SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 320 - May/29/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/29/24 5:48:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, they are encouraging words from the Conservatives, and now from the Bloc, in terms of just how important it is that, collectively, as a group of elected parliamentarians, we have a responsibility not only to bring forward the legislation but also, as much as possible, to work together so that we can all get behind the legislation. The timing of it is of great importance. I am sure the member would also acknowledge that. International foreign interference is happening. It is very real and tangible. We all know that. I would like to get the member's thoughts on a question I posed to the official opposition critic. Are there any amendments that he can think of, offhand, realizing we have not had the legislation for long, that he would like considered?

134 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/29/24 5:49:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question. He always asks good questions. Earlier, in my speech, I mentioned two-party registration, which I feel is a proven method. It has not been used for foreign agent registries, but it has for other registries. It allows for verification. If a foreign agent is not registered and the public office holder is registered, the discrepancy will be noticed. It would make the system more efficient. Two-party registration is a good thing from the word go. I have a few comments to make on the independence of the interference commissioner. I would like us to work on that a little. I understand the organizational efficiency requirements, but at the same time, it makes me a little uncomfortable. I think the scope of the legislation could be extended to universities that receive federal funding. In fact, I would like to be able to say that we can prevent what happened at the Winnipeg lab and that we can prevent the whole discussion we had to have about the Trudeau Foundation. I am not blaming anyone. I am only giving an example. However, I would like us to be able to avoid this sort of thing and, right now, I am not sure that the registry in its current form lends itself to this type of management. I think we will have to work together to at least settle those things in advance. People seem to be very willing to work together.

254 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/29/24 5:51:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to the foreign influence registry, there are many details left to be determined by way of regulation, including with respect to setting out exactly what the scope of the administrative penalties would be that the commissioner could issue, as well as with respect to the contents of what one must disclose upon registering. Does the member have concerns about the lack of some of those details being incorporated into the legislation and being left to regulation, or does he see it as a good thing?

89 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/29/24 5:51:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a number of things are missing from the bill. The first thing I will bring up has nothing to do with the individual, but rather the profile of the interference commissioner. Do we want a judge, like we do for the ethics commissioner? Do we want a legal expert? Do we want an ethicist? One never knows. What is the profile we are looking for? These things will be determined later, by regulation. I trust in that and I do not see any issue with it, but many details are still to be determined.

97 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/29/24 5:52:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as usual, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Last year, the NDP moved a motion to establish the Hogue commission to counter foreign interference. Every party except one supported that motion. We participated in negotiations all summer. We negotiated in good faith and it led to the implementation of the Hogue commission, led by Justice Hogue. Most of these elements were established by consensus. I want to ask my colleague a question about the importance of all of the political parties working together. It is important that, rather than seeking partisan advantage, we really try to implement the best legislation possible, to implement the best tools to counter foreign interference. We must all work together, use the abilities of every member of the House and every recognized political party to create a bill that we can be proud of and that gives us all of the important tools without any shortcomings. Does my colleague agree with that?

162 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/29/24 5:54:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. I do think we need to work together. Foreign interference is not a partisan issue, nor does it concern the colour of the government in power. It concerns greed, power and interference itself. Therefore, I think it is crucial that we work together. When we look at an issue like interference and sum up the activity, it becomes clear that there are more things that bring us together here than divide us. I would like us to focus on what brings us together so that we can develop the best possible tool to protect ourselves from foreign interference.

110 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/29/24 5:56:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely relevant question. There can be no trust without transparency, and nothing is possible without trust. Let that be our starting point. In the past, whether it was Mr. Johnston, the special rapporteur, or the Hogue commission, it certainly took a lot of effort to get the government to co-operate. It really took a lot of force and a lot of energy, and the government fought the process tooth and nail. That was unfortunate. It did not inspire trust. As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby said, these matters require co-operation. There can be no hypocrisy. We have to pull in the same direction, because interference is oblivious to party colours and partisanship. Interference works against all of us here, regardless of our political stripe. This time, I hope and believe that the government will be a little less naive and more proactive, and that it will show the transparency we need to make fair decisions amid uncertainty.

169 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/29/24 5:56:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. It is like a university lecture condensed into a speech, and we keep coming back for more. It is a nice change from some other speeches that tend to be more vague, with watered-down points. Canada's national security policy dates back to 2004. This policy does not even include the words “China” and “Russia”. The government wants to counter foreign interference while being manipulated. I think the government is going about it the wrong way, which demonstrates the need to update the national security policy specifically for the purpose of countering foreign interference. My colleague mentioned the issue of naivety, which clearly no longer applies to this government now that it has introduced Bill C‑70. However, there is the issue of transparency. When it was elected in 2015, the Liberal government promised to be transparent. With the Hogue commission, we are not seeing any transparency from the government of the day. I would like my colleague from Trois-Rivières to explain the importance and necessity of having a transparent government when it comes to releasing documents to ensure public confidence in democratic institutions in order to counter foreign interference.

223 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/29/24 5:57:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I serve with the member for Trois-Rivières on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I can say that he is well respected and hard-working. I am concerned that this bill will not be passed before the next election. Does the member for Trois-Rivières agree with me, my Conservative colleagues and the members of all but one of the other parties that we need to pass this bill quickly, before the next election?

85 words

Rivi
Passed

Mr. René Villemure

May/29/24 5:58:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, with whom it is always a pleasure to work. I have to say that I was not aware of the details of how the motion was drafted. I have read it, but I was not involved in its creation. However, it is essential that this legislation come into force before the next election. That is why we are prepared to put a lot of energy into it and put other projects on hold in order to move forward and be there. Yes, the law must be implemented before the next election.

101 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/29/24 5:58:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that the NPD supports this bill at second reading. During my speech, I am going to propose a motion that all of the parties agreed on, in the hopes that everyone will act in good faith and adopt it. I will move this important motion about halfway through my speech. As people know, the NDP worked hard when we learned about the allegations of foreign interference. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, was the first to raise this issue in February 2023. He asked the government to establish an independent public commission of inquiry into foreign interference. The NDP first moved that motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and it was adopted. The NDP then moved the motion in the House and it was again adopted. Unfortunately, the government chose instead to appoint a special rapporteur on foreign interference. Members will recall what happened next. On an opposition day, the NDP moved a motion that called on the government to remove the special rapporteur and establish an independent public commission of inquiry. This motion was adopted in Parliament by four of the five parties. It was supported by every party except for one. A few days later, the special rapporteur, who is an honest Canadian, worthy of his name and reputation, realized that most parliamentarians did not agree with the approach proposed by the government and so he stepped down. Then, all of the recognized parties in the House initiated discussions and negotiations in good faith. At the end of the summer of 2023, Justice Hogue was chosen to lead the the public inquiry into foreign interference. This shows that when we work in good faith we can make things happen. That is what we would like to see today. We would like to see all parties to work in good faith and adopt the motion we are presenting. This motion already has the support of all the parties. It should be said that it is a motion that will require a second motion in a few days. In principle, we would like the bill to pass second reading. I do not think that anyone is against the idea of then asking the parliamentary committee studying the bill to welcome all the necessary witnesses as early as next week in order to advance this bill. We all agree that this bill must be passed before the next election. All it would take to adopt this motion to allow the bill to be referred to a committee is the goodwill of all members. We will test that in a few minutes. In a few minutes, I will be raising the motion that we have agreed to. It means the public safety committee would be called upon to hear witnesses next week, and it would have priority for resources, which is important. Following that testimony, we will look at the bill, which we all support in principle. Obviously, members want to hear from various witnesses, as they can make a difference, of course, to the amendments that may be needed for the bill. Then we can proceed with the second UC in the coming days. There is a really clear path, again with good faith. That is what the NDP hopes to see in a few minutes. We know about the bill. We know that there are four parts to it, and we believe that it needs—

580 words

Interference

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/29/24 6:03:44 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/29/24 6:03:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hate to intervene, but I believe the member is misleading the House at this point, because there is no agreement among the parties on the motion that he says he is going to propose. If the member is willing, I would like to propose the unanimous consent motion moved by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but I would caution him not to mislead the House.

70 words

Propose

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/29/24 6:04:17 p.m.
Watch

We have not heard the contents of the motion yet, but I understand what the hon. member is saying. I do not know whether the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby can clarify the agreement— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. I am speaking. The hon. member can clarify whether there is an agreement on the motion that the hon. member wants to propose.

75 words

Deputy

Mr. Peter Julian

May/29/24 6:04:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will move the motion, then, in the same way that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills did. What was agreed to, he read, and then he moved into parts that were not agreed to. I will read what he and other parties have already agreed to. We would then, from that moment on, move forward with the kind of committee resources that need to be allocated to treat the bill effectively. I will read the UC motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House— Some hon. members: No.

99 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/29/24 6:05:24 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member does not have unanimous consent to move the motion. We will allow the hon. member to continue his speech.

22 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/29/24 6:05:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are saying no to the motion that they presented to us. That is unbelievable.

18 words

Unbelievable

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/29/24 6:05:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. House leader of the official opposition is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Rising

Hon. Andrew Scheer

May/29/24 6:05:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives proposed a unanimous consent motion to make sure the bill was passed with enough time for the various government departments to implement it. What the NDP is proposing is to not have an end date. We want the bill passed.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/29/24 6:06:00 p.m.
Watch

That may be debate. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to read the motion to the end? Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby would like to read the motion and move the motion.

51 words

Deputy