44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 10, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, first of all, it was a real pleasure working with the member for Trois-Rivières at committee last week. It was four days in a row of long sessions. I appreciated sitting next to him and getting through the important work of looking at Bill C-70.
When we look at the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, we see that the Liberals seem to be hiding behind judicial process and the need for the RCMP investigation. We know there is a big gulf between intelligence and evidence; we know intelligence cannot always make its way to satisfy judicial requirements.
The Conservatives seem to be hiding behind a veil of ignorance. Their party refuses to get briefed, the leader in particular. The member answered the questions of my Liberal colleague earlier about getting party leaders briefed. When the director of CSIS was before our committee, he talked specifically about the actions that party leaders can take with respect to who gets to sit in caucus and who is allowed to run under the party banner.
I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on the power of party leaders and the actions they can take here now if they are all properly briefed. This is a very serious issue, and we want the issues to be resolved as quickly as possible so we do not have compromised candidates on the ballot in the next election.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. We had the opportunity to work together to examine Bill C-70 in depth. His comments were always insightful.
At this time, we know that the NDP leader has gotten security clearance, that the Prime Minister has automatically received the information and the leader of the Bloc Québécois is completing the process to receive security clearance. Of course the Conservative Party does not want to do so. I like my colleague's expression, when he talks about a veil of ignorance. It reminds me of my studies in philosophy with John Rawls.
I think that we cannot afford not to push together. I repeat, interference has no political stripe. It is a real threat. It is financial, it is democratic. It is steamrolling everyone. Parliaments all over the world are interested in foreign interference. Last week, a law was passed unanimously in the European community. I think we cannot be against it. If we are against, I have serious doubts and I have a problem with that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:25:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, more than 70 committee meetings have dealt with this issue during the last Parliament. There have been meetings with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment and the House of Commons administration. The most significant finding pertains to protocol. Each one does its work but no more than that, even though alarm bells are ringing.
We are asking that the commission set up and chosen by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons be independent. That is where we are today, after all these months. We are calling for a truly independent commission. Does my colleague agree with me that in Canada we do not have a culture of information management to protect our citizens, as compared with other countries?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for raising this matter. Last week's special report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians followed the testimony given by many witnesses at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as well as numerous other reports. Communication was identified as a problem, along with siloing.
Bill C-70 seeks to solve part of this problem, but we will study that tomorrow. For now, I feel we should allow a culture of intelligence sharing, but above all, we should develop a culture of protecting ourselves and realizing that interference exists in 2024, that it is already here and that, whether we like it or not, it is spreading. I am in complete agreement with my colleague. I hope this type of procedure can be put in place.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:26:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member indicated in one of his answers that it is important for us to recognize that democracies all over the world, many of Canada's allied countries, are having to deal with the issue of international interference. It is indeed a very serious issue. I am glad to see that Canada has a House of Commons, and in particular a government, that is doing what it can in order to protect democracies.
The question I have for the member is related to NSICOP, which is a relatively new standing committee. Canada is now a part of the Five Eyes countries that actually have a committee like this. The Conservatives have dissed the committee on several occasions. I am interested in knowing what the member from the Bloc has to say about the important role that NSICOP plays. We would not have the report today if it were not for that committee.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:27:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I was hoping he would ask me a question. As for the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, I would say it is fundamental. We cannot do without this type of structure today.
I read the report as soon as it was released last week. Given the committees I sit on, I knew some of the facts already, but I would say that, based on the way it was put together and in spite of the redactions, the report was well done.
I think it is vital that this committee continue to be allowed to receive intelligence, since some was withheld, and that it continue its fine work. I think that is a good idea.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:28:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech. One of the things I have heard people in my riding say is that it is important to restore trust in our systems, so the member's point was well received.
I agree that there is a difference between intelligence and evidence and that we must have trust in our independent systems. How should we continue to move forward while restoring Canadians' trust? Also, what should we do to ensure that decisions like these are not politicized and that we are able to do a good job of representing Canadians?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:29:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, trust is the ultimate goal. Trust means not having to prove anything.
How can trust be restored? There are several ways. Obtaining a security clearance is one way. The committee that was set up to deal with the Winnipeg affair is another. That all-party work produced all kinds of results.
I think there are a few ways. It is up to us to make the right choices.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:29:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue.
As we are all gathered here today, we must recognize and acknowledge that all parliamentarians swear an oath before they begin their important work in the House. We must all uphold the sanctity of that oath every single day. Canadians deserve nothing less.
Moreover, we must all work together to take any attempt to undermine our democracy very seriously. Together, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes and institutions. This obligation falls equally on both sides of the House.
I thank my hon. colleague for moving this motion. It gives us all an opportunity to debate the importance of the issue and commit to working together to counter interference in our democratic institutions.
I would like to begin by commending the considerable amount of work that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, put into producing the “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions”. The report is a testament to the parliamentarians' diligence and dedication in safeguarding the integrity of our democratic processes. It underlines the challenges we face with respect to foreign interference and highlights the need for constant vigilance and solid mechanisms to protect our democracy.
The government takes the recommendations in NSICOP's report very seriously. We will take them into account, along with the recommendations of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, and those of the independent special rapporteur when we consider our next steps. I know that the final report of the Hogue commission, which will be published in December, will also contain recommendations based on the public inquiry.
These reviews are essential for ensuring that all of the measures taken by Canada to counter the ever-changing threat of foreign interference be adapted, effective and progressive. Each of these review mechanisms was put in place to strengthen accountability when it comes to making sure that intelligence is taken into account and used appropriately to protect Canadians from all types of threats.
It is every bit as important to express our trust and confidence in Canada's intelligence agencies. Our intelligence professionals are committed to observing the highest standards when it comes to integrity and national security. They work tirelessly to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected from any undue foreign influence.
I would like to address the substance of the motion introduced today. The NSICOP's conclusions should give pause to every member in the House. It is unacceptable, not to say intolerable, that some members sit here in the House when they work behind the scenes to advance the objectives of anyone who does not first and foremost have Canadians' best interests at heart. The NSICOP's report indicates that that may well be what is happening now.
Our colleague across the aisle introduced this motion today to make sure that these concerns are carefully considered. He proposes that the Hogue commission be empowered to examine this issue. The commissioner already has a solid mandate, which was negotiated among all parties in the House.
Although it is not up to the House to give instructions to the commissioner on how to fulfill her mandate, we think she has the authority she needs to do the important job with which she has been entrusted. I think that we all agree that the commissioner has the ability and the obligation to interpret the terms of reference she was entrusted with in an independent manner.
Let me underscore our view on the commission's terms of reference in this way. First, as reflected in the language of the motion before the House today, the commission's terms of reference speak to “the cardinal importance of preserving the integrity of Canada’s electoral processes and democratic institutions and the need for transparency in order to enhance Canadians’ trust and confidence in their democracy”.
The terms of reference go on to state, “the leaders of all recognized parties in the House of Commons have supported the establishment of a public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions with respect to the 43rd and 44th general elections”.
In her initial report, Commissioner Hogue comments on her mandate as follows, at page 56, “The Terms of Reference refer expressly to both the 'electoral process' and to 'democratic institutions,' which indicates the government intended the Commission to look at foreign interference beyond elections.”
She then goes on to say:
...in the context of the Commission’s mandate, democratic institutions refer to Parliament and the executive branch. This is consistent with a key focus of my mandate, which is the federal electoral process. The outcome of which is the election of politicians to govern and legislate in the interests of Canada.
In summary, my mandate is to investigate potential foreign interference with:
The federal electoral process.
Law-making by elected members of Parliament.
Executive decision-making by Cabinet and its ministers in relation to their departments, including indirect foreign interference with ministerial decisions when such decisions are based on information originating at a lower level of government covertly influenced by a foreign state (or its proxy, agent, etc.).
I apologize for having quoted so extensively, but her comments make something very clear.
Justice Hogue believes that the impact of foreign interference, carried out wittingly or unwittingly, on how parliamentarians fulfill their duties as a legislative branch of government fits perfectly within the scope of what she was asked to examine.
The proposal that the commission examine foreign interference involving members of the House of Commons elected during the 43rd and 44th parliaments and members of the Senate raises important questions.
I would like to add to what I said earlier and stress how important it is that we all grasp that the commission's terms of reference must be understood within the framework of the Inquiries Act and the terms of the order in council. For example, although the government recognizes that the commissioner would have the latitude to examine questions raised in today's motion, her mandate does not extend to issuing findings or recommendations on civil or criminal liability.
In closing, I would like to repeat that the government launched the regulatory oversight report process, headed by the Right Honourable David Johnston, it asked the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to conduct studies on foreign interference, and it created the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference.
Several of these initiatives, except the commission of inquiry led by Justice Hogue, of course, were undertaken despite opposition from certain parties in the House. However, overall, we have the best record of any western government in the past five or six years. We know the extent to which other allied countries, other democracies, are under attack, either through social media or through any other form of foreign interference from suspect countries.
We have done all this because we believe Canadians and Parliament deserve to understand this critical threat to our democratic values. We welcome today's debate.
I look forward to hearing all members share their views on the importance of transparency and accountability in these areas.
1216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:39:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to take note of the progress that has been made. That needs to happen.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees that we must all come together to act on this issue, given that interference has no political stripe or partisanship.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:40:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and, again, for moving today's motion.
We obviously believe that this is not a partisan issue; it must not turn into a partisan debate. I am afraid of that happening because that is what those who interfere in our democratic institutions want. They want to divide us, to tear each other apart over these issues. There is no greater gift or reward for these countries, for these players, than for us to tear each other apart as a result of their interference.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:41:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I would also like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières and the Bloc Québécois for their proposal today that focused on this theme.
Unfortunately, foreign powers have already won. Foreign powers made sure that there are people here in the House who got elected with their support and assistance. I am not the one saying it. It is the judge.
We know that this is a very sensitive issue for everyone, because nobody knows who is involved. That said, does the minister understand and accept the fact that, in order to lift the cloud of suspicion that is hanging over the 337 people sitting in the House, these individuals who were elected with the help and support of foreign powers hostile to our country must be clearly identified?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:41:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that I said very clearly in my speech that the 338 members must have loyalty only to Canada and its institutions when they come into the House. It is clear to us that this is the case. I think that the hon. member would also agree that in this democratic chamber, we must at all times respect our democratic institutions, such as our justice system, our intelligence services, our police services and our Criminal Code, which is there to root out what might exist and what has been alleged in the report, even if it is based on partial information.
To answer the member's question, yes, members must show complete loyalty to our country.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to note that, at the end of this report, there is a litany of scathing conclusions on the Liberal government's action on this file. I think that forms the basis as to why the opposition needs to take the government's promises with a grain of salt. The report states, “The slow response to a known threat was a serious failure and one from which Canada may feel the consequences for years to come.”
I also take note of the government House leader's comments that this should not be a partisan issue, but it does involve political parties. While the Conservative leader continues to hide behind a veil of ignorance by not getting the briefing that would allow him to take action as party leader, we have yet to understand what the Liberal Party will be doing as an institution. When the director of CSIS was before the public safety committee last week, he said that we do not have to rely on judicial processes or the police. There are actions political parties could take, such as removing members from their caucuses and not allowing them to run again.
What is the Liberal Party going to do to make sure that there are no compromised persons on the ballot when we vote in the next election?
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:44:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the member's first question, I would put the government's track record of setting up formal processes, checks, balances and institutions against that of any other government. We know that governments across the G20 and the OECD are facing these anti-democratic incursions from foreign state actors, and this government has responded comprehensively, in the way that I outlined in my speech.
As for political parties, all political parties have a duty to uphold the basic principles of democracy within their party processes. Those are very solemn and important things, and it is important that we arrive in this chamber not only with the support of our electors and constituents but that, prior to that, we gain the confidence of the members of the political party to which we belong. That is a solemn process, and parties, of course, have the duty to continually review that process and ensure its integrity at the highest possible level.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, even prior to the Prime Minister becoming the Prime Minister, in third party, we had advocated for a standing committee, NSICOP. If it were not for NSICOP, we would not have the report that we are talking about today.
It is interesting that, even in third party, when we were raising the issue, the Conservative Party opposed bringing in a NSICOP committee. It is important for us to recognize that, today, because of the persistence of this government, the committee exists, and there are representatives from all political entities in the chamber and in the Senate.
I am wondering if my colleague could just enhance his comments in regard to why all of us need to come together, as NSICOP has done, to follow through in listening to what is being said.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:46:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, that is the irony of the situation, that the government was determined, very early on, to create these processes and institutions that were designed to review relevant intelligence, to, yes, hold our intelligence agencies accountable, but more importantly, to report to Canadians on the effectiveness of the work that goes on, out of necessity, in secret.
We did this in spite of the opposition coming from certain corners of the House. It is purely ironic that today we debate one of the work products, the conclusions, of that very entity that we fought so hard to set up and that we fought so hard to ensure contained representation from all political parties and from the other place, and that it was able to report to us as honestly, as publicly and as transparently as this one has. That is indeed an irony.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:47:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, putting aside the government's continued obstruction of Madam Justice Hogue's inquiry, refusing to turn over certain documents and hiding behind cabinet confidence, when I listened to the government House leader's speech, I took it that he expressed vague support for the motion before the House.
I seek clarification. Is the government committed to turning over the evidence from the NSICOP report, on an unredacted basis, to Madam Justice Hogue so that she can make findings of fact and so that those MPs who wittingly assisted hostile foreign states could be made known to the Canadian public, yes or—
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:48:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. leader of the government in the House.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:48:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I caution the member that any responsible government, from any political party, has to maintain the integrity of our security agencies and maintain the integrity of the information that is supplied to them, including the sources, the methods, etc. That is something that this government has a sworn and solemn duty to uphold and to respect, and it is one that we will continue to uphold and to respect.
I did say in my speech that the terms of reference that have been worked out among all parties in the House confer a wide latitude, not unlimited latitude but a wide latitude, on the commission of inquiry. For her to examine the issues that the member raises is something that we believe is possibly within the terms of reference already conferred on the commissioner.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
