SoVote

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

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:50:43 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

10 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:50:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this proves the point that Conservative members have the weakest chin I have ever seen. They sit here and throw insult after insult to members, and the second I stand up they have a point of order because they are unhappy with the comment their own leader made. I would ask the hon. member to check Hansard, and to also toughen up, because if they can dish it, they should be able to take it. I will conclude with the fact that our government takes this issue incredibly seriously. That is precisely why we have implemented a committees such as NSICOP and the critical election incident public protocol, or CEIPP. This continues to be in the minister's mandate letter. We want to study this and continue to have more recommendations. That is why we have appointed a special rapporteur. We look forward to, and we will accept, all of his recommendations.

154 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Mar/22/23 6:51:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how can the parliamentary secretary stand in this place after filibustering with her Liberal colleagues for 24 hours to prevent the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying before the committee? My question is very simple. What is the government hiding from Canadians?

46 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:52:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government is hiding absolutely nothing. In fact, what I think, certainly from my— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Madam Speaker, the members can laugh; it means nothing. In many speeches at PROC, I actually highlighted the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party, the fact that foreign interference has been happening for years and the Conservatives did nothing, and the fact that former Conservative political staffers have come out criticizing the Conservatives on this issue. I continue to point out that the Conservatives do not actually call out the members of their own caucus who sat down with an alt-right member of a foreign government, and did not call out the attempts of foreign interference amongst their own ranks. At PROC, I called out Conservative hypocrisy and I continue to do so now.

140 words

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech by my colleague opposite. First, in listening to her speech, one would have thought that this debate was initiated by the Conservatives. That is quite something. I am not a Conservative supporter, but we must set the record straight— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

It is not time to make comments. Order. The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

21 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Mar/22/23 6:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was saying that I wanted to set the record straight. The NDP asked for this debate. It seems that the Liberals are afraid to mention it because the NDP is a member of their coalition. Now for my question, which is about partisanship. In her speech, my colleague used a certain word about every three sentences, perhaps even in every sentence, and that word is “partisan”. She was once again accusing the Conservatives of partisan politics. I do not understand why she is only targeting the Conservatives, because the Bloc is also asking for a public inquiry into Chinese interference. The NDP is now asking for the same thing. Many people in civil society are asking for the same thing. It is as though anyone who asks for something the Liberals do not want is being partisan. I am trying to understand this. Is it not the other way around? Is it not the Liberals who are being partisan and have things to hide or partisan interests to protect?

176 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:55:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I feel bad that the Bloc members feel left out. I can offer this: I find it interesting that the Bloc members are standing up about foreign interference now, yet they actually declined to come to foreign interference briefings that our government put forward to ensure that all parties had information on foreign interference and could help protect their campaigns and know how to spot it. Fear not, Bloc members, I do not leave you out of being reckless. When you have opportunities to get briefings from the national security community about how to predict and prevent foreign interference, I suggest you take them. It is serious.

109 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 6:55:54 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

16 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/22/23 6:56:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for splitting her time with me. I really do appreciate having a voice in this important debate this evening. My question to the member is about something she mentioned in her speech, which is that she feels NSICOP is the right place for these conversations. However, we know we are in now in the situation that Canadians are concerned, and we have just had another leak come out through the media that is extremely concerning for Canadians. They are the focus for all of us in the House. We need to honour national security, but there are ways to do it that are public, transparent and independent. I am wondering if the member could speak to why her government does not want to support that.

133 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/22/23 6:56:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague a lot, as well as the work she does on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think we actually want to achieve some of the same things. I think where we are having difficulties is the fact that we are not finding the committee to be the place where we can have these honest conversations. I have said, multiple times, that I would love to see PROC bring in witnesses from, for example, international sources, countries that have been facing this, and looking at the policies they have implemented and what we can learn from them. If we can get down to business and work on how to strengthen our democratic institutions, I am all for it and I am happy to work with any member in the House to do so.

142 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/22/23 6:57:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be here speaking on behalf of the good people of North Island—Powell River, who have expressed to me some of their serious concerns around foreign interference and what that means for Canadian elections. I am also really disappointed, in a way, that we are here, because I know that on Monday, my dear friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, gave a very important speech in the House and spoke very clearly about his desire to bring forward this motion on Tuesday. I also know that, after that very public statement, which was also talked about in the media, the Conservatives, the next day, decided to do something different to block that opportunity for us to talk about why a public inquiry around foreign interference in our democratic institutions is so important . I wish we had had this discussion yesterday. I think it would have been incredibly important and I think it is a good reminder that we are in a position right now where I see partisanship coming much too much into this conversation. I think Canadians are calling on us very loudly and very clearly, to the best of us honouring national security, saying they want to understand what is happening in this country and what it means for our democratic institutions when foreign interference is becoming a growing concern. We heard today, just about an hour ago, of a strong allegation against a currently sitting MP in relation to the two Michaels, whom we all fought so hard in the House to get home. As this keeps coming and we keep seeing more and more indications of foreign interference, Canadians are rightfully wondering what is happening. They want to make sure the process is accountable to them as the voters in this country and accountable to people running for office in whatever roles they are running for, and that when they are put in these situations, they understand, at least basically, what the process would be moving forward. I am the member who sits on the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs. I really appreciate the important work PROC does. I have been put in a very difficult situation in PROC over the last few months. Often, my Conservative friends come in and propose things around national security that really scare me. This issue is so serious. It is about how the people in this room are chosen and the processes behind that. I have had to vote against the Conservatives numerous times because they are bringing forward motions that really do not honour our sacred trust in making sure that our processes are clean and that we do not expose, outwardly, anything that would be sacred for national security. I hope everyone in the House understands that, even though we have our partisan realities and we want to contrast with other parties and show how we would do a better job, we must never forget that what we owe in this place, beyond our parties, is an oath to Canadians. It is an oath that, at the end of the day, we will do what we feel is in the best interest of all Canadians. I think that, as we go through this, we have to honour the fact that the Conservatives keep focusing on one country. They keep focusing on China, when we know that multiple countries have been involved in trying to have foreign interference in Canada and other countries. My granny used to always say to me that, if it is coming out of my mouth, I had better make sure I am paying for the words, because if I am not paying for what is said, then somebody else is paying and I owe them. We have to remember that when we talk about these issues, there are Chinese Canadians in this country who have been begging for this country to take this seriously for a very long time, years and years under both Conservative and Liberal governments, saying they feel the pressure and they know it is out there and they want us to take action on it. I hope that, as we remember this, we also honour Chinese Canadians in this country and the hard work they have done to try to bring this forward. That is important because we have lived through hard times and we do not need to see any discrimination happening in that way. Recently, in fact just yesterday, the NDP was able to use its leverage to make sure we had transparency, and Katie Telford is going to be coming to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think that is an important step, one that our leader worked very hard on. He was the first person, the first leader, the member for Burnaby South, to call for a public inquiry. That is why we are here today. We are here today because, in PROC, a motion was brought forward by the NDP saying that a public inquiry is the best way to go forward. Why is it the best way to go forward? It is because it is independent, because it is transparent to Canadians and it is public. There is a time and a place, I fulsomely believe, to make sure we honour national security, we have those important conversations that are behind closed doors, and we are held to account by what happens outside those doors. With all of the leaks we are seeing, there is concern, and that is why we need a public inquiry. I respect that a special rapporteur has been put in a position and given a mandate. However, I will not accept it until we get to a place where there is actual accountability to Canadians that honours national security but will also make sure our processes are clear, so we do not have people coming forward in the media, either elected officials or people who have run, who feel very insecure about what they have experienced and the information is not clear to them. We need to know. We need to know when these things are coming forward and that they are real. The Conservative members moved a motion. I, in my role, amended it. It was accepted as a friendly amendment. Absolutely, the next concerning thing is that we went through hours of filibustering by the Liberals. Now that has ended and hopefully we get to the next step, which is action. It was unfortunate to see that, when our motion came forward, everybody in there except the Liberals voted for it. Looking at the behaviour we saw at committee, I think all Canadians would agree the best place to move forward is a public inquiry. When partisanship gets into this, it becomes more and more ugly. Not too long ago, the person who came forward secretly to the media on some of these very serious issues said in an article that they came forward because they truly believed they needed to. They felt that not a single leader in the House was a traitor to this country and that they wanted to see all actions be public but non-partisan. What is unfortunately happening in the House is that we are seeing way too much partisanship. We are seeing it at committees. I would say that does not honour the responsibility we all have to Canadians. When we do not have trust in our institutions, it begins something really terrible. We have seen this historically in other countries. I was reading a book the other day by Gabor and Daniel Maté. One of the things I found very profound was a line in it that said, and I am paraphrasing, that when people cannot trust, when they do not believe in the systems around them, they will believe absolutely anything. We must be clear. As we become more afraid, people will begin to believe things that are not true. We saw what happened during the convoy. We saw what happened during the pandemic when people became so fearful that they lost their sense of connection to their communities and to their families. When people lose their connections to their communities and their families and their country, we see a lot of things start to fall apart. I am asking everyone in this place: Please remember our commitment to Canada. Please remember our commitment to creating strong institutions. Please make sure we do not encourage Canadians to lose faith in those democratic institutions but to question them and see how we can make them stronger. When we start to question these institutions without an intention to create stronger institutions we can trust in, when we are just using partisan games that are trying to get us points, then we forget our commitment to Canada. I hope everyone in this place knows we have a lot of work to do in this country, but building a better and stronger country should be the commitment we all share. I hope everybody will support this motion, because a public inquiry will help Canadians have faith in this country.

1534 words

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)

Mar/22/23 7:07:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought up the convoy. During the convoy, we saw that it was trying to sow division among Canadians. We saw the threat to the security and safety of Canadians here. However, a lot of the convoy was also being promoted through Russian television. We saw the Conservatives out there with convoy members who came with a manifesto to overthrow the government. They were backslapping them. There were Conservatives with MAGA hats on. Many of the Conservatives were supporting the convoy participants out there who were doing illegal things. What can the member say about that? She brought up the convoy. Can she talk about the interference that came from Russia with their television stations, their radio and how they were trying to promote the convoy that the Conservatives were supporting?

135 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/22/23 7:08:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that is a serious question. I want to add that there was actually a public inquiry and it really helped us translate what had happened. We saw a significant amount of money come from multiple countries, including the United States. We need to make sure this is a broad spectrum. We cannot focus on one country; we must focus on all countries. Threats have come to our attention, and CSIS has been clear about which countries they are from. We need to take this very seriously because these are our democratic institutions. People want to have faith that when they vote, the people around this table are the people they voted for. The convoy was very destructive, and it created an environment of fear. That is not what we need in this country. It was disheartening to see such strong support from the Conservatives and to hear such a strong and clear message about white supremacy coming from the convoy. They were not honouring the fact that in this place, we should support all Canadians.

179 words

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

Mar/22/23 7:09:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, respectfully, why the NDP joined the Liberals in blocking Katie Telford from appearing before committee not once, not twice, but on three occasions? They did finally come around and support my motion, and that is a good thing. Earlier, my hon. colleague said that Telford was a mere staff member and that she should therefore not be called. The second most powerful person in the government is the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Why did the NDP block Telford?

88 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/22/23 7:10:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I invite all Canadians to listen to me. I have been on the record at PROC many times. I sit with the member on PROC, and we certainly do not always agree, but I respect some of the work he has done. At the end of the day, it is very simple. I do not believe in bringing staff for decisions that ministers and prime ministers make. I think ministers and prime ministers have to be accountable for their actions. I am surprised the member is asking me this question since I have already answered it, but as I said at PROC, it got to a point where the leaks kept coming. At some point, we have to say that if this continues, it will build distrust in our systems, and we need to make sure we have transparency. In addition, as the member knows, it was the first motion that did not have anything about documents in it, and I felt very seriously that it could not be put before the committee without wrecking national security. I will not stand for that.

185 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Mar/22/23 7:11:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I must say that am surprised to hear my colleague claim that we are being too partisan. What are we dealing with tonight if not partisanship? What is happening tonight is that the NDP realized that it was sticking too close to the government, so it is hoping to use this China situation to restore its public image. It decided to cut the Conservative Party's opposition day short, not by going back to the purpose of the motion, which is to get results, but by trying to distance itself from the Liberal Party. It is pretty funny, especially when I hear my colleague telling us that there is too much partisanship. I need her to explain partisanship to me. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

127 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/22/23 7:11:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the member would stop yelling, I would certainly be happy to answer the question. At the end of the day, our commitment, which I noted repeatedly in my speech, is to Canadians. We feel strongly that this needs to be voted on. Canadians want to see where we are on the public inquiry. Our leader asked for it first. We have heard other leaders asked for it. It took them a while, but this is how we can be transparent to Canadians and that is our goal.

90 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Mar/22/23 7:12:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Let us be very clear: The confidence of Canadians is shaken, and the only way that we as parliamentarians can help to restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic system is through an open and public independent inquiry. We in the Conservative Party have called for this very clearly, and we are once again calling for it today. However, let us look back at what has happened in the past few weeks and in the past few months. Unfortunately, we in the Conservative Party have had to drag not only the government but also the NDP kicking and screaming to hold those in government accountable. At the procedure and House affairs committee, three times our efforts to hear testimony from the Prime Minister's chief of staff were blocked by the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners. Why? It is because they are hiding something. If they are not, they should open up and allow the chief of staff to testify. We need to know what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and why he sat on it. Why is that so difficult for the government to understand? Why is it so difficult for its members to see that Canadians' confidence has been shaken? Certainly, I have lost confidence in the government, and I think a lot of Canadians, each and every day, have more and more difficulty trusting the government. Why have they lost trust in the government? It is because it will not stand up and be clear with Canadians, and it is being aided and abetted by the fourth party, the New Democrats. The New Democrats are failing in their duty as opposition parliamentarians. The opposition has a sacred duty to the people of Canada to hold— Mr. Charlie Angus: You can thank us for the debate tonight.

331 words