SoVote

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

May/30/23 4:50:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when Conservatives say things like, “I do not think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston as he is an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian”, or when Conservatives say stuff like, “I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment that Mr. Johnston is an eminent Canadian”, or when Conservatives say things like, “There is no doubt as to the integrity, experience and résumé of Mr. Johnston”, how is anybody supposed to believe, based on those comments, that the Conservatives would have a problem with David Johnston? They do not, and do members know why? It is because their own former prime minister, Stephen Harper, appointed him Governor General. What the Conservatives do want is to score cheap political points for political gain and fundraising opportunities. That is all they are doing with this. That is what this entire exercise is about. They are smearing an individual's reputation, an individual who has served this country extremely well, and I find it absolutely disgraceful.

174 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 4:51:13 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Carbon Pricing.

39 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/30/23 4:51:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River. I want to thank members of the House for providing me with the opportunity to talk today about this motion. The New Democrats, of course, are disappointed by the recommendations from the special rapporteur. In order to move forward in a proactive and productive way, we are calling for the House of Commons to support our motion for a public inquiry. Canadians deserve better than a process that raises doubts about the independence and impartiality of its conclusions. The integrity of our democratic institutions and protection of the diaspora communities are of paramount importance. It is essential that we address the allegations and concerns and restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic processes. That is what the New Democrats are trying to do through this motion today. The NDP leader was the first leader to call for a public inquiry on foreign interference. The NDP moved the motion at PROC calling for the inquiry and forced debate and a vote in the House in March. The NDP has now put forward this motion and will continue to use every tool we have as parliamentarians on this issue. I am proud that we are not afraid to do the real work and dig into this issue, unlike past consecutive governments. Unfortunately, the Liberals have rejected our calls from the very beginning. They had an opportunity to show that they take this issue seriously at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the NDP was pushing for a public inquiry. Instead, they decided to filibuster our motion. The Liberals' failed to call a public inquiry and are now hiding behind the recommendations of the special rapporteur they appointed. It undermines public confidence in the electoral process. This is part of a bigger pattern and one that worries me greatly. My colleagues and I have a great deal of respect for the former governor general. We have been very clear about that today, a lot, but on this report we disagree. Again, I reference that the majority of members of the House disagree with him. I know that some folks have forgotten this in this place, but it is possible to disagree with someone, still respect them and still treat them with respect. I disagree with Mr. Johnston's findings and the report, and I reference the fact that when he was investigating whether the leak that China preferred a minority Liberal government was true or not, he wrote, “I asked the Prime Minister and ministers if they were aware of any orchestrated effort to elect a Liberal Party of Canada minority. They were not.” Mr. Johnston dismissed this allegation simply because the Prime Minister and members of cabinet told him it was not true. I do not believe this is a sufficient reason. Mr. Johnston also retained a lawyer to assist in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing the materials for interviews. The same lawyer was a donor to the Liberal Party of Canada between 2006 and 2022. Why was this not flagged as a conflict of interest? Years of entitlement have skewed the government's perspective, and at a time when we need the Liberals to step up for the health of our democracy, they seem to want to say instead that everything is fine and there is nothing to see here. The longer they refuse to step up and the longer they refuse to call for a full public inquiry, the more Canadians are losing trust in the Liberals. More worrisome is that Canadians are losing faith in the institutions that are in place to serve them. More and more Canadians are disenfranchised and divided. We need all parliamentarians to come together to protect our democratic institutions and our diaspora communities. While the Liberals are focusing on avoiding the headlines, the Conservatives are only interested in flinging mud and scoring political points. They are not interested in finding solutions. At committee, they filibustered and used bad faith tactics against the NDP motion on a public inquiry. They have used divisive rhetoric to divide Canadians and, sadly, to fundraise. There was expert testimony at committee around the scope of foreign interference, not just by China but from Russia, India and Iran. They refused to talk about it. We have heard about the oppressive regimes harassing and targeting activists in diaspora communities. We have heard reports about foreigners financing the “freedom convoy”. However, the Conservatives are not talking about that. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, we just concluded a study on cyber-defence. We heard a lot of expert testimony on the threats of foreign interference and how states like Russia interfered during the convoy. I want to quote one of the expert witnesses we had, Marcus Kolga. He is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He said: The broad goal of Russian information warfare is to undermine public trust in our democracies and the cohesion of our societies. They do this by weaponizing issues and narratives that have the greatest potential to polarize us. They inject and amplify narratives that exploit both Conservative and Liberal biases and any issues that have the potential to drive wedges between Canadians. We have seen this type of foreign interference through disinformation campaigns in action, and we know the tool box for foreign disinformation campaigns has only grown bigger with the emergence of technology. I will give a few examples. First, we are seeing the rapid expansion of deepfake videos. As artificial intelligence technology advances, it is becoming easier and easier to produce video content that looks incredibly real. They can create videos of politicians, newsmakers making announcements, news anchors breaking stories on major world events. These videos are completely fake and generated by a computer, but will be a powerful tool for disinformation campaigns. Second, artificial intelligence is driving massive innovations in social media bots. Bad-faith actors will be able to create fake social media accounts, which they already do, but they will be able to engage with real Canadians and have full conversations. It will become increasingly difficult for everyday Canadians to tell the difference. Third, the social media algorithms and data mining are always innovating. Big tech executives are finding new ways to get Canadians to increase their social media activity, and that has led to the proliferation of divisive content. These will be the new tools for foreign actors to drive wedges between Canadians, and if we do not get over the partisan and political games and mudslinging, if we do not get to the bottom of foreign interference through this public inquiry, those divisions and polarizations for Canadians will get worse. We want to work together to find a solution, a well-informed, facts-based solution. In closing, I want to remind members on all sides of this House why foreign interference is occurring. Oppressive regimes are harassing, intimidating and silencing Canadians who are speaking out. I will quote my colleague from Vancouver East, who spoke this morning quite passionately about this issue. She said, “For people like me, who are outspoken against human rights violations, the genocide of the Uyghurs, the erosion of basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the National Security Law, we must be vigilant of attempts by foreign influence actors working to coerce, co-op, re-orient, neutralize, or even silence our voices.” This motion is not about Liberals avoiding another scandal or Conservatives making the evening news. This motion is about protecting human rights and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and creating a path forward that is reasonable and abides by the will of the majority of parliamentarians. That is what New Democrats put forward in this House in March and that is what we are putting forward in this House today. I hope the government will see that and respect the will of Parliament.

1343 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

May/30/23 4:59:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask for your perspective on the confidentiality and the security clearance needed to look at some of this information. The initial reservation we heard from people who thought a public inquiry was not a good idea, as well the report, refers to the fact that so much of what needs to be discussed cannot be discussed in a public inquiry. How can we have a fulsome discussion about the very issues that are being raised? I am not referring to the broader issues that have been mentioned that we can talk about. This whole thing was about specific cases of foreign interference and we cannot talk about the specifics. Therefore, why do you think a public inquiry, where we cannot talk about the specifics, would be useful?

132 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:00:28 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member should refrain from using the word “you” and address all questions and comments through the Chair. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

28 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

May/30/23 5:00:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the last point in our motion is to instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to report back to this House, to create recommendations on who should lead the commission and to put forward the terms of reference that need to be included in that study. Members of this House who have, unfortunately, been subjected to a lot of foreign interference calls should be able to do that in this House. There are ways we can do this safely and securely. That has been proven repeatedly. I do not think there is anything in this motion that sacrifices any of what the member is talking about.

110 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

May/30/23 5:01:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin my question, I just want to recognize the birth of one of our newest constituents. Her name is Léonie Angelina Potestio, daughter to Camille Cook and Oliver Potestio. I want to welcome her to this world here, a few days ago. My hon. colleague talked about human rights and the importance of human rights, and I think we can all agree that democracy is incredibly important, so much so that we should be looking at this in the most serious manner possible. Is my colleague, therefore, on behalf of the NDP, prepared to commit that we either have an inquiry or have an election?

129 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

May/30/23 5:02:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for allowing me to bring forward one of the points that my brilliant colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke raised earlier. We are asking for the government and for a committee of this Parliament to do the work that is necessary. If we were to call an election right now, we would be going in with the exact same rules that we have now and potentially the exact same problems that we have now. Therefore, if we are able to come together to do the work necessary to ensure our institutions are protected and those democratic processes are protected, then we can have the faith of Canadians in this place to go forward with an election free from interference.

129 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/30/23 5:03:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to read from an open letter written by Eric Montigny, professor of political science at Laval University, published in today's La Presse: [The Prime Minister] has mastered the art of stalling for time. When controversy tarnishes his government, he usually resorts to the same strategy: first, play down the scope of the scandal and then sit tight while the storm blows over. That is what he is again trying to do in the matter of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. The political science professor goes on to say—

100 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:03:40 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the member. I believe there is a problem with the interpretation. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

24 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

May/30/23 5:03:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my hon. colleague, but I do not believe we have English translation at this time.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:03:54 p.m.
Watch

We are going to check on that. Is it working now? The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

20 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

May/30/23 5:04:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is working. It has been working for me the whole time, so I wonder if the member just has a problem with his hearing piece.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:04:22 p.m.
Watch

It seems to be working now. I remind the hon. member for Mirabel that he has only one minute to speak, so I would ask him to ask his question in 30 seconds. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a point of order.

45 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/30/23 5:04:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that my colleague is going to repeat his intervention from the start and that he will be given the same amount of time he had before my colleague's point of order.

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:04:54 p.m.
Watch

There was one minute and 25 seconds of speaking time overall. I forgot to tell the member that he only had enough time to ask a brief question. I would ask the member for Mirabel to ask a brief question because time is running out. The member can begin his intervention from the start, even though he was almost finished. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a point of order.

72 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/30/23 5:05:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand that he had almost finished his speech, but there was a problem with the interpretation. It has nothing to do with the time he had left or the time he was given. The Chair did not indicate that he had to ask a brief question at the beginning. Regardless of how much time had been used, when there is a problem with the interpretation, the member has to start from the beginning, period. We are not going to argue about the Official Languages Act.

88 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:05:36 p.m.
Watch

What I just told the hon. member is that he had one minute and 25 seconds for the question and the answer. There is one minute and two seconds left, but the hon. member may start again. I will let him do that, but I will simply advise him that he has to try to finish his question. I will let him ask his question, but he cannot go over a minute. He would not have had more than a minute of speaking time in total. Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: I have a point of order. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): No, the matter is closed. The hon. member for Mirabel.

119 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/30/23 5:06:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Laval University professor Eric Montigny is calling for a public inquiry today in an open letter. He states that “holding a public inquiry into foreign interference must first be seen as an exercise in protecting Canadians' confidence in Canadian democracy.” What the Liberals are doing today, in pointing the finger at the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP instead of recognizing the need for a public inquiry, is further undermining public confidence in Canadian democracy. Does my colleague not think that the Liberals' attitude today is highly irresponsible and that they should take the high road in this debate and recognize that we must launch a public inquiry to restore public confidence?

122 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

May/30/23 5:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the majority of my speech today, and I hope that this was recognized, was about us all coming together, doing what is best for democracy, putting that first above all the bickering and squabbling, and delivering what Canadians have asked for and what the will of this Parliament has asked for.

56 words