44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 29, 2024 02:00PM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:03:44 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:06:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, they cannot shut me down from reading the motion, but you do have the right to then ask whether or not members of the House agree to it.
I am in the middle of my speech, so they cannot shout down the motion. I am going to read it for the record, and Conservatives will tell us then whether they agree to the motion that they drafted.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:06:43 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:06:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point is that when the member started reading the motion, we had no indication of what that motion might be. We do not agree with whatever it is. He gave no indication of what motion he was proposing.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:07:01 p.m.
- Watch
We will let the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby put on the record what the motion is, and then we can give unanimous consent or not.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is the motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) at the expiry of the time provided for government orders later today, the bill be deemed adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security;
(b) during the consideration of the bill by the committee: (1) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings; (2) the committee shall meet for extended hours on Monday, June 3; Tuesday, June 4; Wednesday, June 5; and Thursday, June 6, 2024, to gather evidence from witnesses; (3) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the officials from the RCMP and CSIS, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, the officials from the Department of Public Safety and other expert witnesses deemed relevant by the committee be invited to appear; (4) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 9 a.m. on Monday, June 10, 2024; and (5) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
This was drafted by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I hope it will receive unanimous consent.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
