SoVote

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

May/30/23 5:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for joining us in calling for a public inquiry. I agree with her that this has nothing to do with Mr. Johnston's qualifications or his exemplary service to Canadians over many years. This has to do with the Prime Minister and Mr. Johnston walking into a huge conflict of interest scandal around the whole issue of foreign interference in our elections. I mention to this member that the Prime Minister will continue to breach ethics rules and guidelines. He will continue to walk into conflicts of interest as long as the NDP sustains this common-law marriage with the Liberal Party. It is only when the NDP will finally pull the plug that we will actually be able to see Canadians have an opportunity to hold the government accountable. I would ask the member when—

143 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:21:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

9 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

May/30/23 5:21:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member has a perspective. I do not share that perspective. When it comes to being very concerned about the leadership of the Liberal government, I share a lot of concerns. Part of the work I do is really to make the lives of Canadians better, and I take that really seriously. When I think about the people who come to my office and talk about the challenges they are facing, it makes me frustrated, so I have a responsibility to make sure every step I take I am as accountable as I can be to my constituents. However, I also focus on what I said I would put forward and make sure it gets done. When I think of things like dental care, moving forward with pharmacare and dealing with things that matter to Canadians, such as making life more affordable and making sure they have a bit more money in their pockets, I will fight every day for that.

166 words

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

May/30/23 5:22:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I am a person who favours consensus and I completely agree with her that we must encourage positivity. I endorse that way of thinking. I am just wondering about how long it took for my NDP colleagues to react to this appointment. We have been speaking out against it for weeks because it caught our attention right from the start, while they are only responding today. That is surprising. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

88 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

May/30/23 5:22:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I was waiting for was the Right Honourable David Johnston to do his job, but what happened to the process was that we just saw more and more issues come forward. To me, this is not about partisan politics; it is about the fact that Canadians have lost faith. I do not know that Canadians had lost faith with him in the beginning, so we allowed him to do his process. Unfortunately, we have gotten to a place where we have heard people on either side blaming about who did what, but the reality is that we are not seeing the work that we need to. In the media, I actually said that we would wait to see what the report brought forward, as I believed in it very clearly. If we had any concerns at that point, we would continue the work that we felt was important, which was toward a public inquiry. It was our leader who asked for it first. It was our party that brought forward the motion. The committee will continue this work until the work is done.

186 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

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

Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise in this most honourable institution, in the House, and speak to a very important issue today, the New Democratic Party's opposition motion. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for London West. I look forward to hearing her remarks as well. Everyone knows that Canada is recognized internationally for the strength and stability of its democratic system and institutions. In addition, the majority of Canadians say they are satisfied with how our democracy works. It goes without saying that we have good reason to be proud of the trust Canadians have in their institutions. Indeed, as the independent special rapporteur on foreign interference reminded us in the very first line of the report released last week, democracy is built on trust. Truer words have never been spoken. Naturally, it is this principle that guides how the government interacts with Canadians, develops policies and sets up programs not only to maintain the state of our democracy, but also to continually improve it. Nevertheless, we can all agree that democracy is a work in progress requiring our constant attention and that it is under constantly evolving threat. That is why we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We want to better protect and preserve the trust that Canadians have placed in us, which is why we are continually developing new measures to protect our democratic institutions and respond to emerging issues that seek to weaken them. One of these measures is the plan to protect Canadian democracy that the Government of Canada implemented ahead of the 2019 federal election and renewed in the lead-up to the 2021 election. I would like to point out that this plan is the first of its kind globally. It comprises a range of initiatives designed to improve and strengthen Canada's democratic institutions and protect them from threats. One thing is clear: When Canadians have access to reliable information and are better informed about the tactics employed by foreign and malicious actors, they become our best line of defence in our efforts to safeguard democracy and fight foreign interference. This is one of the fundamental premises of our plan to protect Canadian democracy, and it is why the plan's initiatives include enhancing citizen preparedness through measures such as the critical election incident public protocol. The protocol is a mechanism for senior public servants to communicate clearly, transparently, and impartially with Canadians during an election in the event of an incident or a series of incidents that threaten the election's integrity. This is one example of an information-sharing success story. The protocol serves as a bridge between the expert panel, which is composed of independent, professional senior government officials, and the national security agencies represented on the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force. As we know, during the last two federal elections, the expert panel did not detect any incidents that might have threatened Canada's ability to have free and fair elections. I would like to reiterate that this does not mean that there were no attempts at foreign interference or incidents of foreign interference. In fact, the experts made it clear that there is always a certain level of foreign interference. What it actually means is that Canadians can be certain that the outcome of these elections was determined by them and them alone. As the independent special rapporteur points out, there is therefore no call to doubt the results. In addition, several independent assessments have demonstrated the usefulness of this protocol, and that includes the assessments of the implementation of the protocol that were carried out after the 2019 and 2021 general elections. Both assessments assured Canadians that the protocol should remain in place. They also suggested areas for improvement, which we take very seriously. For example, significant updates were made to the protocol following the 2019 election report. The government is currently reviewing all the recommendations published last February following the 2019 elections. Members will recall that this is what the government committed to in its April 6 report aimed at providing an update on the recommendations for preventing foreign interference in our democratic institutions. More recently, the independent special rapporteur also said that the mechanisms that protected the 2019 and 2021 elections were sophisticated. It seems quite clear to us that the protocol is one of these mechanisms. He also affirmed that the measures taken to date have countered the threats of foreign interference and minimized their impact on Canadian democracy. These independent assessments have given Canadians the assurance that these measures help protect our elections from all types of threats. That is why we relied on these measures to protect the byelections currently taking place in four ridings across the country from any form of foreign interference. On May 16, the government announced that the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force would increase its monitoring of foreign interference threats during the current byelection period. Our efforts do not stop there. The government recognizes that Canadians want more information about threats to our democratic institutions. Accordingly, after election day, the task force will produce a report that will include its assessment of any foreign interference it detects during the byelections. As I am sure my colleagues will agree, these measures address the needs and priorities of Canadians. They also reflect our vision. Just because Canada's democracy is one of the strongest and most stable in the world, it does not mean we should not always strive to do better. That is what Canadians expect and what they deserve. My intervention today focused on certain elements of the plan to protect Canadian democracy. It goes without saying that these are just a few of the measures implemented by the government to protect our democratic institutions from all types of threats. However, I hope to have clearly demonstrated the government's commitment to strengthening Canada's democracy, responding to Canadians' concerns and continuing our efforts in that regard. The independent special rapporteur submitted his report to us last week. He pointed out improvements made to information sharing. The government has implemented measures to help address this issue and is working to create others. By the end of October, we will receive his second report, which will include a set of recommendations primarily aimed at ensuring that malicious foreign states cannot jeopardize our democratic institutions. As I mentioned, members will understand that the government is looking forward to the release of this independent report. I am convinced that the strategic recommendations in that report will enable us to continue to improve how we protect our democracy. I invite Canadians who wish to be heard to participate in the public hearings that will be held soon by the special rapporteur. Finally, in closing—

1142 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:33:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up, but I am sure he will be able to continue during questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

33 words

Powell
North

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/23 5:34:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could please explain to me his perspective on perception of conflict and conflict. The reality, for me, is that when somebody is perceived a certain way, we have to start focusing on what we want to see out of this. I think what all of us want to see out of this is a process that is accountable and transparent to Canadians so they can trust in our democratic institutions. I am wondering if the member could share his thoughts on that.

90 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/30/23 5:34:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for North Island—Powell River for bringing forward this opposition motion. It is obviously important and needs to be debated. In this situation, in relation to the question that was asked, I would point to former Supreme Court justice Iacobucci. He is very esteemed and held in high regard, and was actually appointed by, I believe, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney a few decades ago. He has led a number of inquiries and has done much work for the federal government. He is someone I hold in an esteemed position. I am glad that he was contacted to provide a letter to say there was no conflict, and we will go with that.

120 words

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

May/30/23 5:35:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Liberals do not want to have an inquiry. For one thing, what benefits them politically is the status quo. Most of the ridings held by Chinese Canadians went Liberal in the last election, primarily because of threats and because all sorts of things were happening, such as money being funnelled. I wonder if the member could comment on this. The special rapporteur, in spite of his credentials, is not acceptable to the opposition because of his connections to the Trudeau Foundation and because he is a personal friend of the family. Is it not self-evident that this is not appropriate?

108 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/30/23 5:36:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from British Columbia for the question. It is a very sincere and substantive question. As I have said in the House repeatedly, I am for a foreign agent registry. That avenue needs to be pursued and is being pursued vigorously by the Minister of Public Safety. I think we need to put that in place with the proper guardrails and due diligence. I also believe that we have committees, NSICOP and NSIRA, that do good work. One of those committees has members of Parliament on it. We do have institutions in place. We must always maintain confidence in our electoral institutions and in our democracy. We will continue to do so. No matter which government is in power, that must be a priority.

130 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/30/23 5:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am astounded by the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's convoluted logic. He started his speech by telling us Canada is known for the quality of its democracy and that people trust it. Then, he went on for 10 minutes talking about generalities just to end up telling us that we do not need a public inquiry. Basically, what he was saying is that Canadian democracy is like good wine. Since it is good, we can pour some vinegar in it until it spoils. Then, he had the gall to conclude by saying that we must do better. Can he explain to us why an independent public inquiry, which a majority of members has called for, would not enable us to perhaps do better?

128 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/30/23 5:37:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is a very important issue for me. I understand what he is saying. We as a government put in place a special independent rapporteur, someone who is very distinguished. The independent rapporteur did deliver a report and there is a second report to follow. At the same time, we as a government must act. We must put in place a foreign agent registry with the proper guardrails, as I stated in my prior answer. We do have committees, NSICOP and NSIRA, that are doing good work, and a number of other initiatives are going forward. We must be sure that Canadians have confidence and trust in their democracy. We know that the 2019 and 2021 elections were not impacted by foreign interference, as has been ruled in reports. They stated that the outcome was fair and that the outcome was decided only by Canadians.

154 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.)

May/30/23 5:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today I rise to address the House of Commons on a matter of the utmost importance: the protection of our democracy and the institutions that uphold it. Democracies in Canada and around the world are facing a pivotal moment. Malicious foreign-state actors are eager to cast doubt on the strength and integrity of our democratic institutions. Their aim is clear: to erode the trust we maintain in our democratic institutions and weaken the very essence of our democracy. Fortunately, despite being challenged, Canada's electoral systems stand strong, and reports continue to demonstrate that we rank among the world's healthiest democracies, yet we cannot afford to be complacent. We must confront the evolving threats to our democracy and guarantee that our infrastructures remain robust and impervious to attack. More importantly, we must continue to deliver on our promises of protecting Canada's democracy through clear and ongoing concrete actions. This is precisely what the government has done and continues to do. We have led the way among our international partners by spearheading the implementation of the plan to protect Canada's democracy. This plan represents a government-wide strategy comprised of four key pillars: enhancing citizen preparedness, improving organizational readiness, combatting foreign interference and building a healthy information ecosystem. Following a series of independent assessments reaffirming the utility and relevance of the four pillars, the plan was renewed again in 2021, helping to protect our electoral system against the evolving threats of the landscape. As an integral component of our comprehensive strategy, we introduced the critical election incident public protocol, a framework that aims to outline the steps by which an independent and non-partisan panel would notify Canadians of any incident that may jeopardize the integrity of elections, and established the security and intelligence threats to elections, SITE, task force to support the work of this panel. To ensure accountability to Canadians we included a mandatory provision for an independent evaluation of the mechanism in addressing election threats, and this serves as a critical measure in maintaining public trust in the panel's ability to safeguard our democratic process during the caretaker period, that is, during a federal general election. The reviews, but more importantly the insights they yield, ensure we remain focused on continually improving our systems. Independent panel leaders were provided with access to a wide range of materials that included classified and unclassified documents prepared to support the work of the panel, as well as access to interviews with representatives from national security agencies, government officials, security-cleared members of political parties, and of course the members of the panel itself. This access ensured a thorough examination of the relevant information and perspectives essential for a comprehensive evaluation. These independent reviews have resulted in the publication of two reports. In 2019, the first independent assessment on the critical election incident public protocol was conducted by a former director of CSIS, who found the implementation protocol successful. Similarly, in the 2021 general election, the independent assessment of the protocol was undertaken by a former federal deputy minister and the governments of deferring partisan stripes. The assessments found that elements of the protocol worked well and recommended suggested improvements. We know that democracy is not a static entity; it requires our constant attention, particularly as threats continue to evolve. For this reason, as allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections flooded media cycles on March 6, the Prime Minister tasked the minister responsible for democratic institutions with developing a plan within 30 days to address any outstanding recommendations stemming from the 2019 and 2021 assessments. The Prime Minister also called for additional reviews on these matters to further uphold confidence in our democratic institutions by both the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. These findings and recommendations will be reported to Parliament in due course. The robust accountability mechanisms the government has put into place are not just about accountability, but about continuing to improve. Just as the threat to our democracy continues to evolve, so too must our efforts in assessing how we are doing along the way and what is the best way to ensure that we continue to improve. The Prime Minister also announced the appointment of a former governor general, the Right Hon. David Johnston, as special independent rapporteur on foreign interference, with a broad mandate to make expert recommendations on building trust in our democracy. On May 22—

750 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:44:11 p.m.
Watch

I apologize, but it being 5:44 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): 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.

98 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/23 5:46:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NDP would ask for a recorded division.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:46:48 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 31, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

29 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:59 so we can begin Private Members' Business.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:47:11 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:59 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed.

20 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 5:47:33 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words