44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2023 01:00PM
- Mar/22/23 2:29:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, although no one knows just how many there are, many Chinese nationals who are under the Prime Minister's solemn responsibility and whom Canada let in, are being forced under threat to return to China. We can imagine what is waiting for them upon their return.
Our main ally is coming to Ottawa tomorrow. Is that not just one more reason to establish that the Prime Minister cannot choose who will lead the inquiry or establish that the inquiry does not need to be public?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 2:30:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the start, I have been very clear that it was not up to me to launch a public inquiry, because it may not be the best thing to do. That is why we decided to turn to an expert, someone who is absolutely unimpeachable, to make that determination and establish the best way forward.
That is why the former governor general will determine whether there will be a public inquiry or not, and what the parameters of that public inquiry would be. In the meantime, he is encouraging and assuring that the various committees are doing their job to set the record straight and restore the confidence of Canadians.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:11:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have said this a number of times: I do not think my position is that far off from that of the NDP. I am just concerned about the fact that the NDP thinks this needs to happen in a public inquiry.
The member and I are both on the PROC committee, or he was on it for a few meetings, and we heard from experts that a public inquiry is not the best venue to do this. He said there were some allegations; fair enough. However, more importantly, we have professionals to look into those allegations. CSIS specifically said it takes information, and when necessary, refers it to the RCMP. The RCMP also said it has no active investigations going on. One does not have to be great at reading between the lines to figure out the reality there.
Why does the member think it has to be a public inquiry? Why can we not use one of the other mechanisms that we already have to do this very important work?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:18:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would really like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for her great work in protecting Canadian democracy. She shows that every day in her work at procedure and House affairs, and she has a national reputation as a result.
The reason we are having this debate now is that we have had Liberals say that they do not want a public inquiry because this is not an issue of enough importance to warrant it. We profoundly disagree.
Conservatives have said that they want a public inquiry, but it should not touch Russia. They do not want to go there. Again, that is profoundly disturbing.
The NDP wants to have a public inquiry that touches on and examines all forms of foreign interference. We believe that is where Canadians are as well. We believe Canadians want this to be tackled in an effective way and that all the measures that some other countries have taken as well would be put into place. However, a public inquiry is warranted and needed, and we believe it is needed now.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:21:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that this was where the day would go, but I guess we have to be prepared for anything.
I have to hand it to the NDP. They said that they wanted to bring forward their concurrence on this particular report, and they did that. The reality is, for those who do not really understand what is going on, that the Conservatives have an opposition supply day today. However, what has happened because of the fact that they sidelined the NDP yesterday, I guess, is that this is just payback for that. Nonetheless, it is a very important topic. I am glad that we have the opportunity to continue talking about this.
I do not think that my position, personally, is too far from that of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. However, I do take exception with his last comment that the Liberals said that they did not want a public inquiry. I actually was very clear about this.
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
I was very clear about this at committee. I said in a speech at committee, at the beginning of this, when a public inquiry was first floated, that I actually thought a public inquiry kind of made the most sense. Why not broaden it and allow the public to have that insight?
We heard from the experts who came forward that a public inquiry would not gather any more information than what could be provided at committee. A public inquiry of this nature, which is going to dive into some highly sensitive information and highly sensitive reports, needs to be treated with the classification specifications that surround it.
It is not just in our own domestic interest to ensure that it occurs. It is also in the interest of the relationship that we have with our allies. We share secrets. We share information. They share information with us. If it becomes very apparent to our allies that we are unable to hold information safely, then they are not going to be interested in continuing to work with us. This is what we heard from the experts who came to committee and who talked about why a public inquiry was not the right route.
At the beginning, I started off thinking that, yes, a public inquiry kind of makes the most sense. However, I was very easily persuaded by those experts coming forward to actually see this occur in a different way, in a way that allows for the classification of that information to remain intact. I find it unfortunate that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would make that comment and say that Liberals are against it. No, Liberals listened to the advice of the experts, and we formed our opinion based on that.
That is the only difference, in my opinion, between my position and that of the NDP. I agree with them. Why not look at all foreign interference? The Conservatives have been very hell-bent on ensuring that the only issue we look at is Chinese interference, but we know that interference comes from other foreign state actors.
Foreign interference in elections is not a new concept. This has become more obvious and more real within the last 10 or 15 years, as people have been able to infiltrate through social media networks to get information out there in different ways and be sinister in ways that may have been a little more difficult in the past. What we have are real threats. I think that Canadians should be concerned, and they are rightfully concerned.
For me, this does not come down to a matter of whether we study foreign interference. I am actually relieved to see so many people interested in this. The previous minister of public safety, in 2020, sent an actual copy of election preparedness and foreign interference to every single member in the House. He sent a physical copy of a report that he put together, specifically talking about China in that. Not a single member in the House stood up. No Conservatives stood up to say they wanted to talk about the report by the previous public safety minister.
In one sense, I am glad that we are having this conversation out in the open and in the public forum. It is important to do that and to get to the bottom of these issues, but it is also really important to study all interference, not just by China, and to do it in the context that respects the classification of the information. We heard from expert after expert, and I do not think there was a single individual who came before PROC, with expertise in understanding how to utilize this information, who said that a public forum would be the best place to have this discussion.
Having said all of that, the government appointed a special expert to specifically look into this: former governor general David Johnston. He was tasked with looking into a number of things, one of which included the best way for Canadians to go forward with this issue to fully understand it. The Prime Minister said, when he announced this, that he will take whatever recommendations come forward from that independent expert.
Of course, Conservatives, as they are heckling me right now, will say that Mr. Johnston is biased, that he is a family friend and so on. We are talking about David Johnston, who is 81 years old. Now they are laughing about it. We are talking about David Johnston, one of the most highly respected Canadians in this country, who is going to look into this issue. If they want to continue to heckle and run all over his incredible reputation, they can go right ahead, like the former speaker of the House, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle—
988 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:36:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really wish he had listened to my speech, because not only did I say I would accept it, but the Prime Minister also said he would accept it, when he announced this. We have already made it very clear that we will accept any recommendation that comes back from the expert who is looking into this on behalf of Canadians, a former governor general. We will implement what those recommendations are, including if it is a public inquiry.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:49:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives blocked our efforts to have an inquiry into foreign interference in the election system. Today, we are calling on the government to do the right thing, because we have to restore public confidence in our institutions.
We just heard very disturbing allegations that a sitting MP gave advice about the treatment of the two Michaels. These were two innocent Canadians held illegally by the Chinese government. To think that in any way they could be treated as political pawns for the advantage of either the Conservatives or Liberal Party is shocking. We need to get this to an inquiry that has the tools to draw witness testimony and that can do this in a transparent manner so that Canadians get answers. It would also stop the Conservative leader from his character assassination against people like David Johnston, who have served our country with integrity.
I have no problem with Mr. Johnston. I have a problem with the lack of a full inquiry, and I am asking the Liberals to do the right thing and restore confidence among the Canadian people at this time given the shocking allegations we just heard.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
