SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:25:46 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Jonquière on a point of order.

12 words

Jonqui

Mar/22/23 6:25:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time hearing my colleague. I would like to hear what he has to say. Could the members opposite quiet down a little?

29 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:25:54 p.m.
Watch

I had not noticed that it was worse than before. However, if people want to have conversations, they should do so in the lobby. As I said earlier, it is important that the hon. member who has the floor be able to deliver their speech and that others be able to ask their questions and make comments. The hon. member for Trois‑Rivières.

66 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:26:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is having trouble hearing, and I am having trouble thinking straight. I was saying that we have a rapporteur. We are told he is independent. There must be no conflict of interest or confusion of interests. There must be an absence of appearance as well. I was saying that the mere presence of Mr. Johnston creates doubt. Doubt breeds mistrust. Mistrust breeds defiance. We saw defiance on full display last winter. We do not like defiance. We do not want to get to that point. However, I have questions for the government about this. They will precede the ones that will be asked of me. Nevertheless, what does it mean to call someone independent? In Latin,“in” means “in relation to”, and the word “dependence” speaks of a choice. Someone who is independent is free to make their own choices. Is the rapporteur free to make his own choices? I do not know. I have not seen his mandate, but I am going to suggest four other things we should rely on. Can we say that the rapporteur is neutral? I would be surprised if he was, because he still has to be for justice, for the public interest. He is not neutral. Is he impartial? Impartiality is often confused with neutrality, but they are not the same thing. Impartiality means being able to decide fairly by taking a higher vantage point. An impartial person has a choice between A and B. He will make his choice, according to the principles that have been proposed to him. Is he impartial? That is my wish. However, the two concepts that pique my interest are objectivity and subjectivity. It will come as no surprise to learn that the word objectivity comes from the Latin objectum which means “something presented to the senses”. An objectum is an object that is presented to oneself. It is in front of us; we see it. That is objective in English. We often confuse it with subjectivity, the subjectum, which is the person holding the object that is not yet in front of us. Is the rapporteur looking at the object or holding the object? I hope a colleague will ask me that question. I would love to answer that one. There is objectivity and subjectivity. I, personally, am looking for objectivity, to be honest. I think we need objectivity; otherwise, doubts will continue to persist and we will head down the same path again. Now the thing to do, and I am sure everyone will agree, is to act responsibly, and I am referring to what the government should do, not the rapporteur. The word “responsible” is often mentioned, but rarely defined. I will continue with my definitions. The word “responsible” comes from two Latin words. The first, res, means “thing”, and the second, spondere, means “promise”. A responsible person is someone who can promise a thing. Is the government being responsible in this case? To answer that, there is a little test with three questions. Here are the three questions. Does the Prime Minister or the government have the choice of means? In my view, yes, they have the choice of means. There are many means available to the government. Next, is the government exercising that choice of means, or is it stuck with just one option? I think we have a problem here. The first question is whether there is a choice of means, the second is whether that choice is being exercised, and the third is whether there is a will to act. As far the will to act goes, I think that if the government were any more reluctant, it would be dead. It is extremely reluctant to act, and this reluctance is not healthy for democracy. It is not healthy because even if everything that is being said were true, doubts are keeping us from finding out or understanding the truth of the matter. We will certainly insist on having a public, independent and, I would add, objective inquiry. I am adding an extra layer of difficulty here, but if the government is so sure that it is right, and I will give it the opportunity to respond, it should agree to make an objective choice, which cannot be done with the presence of Mr. Johnston, regardless of his credentials. I am the first to acknowledge academic value, but the shadow cast by doubt leads us to believe that this will not work out.

765 words

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

Mar/22/23 6:31:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Mr. Johnston, in his career, whether it was as Governor General of Canada, in his role on national leadership debates, or many other things he has done in his lifetime of 80-plus years, has been impeccable with his credentials. What is being asked of him is something I, and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians, would see he is quite capable of doing in an apolitical fashion and acting on what is in the best interest of Canada. Based on the member's speech, is the Bloc's position going to be that, no matter what Mr. Johnston reports, it will see no validity to the report?

111 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:32:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course not. If he calls for an independent inquiry, then we will agree. However, I will say one thing. I will answer his question directly. Imagine if, hypothetically speaking, the government appointed someone who has had an impeccable career in the field of, say, ethics, someone who has received accolades around the world, who received an honorary degree and is known for his publications. Imagine if it said that this person was independent, but that he had campaigned for the Bloc Québécois. Setting aside my academic and professional record, would anyone have a problem with me being named rapporteur?

106 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Mar/22/23 6:33:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if there is one person in the House I would trust with that role, it would be the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, because he is a subject matter expert. He has literally written books on ethics. I have the privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, so I am keen to hear his thoughts. We heard about whether there would be credibility, but I would like to set that aside and ask him to create a distinction between credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public as it relates to public interest and just how deeply concerning this file is, particularly given some of the reports that continue to come out. There are reports that came out today which are deeply concerning. Can he perhaps expand on how he might feel about the value of a public inquiry that is completely independent, that is given the purview to have access to all the important information rather than taking information in drips and drops as it is coming out in the press today?

187 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:34:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits with me on the the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as he mentioned. I have to say that he always considers the public interest, which is remarkable. I will therefore consider his question carefully. The question was whether credibility or legitimacy is at stake here. In terms of credibility, Mr. Johnston's reputation is impeccable. However, the relationship between Mr. Johnston and the other interests is not. It is somewhat obscure or murky. In a matter as important as foreign interference, where information is being revealed in dribs and drabs every day, there is nothing better than to be lily white. One has to be beyond reproach, and that has nothing to do with credibility. It is something else. Therefore, I hope that we will have an independent and impeccable inquiry.

145 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Mar/22/23 6:35:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about objectivity and subjectivity. People sometimes say that objectivity is just mass subjectivity. I would like my colleague to expand on that.

28 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:35:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thought he was a friend. To some extent, subjectivity is how one views an object. At the same time, we know that there are 360 degrees, and I believe that views can vary somewhat. I am not convinced that subjectivity could be combined, nevertheless we must take inspiration from the fact that there are a number of viewpoints and we cannot neglect any of them. That is why we must be impeccable.

76 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Mar/22/23 6:35:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech. It was inspiring as usual. It leads me to draw a parallel. In 2022, I had the opportunity to visit a city in the former East Germany. While I was there, one of the first things I went to see was the famous Stasi Museum. The Stasi is the secret police that existed when the Soviet Union controlled East Germany. At one point, there were as many as 95,000 Stasi agents and 175,000 informers in East Germany. They were everywhere. The strength lay in the fact that nobody knew who they were, and that is how they managed to impose their reign of terror. No one knew who the Stasi agents or informers were. Basically, their strength lay in secrecy. The government does not want to launch a public inquiry, which I think would bring secrets to light. That is pretty much what we are seeing with the Chinese regime right now. I am trying to understand why the government would want to maintain that secrecy when what would weaken a regime like that the most is greater transparency.

192 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2015, I heard someone say that light was the best disinfectant. It seems clear to me. We could apply that concept today. When I was young, there was a dictionary we used at school that was called Je doute, je cherche, je trouve, which literally translates to “I doubt, I seek, I find”. Right now I doubt. The government does not want to seek, so we may not find. What I would like right now is an independent public inquiry.

85 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Mar/22/23 6:37:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, early on in this, there was some discussion about how this information was being leaked and the sensitive nature of it, as it is about national security. However, given the recent revelations, or at least what is being reported on and alleged, and I have to make it clear it is an allegation at this point, could the hon. member share, with his subject matter expertise on ethics, the importance for institutions such as the federal government to have built-in, whistle-blowing protections for civil servants? Even sometimes in the highest, most sensitive breaches, should they come across thresholds that may breach criminality, whistle-blower protections would be an essential foundation or component of protecting our democracy.

120 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:38:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an exceedingly difficult topic. Protecting whistle-blowers is something many people are concerned about, but they are not doing anything about it. We need to get to the heart of the matter. It is important to understand that, at CSIS, for example, a whistle-blower is a person who has reached the limit of what they can tolerate. CSIS members serve the government, and as someone who knows a few of them, I can say that they care very deeply about their country. When they reach that limit, the situation becomes intolerable. When they speak out, they are doing their duty. They are not criminals; they are heroes. We should come up with a system. It is hard to understand, but we really need to consider creating a proper system for protecting whistle-blowers. If not, what is going to happen? There will be more situations like this one. Today, more allegations have been made by Global News. I have only one word to describe them: devastating. To add insult to injury, at a certain point, I think an independent public inquiry becomes unavoidable. We need to think about what will happen in the wake of this, such as a system for protecting whistle-blowers.

219 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/22/23 6:39:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could the member provide his thoughts on other international players? It is not just China that is involved in doing this. Could he provide his thoughts on that matter?

31 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/22/23 6:40:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that foreign interference has become more common in recent years because of technological advancements, but the tried-and-true persuasion techniques have always worked. Earlier I mentioned Iran, China, obviously, Russia and other countries. The United Arab Emirates are now surveilling more countries than anyone else. They have the technology, and they are open about it. They are among the most prolific spies in the world in terms of the number of countries under surveillance. No one is worried about them. Whether they are spying on Canada, I have no idea. One thing is certain, though: Surveillance is becoming increasingly common, increasingly harmful, and increasingly intrusive. To be honest, I would look much further afield than just China.

122 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Mar/22/23 6:40:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River. I am glad to rise on this important issue. Time and time again I have stood in the House to talk about the importance of standing up to strengthen our democracy and our democratic institutions, and to talk about foreign interference being a persistent and real threat. The problem we are seeing throughout this debate, and I have been a regular at the PROC committee these days, is that the Conservatives have tried to make the issue of foreign interference a partisan issue when it is in fact a Canadian issue. Every single Canadian in this country, regardless of who they vote for, should be able to know that their democratic institutions are strong and that they protect against foreign interference. However, we have seen that the Conservatives stood by for years. They closed their eyes and covered their ears to any sort of issue around foreign interference until they felt it could be in their political interest. It was not a surprise to me, but it should be shocking to Canadians, that when the Minister of Democratic Institutions asked the Leader of the Opposition why, when he was the minister of democratic institutions, he did nothing to protect and safeguard our institutions and elections, he said it was not in Conservative partisan interests to do so at the time. That should tell Canadians everything they need to know about how reckless Conservatives are when it comes to national security and foreign interference. They keep speaking about how it is a cover-up or there is something Liberals are trying to hide. Talk about an incompetent opposition. They are claiming a cover-up when a 2019 NSICOP report that was tabled in this very House raised the issue of foreign interference. Talk about hiding in plain sight. I guess Conservatives prefer not to read the reports that are tabled in the House. We have not only been busy working on addressing foreign interference but we have also taken additional steps. The mandate letter of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities talks about strengthening our democratic institutions from foreign interference. However, the Conservatives once again pretend this is something we have never talked about, that we have never discussed and that we are not seized with, but there is documented evidence that we are the only government that has put forward the most concrete steps to strengthen our democratic institutions. That is not to say that more is not needed to be done. In fact, we supported the study at PROC to look at additional ways and measures, and things that we could be continuously doing. The fact remains that foreign interference is going to be pervasive, and it is going to constantly change, so any member in the House, or any Canadian, who thinks they have the answer and we will never need to look at this again, is wrong. This is something that Parliaments and governments around the world have to ensure they are constantly staying on top of so these pervasive threats do not take hold. I also find it interesting that the Conservatives proclaim they support our national security community, yet our national security community has said that Canadians, and Canadians alone, determine the outcome of our elections, but Conservatives continue to undermine that fact. The non-partisan national security community has stated it time and time again at committee, but Conservatives try to undermine that. They try to sow doubt in our non-partisan public service. We do not believe in that. We trust that these officials are seized with keeping Canadians safe. Our national security community wants to ensure that national security documents are handled with the care and protections that national security documents require. The Conservatives would have us believe that they should just release all of this information because a few members on PROC feel like looking at it, instead of going to the appropriate location, which is NSICOP, where every member of that committee has national security clearance, where there is extreme care given to the documents that are provided and handled, and where an enormous amount of information is provided. The committee is extremely independent, it tables reports and is extremely professional. Might I add, the secretariat is above all. I actually served on this committee, so I can speak with extreme passion and knowledge to the fact that the NSICOP secretariat is a professional resource that parliamentarians now have. In fact, NSICOP's reports have been regarded around the world for the work it has done, and the Conservatives want to ignore that fact and undermine the work that has been done. It is a multi-party committee, with representation from all parties and the Senate, so I find it interesting that the Conservatives do not want to use this committee that, in fact, we ensured was created in the House, where parliamentarians could access these top secret security documents in a way that is responsible. I think every Canadian would want their parliamentarians to treat national security with the seriousness and responsibleness that national security deserves. It keeps not only us as Canadians safe but those who have stepped up to serve and protect our country. However, the Conservatives, once again, continue to be reckless with our national security community, and I think Canadians have seen through that time and time again. It is also no surprise to me, but it is interesting that members of PROC and my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, mentioned the behaviour of one individual on that committee who was actually pulled off. I also find it interesting that the behaviour and conduct of several members of the Conservatives at that committee has been absolute chaos. It has been partisan and has resulted in nothing. There is so much turmoil, and I guess Conservatives just going in circles, that Conservatives are abandoning their PROC members and saying, “Ah, maybe we should take this to ethics” where maybe their members can get it through the finish line, I do not know. However, Conservatives themselves are infighting and cannot seem to even stay on track with what their objectives are, because their objectives are not to strengthen our democracy; their objectives are to simply throw partisan grenades, and it is not working. I think that if we want to have reasonable and serious debate about— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1089 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:49:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives had come to this debate with the seriousness that it deserves, not only would their leader and House leader have not abandoned their PROC committee members in trying to punt this to ethics, where they might have a different result, but Canadians would also have more faith. The fact is that this is nothing more than a Conservative partisan ploy, just like their leader confirmed on why he never did anything when he was the minister of democratic institutions—

85 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:50:19 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Mar/22/23 6:50:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has twice put this piece of information out there, which seems to be a back channel way of—

24 words

All Topics