44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 2:40:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are telling us that an inquiry would not be effective because there are too many national security issues. However, they launched a commission of inquiry into Maher Arar. They tell us that they have taken concrete measures to ensure the integrity of the electoral system. Since then, at least three opposition members have been threatened. They are telling us not to be partisan, but they are not respecting the will of the majority of elected representatives. None of their arguments make sense.
Why are they refusing to call an independent public inquiry?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:47:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about the state of our democracy. Diaspora communities have been sounding the alarm for decades on this issue of foreign interference. The government is clearly not listening to them, and the official opposition is more interested in making political points.
New Democrats are listening. We know that 72% of Canadians want a public inquiry. They need to trust our democratic institutions. Will the Prime Minister put the interests of Canadians first and call a public inquiry?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, foreign interference is real. It is happening here in Canada, and the Prime Minister has failed to address it. By refusing to implement an independent public inquiry into foreign interference, the Liberals are hurting people and our democracy.
Their appointed rapporteur David Johnston does not have the confidence of the House. He must go. The Prime Minister needs to listen and do the right thing. Will he remove David Johnston and immediately launch an independent public inquiry?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:47:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could expand on his comments about the commissioner, David Johnston, making it very clear that there is an annex to the report, which has a security-related issue, and has really encouraged all three leaders of the opposition parties to listen to the briefing, read the report and participate so they will have a better understanding of why there is no need for a public inquiry. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
