SoVote

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

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 7:15:08 p.m.
Watch

Order. I just want to remind members that it is not yet time for questions and comments. I hope they are going to wait and take their turn then. There are seven and a half minutes for the hon member to do his speech before we have questions and comments. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

57 words

Noise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speaking

Mr. John Nater

Mar/22/23 7:15:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my friends from the far corner of this chamber. There is a reason they are so far in the corner, and frankly, in the next election they will not even be in this chamber, because Canadians are losing faith in them to fulfill their role as opposition parliamentarians. It is our role as Canadians— Mr. Matthew Green: Wishful thinking.

64 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 7:15:43 p.m.
Watch

Order. One more time, I want to remind members on all sides to make sure they hold on to their questions, comments and thoughts. They might want to jot them down instead of yelling them out. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

43 words

Mr. John Nater

Mar/22/23 7:16:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, I seem to have hit a nerve with certain NDP members in this House, but the truth hurts sometimes. That is what we have seen for weeks on end at the procedure and House affairs committee. In fact, over a period of three weeks, we listened to filibuster speech after filibuster speech by Liberal parliamentarians. One Liberal MP even went so far as to say the OC Transpo light rail inquiry was a good example of why we should not have an inquiry, as though OC Transpo's light rail should ever be an example cited in this House on anything, let alone the need for a public inquiry on foreign interference into Canadian elections. I want to highlight something. A year ago, bureaucrats recommended to the government the need for a foreign agent registry. A food bank, for example, has to register in order to lobby the Liberal government. However, when bureaucrats recommended this for foreign governments trying to influence Canadian public officials, the Liberals sat on it. They sat on it for months on end. The Conservatives took real action. We took real action back in April 2021, before the last election. Our former colleague from Steveston—Richmond East, Mr. Kenny Chiu, introduced what was then called Bill C-282, which would have required the creation of a foreign influence agent registry in Canada. Now we are finally seeing the Liberals come around to that, but they are not actually taking action. They are not taking the action needed to restore the confidence of Canadians. That is why we need an open and public independent inquiry. We heard testimony from experts, some of the folks who have been in service to our country. I want to note one example, the former Canadian ambassador. He said: Australia has its registry of foreign agents, which requires transparency of Australians who act for foreign governments. The United States has the Foreign Agents Registration Act. It has also taken steps to prosecute people who have been found to be interfering in the business of Congress, and indeed congressional elections. The U.K. has identified a person who was very active in British politics and funded several politicians as a foreign agent working for China. Those things send messages. Recently we also saw Britain leaning on the Chinese consulate in Manchester, England, after protesters were dragged into the consulate and beaten. The result was that five diplomats left the consulate. They're taking action, but we aren't. The former ambassador made a great point. He cited other examples of governments taking action. However, where is the Liberal government? How many diplomats has it expelled? It is none, zero, not a single one, despite having authority to do so under the Vienna convention. It has failed to act and has done nothing to make those who may be interfering in Canadian elections persona non grata under the rules provided to us. I also want to quote Charles Burton, a senior fellow. He said: Certainly, the disinformation that was launched in the recent election, in particular in Steveston—Richmond East at former MP Kenny Chiu, was largely in the Chinese language and largely inaccessible to people who are monitoring elections. In other words, we don't have the capability within the Canadian system to deal with activities in the diaspora community that could affect election results improperly. Let us be clear. We need to stand up and protect each and every Canadian's democratic rights, and that includes Canadians in diaspora communities from around the globe. The disinformation and intimidation being used in online apps and discussion groups, through which foreign forces are trying to dissuade, persuade and improperly interfere in our elections, need to be stopped and need to be addressed. However, what we see time and time again from the Liberals are efforts to deny, deflect and then finally delay. That is what we are seeing right now. We are seeing delays. Not until the end of May will we actually have an opportunity to hear whether or not maybe, perhaps, kind of, if they feel like it, we will have a public inquiry. We are calling for a public inquiry. We are calling for it now, to stop the delays and actually take action to end foreign interference by the Communist party in Beijing. What we are hearing from different members, including government members, is to let NSICOP look at it, let NSICOP do it. I will remind members that NSICOP is not a committee of Parliament and does not come with the rights and privileges that Parliament enjoys. In fact, I would draw the House's attention to the 2019 report from NSICOP, in particular paragraph 298. The Prime Minister was given this report in August 2019, before the 2019 election, and yet did not implement the recommendation in paragraph 298, which included informing and training members of Parliament on foreign interference. Of course, because the Prime Minister got the report first, before every other Canadian, he sat on that report. It was not made public until 2020, after the 2019 election. Forgive me if I do not have faith in the Liberals using a secret committee, where they hear secret testimony and have a report that goes first and foremost to the Prime Minister, and if I do not believe that this would be an alternative. The only alternative is a full, public, independent inquiry where Canadians could have their faith restored that we are not being impacted by foreign interference into Canadian elections.

929 words

All Topics

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

Mar/22/23 7:22:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find the speech by the member opposite interesting. First he asked what the Liberals were hiding and why they would not let the Prime Minister's chief of staff come to the committee. Can the member opposite not take yes for an answer? The chief of staff is coming to committee. In addition to that, he spoke about the former member Kenny Chiu. Officials who appeared at committee said that it was Canadians who determined the outcome of the election and that officials could not determine that the source of chatter in that election against Mr. Chiu could be identified back to a foreign agent. Is the member opposite suggesting that he knows more than the national security community? Will he stand in his place today and say that he has information and disagrees with the non-partisan public service?

143 words

Mr. John Nater

Mar/22/23 7:23:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the experts in the public sector and in the private sector are warning against the impact of foreign interference in Canadian elections. The member can try to deny it. The member can try to downplay it. However, Canadians are worried. Canadians are concerned. Leading experts who have dealt in diaspora communities, who have seen the undue influence, who have seen the foreign police stations being used as intimidation in major cities in our country, see what is happening and understand what is happening. For the Liberals to try to downplay this as a serious issue is really pathetic, and it really diminishes the trust of Canadians in what is happening in our country today.

116 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mar/22/23 7:24:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask a question about my Conservative colleague's speech, but there was a question a moment ago from a Liberal member about my Conservative colleague's speech. I must admit that, as a good Quebecker, I was “flabbergasté”. I know Kenny Chiu. I worked with him. He is a respectable, upstanding man who deserves respect. In the last question from the Liberals about my friend Kenny Chiu's experience, it looked to me like they thought what happened to him was funny. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the seriousness with which the Liberals are talking about Chinese interference in our democracy.

115 words

Mr. John Nater

Mar/22/23 7:25:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is indeed very sad and depressing to hear the Liberals with their accusations, saying that this is not a big challenge, that this is not something that Canadians should be concerned about. Canadians know very well that it is a problem if the Communist Party in Beijing has had any influence. Even if only one Canadian was affected, that is one too many. One impact on a single Canadian by a foreign government is one impact too many, so we need to stand up and say very clearly that the Communist Party in Beijing has no role and no right to impact Canadians in our democratic elections.

110 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/22/23 7:26:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us play the facts game. The facts are that New Democrats were the first to call for a national public inquiry. That is a fact. As a matter of fact, we are debating that right now. The members of this House have an opportunity to join New Democrats and ensure that there will be a national public inquiry into foreign interference. One more fact is that Conservatives are playing defence for terrible oligarch regimes like Russia, which they do not want included in a public inquiry. Why did the Leader of the Opposition fail to even show up for his own opposition day motion, which called for some of the things they are talking about now? I want to know why the Conservatives are blocking our attempt to ensure that there will be a transparent public inquiry into this work. We need to see this inquiry expanded to all—

153 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/23 7:27:34 p.m.
Watch

We have to allow the hon. member to answer. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington, a brief answer, please.

20 words

Mr. John Nater

Mar/22/23 7:27:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about the facts. Three times the members of the NDP voted against hearing from Katie Telford. Three times they blocked the Prime Minister's chief of staff from coming to committee to say what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it, and why he covered it up.

53 words