SoVote

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

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.)

May/30/23 3:14:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that prioritizes access to care for children all across this country. Indigenous children are receiving care through hundreds of thousands of products and services as a result of the action this government has taken. In respect of the provider the member opposite is speaking about, the member now has a dedicated service provider in the department working to ensure that invoices are correctly submitted and remitted in payment as quickly as possible.

83 words

All Topics

The Speaker

May/30/23 3:15:04 p.m.
Watch

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, who is accompanied by one of the deputy speakers, the Right Hon. Nigel Evans. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

50 words

The Speaker

May/30/23 3:16:31 p.m.
Watch

I also wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Timothy Halman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change for the Province of Nova Scotia. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

37 words

The Speaker

May/30/23 3:16:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Red Deer—Mountain View to the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-5. Call in the members.

55 words

The Speaker

May/30/23 3:48:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I declare the amendment defeated.

5 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid

May/30/23 3:48:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a technical matter with respect to the vote that just took place. I was attempting to vote using the app and received a notice on my phone saying that my vote had been flagged and may not have gone through. I rushed down here to participate in the new vote in person and to confirm that my yea vote was in fact recorded.

68 words

The Speaker

May/30/23 3:49:06 p.m.
Watch

Yes, it did go by and was counted as a yes. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

59 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin

May/30/23 3:50:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

8 words

The Speaker

May/30/23 4:01:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Speaker

May/30/23 4:01:48 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 29 minutes.

21 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/30/23 4:02:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP to address the question of privilege raised by the member for Durham this morning. We in the NDP are extremely concerned about the situation facing the member for Durham, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, our colleague, the member for Vancouver East, and, potentially, other members. In a ruling delivered on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux stated at page 6709 of the Debates that he had: ...no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation. As the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills said in his question of privilege, we believe that intimidation and threats are breaches of members' privilege and of the House as an institution. We have no doubt that this is a prima facie question of privilege, and we support its being dealt with as such, whether it is in the context of the work that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently doing as a result of the motion moved by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills or as a separate matter.

204 words

All Topics

The Speaker

May/30/23 4:04:15 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member. I will take that under advisement and return to the House.

16 words

All Topics

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

May/30/23 4:04:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech by talking about the impact of foreign interference on people. In our country, there are countless Canadians who have fled oppressive countries and oppressive regimes to come to Canada to make Canada their home, hoping to be free from that oppression and to be able to live in security, safety and liberty. Sadly, the same oppression that they fled often follows these Canadians to their new home country. I want to talk about some of the communities that are impacted. Many of us have heard from members of the Iranian community who continue to be targeted by the Iranian government for raising concerns about the human rights violations going on in Iran. We hear from activists, in Canada, of Iranian descent who took up the call of the “women, life, liberty” chants of revolution and justice, only to find out that they are being targeted here in Canada and that their family members are being targeted. We know of people who leave India to come to Canada who are also being targeted. People from Muslim communities are targeted for being outspoken about the treatment of minority Muslim communities. Women activists who raise concerns about the systemic oppression of women in India, Christians and followers of other minority religions, and activists fighting the caste system are targeted, and their family members are targeted. We also know of many members of the Sikh community who are specifically targeted for their activism, for raising questions of human rights violations, systemic violations of human rights perpetrated by the Indian state against Sikhs. They are targeted with visa denial and with threats to their family. Of course, we know Canadians of Chinese descent who are targeted here in Canada, whether it is through the police stations that are set up and targeting Canadians of Chinese descent, or targeted at those who support the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong or those who are raising concerns about the human rights violations facing Uyghur people. We know that members of Parliament have been targeted, like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the member for Vancouver East, among others. There is a direct impact on people because of foreign interference. We also know that it has an impact on our democracy. The New Democratic Party, naturally, as our name states, has a very strong relationship with and fierce belief in defending democracy. We believe in the importance of voting and want to see more Canadians participate in voting. Voting matters because we hope that people vote and then vote for change, and that change will make people's lives better. We believe in the power of people, unlike the leader of the Conservative Party, who does not actually have an interest in increasing voting participation, because his party benefits from cynicism and attacking institutions that lower voter turnout because lower voter turnouts are favourable to the Conservative Party. It does not actually have an interest in increasing voter participation, and has often put in place laws that discourage voting and make voting turnout harder. The Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are seeking to sweep these allegations of foreign interference under the rug because they seek to hold onto power and are not taking these allegations seriously. Unlike both of them, New Democrats are committed to taking this matter seriously and forcing action. When the Prime Minister of our country ignores serious allegations of foreign interference, that hurts our democracy. When the leader of the Conservative Party wants to score points and play petty politics instead of taking these allegations seriously, that is another example of a party that is not serious about democracy. It is our profound belief as New Democrats that we need to defend our democratic system. To defend our democracy, we need to be clear that, with respect to restoring the confidence of Canadians, there is a serious concern about the appearance of bias. This does not go to the conclusions or to the work, but, if there is an appearance of bias, it undermines the trust that Canadians have in the process and the work that is being done. If that confidence is undermined, then we cannot see any action that will restore the trust that Canadians have. The clear example of that trust being undermined is the fact that the special rapporteur engaged, as principal lawyer, Ms. Sheila Block, who has a clear track record of having donated to the Liberal Party in every election since the early 2000s. As she is someone someone who was tasked with analyzing and reviewing the documents and preparing the report, that is clear evidence of a bias. This is coupled with the fact that the report does not challenge any assertions made by the government. The government made assertions, and those assertions are then repeated in the report. That gives a clear appearance of bias that undermines and erodes the work of the special rapporteur. Clearly, all decision-makers must be perceived as unbiased. If it is a judge, the judge must be unbiased. In the case of the special rapporteur, there is a clear perception of bias that is undermining the effort to restore confidence in our electoral system, and that is unacceptable. From the beginning, New Democrats have highlighted that the government failed to take the allegations of foreign interference seriously. Appointing a special rapporteur instead of having a public inquiry was the first mistake. The report just accepts the government's findings without any push-back or any rigorous examination of the government's assertions. Now, the clear appearance of bias makes it no longer tenable for Mr. Johnston to continue in his work. That is why we have been calling for a public inquiry. From the beginning, we have said that a public inquiry is a process that has the rigour necessary to take this matter seriously. It would give Canadians transparency; moreover, it would allow the cross-examination of witnesses, and it would be independent. That is a process that will restore faith in our electoral system. We have said all along that we need an independent and transparent process, such as a public inquiry, to restore confidence in our electoral system and clearly show that these allegations are being taken seriously and that we want to do more to strengthen our democracy. What New Democrats are calling for, to this extent, is to restore confidence in our electoral system. We want Canadians to believe that their votes matter. We want Canadians to vote more. We want to reverse the tide of apathy, which has seen voter turnout continue to decline. We know that these allegations of foreign interference are certainly going to contribute to that erosion in public trust, which will contribute to lowering voter turnout. We want to keep our democracy safe. We want to keep Canadians and parliamentarians safe from foreign interference. That is why we are calling for two specific things in this motion. First, we want the government to remove Mr. Johnston from his position as special rapporteur, not as a personal slight, but because he can no longer restore the confidence of Canadians in our electoral process given the clear appearance of bias. Second, we want the government to launch a public inquiry to investigate this matter and to give clear conclusions that strengthen and reinforce our democracy. The Prime Minister ignored the evidence. The Conservatives and their leader do not even want to look at the evidence. I will be looking at the evidence, and I will not be ignoring it. I will take it seriously, continue to pursue a public inquiry and use all tools to continue to force that. I want Canadians to know that we are taking this matter seriously, because I truly believe in the strength of our democracy. I believe we can reinforce and strengthen it. Mr. Johnston is an honourable man and has shown a clear track record of service to country. I am very certain that, upon seeing the will of this House, Mr. Johnston will himself withdraw as the special rapporteur. I want the government to understand that this is a matter we take seriously, that our democracy is something that we have to be vigilant to defend and that to do so, we need a public inquiry. At this point, Mr. Johnston needs to be removed as special rapporteur. That is what our democracy calls for, and that is what New Democrats are demanding.

1422 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

May/30/23 4:14:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who participated in the study that was done at the Canada-China committee, where the report was tabled a couple of weeks ago. In that regard, in the recommendations is a call for a foreign agents registry; there are also a lot of other pieces that could, in fact, form the terms of reference for some form of inquiry. Given the fact that so much of what we have had exposure to is all covered by the Official Secrets Act and could never actually be made public, could the hon. member for Burnaby South give us more details as to what he would see as those terms of reference?

121 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

May/30/23 4:15:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. We have a template of how to proceed in this type of sensitive situation. I want to acknowledge that there are matters of national security, and it is in our interest to keep them secret. Doing so ensures that our secret services can continue to do their work and that their process, the work they do and those that they rely upon will remain safe and secret, so that our work can continue. Given that, we have seen in the Rouleau commission that there is an approach that recognizes national security but still allows for the rigour of a public examination. This is the template that I would suggest we follow. A public inquiry, as the Rouleau commission showed, could involve elements where a judge is independently ruling on what matters should be brought before the public. There would then be cross-examination of statements made, for a testing of evidence, which is far better than one person's opinion. That is why we need a public inquiry.

175 words

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

May/30/23 4:16:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the most disturbing comments, I think, in the Johnston report is right here in the conclusions, on page 5. It says, “There are serious shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government”. Clearly, the government is not doing its job. This, I believe, is negligence. I believe that a minister should resign over this. We are talking about foreign interference. I think that, under the Westminster parliamentary tradition, somebody should resign. It is that serious. Would the hon. member for Burnaby South have any comments on that?

100 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

May/30/23 4:17:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the allegations of foreign interference are serious and that the Johnston report actually highlighted some shortcomings. One of those was the fact that there was a clear breakdown in communication between CSIS and the government. It is absolutely the role of the minister to be proactive in getting information and following up on that information. I would also add that, according to the Johnston report, while the Prime Minister and the ministers were aware of allegations, they were not told what to do. They chose not to pursue it any further. I think that showed a serious lack of judgment. We expect the government, upon hearing allegations of foreign interference, even if it is not given clear steps that it is recommended to take, to be proactive in asking for follow-ups. It should do its own follow-up to ensure that its systems are strong enough to respond to foreign interference. Therefore, I agree that there are serious mistakes that the government made, as well as shortcomings, and it should be held accountable. That is why this vote, hopefully, will push for a public inquiry and remove Mr. Johnston from the special rapporteur position.

203 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/30/23 4:18:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP for tabling this motion. There is something about it that seems a little unusual, a little strange or ambivalent coming from the NDP. A few weeks ago, the NDP openly praised David Johnston's appointment. Its position led me to believe that the NDP supported the work that David Johnston was about to undertake. Leader, can you explain this position to me?

68 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 4:18:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member must address his comments and questions through the Chair. The hon. member for Burnaby South, with a brief reply.

22 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

May/30/23 4:19:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have not criticized Mr. Johnston personally, then or now. Our criticism concerns the appearance of bias. It concerns the fact that there are many examples and a large body of evidence showing the appearance of bias, which is detracting from efforts to restore confidence in our system. This appearance of bias is why we are demanding that the government relieve Mr. Johnston of his duties. We are not attacking him personally; we are attacking the appearance of bias, which prevents us from being able to move forward with this special rapporteur.

95 words

All Topics