SoVote

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

Jun/10/24 4:58:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I never said the government had taken no steps. In my speech, I said that there was negligence and complacency. In short, the alarm has been sounding for months. The government should realize that what is in place is not working. The 70 meetings that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held made it clear what steps needed to be taken. It still took the government a long time to come up with to the bill we are discussing, which does not go far enough, to be honest. My colleague is right. The government did take steps. However, what it did is clearly insufficient, and it is shameful for us internationally.

118 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Jun/10/24 4:59:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has put forward the motion about foreign interference today, yet its leader has rejected previous offers to review foreign interference documents. In two rounds of the foreign interference inquiry, the Bloc Québécois failed to show up even once. Do its members even care about foreign interference?

59 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/10/24 5:00:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was bound to come out. Yes, I am aware. When there is an invitation and there are barely 10 of us, perhaps there are reasons we are not there. However, it was not because we did not care. As for choosing to get the security clearance, we need to think about it. I would say to my colleague that many things have happened in recent days. No decision has been made. I took part in all the meetings, and our wishes have not changed at all. We want to maintain confidence in our democracy and in our elections and get to the bottom of this matter so there will be no more interference in our elections.

119 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 5:01:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc for putting the motion forward today. It is an important one. It needs to be supported. In the member's speech, she highlighted the point that there have been many failures of the government to act and to take foreign interference seriously. In fact, the NSICOP report raises a litany of examples of the government's failure to deliver. It has actually received information on the members of Parliament or elected officials who are alleged to have worked wittingly, knowingly and intentionally with foreign state actors. The Prime Minister knew that, but that information never came before the House. Members never knew about it. To that end, is it not time now for the government to provide that information, not only to members of Parliament but to all Canadians?

137 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/10/24 5:02:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a leader is someone who is able to take responsibility. It is someone who also has the humility to change course. When a leader is worthy of confidence, which is not currently the case, they do what is necessary to prevent, act and correct. Right now, we have reached the limit. I can say to my colleague that we are at the end of our rope. The alarm sounded last week. We do not want any more. Now we are waiting.

83 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/10/24 5:02:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a very meaningful word. It signifies power by the people, and I would add that it is also power for the people. Democracy has gone through changes since its very early days in ancient Greece, but the foundations remain. The people should be the ones making choices about their own future. In light of the report on foreign interference, it behooves us to ask which people we are talking about, when we get right down to it. We may think that Quebec and Canadian parliamentarians represent the people of Quebec and Canada, but the report on foreign interference raises an important question: Are some members here for their constituents on Quebec and Canadian soil, or for foreign countries? I think it is important first and foremost to clarify the difference between diplomacy and interference. Next, I will discuss certain troubling parts of the report. I will not discuss all of them, because we would be here until tomorrow morning. Lastly, I will go over some of the repercussions of this report. Diplomacy is the branch of politics that concerns relations between nations. It involves representing a government's interests abroad, administering international affairs, and leading and conducting negotiations between nations. Diplomacy is the ability to resolve disputes. Diplomacy is also a skill. It is the tact involved in conducting state business effectively. Both definitions are important in our current situation. When we travel abroad for bilateral meetings with parliamentarians from other countries, we engage in diplomacy. We talk together to explain our realities. We share points of view and emphasize the important items to consider during negotiations between the governments concerned. Our ambassadors have the same duty to discuss and negotiate. Diplomacy serves the interests of nations and their people. Interference occurs when one nation attempts to influence the domestic affairs of another nation. This definition illustrates the difference between diplomacy and interference. Interference is when one foreign state intervenes in another's domestic affairs. If we were to look a little closer at the history of humanity as a whole, we would see that several wars over the centuries have come about because of one country interfering in the affairs of another. Whereas diplomacy serves the interests of nations and their people, interference serves the interests of just one nation, and sometimes not the interests of any citizens. With these two definitions in mind, we can only conclude that Canada has truly been a victim of interference, as have other countries around the world. Certain people have attempted to influence this country's domestic affairs, either wittingly or unwittingly. The report contains a number of elements, but I will focus on two or three of them. On page 25, paragraph 55 states: Some elected officials, however, began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election. [*** Three sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. The sentences described examples of members of Parliament who worked to influence their colleagues on India's behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials. ***] It says that they provided confidential information. That is worrisome. Despite the redactions, we understand that members helped facilitate Indian interference. We also found out that consulates and embassies would coordinate the actions of their networks. During the 2019 federal election, 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers had close ties to China, including several who appeared to be wittingly working for the People's Republic of China. Despite the redactions, we understand that candidates and staffers had close ties to China. In this particular case, the involvement of consulates and embassies is worrisome since they breached their duty, which is to promote diplomacy. How does interference happen? There is a list of methods, including the use of social media. Countries can intimidate the diaspora. Disinformation and misinformation are also used. Countries can use clandestine networks. They can even buy influence. That is just a short list of methods that can be used. What worries me about all this is the lack of interest from successive governments of all stripes. The current Prime Minister's entourage dismisses intelligence reports on the pretext that they contain only unproven allegations, while the Prime Minister himself admitted when he appeared before the commission that he did not even read intelligence reports. That is worrisome. The least they could have done would have been to meet with the people who were mentioned, to ask for some explanations. How can they know that the allegations are unproven if the reports are systematically dismissed? If the RCMP or CSIS are not being questioned, how can they be sure that they are just allegations? How can they be sure, when the Prime Minister does not even read the reports? When I first entered politics, one old-timer told me that a person cannot be accused of what they do not know. My own view is that, if I know about a problem, then I can act and improve it. Unfortunately, I see that the Prime Minister's team is very old school when it comes to a duty to act. They are like the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. However, now we all know, or at least, we know some things. The Minister of Public Safety raised an important point. We cannot mention people's names without making sure that the alleged offences are facts and not just unproven allegations. However, it is up to the RCMP and CSIS to determine that. It is not up to us. I would like to know that these people will never again have the opportunity to facilitate foreign interference, either wittingly or unwittingly. I would like to know that real action is finally being taken to ensure the vitality of our democracy, without interference, without foreign interference. I want to be clearly, meaningfully and officially assured that the people of Quebec and Canada can have full confidence in their democracy. The current situation is just one more factor fuelling cynicism towards members who put their heart and soul into their work. The government is taking last-minute, urgent action because the report was released. The government quickly cobbled together Bill C-70. Here again, there was no planning, no preparation and no long-term vision. In short, it is important to make sure that the people's elected representatives represent the people who elected them. They must be free from any collusion resulting in interference. This is essential to protecting our democracy. We are requesting that the terms of reference of the Hogue commission be expanded because we have a duty to protect our democracy. In doing so, we protect all the interests of our fellow citizens. In other words, we protect their confidence in us, and we protect our economy and its ability to provide good jobs and a bright future. We protect those who chose to make their home in Canada, far from strife. We protect people who left countries where they were being treated poorly. Protecting our democracy transcends the walls of this House; it transcends politics. We must recognize that. I have said it before, and I will say it again: True statesmen and stateswomen protect human dignity, particularly the dignity of people of lesser means.

1214 words

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

Jun/10/24 5:12:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on what the member was saying toward the tail end of her speech. One of the best ways we could counter foreign interference would be by building support from all sides of the chamber in not only recognizing the serious nature of foreign interference, but also acting as one strong voice, which would send a very powerful message. Often foreign interference is an attempt to promote and encourage public distrust. If people were to work together, partisanship aside, to combat foreign interference as a top priority, that is one way we can build public confidence in the system. I wonder if the member would provide her thoughts on that.

117 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Jun/10/24 5:13:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, foreign interference usually aims to divide us. How does the saying go? Divide and conquer. That is pretty much what foreign interference tries to do. That said, I am sure we all agree that foreign interference is a problem we must stop, although we might disagree on how to stop it. That is why it is important to sit down together, because the beauty of a minority government is that we can take the time to negotiate and discuss before finally reaching a consensus that will truly and fully protect democracy and our constituents.

96 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 5:14:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP report noted that the foreign interference actors, particularly those from China and India, are most pervasive. The implications are significant to Canadians, to our democratic institutions and to our processes. While the government has known about this for a long time, our system is deficient in addressing the issue. Paramount to the motion today and to ongoing efforts to counter foreign interference activities is ensuring that the commission has access to all unredacted documents, most certainly the ones that NSICOP received and, as well, the information from cabinet. Would the member support the call for the government to release all unredacted documents to the commission?

109 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Jun/10/24 5:15:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in my colleague's question. First, maybe there should be no more working in silos. Right now, the problem is that everyone clings to their prerogative and runs their own show. They see certain information as belonging exclusively to them. Nobody talks to one another. That has to change. They also need to stop being willfully blind. There are none so blind as those who will not see. They have the information. The Prime Minister had the information. His office had the information, but it refused to look at it or be briefed. Now, it is important that the Hogue commission receive the documents it deems necessary and that it take whatever action is appropriate.

123 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/10/24 5:16:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether the government has given any indication that it is willing to work with the other parties in the House of Commons on issues like this, particularly foreign affairs, and to provide more information to all Canadians, or whether it is a farce when our colleague opposite says we should be working together in this situation.

65 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Jun/10/24 5:17:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is crucial that we work together. Is the government willing to do that? During question period, the government indicated it would support our motion. As we all know, however, supporting a motion does not mean implementing it. It will have to be implemented as well. The government must show that it understands the beauty of a minority government. A minority government sits down, negotiates and engages in discussion in order to reach a consensus. In this case, the consensus is for the well-being of our democratic future.

93 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Jun/10/24 5:17:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in light of what happened today during question period, I think you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the proceedings on the opposition motion standing in the name of the member for Trois-Rivières shall conclude no later than 7 p.m. today.

63 words

Trois

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/24 5:18:19 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

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

Jun/10/24 5:18:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-51

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member for Surrey—Newton, who is in fact one of the members who really tackle the issue head on. Members will recall that Motion No. 112 received unanimous support from those who were inside the chamber voting. It also dealt with the issue of foreign interference. I want to put things into perspective so those who are following the debate get an appreciation of what we are actually talking about and what led us to where we are today. It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize, and it does not matter what side of the House we are on, that an assault of any nature, anything direct or indirect, through international or foreign interference is an assault on all of us. We should all do what we can to dispose of international foreign interference. As a government, we have taken a number of actions. Let me first put it in the context of the degree to which the current Prime Minister and, in good part, the government have been acting, even in 2015. Going back to when the Liberals had third party status in the chamber, there was Bill C-51. We argued that Canada needed to be able to establish a security clearance standing committee of the House that would be able to take a look at all forms of information. It was nothing new. Canada is one of the Five Eyes countries, and we were the only one that did not have such a committee in existence. At the time, the Conservative Party, which was in government under Stephen Harper, said no to us. It did not recognize, nor was it interested at all in proceeding with what we call NSICOP today. In fact, if we look at the history of the issue itself, we see that the it was actually brought to the government's attention in 2013, knowing full well that there was foreign interference taking place in Canada. Today's leader of the Conservative Party was in cabinet. Not only Stephen Harper completely ignored the issue, but so too did today's leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward the suggestion of changing the law to incorporate NSICOP, the Conservative Party opposed it. The federal election took place, and one of the first initiatives Liberals took was to establish NSICOP. We did a great deal of consultation on it, believing that it was in Canada's best interest. When we put NSICOP in place after passing the legislation, the Conservatives boycotted it and withdrew some members. NSICOP as a standing committee has representatives from all recognized political entities in the chamber. It even has participation from the Senate. However, the Conservative Party did not support it. Fast-forward to today and listen to some of the quotes that can be provided, in terms of the degree to which the Conservative Party has actually politicized the issue. How many times have we heard the Conservatives stand up and demand that we release the names? Constantly it is “Release the names of the members of Parliament.” Then, through social media, the Conservatives created the idea that the Government of Canada was trying to hide something. There are Conservative members who sit on NSICOP. They would have just as much right to see the names as the government does. If the Conservative Party wants the names released, why do the Conservative members who sit on NSICOP not release them? I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they are a bit concerned about potential charges or investigations, because it would not be appropriate for them to release the names. Earlier today, the minister responsible indicated that he had a discussion with Deputy Commissioner Flynn about releasing the names, asking whether he could do that as a minister. He was told by the deputy commissioner, who is the second in charge, that if he were to do that he would be opening himself up to criminal prosecution. The Conservatives, on the one hand, are asking us to release the names, knowing full well that we cannot release them, but that does not prevent them from going around spreading misinformation on the issue. It does not end there. The Conservatives are saying that they do not want their leader to be informed. The government has said that a leader of a political party can get the security clearance that would allow them to request the information. The leader of the NDP has done just that, but not the leader of the Conservative Party. It is interesting that just this past weekend, on the issue, the host of CTV's Question Period was conducting an interview. She quoted the national security adviser and the head of CSIS. Then she said, “Just because your leader is briefed on this intelligence does not mean that he can't act.” In essence, she was saying that the leader can in fact be briefed and can act on the issue. Let us follow what happens afterward. The host then asked the Conservative panellist, “Why not get briefed? Why could [the leader of the Conservative party] now not just get that information and then act on it?” The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who spoke earlier today, responded with, “What the Prime Minister is asking [the Leader of the Opposition] to do is essentially tie his hands behind his back”, even though the New Democratic leader had the same briefing. He goes on further to say, “That process would require [the Leader of the Opposition] to sign an undertaking and to swear an oath of secrecy not to divulge this information to anyone else, and, therefore, not be able to tell anybody else to act on this information to hold individuals accountable.” The host then poses this question: “Respectfully though, am I supposed to believe you over the director of CSIS?” Get this; this is what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said: “Yes. Yes, you are.” He said to believe him over CSIS. That is incredible. He said, “because I think the director of CSIS and the RCMP may not be as knowledgeable about the processes under the Reform Act that govern [our ] party caucuses”. Really? It highlights how the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative-Reform party, choose to be dumb on the issue intentionally, come up with lame excuses and then spread misinformation all over social media. Where is the sense of responsibility? The Conservatives are definitely found lacking when it comes to common sense and responsibility in dealing with an issue that Canadians are concerned about. Why will the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today not take the government up on getting the security clearance so he would understand in more depth what is taking place?

1167 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/10/24 5:29:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my friend, the member for Winnipeg North, speak. I cannot believe that he can talk on any issue for 10 minutes to 20 minutes. He always has something to say, but nothing very serious. We know for sure that in the House there are people who have been elected with the support of foreign countries that are not fans of Canada. We know that, but what we do not know is who they are. We think that it would be a good idea to have the names, which is not a position that my colleague supports. That is what democracy is all about. I understand what he is talking about, as I am sure he understands what I am talking about. The point is, can the member assure this country that no cabinet minister is on the damn list?

148 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/10/24 5:30:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member across the way that there are two Conservative members of Parliament who sit on NSICOP. Those two members would be just as entitled to know the names as anyone else. The Conservatives say, “Well, we do not want them them to speak about it, but we want the minister to speak about it.” The minister said earlier today that he cannot share the names. All the member has to do is listen to what the deputy commissioner said, because he too would be eligible for prosecution. Therefore the NSICOP members are being responsible. The government minister is being responsible. The only one who is not being responsible is the Conservative-Reform party leader in the House of Commons.

127 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/10/24 5:30:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain his vision. In his opinion, why are trust and truth so important in a democratic system like ours? I would also like him to explain why his government does not act unless it is pushed into a corner. I do not think it is right that the Bloc Québécois was the one that had to move a motion on this matter. If there were effective governance, action would have been taken more quickly. I would like him to explain that to me.

96 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/10/24 5:31:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister have not been pushed on the issue. I would ultimately argue that, in a certain way, it is the government that has been pushing the issue. All that members have to ask about is why we have the report that we have today. The Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the third party, insisted that we should have a committee like NSICOP. In 2015, when we took over the reins of power, we actually started to take action to put NSICOP into place. We would not have NSICOP today except for the current Prime Minister and government. That is the report we are actually talking about today. NSICOP has representatives of all political entities of the chamber. To say that we have not taken action is not true. There are more actions that I could talk about, but I am out of time.

153 words

Nsicop

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 5:32:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to the NSICOP report, “foreign actors covertly supported or opposed candidates by exploiting vulnerabilities in political party governance and administration.” It goes on to say, “This included interfering with nomination processes or attempting to influence or control electoral district associations. CSIS considers the nomination process to be a particularly soft target”. Unlike Australia and the United Kingdom, Canada does not criminalize interfering in nominations, leaderships or any other political party processes. Would the Liberal government agree that it is time to do what our ally countries are doing to tackle foreign interference?

99 words