SoVote

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

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

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Mar/22/23 7:28:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, as well as for setting the stage for the debate we are having tonight. Tonight, we were supposed to be once again discussing this government's efforts to raise taxes on Canadians. It is making the cost of living continue to rise and taking more money from the pockets of people who have none to spare. We wanted to use our opposition day to discuss issues that I, personally, think are of great concern to Canadians. Opposition days are simple enough to understand. Over a given number of weeks during a parliamentary session, the opposition parties get certain days when they can choose the topic of the day and thus force a government vote on topics of the opposition's choice. Since we are coming to the end of this parliamentary period, we were entitled to two opposition days this week. We used our first day to demand that Katie Telford and several other individuals appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to testify about foreign interference. The vote was scheduled for Tuesday. The opposition parties do not always work together, but it was expected that all opposition parties would agree that the Prime Minister's chief of staff should appear. A lot has happened since then. I have to say that I am disappointed with the NDP's attitude. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Luc Berthold: Madam Speaker, I hear them shouting. They have been doing it all evening. They shout, they complain. Then they claim that they were the first ones to call for a public inquiry. Then they are outraged because it is not working. They say to themselves that that they might step on the government's toes, so maybe they should change their position. Without the other opposition parties, the NDP would not have a national public inquiry, because the motion would not have passed in committee. On their own, the NDP cannot get anything done. They found a dance partner. When it suits them, they work with the government. They form a coalition. Now they have realized that they are getting a little too cozy with the Liberals on this issue. It took some time for them to realize it. It dawned on them little by little. It started with the articles that were published by Global News. This started last November. We started to see articles on foreign interference. First there was one, then another, and another. Gradually we came to realize that, unfortunately, there really was a problem with foreign interference in our elections by the regime in Beijing. The opposition parties started to ask the Prime Minister questions. The Prime Minister did what he always does. Whenever there is a scandal, he starts by denying it. Then he tries to deflect the question. Then he finds someone else to blame. In this case, it was the media, the big bad media, for daring to break stories about the elections and Beijing's interference in our elections. More stories broke, and then an opportunity presented itself at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have often called on the Prime Minister to answer those questions. The Prime Minister has never answered a single one of our questions. The Prime Minister was given the opportunity to act responsibly, and to take responsibility for his decisions and for the things he did or did not do. He was asked whether he was aware of it and whether he had been informed there was foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. He was asked what action he took. I can no longer remember the number of questions he was asked in the House. Unfortunately, as I said, the Prime Minister never gave any answers. He changed the subject. He went off on multiple tangents. He accused the Conservatives of partisanship and of all the world's ills rather than accept responsibility. That is the crux of the debate: accepting responsibility. None of the Liberal ministers who have been found guilty of ethics violations or poor management of their department have taken responsibility. The passport crisis and the crisis at the Canada Revenue Agency come to mind. We decided to turn to other sources of information so that Canadians could find out the truth. We decided to call the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to appear. We wanted to ask her to come forward and tell us what she knew, when she found out and what the government did. We also wanted to ask her if she told the Prime Minister what she knew, when she told him and when the Prime Minister took action, which he never did. The big surprise was that NDP members refused in committee to support a motion to hear Ms. Telford's testimony. They refused to do so not once, not twice but three times. In fact, this is no surprise because the NDP is in a coalition with the Liberal Party. The NDP members rejected the motion three times. Meanwhile, the articles kept coming out day after day. At one point, the pressure built up so much that—surprise, surprise—the NDP finally announced that they were going to support the motion before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that Ms. Telford could be called to appear. Mr. Peter Julian: That is utterly ridiculous.

915 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/23 7:34:37 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member that this is not a conversation. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has the floor and we will allow him to finish his speech.

35 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/22/23 7:34:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the NDP who is talking during my speech and his colleague who is a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs are quite aware of all the efforts I have made for us to work together on this file. They cannot deny it. I called them, I communicated with them in an effort to have the opposition parties hold the government accountable for its actions. My colleague is well aware that we worked together to make this public inquiry happen. He is well aware that we changed the motion calling for a public inquiry in order for the appointed commissioner to be chosen by Parliament and by the leaders of all the parties. The Conservatives made that change. Otherwise we would not have independence because the NDP were leaving it up to the Liberals to choose who could preside over the inquiry. They claim to be the first ones to come up with the idea, which is quite something. They had an idea, but that idea would have led to a non-independent inquiry. As a show of good faith, we agreed to amend our motion. Our motion called for an investigation of the Beijing regime, which the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said is the greatest threat to our elections today. The NDP wanted this to be extended to other countries and other foreign powers that might have an interest in influencing our elections. We agreed. Then the NDP comes along and says that they were the first, as though they are the only ones who want to get to the bottom of foreign interference in elections, and that the nasty Conservatives are being partisan. It is amazing to see what has transpired today, and to think that we can work together and get something done. I think the Conservatives have been the least partisan on this issue. In fact, I am certain we have been non-partisan, considering all the concessions we made. The Liberals filibustered for 24 hours because we had the best interests of Canadians at heart and we wanted to get to the bottom of the Beijing regime's interference in our elections. That is what happened. Today, the members of the NDP are taking up half of our opposition day because they want to score political points. That is the only reason. The NDP has changed its mind on foreign interference many times. Were it not for the pressure from the Conservatives and the public, were it not for the media revelations, the NDP would still be backing the Liberal-NDP coalition in trying to protect the Prime MInister and his seats for as long as possible. That is the reality. I am extremely disappointed with the NDP and that we no longer have the collaboration that we had with them before.

476 words

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

Mar/22/23 7:38:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a two-part question. He was in the House when the member for Perth—Wellington was speaking and said foreign interference to even one Canadian is unacceptable. Does the member opposite agree with that? His caucus members met with an alt-right MP, Christine Anderson, from a foreign government. She came to this country spouting anti-Islamic rhetoric, denying the Holocaust and glorifying Nazis. If the member actually does not support even one Canadian being influenced by foreign interference, will he and his party ask that those three members be removed from their caucus?

105 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/22/23 7:39:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first they deny, then they divide and then they accuse and try to avoid answering questions. That is standard practice among the Liberals when they are caught with both hands in the cookie jar. That is what they did in the WE Charity scandal. They said that it was not them, then they said that it might have been them and then finally they found a scapegoat. That is how it works. When there is a Liberal scandal, there is a little red book with instructions on what to do. It is always the same thing. Every time there is a scandal, they do the same thing. They deny, they deflect and they find a scapegoat.

118 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/22/23 7:39:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague in the House is well aware that I appreciate him very much, but his speech really takes the cake. The facts he concocted about the NDP's involvement in moving this motion today and also in getting Katie Telford to testify at committee—all of that was thanks to the work of the NDP. I am glad we had support from the other parties, but really, as he well knows, it was the NDP that got the job done. I have three questions for my colleague. First, why did the Conservatives try to eliminate the Russians from the scope of this public inquiry? Second, and this is an important question, why did they remove Katie Telford from our original motion? Today's motion makes no reference to Katie Telford because the Conservatives amended it. Third, why did his leader, the member for Carleton, refuse to vote on the Conservative motion yesterday?

156 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/22/23 7:40:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, the NDP can scream and yell and stand up and say that it was the first, but the fact is that it cannot get anything done on its own. It took the Bloc Québécois and discussions with that party and the Conservatives to get this done. Had it not been for the Conservatives, there would be no motion right now. We would still be studying something in committee because the NDP would not have obtained the necessary support. I am not sure the Liberals would have supported the NDP if it had called for an independent national public inquiry with a commissioner appointed by all of the parties. Would the NDP have had the Liberal's support for that? No. It would not. It took the three parties. Unfortunately, the NDP does not recognize that the opposition parties can sometimes work together, but that, in the end, the result is that the three opposition parties must—

165 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/23 7:41:36 p.m.
Watch

We have time for one last question. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

21 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Mar/22/23 7:41:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my colleague will agree with me, but as I sit in the House tonight, listening to the various debates and the various speeches, I feel like I am watching a pointless contest. It just makes no sense. One party says, “We asked for it first”, and the other party says, “No, we asked for it first”. Each accuses the other of being the most partisan. This is ridiculous. I am trying to convince young people in my riding to take an interest in politics and look at what goes on in the House of Commons, because there are some debates worth watching. Tonight, I would tell them to turn off their television. This debate is outrageous. It is like listening to children argue over whose dad is stronger. We have been talking about this for weeks. The NDP has obviously just woken up in time for the Conservatives' opposition day. What we are hearing now is that we all agree that the government should be held accountable. Since we all agree, why can we not work together to hear what the government has to say for itself to the opposition and to Canadians?

205 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/22/23 7:42:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. There is too much partisanship in the debate, too much back and forth and too much bickering between everyone, when the opposition parties should join forces and form a united front to show the government that the public inquiry and our objective are important. We represent Canadians. I agree with my colleague, but unfortunately, their government is refusing to call a public inquiry.

72 words

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

Mar/22/23 7:43:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, it is really important tonight of all nights that we discuss this issue. In a world of disinformation and political interference from foreign actors, democracy is in a fragile condition these days. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to reassure the public and give them reason to believe that the public service has integrity. This is the reason that New Democrats came forward tonight to bring this motion, and we can see how excited the Conservatives are that, once again, they are able to respond to the NDP's lead on this. This is why, on a number of issues, we have used our position in Parliament not to burn the House to the ground but to try and find solutions. When the Liberals overreached on Bill C-21, the gun bill, the Conservatives just loved it. They were going to raise money off of it. We were like, “No, we are going to find a solution so that farmers and hunters are not targeted.” We pushed relentlessly and negotiated. That is what we do in Parliament. It is the same for the issue of getting Ms. Katie Telford to come before committee. The Conservatives were just using their tactics of character assassination and smear, but we said no to the Liberals. We said that we have to find a way to start getting answers. The NDP was the first party, with our leader, to call for a public inquiry. Tonight, we are the ones leading this discussion. We need this because we are in a situation where we have just gotten allegations, which I think are explosive, that a sitting member of Parliament may have advised a senior Chinese official over the illegal detention, the hostage-taking, of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, whom we know as “the two Michaels”. The hostage-taking of those two men was a real line that was crossed in this new century in terms of the breakdown of international order and international law. It was incumbent upon all of us, regardless of party, to put the interests of those men and their families first. I know the member who has been accused. I have sat with him on committee. I am not here to say whether those allegations are true. However, I am saying they are so explosive that the Prime Minister must respond. One of the ways he can respond now is by following the New Democrat call for a public inquiry to restore confidence. I am not confident that addressing this in just a parliamentary committee is enough. We are also dealing with serious state secret issues. A lot of this comes through what CSIS is going to tell us. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Conservative leader with this kind of information anymore because I see the tactics that he has brought forward. I blame the Prime Minister for delaying, obfuscating, not addressing the seriousness of this issue and undermining public confidence. However, I think it is equally dangerous to use the tactic of character assassination and smear, as well as trashing anyone who stands in the way of the Conservative agenda on this. Knowing what they are doing, I would certainly never be comfortable knowing that state secrets could be brought to a committee. They can say what they want about David Johnston or the decision of the Prime Minister, in terms of whether it was right or wrong to appoint a special rapporteur, but shame on Conservatives who trashed the reputation of a former governor general. This is a man who was appointed by Stephen Harper and who serves his country with dignity. He deserves better than this kind of smear. I do not think I will ever be invited to a Trudeau Foundation dinner; I would be very surprised if I were. However, when we have institutions that actually serve the public, it is not acceptable to decide to try and smear them as though they are some kind of Chinese, communist-run foundation of friends and pals. That is ignorant. I disagree with the Prime Minister on most things, but I would never stoop so low as to say that he is some kind of paid stooge for a foreign government. However, that is the language that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party, and that is dangerous because it undermines confidence. The first time I was called a “traitor”, I thought it was a joke because I serve my country with dignity. However, I realized language like calling people “traitors” and “enemies” is now part of the Conservatives' discourse. This is why we have death threats in this country. There are disinformation reports from the World Economic Forum. We have to rise above this. There was a time when the Parliament of Canada would have been shocked and appalled that any member would have partied with an extreme right neo-Nazi German extremist, like Christine Anderson. However, she is a folk hero to many on that side. There was a time when any Conservative leader who knew that their members were cavorting with extreme-right German extremist groups would have drawn a line, but that does not happen anymore. We are in a situation where we are moving further away from where we need to be as an institution that reassures faith in the public that they can trust not only that our elections are completely protected and the rights of citizens are protected, but also that public institutions serve the public interest and that the people we elect to serve are doing it with a belief that public service is a public good. We have to get back there. When we look at the situation before us, with the allegations of foreign interference, we know that there were serious questions during the convoy about Russian disinformation, proxy sites and the use of RT. It favoured certain political interests in this country, because it was undermining the present government, but there were serious questions about Russian disinformation in the convoy scandal. We need to make sure that we have the tools to examine if this is interfering with how our democracy operates. The situation of allegations of potential interference by Chinese state actors is also concerning for another profound reason. We see a rise of anti-Asian hate and anti-Asian violence in this country. We need to say very clearly, as parliamentarians, that we are not exploiting this situation for our own personal and political gain. We are deeply concerned, just as people in the Chinese community are concerned and just as people in the Iranian community or any other community would be concerned, about any potential foreign actors. This is why the Prime Minister needs to reassure the public that he understands this. I respect David Johnston. I do not know if we needed him as a special rapporteur. The allegations that have come out tonight are very serious, and I think the Prime Minister must respond to those allegations. I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to say that we have to take this out of the realm of the partisan monkey house, which this place has sometimes descended to in the last few days, and to put it in the hands of an independent inquiry that has the power to compel testimony, the power to gather documents and—

1245 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/23 7:51:20 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

78 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/22/23 7:52:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/23 7:52:13 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Thursday, March 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

27 words

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

Mar/22/23 7:52:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1190, 1192, 1196 and 1200.

15 words

Mar/22/23 7:53:27 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1190—

Questioner: Kyle Seeback

With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the list of companies from Xinjiang which have been prohibited from importing goods into the United States under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act: (a) does CBSA currently allow imports from companies on the list into Canada; and (b) what is the volume and value of goods which entered Canada from companies on the list since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, company, and type of goods imported?

Question No. 1192—

Questioner: Melissa Lantsman

With regard to Transport Canada and the shortage of commercial pilots: (a) what was the average processing time for each of the four categories of aviation medical certifications as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (b) what was the number of pending medical certification applications, broken down by category, as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (c) since January 1, 2020, how many medical certification applications in each of the four categories had a processing time of more than (i) 40 days, (ii) six months, (iii) one year; (d) what was the average processing time for Restricted Area Identity Cards (RAICs) as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (e) what was the number of pending RAIC applications as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (f) what is the normal processing time or standard for RAIC applications; and (g) of the pending RAIC applications on each of the dates in (e), how many applications took longer to process than the normal processing time or standard?

Question No. 1196—

Questioner: Ted Falk

With regard to the government’s decision to spend $90 million on 200 Senator Armoured Personnel Carriers to be donated to Ukraine: (a) was this contract sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; (b) if the contract was sole-sourced, what was the rationale for not using a competitive bidding process; and (c) was theatre (combat) experience taken into account when awarding this contract, and, if so, how and why were these vehicles chosen over other Canadian-made vehicles that already have such experience?

Question No. 1200—

Questioner: Gary Vidal

With regard to Indigenous Services Canada and on-reserve schools: (a) what is the total number of (i) schools, (ii) teachers, (iii) students; (b) what are the training and educational requirements to become a certified teacher in these schools; and (c) what percentage of teachers have an undergraduate or higher degree in (i) education, (ii) another field?

1730 words

All Topics