44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 10:43:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the passion, intelligence and wisdom that she brings to the House with this motion. The member has spoken very eloquently about the impact of foreign interference on Canadians of Chinese, Iranian and Indian origin. The impacts of this foreign interference have ramifications right across the country. The question I want to ask is, quite simply, this: If the Liberal government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry, though I think that resistance is starting to diminish, what message does that send to Canadians of diverse origins who are concerned about the impacts of foreign governments trying to impact our democratic system?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:47:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today on this important topic. I found the debate earlier quite interesting. We saw the Conservatives and the NDP fight about who did what first and who is criticizing the government more.
Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we are actually getting to work to make sure that our democratic institutions are protected. While we do that, the opposition parties can stand up to fight about who did what best, whose clip came first and whose motion did what.
I think Canadians expect a government that puts partisanship aside to focus on the real issues that our country is facing. The threat of foreign interference is not a partisan issue. Every single Canadian, regardless of who they vote for or what party they support, should absolutely care about this issue. That should be reflected in the House.
The issue of foreign interference in our democratic institutions is not a new one. In fact, it is not even a unique one for Canada. We have seen instances around the world, such as the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We have seen efforts of foreign interference in France, Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries have been dealing with this issue.
In fact, Canada was warned by CSIS in 2013 about the threat of foreign interference. The then democratic institutions minister, now the opposition leader, did absolutely nothing about it. The leader of the official opposition said in this place that he did not do anything about it because it did not serve his partisan interests at the time. That should indicate to Canadians the absolute basics of where the opposition parties are coming from on this issue.
We now have the report by the right hon. David Johnston, and before members have even had a chance to dive into that report, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Bloc have said no. They are going to close their eyes to facts. They do not want to receive the secure national security briefing because they want to be able to continue to still make ignorant claims. They would like to remain blind to the facts. It should not surprise anyone that a party based on conspiracy theories and clickbait would not be a mature and responsible opposition party.
Yesterday, in this very place, the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not want a national security briefing because he did not want to be silenced. That should tell Canadians the level of maturity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is not ready to lead this country. He is barely ready to lead an official opposition of this place.
For somebody to suggest that having a national security briefing silences one on this issue is not only beyond false, but also beyond comprehension. It shows how little he knows about national security matters.
I myself have national security clearance because I was a member of the NSICOP committee, yet I have debated on this issue several times. I am leading the opposition day speech in this place. I have spoken out at PROC. I have asked witnesses serious questions. In fact, in my role in the national defence committee, I brought forward a motion that we study cybersecurity. This was all while having national security briefings, sitting on NSICOP and studying foreign interference, yet I have been able to serve my constituents by raising the issues that matter.
By taking national security seriously and by understanding that one can advocate for stronger democratic institutions, one can still advocate for stronger legislation and mechanisms while also protecting the national security information of this country.
That is what responsible members do. If I can do it, as a member of this government, certainly the Leader of the Opposition should be mature enough to understand the importance of national security while still being able to advocate for stronger mechanisms and measures. The fact that he cannot comprehend how to put the national security of this country first, instead of his partisan attacks, should tell Canadians everything they need to know about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the Leader of the Opposition and, for that matter, the leader of the Bloc.
When it comes to the issues, I have heard many times in this debate that confidence in Canadians is being eroded. Is that not ironic given the members saying it are the ones who are closing their eyes to the facts? In the right hon. David Johnston's report, he specifically talks about the balance between wanting to make a report that everyday Canadians can read and access with better understand, while at the same time protecting the national security information we all rely on to keep this country safe. He acknowledges that.
David Johnston said that he created an annex to this report with all of the information he based his decisions on. He included this annex for leaders of all recognized parties, members of NSICOP and those with national security clearance that need to have access to it. He specifically said in this report for leaders of the opposition and members of NSICOP to please read this annex, the information that he based his decisions on. He said that they can read it and come forward if they believe that, based on the information, his recommendations were ill-informed or they have taken a different approach.
It is pretty open and transparent to say there is a balance between Canadians needing to understand the positions and the recent media leaks while protecting national security. He then went on to say to everybody who has that national security clearance, such as opposition parties and NSICOP, that all of the information, which he based his recommendations and findings on, is in one easy document, and that, if they disagree with those findings, then they can come forward and say so. However, this will be done while protecting the confidential information collected by the national security community. That is quite reasonable.
In fact, it was an incredibly readable report. I have read many reports of this nature. NSICOP has produced many reports of this nature, and one of the things NSICOP always tries to do in the public version of its reports is to take care and concern in making them as digestible as possible, so any Canadian picking up a report would understand the national security dynamics happening at any given time.
David Johnston suggested to read the information to determine on one's own if one thinks his findings were reasonable, so what happens? The Leader of the Opposition covers his eyes and his ears and says, “No, no, no. I don't want facts and information. I want to be able to stand up here and make fake innuendos, fake accusations and raise some money for my election campaign.” He wants to make personal attacks against the Prime Minister and the right hon. David Johnston.
What does the Bloc do? As my hon. colleague says, it is “blue light”, and it just follows suit. Then the NDP, with this motion, calls for the removal of the special rapporteur based on his report. Its leader has at least agreed to read the annex and get that national security briefing. However, before that has been done, to my knowledge, or at least before the leader of the NDP has made any assessment on the information the right hon. David Johnston used to come to the conclusions he did, and before NDP members have had a chance to really look at it to see if all the information is relevant, they say that they do not support the report. They do so without reading the basis of the recommendations.
When it comes to national security, there is a lot more context and information required than just a few media leaks. Therefore, for any responsible government to refuse to read the national security documentation in the briefings, to refuse to wait and, even for for those who have agreed to read it but refuse to actually digest it, look at it or consider it and just throw the report out, is nothing more than partisan games with Canadians' national security and with our democratic institutions. Therefore, if anybody is suggesting that confidence is being eroded, I would suggest it is by the irresponsible behaviour of our opposition parties in not actually doing the work, considering the information and making informed decisions, which is something that, regardless of party, I think every Canadian would expect their MP to be able to do.
I have talked about why I find the opposition parties irresponsible and, in particular, why I find the Leader of the Opposition not only irresponsible but also incredibly immature and unfit to lead, even a party, in this place. However, I want to also talk about some of the things we have done since 2015 because, as I started with in my speech, this is not new.
The opposition party, as the previous Conservative government, knew about foreign interference in 2013. Let me just say, too, that this is this not new, and it is never going to be over. There is no silver bullet any government could implement to say that foreign interference is no longer an issue. A serious democracy is going to always have to be diligent to the foreign forces that would love to destabilize the democracy that Canadians have fought so hard for. Therefore, the important piece of dealing with our democratic institutions is to put the partisanship aside and continually work on how to adapt and change with the changing nature of the threat. However, again, we cannot even have those types of debates in this place because we are too busy hearing partisan and personal attacks from the opposition members, who should be bringing forward recommendations and suggestions to move forward on legislation or mechanisms that would strengthen democratic institutions. Because we cannot get past personal attacks, the government is going to keep working based on experts and those who have come forward making recommendations, and based on looking at other countries and some of the work that they have done.
Some of the things that we have done since 2015 include creating NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which gives national security clearance to representatives from recognized parties in the House, as well as national security briefings and documents. It is a committee that I mentioned I sat on, and it was an extremely professional and serious committee that has not only produced excellent reports for Canada but also has been recognized globally for the work it has done.
We created NSIRA, which is a review of our national security community. We have also established the critical election incident public protocol, and we have created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, often referred to as SITE.
We have established rapid response mechanisms during elections. We have also had Bill C-59 and Bill C-76, and we have created the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. That is all since 2015.
While opposition parties say that we do not take this seriously, we have right here eight examples that I have listed. I would be curious as to whether, at any point during the day, the Conservative Party will be able to name even one example of something that it did in 10 years to deal with the threats to national security and to strengthen our democratic institutions. I will wait patiently through the debate today to see if that happens.
In addition to that, I would be very curious to see whether the members opposite come forward with serious policy and a serious policy debate.
We have the Johnston report, which makes very clear recommendations, as well as criticisms, with respect to how information is being reported to those who need it. Every government needs to seriously look at and constantly review these matters. I think there has been a strong indication that we are not only taking it seriously, but that we will implement changes to make sure that, moving forward, we are constantly improving our democratic institutions and our processes, and that we are making sure that democracy is protected for Canadians. We do not own these spaces, as this is the House of Commons of Canadians, and it is our job collectively to ensure that we continue to maintain the democratic institutions in this place.
I have spoken at length about the seriousness of these issues, the fact that they are not new, and that in 2013 we had a government that did not take them seriously at all. We are now implementing several of the recommendations, as well as implementing mechanisms to constantly strengthen our democratic institutions.
I want to speak again to this, because we are going to hear personal attacks all day today on the Right Honourable David Johnston. We have already seen him referred to as a ski buddy, a neighbour, a friend, and I think it is quite interesting that Conservatives would refer to him in that way.
I would like to read a quote with respect to Mr. Johnston, which states:
Mr. Johnston has a strong record of public service, a broad base of support and an impressive list of achievements....He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him.
That was not the current Prime Minister, but the previous prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, who said that about David Johnston. Therefore, it is disappointing that the Conservatives use personal attacks to undermine not only his credibility, but his lifelong achievements, dedication to this country and public service. To erode all of that by saying he is just a ski buddy and that is how he was selected is an absolute insult to this place and to the people who serve their country. It is all being done for nothing more than partisan gain. He was good enough for Conservatives to make him the governor general. He was good enough for the former prime minister to speak of him in that way. His reputation and credibility have only come into question now that Conservatives are not getting their political way.
I have spoken a lot about the lack of maturity shown by the Leader of the Opposition. I know my time is wrapping up and I want to conclude by saying this. Canadians deserve opposition parties and parliamentarians who work hard for their constituents. We are not always going to agree, but at the very least this should be a place of adamant debate on policy. When the Conservative members opposite do not like the findings or the opinions of someone they have acknowledged and revered for years and decide to throw him away like he is no longer good enough for this country, it is an absolute shame. It shows how immature and ill-equipped the Leader of the Opposition is and that he should not be taken seriously in this country. He is clearly not ready now, nor probably ever, to lead this country, because he does not take national security seriously, but we will on behalf of Canadians.
2560 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:13:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, our government has been open and transparent. We have been focused on the seriousness of foreign interference. I take great offence to the member raising this issue while he, himself, has raised questions and issues of foreign interference merely to try and rewrite an unfavourable past. I find that incredibly irresponsible when it comes to national security.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:31:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we first called for an independent public inquiry as a result of the allegations of foreign interference in Canadian elections. By “we”, I mean the opposition parties.
According to Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer of Elections Canada, a public inquiry is necessary and essential to reassure Canadians.
I would like to hear what my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, has to say about that, because, after all, Mr. Kingsley is telling us that Mr. Johnston did not even consult Elections Canada senior officials in the course of his investigation.
If foreign interference into elections was the main reason to call for a public inquiry, why did Mr. Johnston's investigation not include Elections Canada? I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:48:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to correct my colleague. The Alberta NDP won every seat in Edmonton and the majority of seats in Calgary.
We know the Conservatives are more interested in flinging mud than looking for a solution. This is a matter of foreign interference, not just Chinese interference. Russia and Iran are also carrying out major covert operations. We only have to look at the United States in 2016 for evidence of that, or to reports of the Russian financing of the “freedom convoy” in Ottawa in 2022, which we know the Conservatives supported. Singling out the Chinese has had a huge impact on the diaspora here in Canada.
Do the Conservatives agree with Canadians that we should be investigating all foreign interference in elections? Also, do they agree that we need to deal with foreign interference before we go into another election, not after?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:52:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there seems to be a problem with the interpretation. When the member speaks, we hear a crackling noise on the line, which is making the interpreters' task more difficult. There may be a cellphone causing interference.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:52:59 a.m.
- Watch
I have asked this before of members. Please ensure that cellphones are not sitting on desks, because they create interference with interpretation.
The hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:48:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give a bit of a different approach from that of the member opposite and recognize that foreign interference is something that is not new to Canada. In fact, we have seen it now for well over a decade. When I take a look at what the former administration did, I find that it did nothing. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible, he chose to do nothing on the issue of foreign interference.
We have taken a number of actions to date on the issue of foreign interference, and I am wondering if the member could speculate as to what he believes the Conservative government should have been doing, if anything, when the issue was raised with that particular government. Does he believe that this is the only government that has been in a position to deal with the issue?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite the past. If the previous Harper government did nothing, quite frankly, that changes nothing with regard to today's foreign interference. That is where we are now.
Should the former government have taken measures? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the member across the way is asking me whether it is a problem that the previous government did nothing. The result we are faced with today is that this is where we stand now and we must act.
It is important to take action. In fact, it is necessary, because failing to take action only encourages foreign interference. I am not saying that nothing was done, but it is time to do more.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:50:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the official opposition in the House when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The member can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that Thomas Mulcair ever raised the issue, even though we know foreign interference was taking place then.
The Conservative Party has seen the political optics for calling for a public inquiry and tying it to some sort of scandal. The Bloc has bought into it, but hopefully the NDP will not buy into it because, as the member knows, even when Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the NDP, sat in opposition, he never raised the issue of foreign interference, even though it was happening then. Today we have a government that has taken numerous actions to deal with foreign interference. It seems to me today that the opposition is more prepared to deal with the partisan politics of the issue as opposed to dealing with what is in the best interests of Canadians, including protecting our democratic institutions.
If opposition members were concerned about that in the first place and felt a public inquiry was necessary, why would they not have argued it when it was happening years ago? Why did they not raise the issue years ago? I would suggest it is because there is a new, shiny leader of the Conservative Party who has determined that this could be a good political issue. Other opposition members are buying into it or do not want to be seen as being soft on the issue, when there are other ways this issue could be dealt with that would minimize foreign interference. That is what what I would recommend members to look at doing.
287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:27:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's approach to foreign interference has been a failure. The Prime Minister decided to bring in a special rapporteur, which was a mistake. He should have launched a public inquiry. Now the appearance of bias is so strong that the special rapporteur can no longer continue to do his work.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and remove the special rapporteur from his position and restore Canadians' confidence in our electoral system?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:29:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that the appearance of bias is so strong in this case that Mr. Johnston cannot continue to do his work to restore confidence in the system.
Our motion calls on the Prime Minister to remove Mr. Johnston from his role. It is clear that the allegations of foreign interference are serious.
Will the Prime Minister finally take these allegations seriously and immediately launch a public inquiry?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:29:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have been taking allegations of interference and concerns about foreign interference seriously since 2015. That is why we implemented many mechanisms to counter interference. That is why we have relied on experts like Rosenberg and Johnston to follow up on what we are doing and to make recommendations on how to move forward.
We will continue to take this issue seriously. We will continue to let the facts and the intelligence gathered by our agencies guide our reflections and actions in this regard.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:32:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Beijing interfered in two federal elections and helped the Liberals win. It threatened members of Parliament of this House and their families. It donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation to influence the Prime Minister's decisions. These are very serious matters of foreign interference that require a full public inquiry. Unfortunately, we all knew that the fix was in when the Prime Minister appointed a member of the Trudeau Foundation, who also happens to be his neighbour and a long-time family friend, and then gave him a fake fancy title.
Why the cover-up?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:33:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have been taking the work of fighting against foreign interference very seriously since 2015. Again, the contradiction is the Conservatives, who want to say they are taking this seriously, yet voted against the new authorities that we granted to our national security establishment to fight this scourge. The fact that they do not want to support taking a briefing so that they can equip themselves with the information to have a responsible, thoughtful conversation about this I think lays bare that they do not take it seriously.
Again, when will you take the briefing?
97 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 2:50:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about the threats that are posed by foreign interference, which is why this government has been acting concretely by introducing new powers for the Communications Security Establishment by creating new mechanisms of transparency.
Most recently, I signed off on a ministerial directive to ensure that I and the Prime Minister are getting briefed. We now have a public hearings process, which we hope to start in earnest, so we can bring Canadians along as we equip our establishment with new tools, but to do so in the right way. That is something that we are all committed to doing.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
