44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 7:11:31 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I think it is unfortunate that the Conservative motion begins by talking only about foreign interference from China. We know that there is foreign interference from many other countries, especially from our neighbours, the United States. Specifically, I do recall that Travis Moore, a cryptocurrency businessman, gave $17,760.
I wonder if the member agrees that when we are talking about foreign interference, we should not be talking only about China, but about other countries as well that have an influence on the protection of Canadians.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:14:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to start off by indicating very clearly that an attack of foreign interference in any fashion on one member is an attack on all members of the House. I said this last week too. Maybe not in those exact same words, but I said it last week, and I have reinforced it.
As a parliamentarian, I do very much understand the issue we are debating today. I understand the importance of dealing with the issue at hand. I want to cover a few different areas that I have been listening to and highlight some of the things I also said last week.
The issue of foreign interference is something that is not new in Canada. This is something that has been going on for many years. There are a couple of things people should recognize. Number one, when we talk about foreign interference, influence and intimidation in any fashion, it is important to recognize that it is not just one country causing the problems. There are a number of countries that have been causing the issues we should all be concerned about. It is not one country causing the problem, and it is not one country receiving the intimidation. I would like to think that countries within the Commonwealth, allied countries, countries that have the same sort of values we have here in Canada, would be equally upset and would want to deal with the issue in a very significant and tangible way.
On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to highlight a report that came out for 2022 from CSIS. The report highlighted some very interesting issues. One page talks about the intimidation of members of Parliament, and I have made reference to the numbers. What we are talking about is CSIS briefings to elected officials in 2022. In that year alone, CSIS made the determination that it would give what I believe to be general briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I was not one of those members of Parliament, but what I do know is that there were 49 in 2022.
The content and the degree to which information is released to those individual members of Parliament are determined by CSIS. CSIS is the authority that ultimately makes the decision as to the seriousness of the potential threat and the circumstances around why there is a need to meet with the member of Parliament.
It is not just members of Parliament. The same report states that there were 26 provincial briefings. I assume “provincial” means members of a provincial legislature. Not only did it hit provincial, but it also went municipal. That could be anyone from a councillor to a mayor or a reeve. There were 17 of those, and again, that was in 2022 alone.
The report from CSIS states:
In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security.
In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference—
I underline “foreign interference”.
—terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
The next part is what I would like members to appreciate:
In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports. In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence products.
There are 2,500 reports. We know there were 49 members of Parliament, 26 members of provincial legislatures and 17 mayors, councillors or reeves, based on the report. What we do not know is the context of what was conveyed to those individuals. To that end, we have to respect what we are being told.
We often say that all members are honourable members. There does seem to be a double standard that comes from the opposition. They feel that they can say anything they want and they can mislead all they want and there is no consequence because, after all, they are in opposition. How many times have I used the words “character assassination”, coming from Conservatives toward government members? We never ever hear apologies from the other side when they make these bogus claims of misinformation, even when they know there is no merit to what has been said. They do not have qualms about doing that.
We have been very clear that the official opposition has chosen to make this a political issue. All one needs to do is look at the questions the official opposition has been asking and some of the statements that have been made today. There is no problem at all in terms of attacking the integrity of members on this side of the House, but when practical issues are raised about members on the other side, how defensive they get. Talk about a double standard.
As I said to one member, sometimes it is not advisable to throw a stone in glass houses, and that really needs to be applied.
Mr. John Brassard: You made that up.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, I did not make it up. It came from the Manitoba legislature, and I thought it was a very good point. I was in opposition at the time. I can say that, at the end of the day, there are a lot of Conservatives throwing rocks in glass houses. I suggest that they need to dial it down, that there are alternative ways.
We were the only country out of the Five Eyes countries that did not have a parliamentary review standing committee. One of the first things we did was establish that committee. There are parliamentarians on each side, all political parties, who get to participate in that group. This is a group of MPs who can listen and hold accountable organizations like CSIS. We do not know what is being said at that committee, but every party has representation on that committee and I suggest that they too, as a committee, are looking at this issue.
One member stood and said that PROC is a wonderful committee. Yes, it is a wonderful committee. I sat on it for a number of years. Nothing prevents the opposition parties and the government from saying that, at the procedure and House affairs committee, they would like to look at foreign interference and study x, y and z.
Today we saw that there is a great deal of support to have studies of that nature occur at standing committees. In particular, PROC has all sorts of mechanisms with which it can ensure a study takes place. We could be looking at the broader picture there because an attack on one is an attack on all, and it even goes beyond this chamber. I understand the dynamics of the large communities and the foreign interference that takes place within them.
Not that long ago, I was at a local restaurant where some members from one community were so fearful of being caught meeting with me that they did not want to see anyone taking pictures because they were scared for their family members at home. We are not only talking about this country with respect to this issue. We need to realize that it is more than one country. We need to understand and appreciate that there is not one member in the House who would, in any fashion whatsoever, tolerate international interference, whether it were the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the NDP or any other member. I believe that to try to imply that is not the case would be dishonest.
The Prime Minister found out about this for the very first time last week. Conservatives would know that if they listened to the questions and answers. Imagine the misinformation some are putting out there trying to give the false impression that he knew about it. Then they say that, if he did not know about it, he should have. It is as though they are somehow trying to justify it that way. They will say that it is a failure of the government to protect us. There were 49 cases just last year. Are they that naive to believe that 2021 and 2022 were the only years this happened?
My colleagues raised the issue of what took place while the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservatives were told about it. They knew about it. Could any members on the Conservative side stand up today, with their integrity intact, to tell the House that, under no circumstances whatsoever, was there any intimidation or interference respecting a member of Parliament during the Stephen Harper era? I suspect not.
Does that mean that Harper was an absolute failure? Does it mean that he was dishonest? I am attributing some of the incredible comments that have been coming from the official opposition toward the Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. As the prime minister at the time, he decided to not do anything. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to heckle or raise those types of comments toward the Prime Minister, especially given the actions we have taken to date. As a government, we have moved on a number of files to recognize this issue, so the Conservatives should not try to give the impression that there is a member inside this chamber who is not sympathetic to the impact that foreign influence has had on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are all concerned about it, each and every one of us. I would like to see this as a possible agenda item so we can think about it and talk about it.
Members can think about what the purpose of foreign interference is, at least in part. It is to cast a shadow of doubt to make it look as though we have lost control of the issue.
We can take a look at the Conservative Party's contribution to making a lot of those foreign actors happy when they see what is taking place in the chamber and in the media. There is a phenomenal amount of false information and misinformation being espoused by members of the House on such an important issue. We have recognized that.
I will point out a few of the things the government has done. I made reference to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. As I indicated, members of all political stripes sit on that committee. They get to hear everything, and I understand foreign interference is one of those things they are hearing about. Are members saying that those members of Parliament do not know how to do their jobs? Are they going to reflect on that?
Maybe they want to reflect on CSIS as an organization that has the decision authority. The Conservatives say that they do not know what it is doing when it has those general briefings by not explaining more. We do not know what they are saying because we have confidence in those general briefings. They are giving a general briefing because there is a need. Something has happened to cause them to provide that general briefing. We are all afforded the ability to ask questions, I suspect. I do not know for sure because I have not had one, and I am grateful that I have not.
Reinforcing confidence in CSIS is also important. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, made up of the top independent experts, strengthens independent scrutiny and accountability of the national security agencies in Canada. These are incredible individuals who are there to ensure that the best interests of not only members of Parliament, but also all Canadians, are being taken into consideration and, in fact, acted upon.
This government established the critical election incident public protocol, a protocol that is administered by a panel of the most senior federal public servants. They work with national security agencies and are responsible for communicating with Canadians in the event of an incident, or a series of incidents, that threatens the integrity of a federal election.
We created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, which is composed of officials from the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada. The SITE task force works to identify and prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities from influencing or interfering with the electoral process in Canada. Because of a lot of the work we have done in the last number of years on this issue of foreign interference, we established a rapid response mechanism, the RRM, at the G7 summit to help G7 countries identify and respond to diverse and evolving foreign threats to democracy.
In his speech, the leader of the Conservative Party was critical, saying that we do not care about a foreign influence transparency register. On March 12 of this year we announced the launch of a consultation to guide the creation of a foreign influence transparency registry in Canada to ensure transparency and accountability from people who advocate on behalf of a foreign government.
At the end of the day, this is a government that has acted on the issue. We are suggesting that it impacts each and every one of us, and it is time to dial it down to make it less political in its partisanship. Let us wait until we get the report from the former governor general, and then we can follow the recommendations, even if it means having that public inquiry.
2349 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:36:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his long speech. He clearly has a solid understanding of the objectives of foreign interference.
However, he started his speech by discussing the importance of resolving this issue. I agree with him completely, but I think that the reason we are bogged down with this issue today is that the government utterly failed to take action, even though the member for Wellington—Halton Hills started asking for a robust plan as far back as 2020.
If not for the government's inaction, we could have spent the day talking about inflation, health, seniors or climate change. Instead, because of the government's inaction, we are stuck discussing this issue. I doubt the member will agree with my statement.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us just recap for a second.
In 2013, the Conservatives and the former democratic reform minister, the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition, received a report from CSIS saying that election interference was real and was going to continue. He did nothing for two years and literally sat on the report.
Later on, in 2017, after we came into government, we introduced Bill C-76, which limited funding from foreign actors. The Conservatives voted against it. We introduced Bill C-22 shortly before that, to create NSICOP. Conservatives would not even let it go to committee. They voted against it after the first or second reading.
I am wondering how the Conservatives can actually stand here and try to claim that they have any credibility on the issue of foreign interference, when they did nothing and routinely voted against every measure that we brought forward.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 8:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, two years ago, in June 2021, I sat with the member for Steveston—Richmond East right here. He was giving a passionate speech in the House of Commons, in which he talked about being targeted. That member is no longer here. In fact, he has come to committee a couple of times, talking about what he thought was Beijing interference.
We do need an inquiry. We do need a registry. We have more than one MP who was here in 2021 and, quite frankly, is not here today. I can think of Alice Wong, Bob Saroya and Kenny Chiu.
It is about democracy. Before the last election, the member from B.C. was standing right here, in the middle of June, talking about interference from Beijing. Does the member from British Columbia want to comment on this?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 9:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I note that both Conservatives and the Bloc are calling for a national inquiry into the foreign interference. I am just wondering what she thinks the government is waiting for before it calls this national inquiry.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 9:44:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right. We need to thoughtfully think about allegations of foreign interference, and we need to examine them very closely. Do members know where we would be able to do that? It is in a public inquiry, for which the government seems very reticent to admit.
Now, this hon. member, whom I respect greatly, says that we learned at committee that there was no interference. However, I did not see a report coming from PROC that said there was no interference with the Trudeau Foundation. The hon. member also says there was no quid pro quo, but let us look at the facts. Money went to the Trudeau Foundation, for which it was reported as an effort to influence the government. The government's action since taking government seems to be not very aggressive on dealing with China. I do not know. What is a quid pro quo?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 10:11:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague for the fact that she spoke a few sentences in French. It is very appreciated.
Maybe my colleague has not had a chance to listen to our leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition. He said clearly a few hours ago here in the House that in 2013, while he was a cabinet minister, he tabled and had adopted two pieces of legislation to make sure that if there was any foreign interference in our electoral system, we would have some safeguards.
We would be able to intervene if necessary.
We had laws, introduced as early as 2013, to deal with foreign interference. Unfortunately, things have gotten worse over the years. As the member was saying, and as I was saying just a little while ago, the current regime in Beijing is not at all the same as it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Everyone recognizes that. However, as early as 2013, when the member for Carleton was the minister responsible for this file, Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed two laws precisely in case, heaven forbid, foreign interference was detected in our electoral process. It was a matter of giving ourselves the tools to deal with this situation.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 10:41:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of responding to interference by foreign diplomats. Of course, foreign interference does not always involve diplomats, but it often can and the government has been way behind on disciplining or expelling any diplomats, none up until today.
This is in a context where the member pointed out some of the anomalies, in terms of the numbers of diplomats here. She mentioned there are 176 from China and 81 accredited diplomats from Russia. Meanwhile, Poland has 26 accredited diplomats. Germany has 50 accredited diplomats, and the U.K. has 51 accredited diplomats. There are more Russian diplomats here in Canada than German and Polish diplomats combined. There are more than three times as many diplomats from China as there are from the United Kingdom.
This suggests that, when we have these large numbers of diplomats from countries that we do not actually have a particularly warm relationships with, without the same level of trade relationships, people-to-people exchanges and so forth, we should be concerned about what those diplomats might be up to, yet the government has allowed very high levels of accredited diplomats from states that have interests that are contrary to our own, and they have not been responding to clear instances of foreign interference.
It seems that one issue we should be looking at in responding to foreign interference is asking what the appropriate number of accredited diplomats is. Should it be, in some sense, proportionate to the number of Canadian diplomats in the other place? Should it be proportionate to other aspects of the relationship, and is this an indicator of something else? Further, do we need to be setting limits so that somehow they are proportionate to what the relationship actually is?
297 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 10:57:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As a fellow British Columbian, I always appreciate working with him on the protection of wild salmon.
In terms of the topic tonight, we know the problem of foreign interference is not just about China. Canada needs to do way more when it comes to combatting foreign interference from all countries, from illegal police stations to election fraud, attempts to spy on our airspace and threatening members of Parliament here in this House.
Canadians are rightly concerned about foreign interference by the Chinese government, as well as other governments. It is up to the government to defend Canadians from threats to our democracy. Right now, the government is letting Canadians down. We need a foreign registry, a public inquiry into foreign interference, better contact points for Canadians being threatened and intimidated, and better protection from foreign spies.
Does he agree the government needs to take swift action in dealing with foreign interference and spying, extending beyond China?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:04:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's willingness to talk about the other countries we need to look into.
I remember the first time I heard in the media, and others around the room may recall this as well, that Hillary Clinton's people were making the claim that Russian interference had something to do with the leaks that damaged her campaign. I thought they were really reaching there, and I wondered if it was at all plausible. Now we know that not only was it plausible, but it happened. We have seen interference from a number of actors in particular.
I voted for the motion for a full inquiry, for shutting down the police stations and for moving forward. I just want to share that I did not want us to restrict ourselves only to the question of the moment of Chinese interference in our elections but, instead, make sure that we looked at the broader question. This question is how we ensure that we are on top of everything we could do to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference.
Does the hon. member have any comments on that?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:05:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the question is very important, and it points to the overall capacity of the Government of Canada to respond to foreign interference in whatever format it threatens our country. That is why I outlined, again, the NSICOP annual report for 2019, which calls for such a strategy to provide a whole-of-government approach, so that Canadians can be confident in our institutions.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
