberal crony, someone who was the president of the Trudeau Foundation for several years. Not only was he the president of the Trudeau Foundation, but he also actually facilitated a $200,000 donation from a Beijing political operative to the Trudeau Foundation. We said that should not happen again. That individual was appointed to review the 2021 election, completely undermining the credibility of the findings of Rosenberg's report. Again, there we have it: the NDP members playing games, talking out of both sides of their mouths, flip-flopping and putting forward weak motions at PROC. They say they want a public inquiry, but they were prepared to turn it over to the Prime Minister. What we have is a completely unserious NDP when it comes to getting to the bottom of foreign interference, specifically Beijing's election interference. The NDP has actually spent more time criticizing Conservatives, trying to hold us accountable, than they have the Liberal government. We know, based upon all the reports and the limited documents that have been produced to our committee, that the government has a lot to answer for given that the Liberal Party was a beneficiary or that, at least, Beijing's objective was to assist the Liberal Party. Why would it take weeks for the NDP to get around to doing what should have happened weeks ago, which is for Telford to come to committee? After all, she is the Prime Minister's top political advisor. She is arguably the second most powerful person in the government, outside of the Prime Minister, and she was intimately involved in both the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 election campaigns. I am glad the cover-up coalition's junior partner finally—

1116 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:15:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

19 words

Secretary

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

Mar/22/23 6:15:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, professional, apolitical civil servants have very clearly indicated that there was no impact from any international interference, particularly citing China, on the outcome of either the 2019 or 2021 election. The Conservative Party knows that. We now have Mr. Johnston looking into the matter. He will be coming back with recommendations. He is an incredible Canadian with impeccable credentials. Will the Conservative Party support his conclusions?

68 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Mar/22/23 6:15:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, Conservatives have been very clear that Beijing's election interference did not impact the overall election result in 2019 or 2021, but Beijing's interference may have had an impact in some ridings. If it had an impact on any riding, that is alarming; it is a matter of national concern, and it needs to be addressed. However, the Prime Minister has been entirely unwilling to do this; instead, he is dodging, deflecting and covering up.

81 words