SoVote

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

May/30/23 12:25:00 p.m.
Watch

Of course, we ask that members come back as soon as possible so that we can review this quickly and come back to the House as soon as possible. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/30/23 12:25:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been a while. We will get into the debate again. I will start by reminding members that all the Chinese diaspora groups advocating for human rights in Canada and Quebec demand a public inquiry into Beijing's interference. Mehmet Tohti, representing the Uyghur nation in Canada, Hong Kong pro-democracy dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, and supporters of independence for Tibet, all of whom were already experiencing Chinese intimidation tactics on Canadian soil long before this scandal broke, slammed the Liberals' actions in The Globe and Mail just this weekend. These groups also called for an independent public inquiry. For the Liberals not to listen to the opposition is one thing, but for them to not listen to these people is, in my view, a sign of total disrespect to the first victims of this interference on Canadian and Quebec soil. I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. We need to talk about one thing: The government needs to stop using the excuse of security surrounding Chinese interference to avoid an independent public inquiry. Just yesterday in the House, I was referring to the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was tortured in Syria. There were so many security issues in his case, yet a public and independent inquiry was held into this matter. Moreover, this inquiry was initiated by a Liberal government. The Liberals are able to initiate such an inquiry when they want to, so we wonder why they do not want to in this case. There are so many other examples of commissions where there were security issues. I am thinking of the Charbonneau commission in Quebec. There were security and secrecy issues. There was the Rouleau commission. It is possible to set up these independent public inquiries even if there are security issues. What this tells me is that the Liberal government is trying to bury the current Chinese interference crisis. Above all, it is trying to bury its inexplicable inaction, when it has known for many years that China was trying to interfere in our democratic process. The Prime Minister must have known that there was Chinese interference in the last two elections. Nonetheless, he decided to hide this from the public by creating the position of special rapporteur and handing it to David Johnston, who will be discussed at length today. This is the same David Johnston who seems to be in a blatant conflict of interest over the whole issue and has recommended against holding a public inquiry. Any law professor would confirm that an apparent conflict of interest is no different from an actual conflict of interest. All this is happening despite the crisis of confidence in Canada's democratic system. It will therefore come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois supports the motion moved by our New Democrat colleague calling on David Johnson “to step aside from his role as special rapporteur” and calling on the government “to urgently establish a public commission of inquiry”. Here is what the motion calls for regarding the public inquiry. It should be: (i) led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House, (ii) granted the power to review all aspects of foreign interference from all states... (b) [It should] instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. The Prime Minister can talk up David Johnston's many qualities all he wants, but the fact remains that he is a family friend. Not surprisingly, he was a member of the Trudeau Foundation. Worse still, he apparently has such close ties to China that the very democratic Xi Jinping called him an old friend of China. With friends like that, I would be very careful. Despite all of that, the Minister of Public Safety said yesterday in the House that it was important to “invite...everyone to have an open and transparent conversation about creating new tools to defend our democratic institutions”. I agree with him. Let us talk about democracy. We will talk about democracy. Everything we do today in this debate is based on the concept of democracy. I must digress briefly, before coming back to democracy. I do not know whether my colleagues are familiar with the Airbus scandal, so I will quickly refresh everyone's memories. In 1988, under a government led by former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Airbus had been awarded a procurement contract for 34 aircraft for Air Canada at a cost of $1.8 billion Canadian. At the time, Air Canada was wholly owned by the government. According to Democracy Watch, good old Mr. Johnston was also tapped by none other than former prime minister Stephen Harper to help Mr. Mulroney, who was accused of taking bribes. After being appointed by the Harper government, Mr. Johnston gave the public inquiry such a narrow mandate that it could not examine the contracts awarded to Airbus and the corruption surrounding them, including the cash given to Mr. Mulroney. Nonetheless, he is the one the Liberals asked to investigate Chinese interference. They really know how to pick them. We are talking about $300,000 in cash from a criminal, Schreiber, in what is now known as the Airbus scandal. They are all the same. When it comes down to choosing between Liberals and Conservatives, we choose the worst. We were talking about democracy. Mr. Johnston's preliminary report has been lambasted by the public as a whole, by a large number of media outlets, by politicians, and yet he does not recommend a public inquiry, despite his finding that China is trying to interfere in Canadian politics. Since I was elected to the House in 2019, I have repeatedly seen the minority Liberal government, which, we must remember, was elected by less than a third of Canadian voters, fail to respect the democratic choices of the House. Here is a good example. In 2020, a majority of the House voted in favour of a motion calling for the number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits to be increased from 15 to 50. I have seen nothing come of it. The government does not respect the elected members of the House, a majority of whom voted in favour of that motion. The House has twice voted in favour of an independent public inquiry into Chinese interference, and both times, the Liberal government refused, even though an inquiry has been requested by over two-thirds of the population and over 68% of the population represented by the opposition members. That is democracy. I would like to ask a question. How can the Liberal government talk about democracy and claim to defend democracy when it does not respect democracy in its own Parliament? The worst part of all this is that, after tabling his highly criticized report, Mr. Johnston went even further by repeating the government line that the problem was the media and politicians, who he felt had done a bad job. While we listen to these inane statements, the Prime Minister is trying to stall for time. With numerous members of the Chinese diaspora speaking out about being harassed and coerced by the Chinese government, there is little doubt that the known facts are just the tip of the iceberg. Here is what I find even more interesting in this matter. According to Mr. Johnston, the member for Don Valley North is not guilty of endangering the lives of the two Michaels. Mr. Johnston therefore cites that member as part of his argument against launching an independent inquiry. That member may rejoin the Liberal caucus, as the Prime Minister has said he is open to the idea. Even so, that member, the person most affected by this matter, voted in favour of an independent public inquiry. This is madness. I feel like I have stepped into some kind of bizarro world. It is clear that the public has good reason to be cynical about democracy in Canada nowadays. Everyone knows the government is trying to buy time. Meanwhile, certain communities are suffering. As I said at the beginning of my speech, every human rights group in Canada and Quebec from the Chinese diaspora is calling for a public inquiry into Beijing's interference. That includes Uyghurs, Hongkongers, Tibetans, Taiwanese, entire communities that are being robbed of their culture and traditions. It includes men, women and children who are experiencing violence and persecution. It includes members of those communities who are here in Quebec and Canada and who fear for their safety, who fear for the safety of their loved ones, who are the main victims of this interference in our elections. They are calling for an independent public inquiry. Will the government listen to them? Will it show these people some respect? How can it possibly ignore them? I put that question to the House yesterday, and I was told there would be reassurance. Does anyone really think those people feel reassured? If they did, would they all have told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Johnston's report signalled a sad day for Canadian democracy? Not listening to us is one thing, but not listening to the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, the Taiwanese and the Hongkongers is another. It shows utter insensitivity toward these people. I am here to say that I stand with them. We will support them. We want the same thing they do.

1635 words

All Topics

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

May/30/23 12:35:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at times we can barely tell the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc members when it comes to certain issues, and those issues are more and more frequent. It is unfortunate because we have seen a character assassination of an outstanding Canadian. He is someone who was appointed by Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister. He has provided a report. Part of that report is an annex and, to receive and read the annex, one has to get a certain security clearance. The leader of the Bloc Party has chosen to say that he wants to be completely ignorant of all those facts. He does not want the briefing. The briefing would explain why the former governor general chose not to recommend a public inquiry. Could the member give a clear indication as to why the Bloc Party, more specifically the leader of the Bloc Party, is refusing to get the clearance necessary to see the documents that led to the recommendations of the former governor general?

170 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/30/23 12:36:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a more difficult question than that. In the same question, my colleague said that we are like the Conservatives, but he also said that they each used the same person to cover up a scandal. He said in his question that they were the same, that the Liberals were doing the same thing as the Conservatives, that they were using the same person to cover up a scandal. That is something else. I will answer my colleague’s question. If we said no, it is because the people we work with, the victims of Chinese interference, asked us not to do it. They say that we should ask for an independent public inquiry and that the business of getting security clearance and not being able to talk about what was said is a Liberal trap. It is incredible to see how much they are concealing things from Canadians and not even trying to hide it. They say that the annex explains why there will not be an independent public inquiry. We will be able to find out, but we will not be able to talk about it. Canadians will not know, and we will not be able to tell them. That is incredible. I cannot believe that they actually believe what they are saying. Let us get back to what really matters here: These people do not even respect democracy in their own Parliament. How can we believe them when it comes to investigating interference in our own elections?

255 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/30/23 12:38:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I would like for us to take a step back from what is happening right now. In fact, as he said, this is the second time the House is preparing to vote on a motion asking the government for an independent public inquiry. We remind the government that it is a minority government and that the majority of this Parliament is asking for a public inquiry. The majority of the members representing Quebeckers and Canadians are asking for an independent public inquiry. It is the government’s duty to make that happen. I would like my colleague to remind members that this is not an isolated case and that it is not the first time the government has failed to be transparent and disregarded democracy in this country.

142 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/30/23 12:38:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are getting more and more evidence that the government is so full of itself that it thinks it is a majority government and forgets it is only a minority. It does not respect the will of its own Parliament, its own House of Commons. Worse yet, and to my surprise today, the Liberals came in with an arrogant and aggressive attitude. They are treating the motion moved by their NDP friends with arrogance and condescension. In fact, the NDP should stop supporting the government, because it is not right to be spoken to that way. How is it that, when they do not even respect the motions passed by a majority of the House of Commons, they can still come in with an arrogant and egregiously insolent attitude? It is enough to make anyone fall out of their chair. Luckily, our chairs are solid and well made. How long will that be the case? That is a good question.

162 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/30/23 12:40:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak. I want to say hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who talk to me about Chinese interference every weekend. They talked to me about it again recently and asked me what is going to happen with the special rapporteur. We do not really know. Stromae sang, “I'm not alone in feeling all alone”. Mr. Johnston is also all alone. We are here today to discuss the NDP's motion, which we support, even though it does require some clarification. Of course, the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry back in March. Now, the NDP is calling for the special rapporteur to recuse himself. I should really call him the “special raconteur” because he is telling us such a fascinating story. The NDP is also asking that the public inquiry be led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House. I am going to voice a concern about that, because unanimous support is a lot to ask. I think it would be better to aim for the support of two-thirds of the House or something like that. Nevertheless, we understand that Mr. Johnston is the only one who thinks he is right. The Canadian, Quebec and U.S. media are all saying that the situation is untenable, but he is digging in his heels. I did not like the tone of the previous debates. Even in the weeks leading up to the analysis of today's motion, we were told that Mr. Johnston is an illustrious individual with unrivalled experience and a vision that has prepared him for this sort of job. All of those things may be true. However, the problem that we have with Mr. Johnston is not his past. It is his present. Right now, he is in an untenable position. He is in a conflict of interest, or, at the very least, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. In both cases, why do we talk about conflict of interest when it comes to ethics? It is because conflicts of interest can undermine trust, and trust is the cornerstone of democracy. To elect someone is to place one's trust in someone else. In a case like this one, trust was placed in the government, which decided to subcontract a decision to a person who is far from independent. All of this can affect trust and arouse mistrust. We should not be surprised if it eventually leads to distrust. People are tired of seeing this sort of thing. Those who watch question period know that there is a reason it is not called “answer period”. Whenever we ask a question about Mr. Johnston's independence, the reply we get is that he is a model citizen. If my children had answered me that way when they were young, I would have scolded them for it, because that is not a real answer. Foreign interference is nothing new. It has gotten worse over the years. Chinese interference flourished around the world in 2019, but the free trade agreements facilitated economic dependence and exchanges on various research and industrial matters. Interference became more and more common starting in the 1980s. Today, we cannot deny the fact that foreign interference exists. The government's solution was to appoint someone and make up a title for him. In Quebec, the French word “rapporteur” is not a good quality. It is more of a defect. A “rapporteur” is someone who reports on what other people said, and not always in the right way. Nevertheless, they decided to appoint someone. The Prime Minister, who is the only one who can call a public inquiry, because that is his privilege, his power and his responsibility, said no. He decided that he did not want to be caught out and that he would delegate the responsibility to someone else and respect their decision. I am sorry, but Mr. Johnston does not have the right to decide whether or not a public inquiry should be held. That privilege belongs to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can consult his party, and he could have consulted Mr. Johnston. He can consult all he wants, but it is not up to a third party to decide whether an inquiry should be called. That is called responsibility. Honestly, responsibility is something people do not pay enough attention to today. Let me explain the concept. “Responsibility” comes from two Latin words: res and spondere. Res means “thing”, and spondere, which gave us the English word “sponsor”, means “to promise”. This means that someone who is responsible is someone who can make a promise. Logically, one would think that the Prime Minister can make a promise. However, there are three criteria for responsibility. Does the person have authority to act? In this case, the answer is yes. Does the person have sufficient authority to act? The answer is yes. The most important question is, does the person have a desire to act? In this case, I saw no desire to act. The Liberals saw the NDP's motion in March, but they disregarded it. They do not have much more regard for today's opposition motion. Let us get back to Mr. Johnston, all alone in his corner. His reputation, his experience and the fact that he was appointed by Mr. Harper are the arguments coming from across the aisle. They have been repeated ad nauseam, which is a phrase meaning a very long time. That is not the problem. The problem is that there is no trust. I was told I should have trust in Mr. Johnston because he is extraordinarily credible. I will repeat it in the House: Trust is “credibility plus legitimacy”. In this case, we do not have what comes after the “plus”. Mr. Johnston's legitimacy is contested by everyone except Mr. Johnston. My grandfather used to say that when someone feels like they are the only one who is right, there is probably something wrong. He has no legitimacy. It has been said that Mr. Johnston participated to a certain degree in the Trudeau Foundation. It has been said that he sent his children to study in China. We do not know how he paid for that, though, because sending children to study in China is expensive. It has also been said that Mr. Johnston sponsored a Confucius Institute. I am not condemning Mr. Johnston for all this. I am simply saying that it affects his credibility, so much so that he has none left. If there is no trust in the process, then as an ethicist, I would say that the process is useless. The government is delaying a decision because we got a striptease of revelations over time. Every time we almost get somewhere, there is not enough trust. People are asking us why we do not look at the documents. In my opinion, it is a trap. The Liberals want to force us to remain silent. We will not paint ourselves into a corner. Moreover, we do not think we should listen to someone we do not believe is legitimate, period. I now have a question concerning the NDP's motion. As my colleagues know, we will support the motion, but I still have a question for the NDP. If everything in this motion happens, after the adoption of a motion in March, what will happen? The hon. member for Burnaby South will see the documents. The hon. member for Burnaby South will be outraged. What will happen then? Will he get mad? Will he withdraw his support? What is interesting is that withdrawing their support for the deal between the parties does not mean the government will fall, but there will be more tension in the negotiations, and I think that this dimension ought to be added to the motion.

1355 words

All Topics

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

May/30/23 12:48:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will give a bit of a different approach from that of the member opposite and recognize that foreign interference is something that is not new to Canada. In fact, we have seen it now for well over a decade. When I take a look at what the former administration did, I find that it did nothing. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible, he chose to do nothing on the issue of foreign interference. We have taken a number of actions to date on the issue of foreign interference, and I am wondering if the member could speculate as to what he believes the Conservative government should have been doing, if anything, when the issue was raised with that particular government. Does he believe that this is the only government that has been in a position to deal with the issue?

149 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/30/23 12:49:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite the past. If the previous Harper government did nothing, quite frankly, that changes nothing with regard to today's foreign interference. That is where we are now. Should the former government have taken measures? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the member across the way is asking me whether it is a problem that the previous government did nothing. The result we are faced with today is that this is where we stand now and we must act. It is important to take action. In fact, it is necessary, because failing to take action only encourages foreign interference. I am not saying that nothing was done, but it is time to do more.

117 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/30/23 12:50:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Bloc will be supporting our motion. I am a bit perplexed at the Bloc leader's decision to not look at the confidential annex. It seems to me that more information at this point is good. My understanding of the argument against seeing the annex is that it would preclude certain statements or actions based on the information, but those statements and actions are not currently an option for the Bloc leader because he does not know what is in there. It would seem that the leader could both see what is in the annex and push with us for a public inquiry, as they are not mutually exclusive. Could the member expand on why the leader of the Bloc Québécois refuses to look at this additional information?

141 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/30/23 12:50:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate his concern and wisdom. I would say that, right now, there is one person, that is, Mr. Johnston, who is saying that he has seen something, but that he cannot talk about it. I am not sure that having three other people also tell us that they have seen something but cannot talk about it will restore public confidence. My intervention is based on the need to restore trust. I do not think that Mr. Johnston's suggested method is the only one; there could have been others. Also, I do not think this is the best way, and I would like to hear about others. As we know, in essence, I am asking for Mr. Johnston's recusal, as is my colleague. I am not about to start following his recommendations, either.

149 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/30/23 12:51:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his speech. I particularly enjoyed how he ended it with something of a question. He wondered what will happen otherwise. He did not say it in quite those words. He said it more clearly. Parents who have raised young children will know that we often have to threaten them to get them to brush their teeth. However, the children eventually figure out that these threats will never be put into execution, and they use that knowledge to manipulate their parents. Today, the NDP has presented an extremely serious motion, written in a serious tone, as the subject at hand warrants. I would like to ask my colleague from Trois-Rivières what answer he is expecting when he asks whether the NDP will continue to support the government despite the indignation it is expressing today. If not, what will happen?

156 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/30/23 12:52:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the idea of “what will happen” is what is missing from their motion. It is very important because, right now, the NDP has real power. It has the option of withdrawing its support for its deal with the government. If it withdrew its support, the government would be forced to act a bit differently. I wish the NDP would tell us today that it is tabling this motion and that, if it does not work, it will withdraw its support for the government.

87 words

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

May/30/23 12:53:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House. This is, again, the New Democratic Party showing leadership in the House of Commons, as we did on March 23, with the NDP being the principal party supporting democracy in our country ensuring that we have free and unfettered elections. I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the New Democratic MLAs elected in Alberta last night. It was a complete sweep of Edmonton. There is not a single Conservative MLA now left in the city of Edmonton. It was also a sweep of the majority of the city of Calgary. Calgary is now orange. The majority of the MLAs now representing Calgary in the Alberta legislature are New Democrats. The reality is that, as we know, in a democracy every single vote counts, and 2,500 votes going to the NDP rather than the Conservative Party would have meant an NDP majority government. We certainly congratulate Ms. Smith for her very narrow victory. We also congratulate Rachel Notley for an outstanding breakthrough across Alberta, electing every single MLA in the city of Edmonton and electing most of the MLAs in the city of Calgary. That is the hallmark of a democratic system. That is why we do this work. With the support of Canadians in a free and democratic society, we have the ability to choose our government and choose our representatives. This is absolutely fundamental. That is why the NDP, the member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver East, who spoke so eloquently, and I will come back to her comments a little later on, have brought forward this motion today, as we did back on March 23. We put forward the original motion on the public inquiry. Now we are putting in a strengthened motion, and I will come to the details of that in a moment. One might ask why the official opposition is not doing this work. I have no idea. I leave it to the official opposition to explain themselves, and why the NDP has been doing all of the heavy lifting on this issue from day one to ensure that we deal with not only the important issue of Chinese intervention but also the important issue of Russian intervention, which seems to have had such an impact on the so-called convoy movement that caused such misery in downtown Ottawa, cutting thousands of seniors off from their groceries and thousands of people with disabilities off from their medications, and closing down thousands of businesses. All of this, as we know from the National Observer series of articles, was tied to Russian foreign interference. We also know that both Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Iranian origin have been targeted by their foreign governments. We are talking about a spectrum of foreign interference. The point of privilege that was raised by the member for Durham was very disturbing. It was about the extent of Chinese foreign interference. We believe we need to get to the bottom of that. That is why we need a public inquiry. We also believe that we need to examine the full extent of foreign interference in our elections, so that when we have an election, such as Alberta did last night, we know it would be free and unfettered, that it would provide results, and that moving forward, Canadians could have confidence in a democratic system that has been subject to the highest possible democratic norms and standards. First, I would like to talk about what is in the NDP motion. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois touched on it earlier, but I would like to talk about what it means. On March 23, the NDP tabled a motion that received the approval of all of the opposition parties and all independent members. They all voted in favour of the NDP's motion on March 23. This gave the special rapporteur and the government an indication and a direction. Today we are proposing that a public inquiry be launched as soon as possible to “fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions”. We also want to move on to the next stages to make sure the public inquiry takes place. We are also calling on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role. I will come back to that. The Bloc raised an important question earlier about the possibility of having the House give an instruction. As members know, an opposition motion can give an instruction to the House or a committee. The motion requests that the House: instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. Every member, whether they are a member of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or they are an independent member, needs to ask themselves the question this week. The NDP have already asked the question and will of course support this motion. Before proceeding to the sacred act of voting, everyone here should ask themselves if they agree with asking the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside and giving this instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In other words, this is about acting like an adult, like the member for Burnaby South has often done in the House of Commons, and taking the next steps to find this person and entrusting them with the mandate of launching a public inquiry. It is extremely important. We are already suggesting what comes next. People are asking what the next step will be. They just need to read the motion. I am saying that to the members who have been asking what will come next. Since this morning, we have been debating a motion that explains what comes next. The NDP does not think like the other parties. We are not questioning Mr. Johnston's credentials. He has had an exemplary career and is a man of integrity. He is someone people trust a lot. However, although the NDP trusts the individual, that does not necessarily mean that we will accept his report and his recommendations when the work is not sound. This work is not sound for two reasons. First, as my colleague, the member from Vancouver East, has already said, the team cannot include a legal adviser who donated to the Liberal Party for years. She donated thousands of dollars. He was a major Liberal Party donor. In our view, entrusting this task to that individual showed a lack of judgment. That does not mean we are questioning the entire career of this very distinguished man, but questions must be raised when this work is assigned to someone who has given so much money to the Liberal Party. I believe the member for Burnaby South has already pointed out that lack of judgment. Then, when we look at the report, we see that it is neither convincing nor sound. It is weak. I know my colleague from Vancouver East spoke about all the other contradictions in the report. According to the rapporteur, one of the main reasons for not holding a public inquiry into such sensitive issues is that the inquiry could not be held in public. However, public inquiries always deal with sensitive and confidential information. That has been the case for all the public inquiries we have seen. As has been noted many times in the House today, people can distinguish between confidential information that should not be disclosed and information that is in the public domain. We cannot agree with a proposal that we feel is simply wrong. In general, the mandate of a public inquiry is to handle confidential and sensitive information. In my opinion, the biggest reason that the Right Hon. David Johnston raises in his report, that leads to today's motion, is when he states that, “while we could launch a Public Inquiry on the issues I am required to address for my October report under my TOR, there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. He himself states that his work as a special rapporteur precludes a public inquiry. That overlap means that, as a special rapporteur, his position blocks the possibility of a public inquiry. It is written in black and white. The special rapporteur honestly states that, in his view, the overlap is something that should be taken into consideration. This is exactly why the NDP is asking for a public inquiry. The public is asking for it, Parliament is asking for it, and all parliamentarians, except for those belonging to the Liberal Party, are asking for it. Now we have a special rapporteur who says very clearly that we cannot have this public inquiry if he is still in his position. This is an extremely important aspect. What are we doing with the motion we are tabling? As we did on March 23, we are going to show leadership. It is not the official opposition that is doing this. It is the NDP that is being the adult in the House by showing leadership and setting out the next steps. As a Parliament, we sent this motion and this vote to the special rapporteur. Basically, the special rapporteur says that, because he has already started this job, a public inquiry cannot be held. He says that we cannot keep the information secret. We already know that this claim is wrong. It is clear that we could do both. What he is saying is that if there is to be a public inquiry, he will have to resign. That is where we end up and that is why the NDP has brought forward this motion. The member for Vancouver East was so passionate in talking about the impacts this morning of the lack of a public inquiry and this foreign interference that touches the foreign interference that we saw from Russia in the so-called convoy that caused such misery, in the Chinese foreign interference that the member for Durham just spoke about, the member for Vancouver East has spoken about and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has spoken about. These are of broad concern, like the concerns from the diaspora of Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Iranian origin who have seen foreign interference from their governments. We need to move forward on this. The most substantial part of what we are presenting today is not so much the public inquiry. The public inquiry is already something that Canadians are galvanized about and rallied behind. They believe that, as do almost all of the parliamentarians except those from the governing party. We believe that we need to move forward with a public inquiry. Of that there is no doubt, but to do that we have to reference the report that the special rapporteur produced. I want to thank the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, for his lifelong service to Canada. He has worked, as we know, with Conservative and Liberal governments and has always shown the highest respect for democratic values. Of that we have no doubt. The fact that he issued this report, and now parliamentarians are called to judge that report, is something that he needs to heed. Each member of Parliament, in the coming hours, will weigh how their vote should go on this motion. The first part of the motion reiterates the public inquiry and directs the Prime Minister to put in place a public inquiry. The second really follows what the special rapporteur has so clearly identified in his report. I flagged the French version a little while ago, and now I am going to flag the exact quote within the English version, on page 4, at lines 19 and 20, where he says, “we could launch a Public Inquiry...[but] there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. What the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, is saying is that he is an impediment to a public inquiry being held. Therefore, the message parliamentarians will be called upon to decide is this. If the Right Honourable David Johnston heeds a parliamentary vote, which I believe he will as he is an honourable man, and if the majority of parliamentarians vote as the motion very clearly calls for, and I come back to the wording around this, which is that we “call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur”, knowing his career, his honesty and his integrity from his background, which the NDP has never put into question, I believe if that is the choice that each parliamentarian will make in the coming hours, to call upon him to step down, he will do that. I have no doubt that, because of the integrity he has shown in his background and years of public service, he will respect this parliamentary vote. That is a key element. The NDP, the member for Burnaby South, the member for Vancouver East and the member for North Island—Powell River have all worked extensively on this subject and have already included the next step, which is a referral to the procedure and House affairs committee and, because it is a referral, it would allow for a direction from the House that the committee make it a priority. The committee would then be called upon to work to find out who would be the appropriate person to lead the commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. If the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, does what I believe he will do, which is to step down after facing this parliamentary vote, that would send a clear indication that parliamentarians, our democracy and the democratic will of this House have asked him to step down and I believe he will. By doing so, the procedure and House Affairs committee would have already started the work, which would be the next step to finding a consensus on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. Therefore, the NDP motion today is a package that reinforces our democracy and allows a commission of inquiry to report back before the next election. For those who are saying we should have an election now, while at the same time are saying that foreign interference is real, meaningful, has an impact on our elections and that we have to worry about it, that is simply inconsistent, juvenile and petulant talk. We need adults in the room. The member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver East, who has sponsored this motion, are showing the adult way through by using our parliamentary tools to put in place the next step, which is a public inquiry. As parliamentarians, each one of us has to decide whether we are asking the Right Honourable David Johnston to resign. That decision the MPs make will start a series of steps that will follow.

2558 words

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

May/30/23 1:13:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to say how incredible a Canadian David Johnston is. On the other, they have no problem saying he needs to step aside and get out of the way, because he is not producing the results they want. I found it very interesting that the House leader of the NDP went to great lengths to specifically talk about how much respect he has for David Johnston. He even went on to say that he knew, as a matter of fact, that if David Johnston were asked by this House to step down through this vote, he would comply with that. What if he did not comply with it? Would that mean the NDP would lose faith in and respect for David Johnston? Is that the case? Would the NDP members say they still respect this individual and the contributions he makes? I would like to hear this from my NDP colleague: What would his position be with respect to his feelings about the great integrity of David Johnston if he did not heed the ask of this Parliament?

194 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/23 1:14:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, because we are the adults in the room, I will not pass a partisan comment about the Liberal government not respecting votes in the House of Commons. I do not think that would be appropriate. The question the member is asking is what the Right Hon. David Johnston has said about himself. I will refer to his report because it is very clear to me that many Liberals in the House have not read it. As the debate continues, I suggest that they should actually read the report. At page 4, lines 19 to 20, he says, “there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. He is referencing a public inquiry. He is saying that the reason we cannot have a public inquiry is because of that overlap. I believe that if he has sent that signal to us, he will do the honourable thing and heed a vote in this House. How will this vote go? I do not know, and neither does the member. If a majority of members of this House voted to ask him to step down, I believe he would do so.

197 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/30/23 1:15:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I also commend the NDP for moving this motion. I think it is very courageous and timely, because the issue is extremely important. What is at stake is democracy and the confidence that Quebeckers and Canadians have in democracy and the functioning of their Parliament. There are several items in this motion, but the most important item for me is the one calling on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside and calling on the government to urgently establish a public inquiry. That is what the opposition parties are asking for. I cannot speak for the Conservatives, but the Bloc Québécois will most certainly support this NDP motion. This is a very important motion to which the NDP is also attaching great importance. Will the NDP tell the government that this motion is the condition for its continued support for this government? Is it important enough for the NDP to stick its neck out and tell the government that enough is enough, that its confidence in the government, in their deal and in their alliance will be decided by the vote on this motion?

203 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/23 1:17:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Drummond, but a bit less so for the Bloc Québécois strategy of calling into question in a very personal way the Right Hon. David Johnston. Furthermore, the leader of the Bloc refuses to review all the information available. Only the member for Burnaby South is following up. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are refusing to look at the vital information. We have already talked about what happens next. I mentioned it in my speech and I will repeat it. I will ask my colleague from Drummond, who I greatly respect, to read the motion. It will be easier for the New Democrats to answer questions, if the questions have not been answered in the motion. In the motion, we “instruct [it is a mandatory instruction] the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead...a commission of inquiry [on foreign interference] and what its terms of reference should include.” What comes next is already in the motion. I am asking all my colleagues to carefully read it before asking questions, or making comments or speeches in the House.

220 words

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

May/30/23 1:18:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague is saying all the right things. He sounds very strong. However, this motion is non-binding. This would not force the government to act, just like the March 23 motion calling for a public inquiry that the member proudly referenced. That was also non-binding. This makes me wonder if this is all simply performative, in part, because there seem to be a remarkable number of consistencies between the NDP's and the Liberal Party's talking points in criticizing other opposition parties. This leads to my question. There is only one opposition party in this House that actually has the power to compel the government to act through the confidence and supply agreement between them and to turn the member's really strong, fine words into real action. Will the NDP do that?

139 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/23 1:19:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, I will say it for the third time: I do not want to repeat myself too much, but please read the motion. It is very clear. This would be binding when they instruct the committee. The motion states: (b) instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. As you know, Mr. Speaker, with your learned experience as Deputy Speaker of the House, that would be binding on the committee. The committee cannot say it is not going to do that. The committee members cannot say they are not going to follow this instruction. This would be a binding obligation on the procedure and House affairs committee, and so it would be bound by that and obliged to do that. There is the question of whether the Right Hon. David Johnston would be obliged to resign if Parliament asked him to. Is there a binding obligation on him? I think there is a moral obligation. I have followed his career; I have seen him work with both Conservative and Liberal governments. I believe he is a man of integrity, and if the House of Commons makes the decision in the coming hours to ask him to step down, I believe he will. In that sense, I believe there is a binding moral obligation that would follow the vote on this motion in the House.

258 words