SoVote

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

May/30/23 11:29:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is the former. We know that if the Prime Minister had his way, he would bring me into a room, he would drop a bunch of paper in front of me, much of which would already be public knowledge, and he would mark it “secret”. Then, if I went out in the world and spoke about a similar subject matter, he would say that I violated the rules of national security. I know exactly what he is up to, and that is why I will continue to do my job, which as Leader of the Opposition is to hold him accountable. I will not be silenced. This is Canada, and in Canada we have freedom of expression.

122 words

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

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

Madam Speaker, we just had the member for Vancouver East, who has had a confidential security briefing, speak very passionately, and she has brought forth this motion we are debating today. However, the leader of the official opposition is pretending that somehow having access to confidential material will muzzle him. How is it that the member for Vancouver East can speak so passionately and bring forward this motion when she has had a security briefing? How could the leader of the official opposition ever pretend the contrary?

87 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/30/23 11:30:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said moments ago, we know what the Prime Minister's plan is. He wants to mark secret things that would otherwise be publicly debatable, put things that would be in a grey area under the secrecy of the state and then put them before me to prevent me from speaking publicly. We know that is exactly his plan. As for NDP members, we want to know their plan. Are they going to continue to protect the Liberals? Are they going to continue to work for the Liberal Party instead of working for their own constituents? They put on a big show in here. We have already passed a motion like this, by the way, and the government did not do anything because NDP members kept it in power. Back in committee, it was exactly the same thing. They go to press conferences and act all tough, but back in committee, all they do is give all the procedural support necessary for the Prime Minister to cover this up again and again. They have abandoned their constituents. They do not work for the people of Canada; they work for the Prime Minister. That is why they will be out of office after the next election.

208 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/30/23 11:31:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we first called for an independent public inquiry as a result of the allegations of foreign interference in Canadian elections. By “we”, I mean the opposition parties. According to Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer of Elections Canada, a public inquiry is necessary and essential to reassure Canadians. I would like to hear what my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, has to say about that, because, after all, Mr. Kingsley is telling us that Mr. Johnston did not even consult Elections Canada senior officials in the course of his investigation. If foreign interference into elections was the main reason to call for a public inquiry, why did Mr. Johnston's investigation not include Elections Canada? I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.

136 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/30/23 11:32:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. He consulted the former leader of the Conservative Party, who learned after the meeting that the report had already been written. That is not really true consultation. It seems to me that Mr. Johnston's report was written or at least overseen by the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. Therefore, it was not a real inquiry. The government is saying that a public inquiry cannot be held on this matter because it would pose a threat to public safety. I would like to quote Loïc Tassé of the Journal de Montréal: “The Johnston report on foreign interference in Canada recommends that a public inquiry into this matter not be held. However, France has been holding a parliamentary inquiry on foreign interference for months.” The French are capable of conducting a public inquiry. If the French can do so, and if Canadians were able to do so in the Maher Arar case, we can as well. We will do it when I am prime minister.

184 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

May/30/23 11:33:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Carleton, the leader of His Majesty's official opposition and Canada's next great prime minister, for sharing his time with me today on such a prominent issue that our country is facing. As always, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the residents of Brantford—Brant. As we are all aware, the topic of foreign interference in this country has not only been at the forefront of discussions in this House for quite some time now, but it also remains a top concern for Canadians across this country. These foreign operatives pose major threats to the safety and security of our democratic institutions. The fact that this interference was able to grow this extensively on the Prime Minister's watch, and that it took this long for Beijing agents in this country to be expelled, speaks loudly to the current government's complete incompetence in fulfilling its basic duty to protect Canadians. It is unacceptable that the government knew that MPs and their families had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for almost three years. It is unacceptable that it took zero measures to inform those members of this House until these facts were exposed on the front pages of our press. If the government knew that the foreign operatives were using their diplomatic status to conduct foreign interference operations, it should have dealt with those individuals immediately and not years down the line when it was embarrassed because of inaction. Regardless of our political colour, all members must work to fulfill our duties to represent our constituents and to honour the democratic process that brought us here in the first place. The fact that the Communist regime in Beijing was targeting the former leader of the Conservative Party not only shows that it was working to re-elect the Prime Minister's government and defeat the Conservatives but also that the responsibilities of being a democratically elected member of Parliament have absolutely no meaning to the members on that side of the House. Today, we are debating the opposition motion moved by the NDP. The NDP is a party of Twitter warriors who care about Canadians on social media and defend the Prime Minister and his Liberal government every step of the way. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, they can heckle me all they want.

408 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:36:43 a.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask members to wait until there are questions and comments. Again, it is not respectful; I do not care what party is making the comments. We see it not from everyone in the House but from all parties, and I would just ask members to be respectful when someone else has the floor. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

63 words

Mr. Larry Brock

May/30/23 11:37:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to really emphasize my point about how the New Democrats talk out of both sides of the mouth, let us take a look at their history. In 2020, when Conservatives were pushing for a study on the WE Charity scandal and creating an anti-corruption committee, the NDP voted against it with the Liberals. In 2021, the New Democrats helped the Liberal government to shut down any public debates regarding Winnipeg lab documents, which were also linked, coincidentally, to the Communist regime in Beijing. In 2022, the New Democrats blindly supported the Prime Minister in invoking the Emergencies Act. In 2023, when the Conservatives called for Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and most trusted political adviser, to testify on foreign election interference, the New Democrats filibustered for almost 24 hours and voted against it with the Liberals. After the release—

147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:38:16 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

8 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/23 11:38:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is deliberately misleading the House. Pretty well everything he is saying is rubbish. If you, Madam Speaker, would ask him to stop misleading the House, I think that would be appropriate.

42 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:38:32 a.m.
Watch

Again, I would just ask members to be careful in the words they use. However, what the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby rose on is more a point of debate, and I would just say that I would continue with the hon. member's speech. I have ruled on it. I have another point of order. I will go to the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

70 words

Mr. Scott Reid

May/30/23 11:39:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his point of order, his intervention, my hon. colleague used language that is impermissible in this place. He has to withdraw it. I request that you request it of him, Madam Speaker, as would be done for any of us.

43 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:40:16 a.m.
Watch

I believe the word used was “deliberate”. That is the word hon. members are taking issue with. Using this word in the House is a very serious matter. It is more a question of privilege that would be used for this. If it was meant more as a point of debate, then I would say that it is not the word to be used. I would ask the hon. member, first of all, if he would be willing to retract this word.

84 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/23 11:40:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly, I respect you, and I will withdraw it.

11 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:41:04 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

7 words

Mr. Larry Brock

May/30/23 11:41:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after the release of the so-called special rapporteur report, the Conservatives were working to get Mr. Johnston to appear before committee to answer on his failure to recommend a public inquiry. Again, the NDP showed its true colours in siding with Liberals and voting together to try to silence the opposition and hide the truth from Canadians. Now, 19 sitting days before the summer break, the New Democrats are trying to save what is left of their political legacy by presenting a motion that would once again recommend that the government do things differently. They will then vote blindly against their very own motion. It is hypocrisy at its finest. Foreign operatives should never be permitted to intimidate and harass Canadian people on Canadian soil, as the government has allowed them to do for several years. Rather than following the response of our neighbours across the border, who promptly shut down these police stations and charged those responsible, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety instead chose to spend their energy on misleading Canadians. First, the minister said that the stations were all shut down; we then found out that they were still in operation in Montreal. Now, most recently, the minister comes clean and admits that there may be more illegal police stations run by Beijing across this country. To make matters worse, we have now learned that the government has been providing taxpayer funding to these groups, which are designed to implode our democracy. As reported by the National Post, Centre Sino-Québec is “one of two Quebec organizations ... under RCMP investigation for allegedly hosting a secret Chinese police station”, and it was given nearly $160,000 worth of funds. The solution is not difficult. It is very simple. It is to shut down all these police stations and create and implement a foreign influence registry to protect Canadians now. Canadians have no idea what to believe at this point. Who can blame them? Thus, it is imperative to have an open and honest public inquiry on foreign interference in this country to give citizens the answers they so need and deserve. Unfortunately, we all know very well that the government's lack of action did not stop there. Rather, the Prime Minister showed his true colours when he chose to place his partisan interests above the safety of our institutions and of this country by selecting a family friend and member of the Beijing-funded Trudeau Foundation. He knowingly appointed a ski buddy, a cottage neighbour and a member of the Beijing-funded foundation to a fake job intended to legitimize the Liberal cover-up. As well stated by Canada's next prime minister, in a country of 40 million people, the government could not find anyone who did not have connections to the Liberal Party or who had not been on the foundation. That is unbelievable. It is remarkable. We have so many distinguished prominent Canadians with the same credentials as former governor general David Johnston, and they ignored each and every one of those individuals and hand-picked Mr. Johnston for the job. To make matters worse, while working on the report and during the investigation, Mr. Johnston sought advice from another trusted Liberal adviser, Sheila Block. This is a Liberal supporter who donated thousands of dollars exclusively to the Liberal Party of Canada. If that were not enough, we have another layer of the cover-up cake. When David Johnston wanted to make sure that he was not in a conflict of interest in judging Beijing's interference in the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, we can guess whose opinion he sought. We have all kinds of retired Supreme Court justices in this country who are still alive, but he had to choose Mr. Frank Iacobucci of the Supreme Court of Canada, a member of the Trudeau Foundation. As a lawyer, I am absolutely gobsmacked and astounded that they cannot see this runaway freight train called “the conflict of interest” running smack dab into the middle of the heart of the current Liberal government. It is not only a pure, active conflict of interest. It is the appearance of such an interest. Any lawyer who goes into court knows that many judges have completely recused themselves on the lower grounds of not doing anything that might compromise the integrity of the process. This process has been substantially compromised by the actions of David Johnston, the Prime Minister and his government. In conclusion, sunshine is the best disinfectant, per CSIS. Let the public see. Let us let the public be the judge. Let us call a public inquiry. If NDP members really want to prove that they support a public inquiry, they must tell the Prime Minister that they will pull out of their coalition agreement if he does not call one. Stand up for Canadians, NDP.

822 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/23 11:47:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is the New Democrats who are bringing forth this motion today, and we are standing up for Canadians. Before I get started on my question, I first want to congratulate the Alberta NDP for winning every seat in Edmonton yesterday and the majority of seats in Calgary. Well done. It will be the most powerful opposition in Alberta history— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

68 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:47:52 a.m.
Watch

Order. I cannot hear the hon. member speak. I would ask members, if they have questions and comments, to please wait. One of the Conservative members will be answering, and I know that he has the ability to do that. I would ask individuals to please not speak out of turn. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni can start from the top.

63 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/30/23 11:48:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, congratulations to Edmonton and Calgary. The Conservatives are really flinging mud—

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:48:24 a.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

19 words