SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 202 - May/30/23

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

May/30/23 10:47:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today on this important topic. I found the debate earlier quite interesting. We saw the Conservatives and the NDP fight about who did what first and who is criticizing the government more. Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we are actually getting to work to make sure that our democratic institutions are protected. While we do that, the opposition parties can stand up to fight about who did what best, whose clip came first and whose motion did what. I think Canadians expect a government that puts partisanship aside to focus on the real issues that our country is facing. The threat of foreign interference is not a partisan issue. Every single Canadian, regardless of who they vote for or what party they support, should absolutely care about this issue. That should be reflected in the House. The issue of foreign interference in our democratic institutions is not a new one. In fact, it is not even a unique one for Canada. We have seen instances around the world, such as the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We have seen efforts of foreign interference in France, Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries have been dealing with this issue. In fact, Canada was warned by CSIS in 2013 about the threat of foreign interference. The then democratic institutions minister, now the opposition leader, did absolutely nothing about it. The leader of the official opposition said in this place that he did not do anything about it because it did not serve his partisan interests at the time. That should indicate to Canadians the absolute basics of where the opposition parties are coming from on this issue. We now have the report by the right hon. David Johnston, and before members have even had a chance to dive into that report, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Bloc have said no. They are going to close their eyes to facts. They do not want to receive the secure national security briefing because they want to be able to continue to still make ignorant claims. They would like to remain blind to the facts. It should not surprise anyone that a party based on conspiracy theories and clickbait would not be a mature and responsible opposition party. Yesterday, in this very place, the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not want a national security briefing because he did not want to be silenced. That should tell Canadians the level of maturity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is not ready to lead this country. He is barely ready to lead an official opposition of this place. For somebody to suggest that having a national security briefing silences one on this issue is not only beyond false, but also beyond comprehension. It shows how little he knows about national security matters. I myself have national security clearance because I was a member of the NSICOP committee, yet I have debated on this issue several times. I am leading the opposition day speech in this place. I have spoken out at PROC. I have asked witnesses serious questions. In fact, in my role in the national defence committee, I brought forward a motion that we study cybersecurity. This was all while having national security briefings, sitting on NSICOP and studying foreign interference, yet I have been able to serve my constituents by raising the issues that matter. By taking national security seriously and by understanding that one can advocate for stronger democratic institutions, one can still advocate for stronger legislation and mechanisms while also protecting the national security information of this country. That is what responsible members do. If I can do it, as a member of this government, certainly the Leader of the Opposition should be mature enough to understand the importance of national security while still being able to advocate for stronger mechanisms and measures. The fact that he cannot comprehend how to put the national security of this country first, instead of his partisan attacks, should tell Canadians everything they need to know about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the Leader of the Opposition and, for that matter, the leader of the Bloc. When it comes to the issues, I have heard many times in this debate that confidence in Canadians is being eroded. Is that not ironic given the members saying it are the ones who are closing their eyes to the facts? In the right hon. David Johnston's report, he specifically talks about the balance between wanting to make a report that everyday Canadians can read and access with better understand, while at the same time protecting the national security information we all rely on to keep this country safe. He acknowledges that. David Johnston said that he created an annex to this report with all of the information he based his decisions on. He included this annex for leaders of all recognized parties, members of NSICOP and those with national security clearance that need to have access to it. He specifically said in this report for leaders of the opposition and members of NSICOP to please read this annex, the information that he based his decisions on. He said that they can read it and come forward if they believe that, based on the information, his recommendations were ill-informed or they have taken a different approach. It is pretty open and transparent to say there is a balance between Canadians needing to understand the positions and the recent media leaks while protecting national security. He then went on to say to everybody who has that national security clearance, such as opposition parties and NSICOP, that all of the information, which he based his recommendations and findings on, is in one easy document, and that, if they disagree with those findings, then they can come forward and say so. However, this will be done while protecting the confidential information collected by the national security community. That is quite reasonable. In fact, it was an incredibly readable report. I have read many reports of this nature. NSICOP has produced many reports of this nature, and one of the things NSICOP always tries to do in the public version of its reports is to take care and concern in making them as digestible as possible, so any Canadian picking up a report would understand the national security dynamics happening at any given time. David Johnston suggested to read the information to determine on one's own if one thinks his findings were reasonable, so what happens? The Leader of the Opposition covers his eyes and his ears and says, “No, no, no. I don't want facts and information. I want to be able to stand up here and make fake innuendos, fake accusations and raise some money for my election campaign.” He wants to make personal attacks against the Prime Minister and the right hon. David Johnston. What does the Bloc do? As my hon. colleague says, it is “blue light”, and it just follows suit. Then the NDP, with this motion, calls for the removal of the special rapporteur based on his report. Its leader has at least agreed to read the annex and get that national security briefing. However, before that has been done, to my knowledge, or at least before the leader of the NDP has made any assessment on the information the right hon. David Johnston used to come to the conclusions he did, and before NDP members have had a chance to really look at it to see if all the information is relevant, they say that they do not support the report. They do so without reading the basis of the recommendations. When it comes to national security, there is a lot more context and information required than just a few media leaks. Therefore, for any responsible government to refuse to read the national security documentation in the briefings, to refuse to wait and, even for for those who have agreed to read it but refuse to actually digest it, look at it or consider it and just throw the report out, is nothing more than partisan games with Canadians' national security and with our democratic institutions. Therefore, if anybody is suggesting that confidence is being eroded, I would suggest it is by the irresponsible behaviour of our opposition parties in not actually doing the work, considering the information and making informed decisions, which is something that, regardless of party, I think every Canadian would expect their MP to be able to do. I have talked about why I find the opposition parties irresponsible and, in particular, why I find the Leader of the Opposition not only irresponsible but also incredibly immature and unfit to lead, even a party, in this place. However, I want to also talk about some of the things we have done since 2015 because, as I started with in my speech, this is not new. The opposition party, as the previous Conservative government, knew about foreign interference in 2013. Let me just say, too, that this is this not new, and it is never going to be over. There is no silver bullet any government could implement to say that foreign interference is no longer an issue. A serious democracy is going to always have to be diligent to the foreign forces that would love to destabilize the democracy that Canadians have fought so hard for. Therefore, the important piece of dealing with our democratic institutions is to put the partisanship aside and continually work on how to adapt and change with the changing nature of the threat. However, again, we cannot even have those types of debates in this place because we are too busy hearing partisan and personal attacks from the opposition members, who should be bringing forward recommendations and suggestions to move forward on legislation or mechanisms that would strengthen democratic institutions. Because we cannot get past personal attacks, the government is going to keep working based on experts and those who have come forward making recommendations, and based on looking at other countries and some of the work that they have done. Some of the things that we have done since 2015 include creating NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which gives national security clearance to representatives from recognized parties in the House, as well as national security briefings and documents. It is a committee that I mentioned I sat on, and it was an extremely professional and serious committee that has not only produced excellent reports for Canada but also has been recognized globally for the work it has done. We created NSIRA, which is a review of our national security community. We have also established the critical election incident public protocol, and we have created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, often referred to as SITE. We have established rapid response mechanisms during elections. We have also had Bill C-59 and Bill C-76, and we have created the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. That is all since 2015. While opposition parties say that we do not take this seriously, we have right here eight examples that I have listed. I would be curious as to whether, at any point during the day, the Conservative Party will be able to name even one example of something that it did in 10 years to deal with the threats to national security and to strengthen our democratic institutions. I will wait patiently through the debate today to see if that happens. In addition to that, I would be very curious to see whether the members opposite come forward with serious policy and a serious policy debate. We have the Johnston report, which makes very clear recommendations, as well as criticisms, with respect to how information is being reported to those who need it. Every government needs to seriously look at and constantly review these matters. I think there has been a strong indication that we are not only taking it seriously, but that we will implement changes to make sure that, moving forward, we are constantly improving our democratic institutions and our processes, and that we are making sure that democracy is protected for Canadians. We do not own these spaces, as this is the House of Commons of Canadians, and it is our job collectively to ensure that we continue to maintain the democratic institutions in this place. I have spoken at length about the seriousness of these issues, the fact that they are not new, and that in 2013 we had a government that did not take them seriously at all. We are now implementing several of the recommendations, as well as implementing mechanisms to constantly strengthen our democratic institutions. I want to speak again to this, because we are going to hear personal attacks all day today on the Right Honourable David Johnston. We have already seen him referred to as a ski buddy, a neighbour, a friend, and I think it is quite interesting that Conservatives would refer to him in that way. I would like to read a quote with respect to Mr. Johnston, which states: Mr. Johnston has a strong record of public service, a broad base of support and an impressive list of achievements....He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him. That was not the current Prime Minister, but the previous prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, who said that about David Johnston. Therefore, it is disappointing that the Conservatives use personal attacks to undermine not only his credibility, but his lifelong achievements, dedication to this country and public service. To erode all of that by saying he is just a ski buddy and that is how he was selected is an absolute insult to this place and to the people who serve their country. It is all being done for nothing more than partisan gain. He was good enough for Conservatives to make him the governor general. He was good enough for the former prime minister to speak of him in that way. His reputation and credibility have only come into question now that Conservatives are not getting their political way. I have spoken a lot about the lack of maturity shown by the Leader of the Opposition. I know my time is wrapping up and I want to conclude by saying this. Canadians deserve opposition parties and parliamentarians who work hard for their constituents. We are not always going to agree, but at the very least this should be a place of adamant debate on policy. When the Conservative members opposite do not like the findings or the opinions of someone they have acknowledged and revered for years and decide to throw him away like he is no longer good enough for this country, it is an absolute shame. It shows how immature and ill-equipped the Leader of the Opposition is and that he should not be taken seriously in this country. He is clearly not ready now, nor probably ever, to lead this country, because he does not take national security seriously, but we will on behalf of Canadians.

2560 words

All Topics

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

May/30/23 11:08:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member in her characterization of the Leader of the Opposition. For the Leader of the Opposition to not seek the information is something that I find unbelievable. Each member of this House has the responsibility to get to the details and find out that information. As the member has said, she has been briefed on security information. She is capable of giving a speech in this House of Commons. I agree with some of it and I disagree with other aspects of it, but she is able to do that. She is not muzzled by the fact of having that security information. What she did just this moment was actually support the NDP motion. She talks about the fact that contradicts Mr. Johnston's primary focus in not having a public inquiry, that factual questions around this sensitive information cannot be discussed in a public inquiry. The other aspect, he says, is that there would be a clear overlap of a public inquiry with the work he has already started doing. He would heed, I believe, a vote of this House expressing that he must step aside. Would the government heed that vote as well?

202 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:09:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the fact that we can disagree on some elements of policy or best ways forward but actually have that debate. It makes democracy stronger, and I think it is what Canadians expect of us. However, when it comes to Mr. Johnston's report, the point was made that some of this information would be classified and not able to be shared publicly. Also, he has an additional mandate to move forward and to continue this work. Mr. Johnston felt that it would be repetitive. The fact that there need to be continual conversations and that Canadians need to trust these institutions is something we could all agree with.

117 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/30/23 11:10:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge indicated that eight bodies have been created since 2015 to deal with issues of national security and foreign interference. I am just wondering if she could explain to this House where the gap was within the Liberal Party that prevented the government from informing the member for Wellington—Halton Hills of the circumstances his family was facing.

66 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:10:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did explain eight examples of some of the ways we are taking national security seriously. I find it interesting to hear a question like that coming from a member whose own leader refuses to have national security briefings. The member wants to know about the national security information of one of their members, all while their leader refuses to have national security briefings on this very matter. Forgive me, but it is hard to take the Conservatives seriously when they ask questions with such hypocrisy built right in.

91 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/30/23 11:11:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's speech covered so many things that I have questions about. I would begin by saying that the Johnston report is a victory for China and a defeat for democracy. The member spoke a lot about protecting democracy and about partisanship. I have a question for her. The government was elected by about 30% of the population. Therefore, 70% of the population is represented by the opposition parties, which, about two weeks ago, voted in favour of a motion calling for a public inquiry. I would like to ask her to define the word “democracy” for me.

103 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:12:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting, because there was actually a vote at the PROC committee about a public inquiry, and the Bloc voted against it. The Bloc members continued to not be consistent in their position, and yet they want to stand here and say that they speak for Canadians with a united voice. They do not even speak with a united position in this place, but that is okay. The mere suggestion that the report by the Right Honourable David Johnston is a victory for China just goes to show how out of touch and irresponsible the Bloc is. I almost said Conservatives, because essentially there is no difference anymore. It just goes to show that they are more interested in headlines and clips than actually protecting democracy for Quebeckers and all Canadians.

135 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

May/30/23 11:13:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given all that we know about MPs being targeted, about Canadians being harassed and intimidated, and about police stations operating in our country, can my hon. colleague explain why the government continues to refuse to hold a public, independent inquiry? What does the government have to hide?

49 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:13:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our government has been open and transparent. We have been focused on the seriousness of foreign interference. I take great offence to the member raising this issue while he, himself, has raised questions and issues of foreign interference merely to try and rewrite an unfavourable past. I find that incredibly irresponsible when it comes to national security.

59 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/30/23 11:14:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting when the member told us that she was on NSICOP, she had national security clearance, yet she is still able to participate in this debate despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition suggests that he cannot. I did a little research. It turns out the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is also on NSICOP, which means that he would have the security clearance, yet he participated in the motion of privilege regarding the member for Milton and he also participated in a Conservative opposition motion on March 20 about foreign interference. How is it that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who has the national security clearance, is not silenced, but somehow the Leader of the Opposition would be silenced if he had the exact same clearance?

142 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:14:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. It goes to show that the Leader of the Opposition knows his own limitations. He is not quite capable of maintaining opposition debate, while also ensuring the responsible behaviour of keeping national security information a secret. I think he also sends a very damaging message to his own members' constituents by suggesting that if they have national security clearance, they are now muzzled and cannot do the job their constituents sent them here to do. Either he does not have confidence in himself to handle the important information or he does not have faith in his own Conservative members that they can also participate in meaningful debates, while respecting the national security information of this country. It is pretty shameful, but I am not surprised by the Leader of the Opposition. He is not able to do both things at the same time.

150 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

May/30/23 11:16:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we hear the Liberals talk a lot about Mr. Johnston's respectability. Canadians respect him. I was one of those people until he accepted the appointment to be a special rapporteur when he was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which had clearly become part of the foreign interference scandal. He was clearly in a conflict of interest. Would the member agree that there are probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of other Canadians who are respected who could have accepted that appointment and are not in a conflict of interest?

91 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:16:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was not a conflict of interest, but leave that to the Conservatives as no conspiracy theory is too grand for them to move forward with in this place. It should also be noted that the member himself just said he supported and respected the Right Honourable David Johnston up until he took the appointment. Therefore, up until he decided to serve his country, regardless of political leadership, that is what offends the Conservative Party. Its members are offended that a former Conservative Governor General is not partisan enough and puts the service to his country first. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Madam Speaker, they can heckle me all they want. It will not silence the fact that they are hypocrites who only turned on David Johnston because he was no longer just a Conservative, but he also wanted to serve his country regardless of political leadership.

153 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:17:37 a.m.
Watch

We have a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

15 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/23 11:17:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, toward the end of that answer, there was so much heckling. I know Conservatives are trying to impress their leader as he walked into the room, but we could not quite hear the full answer because of all the heckling coming from across the way.

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:17:50 a.m.
Watch

I did hear the full answer. There was some heckling and I do want to remind members to not heckle. I also want to remind all members to be judicious with the language they use. It is not parliamentary language sometimes. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

45 words

Hon. Pascale St-Onge (Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.)

May/30/23 11:18:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12:00 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:18:39 a.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made November 15, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.

20 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

May/30/23 11:18:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how did we get to this point? How is it that we are here in the House of Commons to debate a motion to hold a public inquiry on foreign interference? It started a long time ago. About 10 years, or a decade, ago, the Prime Minister expressed his admiration for the dictatorship of China. He said that the power concentrated in Beijing allowed that dictatorship to impose its will on the people of China and that he wanted to re-create that same power here in Canada. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Chinese government wanted an ideological ally in power. Thanks to information given to the media, we know that Beijing interfered in two elections to help get the Prime Minister elected. We know that Beijing donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. A telephone call from a Chinese diplomat shows that the purpose of that donation was to buy the Prime Minister's love and loyalty. We know that, since that time, Beijing has been interfering by threatening the family of at least one MP and targeting other MPs who criticized the policies of the dictatorship in Beijing. We also know that foreign police stations are operating here in Canada, even after the Minister of Public Safety promised to close them. Not only are those police stations open but, worse still, the Liberal government has subsidized them with taxpayer money. We know that there are business ties between well-placed Liberals in the business world and the Liberal Party that influence this Prime Minister. All this is known, but there is a lot we do not know. People working for the intelligence service have said that Canadians need to know the truth about the relationships with the Beijing regime and its influence here in Canada. That is why there are unprecedented leaks from the intelligence service in the media. What could have compelled people to take that kind of risk? Since Canadians have learned of these risks, what has the Prime Minister done? First, he asked Mr. Rosenberg to conduct an investigation. Mr. Rosenberg, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, said there was no problem, and that there was nothing to worry about. There were still scandals, so the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Johnston as a special rapporteur, a fake position that does not even exist. Who is Mr. Johnston? He has been a friend of the Prime Minister’s family for 40 years, a ski buddy, a cottage neighbour and another member of the Trudeau Foundation, which received the infamous $140,000 donation. However, the public was told not to worry because there was no conflict of interest. We know that because Mr. Johnston appointed a third person to give his opinion on the potential conflict of interest. It was another member of the Trudeau Foundation. There are 40 million Canadians, but no one can be found outside the Trudeau Foundation to investigate this matter. That is why we need a public inquiry to make sure Canadians learn the truth. The Prime Minister is trying to delay the launch of such an inquiry, which is inevitable. Indeed, if the Prime Minister does not launch that inquiry, I will do so when I win the next election. Today, we are studying a motion by the New Democrats, who helped the Prime Minister hide the truth and who are still in a coalition with this Prime Minister. If the New Democrats are serious about forcing a public inquiry then they should tell the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry or they will end the coalition with their Liberal bosses. That is the thing to do. We need a foreign influence registry to ensure that anyone who is paid by a foreign government to influence and manipulate our policies will have their name published online for all the world to see. We need stricter laws for those who facilitate setting up foreign police stations. We need to give more power to the RCMP and the police forces here in Canada to stop those who break the law by setting up police stations. We need to wrest control of our democracy from foreign forces. We need to put Canadians back in charge of their lives. It is common sense. Let us bring common sense back by shedding light on the truth and allowing a public inquiry so that all Canadians can know the truth. I will be splitting my time with the member for Brantford—Brant. How did this all start? It started with the Prime Minister, who, before he even took office, expressed his admiration for the basic Chinese Communist dictatorship. Elsewhere, he expressed his admiration for Fidel Castro, whom he called a great revolutionary. Seeing this ideological bond, Beijing decided it had a friend and wanted to help the Prime Minister get elected. It interfered in two successive elections. In the most recent election, intelligence confirms that Beijing wanted to see the Prime Minister win and defeat the Conservatives. It did this by intimidating people of the Chinese diaspora, who had otherwise been going out to vote patriotically. They were told they had to stay home and avoid voting. We saw that ridings with large Chinese populations had massive reductions in voter turnout. We know that members of Parliament have been threatened by the regime in Beijing, with even the possibility of their families facing harm back home in China. We also know that the Prime Minister has been aware of many of these facts for a very long time and yet chose to do nothing. His defence is that he knew nothing. If he knew nothing and was not getting basic information from his intelligence forces, then he is incompetent and incapable of protecting our homeland. Worst of all, the greatest victims of this are Canadians of Chinese origin, who came here to build this country, who came here to escape tyranny and embrace freedom, who follow the law and who contribute to our country every day and in every way. However, the government in this country has done nothing to protect them from the government in the country they left behind. We have the stories, which were told to members of Parliament in our caucus. They were on doorsteps during campaigns meeting people who were in tears, people who told them that they had to leave the doorstep and go to a faraway field somewhere, leaving their phones behind because they were worried they were being tracked by a foreign government, worried that their families could be harmed, worried that acts of intimidation or even violence could happen to them here on Canadian soil. Still, the government has not set up a foreign influence registry that could help us identify the thugs who carry out this intimidation. Still, the government has refused to bring in tougher laws to shut down all foreign-controlled police stations. Still, the Prime Minister has failed to call the public inquiry that is required. We call on the NDP to set a condition that if there is no public inquiry, the NDP will break the coalition and stand up for Canada and Canadians for once. These Canadians of Chinese origin attacked by this foreign government are patriotic Canadians. They deserve the protection of their government. These are our people. This is our land. This is our country. This is our home.

1238 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/30/23 11:28:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said on a number of occasions that he does not want to receive and learn about classified information because he does not want to be silenced, yet there are members of his caucus, like the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for example, who have the security clearances, have received briefings through NSICOP and have participated in multiple debates in this House on foreign interference. Is it true that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about being silenced, or is it more that he would rather be wilfully ignorant?

100 words