44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 10:17:02 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that,
(i) the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, on March 23 and May 8, 2023,
(ii) the government did not heed this call, and instead appointed an independent special rapporteur who has recommended against holding a public inquiry, despite noting significant gaps and leaving many questions either unasked or unanswered,
(iii) serious questions have been raised about the special rapporteur process, the counsel he retained in support of this work, his findings, and his conclusions,
(iv) only a full public inquiry can fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions,
the House:
(a) call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur, and call on the government to urgently establish a public commission of inquiry which would be,
(i) led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House,
(ii) granted the power to review all aspects of foreign interference from all states, including, but not limited to, the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Iranian and Russian governments,
(iii) asked to present its report and any recommendations in advance of the next dissolution of Parliament or, at the latest, at the fixed election date as set by the Canada Elections Act; and
(b) instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with sadness that I stand here today, when the NDP has to put forward this motion.
The situation around foreign interference is real. It is happening. It is impacting Canadian society. It is impacting us all. It is damaging to our democratic system. It is threatening to some Canadians who are very active in their fight for basic human rights and democracy.
Despite this, the Liberal government does not see the importance of why, in looking into these matters, there should have been a public inquiry right at the outset. Instead, the Prime Minister decided, himself, that the appropriate path forward would be to appoint a special rapporteur.
Now here we are; the special rapporteur has tabled a report, and there are lots of issues with the report and with the entire process. I just want to say on the public record what the NDP is calling for. Our motion essentially calls for these four things: that the independent special rapporteur, the Right Hon. David Johnston, step aside; that the government launch an independent public inquiry on election interference by foreign governments; that the commissioner of the public inquiry be selected with unanimous agreement from the House leaders of all recognized parties; and that a report on the public inquiry be tabled in the House before the next election.
In addition, to get going with this work, the NDP's motion also calls for the House to instruct PROC to report to the House on the terms of reference and a possible commissioner who could lead such a public inquiry. This would allow for the greater pressure that needs to be put on the government in the coming weeks in terms of the need for an inquiry; it would also set the stage to show that this work can and must be done.
Last Friday, I had a classified briefing with CSIS. I was briefed on foreign interference and how I was subjected to it by the Chinese Communist Party. The briefing was very clear in saying that I could not disclose exactly how I was subjected to foreign interference, because that would put in jeopardy the important work the intelligence agency is doing. That is something I obviously would not want to jeopardize. To that end, I am not able or at liberty to share exactly what is happening or how it is happening with regard to my being targeted. However, CSIS made it clear that I am subject to foreign interference and will continue to be a target.
Foreign interference is happening. Whether someone is in support of the Chinese Communist Party, ambivalent about it or opposed to its policies, they could be targeted and subject to foreign interference. We also know that this could happen prior to or during an election, as well as at any period outside of that. We are seeing that unfold.
Some of us are outspoken and have concerns about basic human rights and the genocide of the Uyghurs. Some of us voted in support of the motion in this House in that regard and have concerns about the erosion of the basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the national security law, for example. Such people need to be ever vigilant in terms of attempts of foreign-interference actors working to coerce, to co-opt, to reorient, to neutralize or even to try to silence our voices.
Coming out of this briefing, what is clear to me is that the fight for people whose human rights are being violated, who are being silenced and even threatened, is more important than ever. We must do everything we can to protect Canadians' charter rights and our fundamental right of freedom, with the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom for peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of beliefs. The very essence of what makes us whole as people is to enjoy those freedoms and to protect them for Canadians, and not only for Canadians, but also for people around the globe. This is why we are here. This is the important work that is before us. I am here to say that, despite threats of foreign interference, I will not be deterred from fighting for those rights and fighting for the people who do not enjoy those rights.
It is more important than ever that Canada and the Canadian government do everything we can to protect our democracy and our cherished fundamental freedoms for all Canadians and people around the globe. I want to send a clear message to everyday Canadians who have families and loved ones in Hong Kong and in China; it is that I know their fear is real and the dangers their families face are real. For that reason, I am saying very clearly that I recommit myself to stand with them, to fight with them and to demand action from the government to protect them.
Canadians deserve answers. They deserve accountability and, yes, they deserve protection. This is not just for members of Parliament, like me, who have privilege in this place, but for everyday Canadians as well. They too are faced with foreign interference. The work that has been done so far is inadequate. Right at the outset, the Prime Minister made a misstep. However, it is not too late; he could make a correction and do what is right to rebuild the confidence of Canadians around this process.
I read Mr. Johnston's report, cover to cover, several times. I did not want to misunderstand or miss the point that had been made. He made a number of recommendations. One of the key recommendations was that he would not recommend a public inquiry. He stated that this would have been the easy thing for him to do. With all due respect, I disagree. I actually think that for Mr. Johnston to say that there needs to be a public inquiry and that there should be one would have been the hard thing for him to do.
I say that because he would be saying to the Prime Minister point-blank that the process the Prime Minister had chosen was categorically wrong. He would be saying that it was the wrong process and that the Prime Minister should not have embarked on it. Moreover, it would indicate that Mr. Johnston himself should perhaps not have accepted that appointment. I understand that it would be a hard thing to do to call out the Prime Minister. We do it every day in this House because it is our job; however, I guess that when one is appointed by the Prime Minister to do a job, it is a much harder path to take, to say that it is the wrong path to take. Mr. Johnston chose the easier way and did not call out the Prime Minister; instead, he said he would carry on the work, even though he should have known that he does not enjoy the confidence of all members of this House. If he did not know, he definitely should know that by now.
In his report, Mr. Johnston notes how important it is to undertake this work so that it is entirely non-partisan, and he says that we need the co-operation of all members of the House. I absolutely agree with that. In my previous speech, I pleaded with members of the House to set aside partisan politics and to engage on the issue. Recognizing the importance of that, Mr. Johnston noted it in his report; however, we are in a situation where, for a variety of reasons, Mr. Johnston does not enjoy the full confidence of every member of this House. The latest of these is the discovery that his legal adviser donated to the Liberal Party.
That surely should have been flagged, as Mr. Johnston was putting together his team, but it was not flagged. The team went on to carry on with this work. The legal adviser was a key member of the team in reviewing the documents from CSIS. How can it be that this went unnoticed? How is it even possible that, now that it is on the public record, there is no further action to be taken after the fact?
The basic principle of the appearance of conflict alone would suffice for someone to say, “I made an error and, therefore, I will now step away.” That did not happen, so now we are in this House and the NDP's motion is calling for Mr. Johnston to step down.
We have to do this work right. It is too important for us not to embark on a proper process, one that every Canadian has confidence in and one that is devoid of partisan politics. Mr. Johnston knows that much of the information he and his team have reviewed from CSIS could not be disclosed because it would put national security in jeopardy. I understand that. I do. I had my briefing. I was also told that there is much information I cannot share. I absolutely understand not wanting to jeopardize national security, but precisely because of that, the person who is looking at these documents needs to be a person whom everyone has their trust in. I am sorry to say that Mr. Johnston does not enjoy that confidence.
That is a reality. No amount of talking will change that. No amount saying that we are going to look forward instead of backward, that we are going to just plough forward and push through, is going to change that. That is now a reality, and the truth is that we must change the situation so that those facts are no longer relevant in moving forward. That is why we must have a public inquiry.
I am going to take a moment to turn to another aspect of the work that Mr. Johnston has provided, and what he stated in his report, which is on the question of who is reviewing the documents from the PMO. It was astounding to me. He noted the communication breakdown and the flaws within the system, and it kind of took my breath away to realize what a fiasco that whole process was, to be sure.
I will touch on this. Mr. Johnston states, “I have found that the narrative that the government failed to act is not a fair conclusion based on the facts.” However, in his report, he does not explain why that is a fair conclusion. He is simply saying to trust him that it is a fair conclusion. In the report, Mr. Johnston cited the communication challenges, and we have to ask this question: Who set up those poor channels of communications? It was the government itself. In the report, Mr. Johnston cites, “If staffers are away, they may not see the binder that day.” He is referring to the binder from CSIS, the intelligence binder. He is saying that the people reviewing this critical, serious information are staffers. Mr. Johnston does not define exactly what a staffer is, but in this universe, when we talk about “staffers”, they are political appointees. Ministers appoint ministerial staff as staffers. The PMO appoints staffers, who are political appointees the PM appoints in his office. That is how we generally understand the term “staffer”.
However, we have to ask why on earth a staffer would be reviewing top secret documents from CSIS. In what universe is that normal? That is not normal. That is not okay. That does not take seriously the work of the intelligence agency. I would argue that it is more than that the government, somehow, is botching the whole communications process. Right from the outset, in undertaking this work, there was no seriousness to this work. When one puts a staffer at the table like this, the staffer's goal is to look for political damage; that is why they are there, but that should not be how serious documents from CSIS on intelligence are taken. They should not be looked at from the point of view of how to address political damage. However, it seems to me that this is the approach, and I have serious problems with that.
The report talks about the infamous leaked memo, which was reported by Global News on February 8. The report highlights it by saying, “National Security Officials Warned [the] Prime Minister...and his Office More Than a Year Before the 2019 Federal Election That Chinese Agents Were ‘assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices’”. This is what was reported by Global News; it is cited as a heading in the report. The report goes on to indicate that “[a]n early draft of the memorandum contained similar but not identical language to that quotation. That draft was significantly revised before the memorandum went to the Prime Minister.” I have to ask whether the rapporteur asked these key questions: Who saw the draft memo? Who was the draft memo prepared for? Who changed it, and why? We do not have any answers to that. The report is completely silent on that. However, I think that it is pertinent information.
2493 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:46:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the last I checked, David Christopherson is not the person doing this work in the House. I will say that on the record.
The other thing is that I wonder if government members have read the report. The issue here is not about personality. The issue here is the work that has been done, and the report indicates a number of areas in which there are problems and concerns with the conclusion. I have not even had a chance to go through all the areas I have concerns with. I have highlighted a couple.
The reality remains that Mr. David Johnston does not enjoy the confidence of every member of the House, and to do this work—
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:22:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her leadership on this. The NDP members have been the “adults in the room” pushing this along. We have seen the Liberals try to cover everything up and the Conservatives being petulant and juvenile. The NDP has been the one party bringing forward concerns of Canadians, as I know her constituents in London—Fanshawe have expressed to her, to get to the bottom of this and to get answers. Whenever our next election is held, we need to make sure that we have fully examined this issue and put in all the measures that protect our elections. The NDP will get us there.
119 words
- 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 2:32:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite had been paying attention, she would have noted that we did a public consultation on the creation of a foreign agent registry by listening to Canadians, by working with diaspora communities to make sure that we understand their concerns around marginalization and stigmatization. The best way forward is for the Conservative Party of Canada to take the briefing.
I have a simple question, through you, Mr. Speaker, to them. When will you take the briefing?
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:34:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that we share the concerns of the diaspora community leadership, who are worried about being targeted by foreign interference. That is why we conducted a public consultation on the foreign agent registry, and that is why we think there are compelling, intelligent reasons a public hearing would put the community at the centre of these conversations, so that we can have a thoughtful way forward in the work to protect our democratic institutions and in fighting against foreign interference.
86 words
- 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 4:19:06 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
- 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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
