SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 328 - Jun/10/24

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

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

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

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

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

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

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/10/24 12:48:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. leader of the government in the House.

9 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

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

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Jun/10/24 12:49:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, initially, it seemed that the government had done everything it could to cover up the issue. It began by refusing to hold a public inquiry. I want to know whether the government is now actually prepared to get to the bottom of the matter and expand the commission's terms of reference.

54 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Jun/10/24 12:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my speech answers my colleague's question. We believe that Justice Hogue's mandate is quite broad and includes a good number of the aspects required to get to the bottom of things. That is our position.

41 words

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

Jun/10/24 12:50:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians with respect to foreign interference is truly shocking. The report revealed that certain members of Parliament and members of the Senate have wittingly, and I emphasize the word “wittingly”, engaged in supporting and assisting hostile foreign states. This includes meeting and communicating frequently with foreign diplomatic missions, sharing privileged information with foreign diplomats and sharing information that was provided to members and to Senators, in confidence, with security officers of hostile foreign states, among other activities. It should not need to be stated that the fundamental duty of every member of Parliament and of every senator is to put the interests of Canada first, not the interests of some other state. Any member of Parliament or member of the Senate who put the interests of a foreign state ahead of the interests of Canada has betrayed Canadians. They have betrayed the trust placed in them. They have betrayed their oath of office, and they have cast a dark cloud over the institution of Parliament and have undermined public confidence that parliamentarians are advancing the interests of Canadians and not the interests of other foreign states. Since the NSICOP bombshell report was released, what we have seen from thePrime Minister is a total lack of transparency. The Prime Minister has seen the unredacted NSICOP report. He knows who the compromised MPs and Senators are. Indeed, it was the Prime Minister who made the final call with respect to redactions in the NSICOP report, including blacking out the names of the compromised MPs. Canadians deserve to know the names. They deserve to know who the members are, sitting in the House of Commons and in the Senate, who are compromised. The Minister of Public Safety appeared before the public safety committee last Thursday. I was there. He had an opportunity, in the face of a lack of transparency from the Prime Minister, to clear the air and to answer basic questions. I have to observe how disappointed I was with the minister, as he provided non-answers. He was arrogant and dismissive in the face of legitimate questions being asked by members of Parliament on behalf of Canadians. The Minister of Public Safety, of course, refused to name names, just like the Prime Minister. He refused to disclose how many MPs and Senators are compromised. He refused to even provide a ballpark figure. Is it five, 10 or 20? How many are we dealing with here? How big is the problem? Tellingly, twice the minister refused to answer the very straightforward question I asked him, which was if he could provide the assurance that no one around the Prime Minister's cabinet table is among the compromised MPs. Twice, the Minister of Public Safety refused to answer that question, which I emphasize is telling and raises questions about whether foreign interference actors and their tentacles have extended to the highest levels of the Liberal government after nine years of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Public Safety said that it would be irresponsible to make known to the Canadian public the names of those MPs and of those Senators who are compromised. I say what is irresponsible has been the total lack of transparency by the Prime Minister that has resulted in effectively shielding members of Parliament and members of the Senate who have put the interests of foreign states ahead of the interests of Canada. I say that is irresponsible. The Minister of Public Safety said that there were sensitive intelligence and national security considerations. He has a point, but only up to a limited extent. I would remind the minister and the government that what is being asked of the government is not to make known to the public sensitive intelligence, or sources and methods. What is simply being asked of the Liberals, the government, is to provide the names of the compromised MPs and senators: just the names, please. It is not MPs or senators who have conversed with or met with foreign diplomats, but rather MPs who have knowingly, willingly and deliberately co-operated with and have assisted foreign states in undermining the interests of Canada. We want to know and Canadians want to know who they are. So often we see from the Liberals that they hide behind national security and intelligence issues, and then we learn that it actually had nothing to do with those things, but that it had to do with protecting the interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, and to save the government from embarrassment for its many failings when it comes to standing against, and protecting Canada's democracy and sovereignty from, foreign interference. After all, we have a Prime Minister who has a very well-established and disturbing track record of turning a blind eye to foreign interference, so long as it benefits him and the Liberal Party. This is a Prime Minister who turned a blind eye and covered up, until he got caught, Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, because he thought it would benefit the Liberal Party. This is a Prime Minister who was briefed, in the 2019 election, that one of his candidates, the current member for Don Valley North, was being assisted by the Beijing Communist regime. Upon being briefed, what did the Prime Minister do with that information? The Prime Minister did nothing. He allowed that candidate to stand as a Liberal in the 2019 election, resulting in his election to the House of Commons, and he covered it up for four years. Madam Justice Hogue concluded that the Prime Minister's actions in that case were based upon his concern for “direct electoral consequences”. In other words, it was about protecting the Prime Minister and the interests of the Liberal Party over protecting our democracy from Beijing's interference. Simply put, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government cannot be trusted. However, the good news is that there is a reasonable path forward that was set out in a letter over the weekend from the opposition House leader to the Minister of Public Safety. That path forward would provide that the government turn over the intelligence and the evidence in the NSICOP report to Madam Justice Hogue on an unredacted basis. Madam Justice Hogue could then review the intelligence thoroughly and could make findings of fact with respect to which MPs wittingly assisted foreign states, and those findings of fact, with the names of those MPs, could then be put in a report that would then be tabled in Parliament. It would provide for the transparency that Canadians deserve, all the while protecting sensitive intelligence and allowing for a reasonable degree of due process in the circumstances. If it really is about protecting sensitive intelligence and national security, then the government should turn over the evidence to Madam Justice Hogue. If the Liberals fail to do so, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn, which is that, once again, the Prime Minister is protecting himself, the Liberal Party and potentially compromised Liberal MPs.

1208 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Jun/10/24 1:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks here today. I want to remind him of a couple of things. The NSICOP report was very clear. The allegations refer to MPs from multiple parties being involved, either wittingly or unwittingly. When I listened to the member's remarks, he suggested, in a way, that the members would be entirely on the Liberal benches. I would caution him by saying that they were from multiple parties; he could be talking about some of his own colleagues. The important point is that we need to be able to have some type of process here because of the way this has come to light. I hope the member will encourage the hon. leader of the official opposition to actually take a security briefing so that he can see the report. The member talked about the different thresholds of culpability. The report talked about people working with foreign governments wittingly and knowingly versus individuals or MPs who might not have even necessarily known they were being targeted. Those are two different levels of evidence. How does the member square the idea of putting names of people out in the public who might not necessarily be culpable? Reputational harm might be caused to the member in question.

217 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/10/24 1:01:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I said, and what the opposition House leader has provided for as the path forward in his letter, is for Madam Justice Hogue to thoroughly review all the intelligence, make findings of fact and release the names of those who wittingly, knowingly, deliberately and willingly collaborated with hostile foreign states. That is what we are proposing.

59 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Jun/10/24 1:02:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member for Kings—Hants talked about, which is the continued reluctance of the Conservative Party leader to get a security briefing. If we look at the NSICOP report, paragraphs 72 and 73 talk about the People's Republic of China and India directly interfering in the Conservative leadership process. If I were a Conservative Party leader, I would be treating that with a five-alarm fire response. The NDP leader is going to get a briefing on these names. We all know that, in this place, party leaders have incredible control over their caucuses. They can control who gets to sit in the caucus and who gets to run again. Why the continued reluctance of the Conservative Party leader to get the briefing so he can take action in case there are compromised MPs in his own caucus?

149 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/10/24 1:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party does not have the authority to expel a member of caucus. That is a caucus decision. What could the Leader of the Opposition do based on a security briefing? In fact, it might impede his ability to act. What we need is not more secrecy; we need transparency. We need a process so the MPs who wittingly collaborated with foreign states are identified and named, and Conservatives have provided a very reasonable process for that to take place. It is disappointing that the Liberals across the way have not seen fit to endorse that road map.

104 words

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

Jun/10/24 1:03:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear: The leader of today's Conservative-Reform party has made the conscious decision to say, “No, I want to keep being dummied up. I do not want to know and do not want to get the security clearance so I can ask questions.” The leader of the New Democratic Party has already asked questions. The Conservatives are using a false argument. Why is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not getting the security clearance he needs to be better informed?

91 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/10/24 1:04:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I simply say to the Liberals that if they have nothing to hide, they should release the names with an appropriate process. They can refer the evidence over to Madam Justice Hogue and let her make findings of fact. Let there be transparency. The government has been repeatedly told that the best way to counter foreign interference is through sunlight and making foreign interference known to the public. Canadians deserve to know which MPs and senators happen to be compromised. I invite the government to get on with it.

91 words

Hide
Names

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Jun/10/24 1:05:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one week ago, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians released a report containing its findings. The report came after more than a year of work by the committee. The committee reviewed some 33,000 pages from 4,000 classified documents. The committee members were briefed, and they interviewed dozens of top intelligence and government officials, including the Prime Minister himself. It was found that a few members of the House are witting participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics. This is shocking. The report revealed that these parliamentarians had responded to the requests or instructions of foreign officials to inappropriately influence parliamentary colleagues or parliamentary business for the benefit of a foreign country. The committee noted in its report that some members in this House had violated the solemn affirmation or the oath sworn at the beginning of their term. I will quote from the report, which found “examples of members of Parliament who worked to influence their colleagues on India’s behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.” It also found “a textbook example of foreign interference that saw a foreign state support a witting politician.” Furthermore, it found “a particularly concerning case of a then-member of Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer.... [This] member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence.” The report found that the People's Republic of China had established a “network [that] had some contact with at least 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers, some of whom appeared to be wittingly working for the [People's Republic of China].” The report also found similar activities by another network in the riding of Don Valley North. The report also found that parliamentarians communicated “frequently with foreign missions before or during a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses which the diplomatic missions promise[d] to quietly mobilize in [their] favour”. The report found examples of parliamentarians “[a]ccepting knowingly or through willful blindness funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies which ha[d] been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source”. Furthermore, the report found that parliamentarians had provided “foreign diplomatic officials with privileged information on the work or opinions of fellow Parliamentarians, knowing that such information [would] be used by those officials to inappropriately pressure Parliamentarians to change their positions”. The report found that parliamentarians had responded “to the requests or direction of foreign officials to improperly influence Parliamentary colleagues or Parliamentary business to the advantage of a foreign state” and had provided “information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.” The report also identified those parliamentarians who wittingly and knowingly collaborated with foreign governments to the detriment of Canada and its people. We do not know the identities of those members of the House who wittingly and knowingly worked in favour of the interests of a foreign government. That is because of an order by the Prime Minister, under subsection 21(5) of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, that the report be redacted. Every single member of this chamber swore an oath or made a solemn affirmation that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the sovereign. What we swore to or solemnly affirmed was to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to our constitutional system, which is enshrined in the Constitution Acts, in orders in council, in rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in the unwritten conventions that have governed Parliament and parliamentary democracies for centuries. In other words, we swore or solemnly affirmed that our first and foremost duty was to the people of Canada. In its report, the committee found that a few members of this chamber had violated that oath or solemn affirmation. Those members need to be held accountable. Members who willingly, knowingly and wittingly assisted a foreign government to the detriment of members of this place and their privileges, as well as the interests of Canada and its people, need to be expelled from the House. The way expulsions work in this place is that all 337 members of this chamber need to vote in public after a debate on expulsion. I have had the difficult experience of participating in exactly such a debate on a former member several parliaments ago. It is not a pleasant thing to do, but it is necessary to protect the integrity of this institution. It should not just be a criminal standard to which we are held in this place. The oaths and solemn affirmations we take are to the people of Canada. Our conduct needs to be becoming of those oaths and affirmations. Canadians also need to be able to go to the polls in the next election knowing whether their incumbent member of Parliament was one of the few parliamentarians referred to in the report. That is why the Prime Minister needs to name the names of those members, along with the relevant information to allow the House, its caucuses and its committees to hold parliamentarians accountable and take action to protect the integrity of this place. That brings us to the motion in front of the House today. We once again find ourselves in the situation that we had a year and a half ago, three years ago and four years ago, where the government is not willing to respect the norms of parliamentary democracy and provide the House and its committees with the information necessary for them to fulfill their constitutional role. The government is not willing to release this information. A year ago, we ended up in the same situation. We began debate and hearings on investigations related to foreign interference in the House and its committees in 2020. On November 18, 2020, a motion I had moved was adopted by the House, calling on the government to produce a robust action plan to respond to the threats of foreign interference. In the subsequent years of 2021, 2022 and 2023, four committees of the House of Commons conducted hearings. The procedure and house affairs committee, the Canada-China committee, the foreign affairs committee, and the Subcommittee on International Human Rights conducted hearings with 70 meetings, 364 witnesses, 152 hours of testimony and some 1,902 pages of evidence, trying to get to the bottom of foreign interference. A year ago, the government punted it to NSICOP. NSICOP has done its job and given its report, which contained the names of members of the House who knowingly and wittingly assisted a foreign state to the detriment of the interests of the people of Canada. Here we are again with the government refusing to release the information. Therefore, once again, we are left with having to go through an extra-parliamentary process to get this referred to Justice Hogue at the public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of this and understand who was involved. The House can then take action. We had the same problem with the Winnipeg lab documents. It took us three years to get the information. We had to resort to an extrajudicial, extraparliamentary process through the ad hoc committee to get that done. We support the Bloc motion, but in a spirit of collaboration, I would like to move an amendment to the motion as follows: That the motion be amended by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: (c) demand that the government provide the unredacted version of the special report, together with all the intelligence documents and testimony which the committee considered to the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, the Hogue commission; and that the Hogue commission's terms of reference be expanded in order (1) to require the Hogue commission (a) to assess the statements made at paragraphs 55 and 56, the text box following paragraph 57, and paragraphs 58, 59, 61, 64, 68 and 164 of the special report concerning officials who wittingly assisted, supported or participated in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in Canadian politics; (b) to question the individuals named or referred to in those paragraphs and, out of respect for procedural fairness, to offer those individuals the opportunity to make representations concerning the statements; (c) to make findings of fact concerning these statements; and, (d) to produce and publish a report by October 1, 2024, on these matters, including its findings of fact and the names of any current member of the House of Commons it concludes engaged in these foreign interference activities so that this House may take appropriate remedial action; and (2) allow the Hogue commission to investigate other foreign interference efforts in relation to Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments, as well as senators.

1531 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/10/24 1:17:54 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf. Since none of them are present in the House to give consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

94 words

Behalf

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

Jun/10/24 1:18:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was actually a member of Parliament in 2013, as was the Conservative leader, when the issue of foreign interference came up. What kind of actions did we see from the member and from the leader of the Conservative Party back then? Absolutely none. When the Liberal Party tried to create NSICOP when we were third party, what did the member opposite say? What did the leader of the Conservative Party say then? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they opposed it. We have the report today because of NSICOP. The hypocrisy coming from the member opposite is amazing. It is time that we start working together and recognizing that foreign international interference is serious. When are the member and his leader going to get off the partisan cheap shots and try to get the issue dealt with in a more apolitical fashion?

149 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/10/24 1:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I remember well the foreign interference threat activities that were revealed by Dick Fadden in the public realm in 2013. They were directed at provincial governments and municipal politicians. I would note that the then Liberal government at Queen's Park in Toronto discounted that intelligence advice, dismissed it and said that it was not sufficient to take action. Here we are some 11 years later, faced with the foreign interference threats now at the federal level. With respect to NSICOP, the very structure and flaws of the committee have been proven. It is a committee of the government. Under subsection 21(5), the Prime Minister ordered the redaction of the names of members of the House who were involved in the activities. That is why that committee should be a committee of Parliament and not an extraparliamentary committee that lies beyond the House and its authority.

149 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 1:21:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a question in my mind about why we even have to be here to debate the motion. Right now there is an inquiry on foreign interference. Commissioner Hogue has been given the mandate to do exactly that work. Should the government not just give all the documents, unredacted, both those within cabinet and what NSICOP received, to Madam Justice Hogue for review so we can have faith in the determination of the outcome of foreign interference activities related to Canada? As well, I would absolutely agree about the names of the people who are implicated, potentially, in the report under the allegation, who wittingly, knowingly and intentionally collaborated and worked with foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic institutions and processes. We should all be on board with that. Would the member like to comment?

139 words