SoVote

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

May/30/23 1:22:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her leadership on this. The NDP members have been the “adults in the room” pushing this along. We have seen the Liberals try to cover everything up and the Conservatives being petulant and juvenile. The NDP has been the one party bringing forward concerns of Canadians, as I know her constituents in London—Fanshawe have expressed to her, to get to the bottom of this and to get answers. Whenever our next election is held, we need to make sure that we have fully examined this issue and put in all the measures that protect our elections. The NDP will get us there.

119 words

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

May/30/23 1:22:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, where to start on the issue? It is not that often that I have a few pieces of paper in front of me because there is just so much that I would like to say. I recognize that I have a very limited amount of time. We all had a constituency week just last week. There were a number of ministers; Minister Joly came. We talked about the Philippines. I am sorry—

75 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:23:33 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary.

10 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/23 1:23:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe that the member does not know the rules of the House. Perhaps he would like to rephrase the last name that he used.

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:23:44 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member was ready to retract that. The hon. parliamentary secretary was really quick to admonish the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The hon. member has the floor.

31 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/23 1:23:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if there were a way to wipe all that out and just start fresh, that would probably work best. When one starts talking with Canadians to try to understand what they want us to be talking about here in Ottawa, we find that we get caught in the Ottawa bubble at times. Just last week, we had a constituency week. During the constituency week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stopped by Winnipeg. She met with a wonderful group of people and visited a couple of businesses. The Minister of Seniors also stopped by and made a wonderful announcement about the New Horizons for Seniors program. I tried pickleball for the very first time with the Minister of Seniors, which went pretty well. Then there were a couple of other announcements, and I met with a lot of constituents. In fact, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg just last week and had an open public town hall. Hundreds of Winnipeggers, and I suspect others from outside Winnipeg, attended it. Whether it is from any of the events I listed or from my annual visit at the local McDonald's, I can tell members that not one person raised this issue that seems to be so deeply engaged in what I classify as the Ottawa bubble. It makes me reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister often tells us how we want to ensure that our constituents' ideas, thoughts and concerns are being brought from our constituencies to Ottawa and not vice versa. This is what we are hearing a lot about, and we need to put this into a real-time reality check. What are we talking about here? When we stop and think about it, we are talking about foreign interference. Opposition parties have already made their decision; they want to spend millions of dollars to have a public inquiry. What we need to do is look at how this issue has evolved. In the first place, we need to recognize that this is really not something new. Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the issue of foreign interference brought up to him and his government many years ago. He chose to do nothing, which is fine. It is the government's prerogative, I guess. The current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada today also chose to do nothing. We need to remember that he was the minister responsible for democratic reform at the time of those allegations. He chose to do nothing. We fast-forward to today, when he now chooses to be ignorant of the facts. Remember, the reality is that we have a special rapporteur, who comes by and makes his report. In his report, he does not recommend a public inquiry, for a wide variety of reasons. He sets in place a special annex, and in order to be able to look over that part of the report, one needs a certain security clearance. He has invited the leader of the Conservative Party to read it, but the leader of the Conservative Party says, “No, no, I don't want to do that.” He comes up with some lame explanation. The reality is that he does not want to know the truth behind the report. It is the same thing for the Bloc party. I will give the NDP credit in the sense that its leader recognizes that there is nothing wrong with being more informed on the issue of foreign interference. I give him full credit for that. He is doing this as opposed to blindly saying things and politicizing the issue, which is what we have been hearing from the Conservative Party for weeks now. Its members are more concerned about ratcheting up the political interference issue. They are doing this to such a degree that, I would ultimately argue, they are almost doing what foreign interference is meant to do. This is to try to instill a lack of public confidence in our democratic system. They go out of their way on social media to get their constituents upset about an issue that has been there for over 10 years. Imagine, we have the leader of the Conservative Party tweeting out all these horrors of foreign interference, but while he was the minister of democratic reform, those horrors were taking place and he chose to do absolutely nothing. That seems to be a double standard. What we are seeing from the Conservative Party is not what is in the best interests of Canadians, our democracy or our institutions. It is what the leader believes is in the political best interest of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what we are witnessing. Just because there is united opposition on an idea does not make it right. Even a minority of one can be correct. Who is the special rapporteur? He is the former governor general of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointment and someone who has actually done thorough investigations in the past. Members can read what Stephen Harper had to say about the Hon. David Johnston at the time of the appointment. He was outstanding and unquestionable in terms of his integrity and “a great Canadian”. Members can also look at the investigations Mr. Johnston conducted previously. If members think that Mr. Harper was wonderful in his praise and recognition of the integrity of David Johnston, they can take a look at what the former senior NDP member David Christopherson from Hamilton had to say. I do not have the actual quote, but I heard it earlier today. If members think that Stephen Harper was kind, generous and truth-telling in describing the Hon. David Johnston, they should read what David Christopherson had to say, a former senior New Democratic member of Parliament who was universally well respected by all political parties. He gave him glowing marks. How could one possibly question his integrity? However, because we have opposition parties prepared to politicize this issue to the nth degree, I would suggest they are prepared to throw a great Canadian under the bus so they can score cheap political points. I do not say that lightly. It is not like this issue surfaced three or four years ago. This issue has been there for many years. The procedure and House affairs committee had the opportunity to investigate the issue. How many motions did we receive three years ago from the Conservative Party or any other political party at PROC suggesting that we look into foreign interference? It was there and it was real, but it was none. Standing committees have wonderful opportunities. They can travel the country to investigate and can call all forms of witnesses before them. They can do that to come up with recommendations and policies and provide guidance to the government, political parties and their leadership circles. However, that did not take place. One of the first actions we took as a government with this Prime Minister was establishing the parliamentary security committee, which is a committee of the House of Commons with all-party participation that has top secret clearance. Its members have the highest security clearance one can have, and they have looked into this issue. I suspect they are looking into the issue even more, and there other agencies doing so. By the way, this is a committee that the Prime Minister put into place. The parliamentary secretary for electoral reform listed off about six or seven items that this government has acted on since we became government. This is a government that has taken action on foreign interference, unlike Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party when he was minister of democratic reform, who did absolutely nothing on the issue. This government has actually taken action on the issue. What the Conservatives do is everything they can think of. This is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc. Before the Prime Minister was the prime minister, we sat with third party status in the far corner. If we read the S.O. 31s from that time, we will see that they were about personal attacks on the then leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. Even after we became government and the leader of the Liberal Party became the Prime Minister of Canada, every opportunity they have had, whether it was justified or not, they have attached the word “scandal” so that social media lights up, with the plug-in being from the Conservative Party of Canada. They are on the track of doing the best they can with character assassination, not subject matter. It is not about the issues of the day. The issues of the day, I would suggest, are inflation, housing, immigration and health care. These are the issues that Canadians are talking about if we listen to what constituents are saying. However, that is not what is happening in the Ottawa bubble, because the Conservative Party wants to continue to push an issue that it took absolutely no action on when it had the opportunity to do so, contrary to what this government has done. We talk about the foreign registry. The Conservative Party clicks its heels and says to make it happen and then asks why it is not happening today. We are moving in that direction. There is the word “consultations”. They need to take place. The Conservatives know there is an obligation on the government to work with other stakeholders. They know that, but they seem to believe that all one needs to do is wave a magical wand around and, poof, we now have a foreign registry and everyone has to register. It is completely incredible the way the Conservative Party is so focused on not what is in the public's best interest but what is in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is unfortunate. Take a look at some of the numbers. CSIS provided a report, and I would like to quote from that report. This is actually their annual report of 2022. It is apolitical, unless they are now going to accuse our law enforcement agencies of being political: In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security. In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference— Let us underline those two words, “foreign interference”. —terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada. I said to underline the words “foreign interference”. Let me go on to the next paragraph. There is something really important here: “In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports.” Here is the next part, which I want to underline: “In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence [reports].” It is a busy agency. When we think about those reports, we hear about two or three members of Parliament. It is a lot larger than that. They provided federal briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I do not know if that means we are going to have another 47 matters of privilege being raised. I suspect that those briefings are taking place. Maybe what we should do is have PROC look into the matter. However, the Conservatives do not want anything unless it can be publicized with the word “scandal” attached to it so that they can fundraise off of it. Shame on them. It is not only members of Parliament. There are 26 others provincially. I am assuming they are talking about parliamentarians, or MLAs in the province of Manitoba. They also note 17 municipally elected officials, who could be, I suspect, anyone from a mayor to a councillor to a reeve. There is no denying that there is a serious issue. The Prime Minister himself has said that an attack on one is an attack on all of us, but it is about the manner in which we choose to deal with the issue. When I posed a question to a Bloc member, he said we could have had more detail; we need more detail. Bloc members need to realize, like the Conservative Party, that their very own leader does not want the details. The Bloc has already agreed that it wants a public inquiry. There has been no difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc. They have wanted a public inquiry right from the very beginning. Where was the Bloc when Stephen Harper saw this? Why did the Bloc not argue for a public inquiry when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of democratic reform? Where was the Bloc then? It did not have a very strong footprint here, that is true, but I can tell members one thing: Even with that little footprint it was nowhere to be found. Today, what is the difference between the Bloc and the Conservatives? An hon. member: The shade of blue. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is the shade of blue, as my colleague says. That is really about it in many different ways. Yes, one could—

2292 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:41:24 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

15 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/30/23 1:41:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am worried about people in the stands who are having to hold their ears. Could the member keep it down so that it is at a more respectful level?

32 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:41:36 p.m.
Watch

That was not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/23 1:41:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I cannot believe that my NDP colleague is trying to silence the member when he is representing his constituents and properly debating in this House.

32 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:41:50 p.m.
Watch

Maybe this is giving the hon. member an opportunity to catch his breath. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

21 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/30/23 1:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way attempting to silence the hon. member. It is just that it is Tuesday and my head does hurt. He could give me some Aspirin. I am just asking him to consider the rest of us.

42 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/23 1:42:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect my friend has not dealt with his alcohol problem and maybe that is the reason why— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I withdraw the comment. I suspect he does not have an alcohol problem. At the end of the day, we need to recognize—

53 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:42:33 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

8 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/30/23 1:42:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where anyone mentioned an alcohol problem, so if he is going to maintain a level of debate, he should keep his stick on the ice.

31 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 1:42:45 p.m.
Watch

All right. Once again I will ask everyone to take a deep breath. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/23 1:42:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the same principle of the statement the member just made should have been put to himself, looking in a mirror, prior to him standing up on the first point of order. I can assure this House that the tone of my voice is at times not quite as loud as that of the member who made the point of order. Getting back to the issue at hand, at the end of the day, this is an issue of a government that has in many different ways taken tangible actions to ensure that the integrity of our system is in place and protected. As the parliamentary secretary clearly indicated to the House in a very detailed way, the government has taken a number of steps. Those steps, I believe, are somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven or eight tangible things that have made a difference. There are opportunities for us to deal with this issue. The issue for me is whether the Conservatives and the Bloc in particular are going to want to continue to use this as a political tool. Are they prepared to put the politics aside and deal with this based on what is in the best interests of Canadians as opposed to those of their respective political parties? To me, that is the real question, because if they really want to get down to business, there are all sorts of ways we can do that in a co-operative way. Something we have consistently been saying from the beginning is that for an issue of this nature, an attack on one is an attack on all. We will continue to do our best to ensure that any sort of foreign interference is minimized.

288 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

May/30/23 1:44:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned putting politics aside, but he did not mention that the Liberal Party has benefited to a great extent from the Communist Chinese government's involvement in our democracy. It is a very serious situation. I hear Liberal members laughing, but this is no laughing matter whatsoever. We have Chinese Canadians who are being intimidated. Will the member not admit that the special rapporteur should have pulled himself out in the first place and not accepted this job, considering his special connection with the Prime Minister and his involvement in the Trudeau Foundation? Would the member please respond?

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/23 1:45:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like there is still a sense of soreness on the other side that they did not win in the last election, so now they are trying to come up with excuses or any sort of rationale that they can blame, as opposed to it being their platform or other issues related to the Conservative Party. I will provide a quote from an article for the member, just so that he is aware. It says, “The U.S. Ambassador to Canada says the question of whether or not foreign election interference is happening is less important than whether it’s been successful, and he hasn’t seen any proof that alleged interference attempts by China in Canada’s elections have managed to affect the results.”. I know the member thinks very highly of the American counterparts. Maybe he would recognize that at least this particular individual is right. Maybe that would give the member a little more sense of comfort in recognizing that the Conservatives were not defeated because of foreign interference, but because of the campaign period itself.

187 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/30/23 1:46:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House since 10 o'clock this morning, and all I am hearing is what could be described as “mud-slinging”. To put it another way, it is like a ping-pong match, but things are getting a bit out of hand. I would like to bring a little decorum back to the debate. That being said, in his speech, the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about Mr. Johnston. This is not about Mr. Johnston and his values. It is about democracy. Even the Chinese diaspora is calling for an independent public commission of inquiry. This would undoubtedly confirm for the government that what the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knows may only be the tip of the iceberg. It would reveal and teach us even more, and would therefore be even more democratic. This is not about using the inquiry as a political tool, but rather ensuring that it serves democracy. I have a question about democracy. If this NDP motion is adopted, the House will have adopted three motions calling for an independent public inquiry. Will the government finally agree to launch an independent public inquiry this time?

200 words