SoVote

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

Jun/10/24 5:46:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, several Liberals are telling us that there is already a system of accountability because the leaders of the political parties could have gone to get their security clearance to get the information. That is what the member for Kingston and the Islands said in a televised interview earlier today. Now, if they have that information, they cannot use it or disclose it, so they cannot take action. There is no accountability, and as a result, the only one who could really act is the Prime Minister. By his own admission, the Prime Minister does not read the security reports because he does not want to know anything about them, or he asks the security service to amend the reports to ensure that he does not know anything. Does my colleague not agree that it is time to change the terms of reference of the Hogue commission so that, from now on, it can introduce what the government has never been able to introduce, that is, a mechanism that will make it possible to anticipate and take action when elected officials are compromised? There is no such mechanism in place today, not in government, not in law, not in the Prime Minister's Office.

206 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal

Jun/10/24 5:47:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Speaker, regarding the question from the hon. member for Mirabel, I already answered it when the member from Calgary East raised the issue. I can tell the member what the Prime Minister and the government have done. We set up the national security and intelligence committee, which is made up of parliamentarians. Members from all parties sit on it, do the work, know exactly who these people are and know their boundaries. I have introduced Motion No. 112, which the Bloc Québécois supported, and our government put forward Bill C-70 to further protect Canadians and Canadian democratic institutions from foreign interference.

107 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 5:48:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NSICOP report noted that the government was aware of the extent of foreign interference activities since 2018. In fact, the unredacted information was received by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Therefore, it is not like the Prime Minister did not have the information or the Liberal government did not know the extent to which foreign interference activities were taking place in Canada. It has taken these many years and months for the government to take action. Why is it that the government is resistant to ensuring that Commissioner Hogue gets access to all unredacted cabinet documents related to foreign interference?

105 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal

Jun/10/24 5:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as far as the information I have is concerned, I think the minister has made it very clear in the House today that Commissioner Hogue has access to this report and all of those documents the hon. member for Vancouver East is talking about.

46 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/10/24 5:49:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House. I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my respected colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot. I say that it is always a privilege to speak because it is a great privilege just to be in the House. Out of more than 40 million people, there are 338 members. It is a prestigious position, and the people have put their trust in us. That is what I want to start with: The people have put their trust in us. What we are here to do, every time we stand up in the course of our work as parliamentarians, is work for the people who have put their trust in us, for the common good. That is not always evident because we sometimes play partisan games, but things are worse than usual right now. We have learned that there are people who are probably working for foreign powers. It is completely mind-boggling, surreal even. It is like something out of a bad movie, especially considering the incidents that have already taken place in Surrey—Newton. I would like to tell my colleague that we stand in solidarity with the people in his riding who have suffered this horrible tragedy. If all the information we have is correct, it is absolutely atrocious. It is appalling that something like this could happen in a G7 country. Not only is this appalling and surreal, I find it unbelievable that the Bloc Québécois is once again the only responsible adult in the room. The political party that seems best placed to govern is the only political party not interested in forming a government. How ironic. I do not understand why a government that claims to be responsible did not take stronger action than that to counter foreign interference. I will return to that later. What our motion proposes is quite simple. We take note of the report on foreign interference. We note that some elected officials could be acting under foreign influence and working not for the people in their ridings, but for other countries with interests that, more often than not, are probably detrimental to our own. People are saying that this is outrageous, and that something must be done about it. What we are saying is that the Hogue commission's terms of reference need to be expanded, that it should not just investigate the last two elections, for a few months, within the framework of a modest, very restricted mandate that requires a report to be tabled by Christmas. What we are asking for is a full investigation of this country's democratic institutions, including its members of Parliament and senators. We need to investigate all parliamentarians. We need to figure out what happened. We need to get this information out. In the House, we are often caught between right-wing populism and left-wing populism. Some people want names, even though everyone knows perfectly well that that is impossible, as things currently stand, without facing a harsh penalty or even criminal sanctions. No names can be released. The Conservatives can create sound bites for four days, demanding names, but everyone knows that is impossible. The way to get those names out is to expand the commission's terms of reference. That is what we want to do. I am pleased that all political parties in the House of Commons will be supporting this motion. The revelations are extremely serious. People who likely received money, people who are in the pocket of foreign powers, people whose election was financed with money from foreign countries, it is all outrageous. I am going to offer a bit of a solution to prevent foreign forces from funding electoral activities. I am going to suggest, once again, that Canada look to Quebec, which reformed its election legislation. Let us be serious, how many people, just ordinary citizens, are in a position to give a political party $1,700? There are some. I know some, obviously, but there are not that many. How is that some ridings have so many of them? It may be because those people want something in exchange. It is at least an incentive. In Quebec, we solved that problem by setting the maximum annual contribution at $100. We have prevented that from happening. There is public financing. This public financing had been removed by the Conservatives, who found that the Bloc Québécois was too powerful. I will not get into that. That would be a solution that could help us prevent this type of foreign influence. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary had the nerve to tell me that his government was very proactive, that it has done good things and that it established the commission of inquiry, which would not have happened were it not for this good, forward-thinking, serious and proactive government. I am sorry. First, CSIS agents had to leak information to get the ball rolling and to inform the opposition of what was happening, because we were not aware of it. Then, we asked questions for weeks and months. The good Liberal government did what it usually does and turned a blind eye and waited for the problem to go away on its own, hoping that everything would be okay, but that did not happen. After hearing it over and over, it seems to me that the government should be beginning to understand that there comes a time when it has to take action. When the government waits six months or a year to act, then it always seems to be behind and is never able to catch up. The next time something happens, the government should ask our advice if it wants our help. When a party forms the government, it has to take action. This is appalling. I cannot believe how many times we have had to repeat this. I was a teacher for 25 years before becoming an MP. I always told my students that it is okay to make a mistake. There is nothing wrong with that. The important thing is being able to admit it. A person has to be humble enough to say that they missed that one. They have to look at what they did wrong and not do it again. This government has been dragging its feet on every file, all the time, for the nearly five years I have been here, and it was probably doing the same beforehand. It is appalling. The government needs to learn. I was told earlier that the government is taking action. First, it took leaks to get things moving. Then we insisted on an inquiry, but the government said we did not need one. They threw vague answers at us for weeks. Finally, one weekend, on a Saturday afternoon while barbecuing, they had a brilliant idea: They would appoint a special rapporteur who would say that there was no issue and who would put an end to the affair. For that task, they chose a good friend who had donated several thousand dollars to the party in recent years. Everything would be fine. Except that it did not work out that way. We asked questions for months. We questioned this person's integrity. By the way, he was an honourable person. I am not attacking anyone. It is mind-boggling to see the way the government is acting. Earlier I was told that if it were not for the upstanding Liberal government, there would not be an inquiry. Can we be serious for a minute? Why is it that the Bloc Québécois is the one saying today that we have to go further responsibly? Are we are the only ones who are able to do so? I wonder. We have to clean house, because the people are watching. They are being accused of cynicism toward politicians and all that, but considering how this kind of issue has been handled, how could it be otherwise? This is serious. It puts us under a cloud of suspicion, a permanent cloud. Every time I talk to a member of another party, I wonder which country he or she is spying for. Am I in danger because of what I just said? Did I just compromise something? It is crazy. Knowing that some of the MPs among us are under foreign influence but doing nothing about it is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois chose this as its opposition day topic because more must be done. Let us be serious about this. The grown-ups in the room are urging all 338 MPs to adopt this motion unanimously. I hope that the inquiry will produce conclusive results and that we will be able to restore people's trust. That is what this is about: trust in elected representatives.

1495 words

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

Jun/10/24 5:59:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of providing names. He seems to acknowledge that it would not be appropriate for us to be providing names, whether of government or opposition members or of those who sit on NSICOP. I appreciate that comment— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Is there no interpretation?

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/10/24 5:59:59 p.m.
Watch

The interpretation is okay. Maybe, if the hon. parliamentary secretary were to look this way, he would not get sidetracked by some of the actions others are doing.

28 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/10/24 6:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the acknowledgement of not being able to reveal the names of the individuals in question. Does the member see the value of the leaders getting the classification so that they can get more information? After all, it is the leaders who sign off on candidates. Every leader could make the commitment to the electorate that they would not sign off unless they were comfortable with a candidate and, obviously, being treasonous would be a good reason not to.

82 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/10/24 6:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer to his question is yes. That is actually what our leader decided to do, and I think that all the leaders should do the same to ensure that they have all the information. Apart from that, what my colleagues and I wanted to say at the outset is that we thought that the parliamentary secretary thought we wanted names when we were asking questions. Obviously, we understood that he understood. It is very important for unilingual anglophones to listen with the earpiece to catch the subtleties of what is being said. However, my colleague is right when he says that it would be impossible to provide the names at this time. That is why we want to expand the Hogue commission's terms of reference so that we can get to the bottom of this matter and eventually identify these people to stop them from sitting in Parliament, because it is outrageous to allow people who work for other nations to sit here.

167 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 6:01:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member that those who knowingly, intentionally, wittingly work with foreign states should not be sitting here as members of Parliament. They should not be running in the next election. There is no question about that. At this time, because the NSICOP report has exposed that there are elected officials sitting around this table who are collaborating and working with foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic processes and democratic institutions, that means all of us are in a shadow. We are operating in such a way that quite possibly my privilege is being breached, and all of our privilege is being breached, because of this situation. Unless we were to know who they are, the privilege of all of us would be compromised. Would the member agree with that?

137 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/10/24 6:02:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to know that at least one member listened to my speech from start to finish. We get along well and agree on most things. That is why the commission's terms of reference need to be expanded, so that these individuals can be identified and each party leader can do their job and kick these people out of Parliament. I completely agree with my colleague that these members should not be sitting in this place. I agree with her that they should not be allowed to run again. We are on the same page. When she talks about parliamentary privilege, that is fine, but what I consider to be even more important is public trust in the government.

123 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/10/24 6:03:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the interesting thing is that we now have the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which sits in camera. We also have the first report of the Hogue commission. We have all these facts and all these allegations before us, which brings us to our motion today. We did not know these facts and most of us still do not know them. The Prime Minister knew them and the Prime Minister could have chosen to agree with the parties to expand the Hogue commission's terms of reference. Despite that, the Prime Minister rested on his laurels and did nothing. This brings us to an opposition day today where the Liberals seem forced to support us. How does my colleague explain that it is the Bloc Québécois that ends up moving this motion? How does he explain the Prime Minister's lack of ambition for defending democracy?

157 words

Bloc

Mr. Yves Perron

Jun/10/24 6:04:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not have a rational explanation. That is what I said for half my speech. The only explanation I have is that we are the adults in the room, we are the trustworthy ones. I am glad we are doing this. I am glad that the other parties support us. When we have a Prime Minister who openly says that he does not read the CSIS reports, it makes us wonder. Does the Prime Minister know how to read or does he not want to read the reports? We know the real answer: He does not want to read them.

103 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Jun/10/24 6:04:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada has a strange democracy. It is a monarchy, with an electoral system that is not proportional and a parliamentary system where the separation of powers is vague, to say the least, and difficult to define. It has a Senate, a chamber with decision-making capacity made up of unelected people who are appointed. It has a Constitution that was imposed on Quebeckers, to which they are still not signatories to this day. It has a bunch of judges who have no problem eviscerating the statutes democratically passed by parliaments. Now we can add that this democracy is at the heart of a conflict, a confrontation between foreign powers trying to get their hands on candidates to influence parts of the political decision-making process. Today, we are gathered not only as representatives of our respective constituencies, but as vigilant stewards of democracy and its sacred values and integrity, which is under threat. At least, that is how it should be. The Bloc Québécois is so concerned about safeguarding democracy, even a democracy as imperfect and as oligarchic as Canada's, that it has moved a motion of vital importance. If it resonates in the just and wise hearts of this chamber, this motion will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to sovereignty and freedom. It is our duty to respond to the pressing call of history. The foreign interference commission under the leadership of Justice Hogue needs to have its terms of reference expanded, not to give into the temptation of suspicion or paranoia, but to respond firmly and with foresight to the troubling revelations of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. These revelations shake the very foundations of democracy. It is now clear that the tentacles of foreign interference extend far beyond what we had previously imagined. Not only do foreign states dare interfere in Canada's diplomatic affairs, but they have also found allies among the elected members of this House. This dark collusion is hidden behind a shroud of confidentiality, and it threatens the very stability of our two nations. NSICOP members, muzzled by the Security of Information Act, bear the burden of remaining silent forever. The truth, my friends, will have to come out at some point. We are called upon to lift the veil of darkness, to unearth buried truths and to protect our democracy from the dark forces that seek to corrupt it. In its preliminary report, the Hogue commission has already shed light on foreign influence activities in the recent election. This is just the tip of the iceberg. By broadening its scope, the commission could finally answer the burning questions raised by the NSICOP report. We could finally find out whether our representatives are truly serving their country, or whether they have sold their souls to the highest bidders. The stakes are high. This is not just about restoring public trust, but also about preserving the very essence of democracy. The Bloc Québécois calls for action, courageous and resolute action, action that tells the world that freedom and sovereignty are non-negotiable, that the light of truth will drive out the darkness of deceit and betrayal. It is high time that we lift the veil of wilful blindness and face the reality of foreign interference in democratic institutions and processes. History has reminded us of the urgent need not to turn a blind eye to the threats that are eating away at the foundations of our two nations. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius said, “He often acts unjustly who does not do a certain thing”. Recent circumstances have highlighted the Canadian government's failure to address this critical issue. In their insistence on ignoring the warning signs, government members have shown a disconcerting naivety. I use the word “naivety” quite politely, so as not to use another word. Only the weight of irrefutable evidence has persuaded them to admit that there is a problem of foreign interference, a problem that is poisoning democracy to its deepest roots. The paltry attempts to cover up the matter are indicative of Ottawa's cavalier approach to this vital issue. Delay tactics such as the appointment of a special rapporteur have only underscored the urgent need for a rigorous public inquiry. The Hogue commission, the result of relentless pressure rather than the government's initial will, is a step in the right direction. However, its restricted mandate and limited duration will not be enough to dispel the threatening shadows of foreign interference. The report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians resonates like a thunderclap in a serene sky. These revelations, albeit redacted, suggest the insidious extent of foreign infiltration. Members of Parliament, blinded by the lure of power or darker motives, have compromised themselves in the service of foreign interests, undermining the foundations of national sovereignty. The troubling ties between some elected officials and foreign governments, exposed with disturbing clarity, underscore the urgent need for action. The disdain shown by some members for the legitimate questions their peers asked about foreign interference reveals the extent of the complacency that reigns within this very Parliament. We are faced with a huge moral and political dilemma. Foreign interference cannot be treated lightly, as it threatens not only security, but also the very legitimacy of institutions. By choosing not to act, Ottawa is shirking its primary responsibility to the people of Canada and Quebec. It is imperative that meaningful action be taken to counter this insidious threat. An educational program for politicians on intelligence and foreign interference could be a crucial first step in this fight. It is only through widespread public awareness and determined political will that we can restore public trust and protect our democracy from outside attacks. It is time to rise above partisan interests and stand together against foreign interference. Our two nations, democracy and sovereignty are at stake. It is our duty as stewards of the political future to act with courage and determination to preserve the values we hold dear. Together, let us make our two peoples, the people of Canada and the people of Quebec, sure again that their voices are heard, that their will is respected and that democracy is preserved.

1051 words

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

Jun/10/24 6:12:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words that the member put on the record this afternoon. NSICOP, which I commented on in my opening remarks as being a creation of the Liberal government, ultimately provided us with the report that we are tabling. Now we know that this is going to be reviewed by the Hogue commission. The Hogue commission was put together in co-operation with all political parties. There will be a report, and through that report I hope to find all sorts of good pieces of information that will better equip leaders and others to deal with building confidence in the system in terms of minimizing indirect foreign interference. I am wondering if the member could provide additional thoughts in regard to the public confidence and all political parties working together, in particular once that whole report comes out.

143 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/10/24 6:14:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at least one can say that my colleague is consistent. He has asked the same question about 15 times. Sometimes he changes the wording. He is tenacious. I admire that in politics. I respect that. That being said, it is obviously not a bad thing to increase, enhance and expand the terms of references. That is the purpose of today's motion. I would remind the House that it has three components. First, we talk about taking note of the special report. The House needs to recognize the special report. Second, we are concerned that certain elected officials could be wittingly or unwittingly working in the interests of foreign powers. Now, here is the important part. We are asking that the commission's terms of reference be expanded. That is probably the most important of the three points, even though all three are fundamental. That one is important. I think that goes along with what my colleague just said. However, I would like to remind him that this commission was not established because of a willingness on the part of the government. We had to hound the government non-stop to make that happen.

197 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/10/24 6:15:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the areas the member touched on is the timeline of the issue. Aside from the fact that the government, the Prime Minister, knew of foreign interference activities for a long time and did not take the necessary action to counter this threat to Canadian society, to our democratic system, the other issue the NSICOP report highlighted was that a former member of Parliament engaged in foreign interference activities, allegedly. Supposedly, the individual also set up meetings and collaborated with foreign agents. To that end, would the member agree that we need to ensure that Commissioner Hogue has the full breadth and scope when looking into foreign interference activities and is not just restricted to just the last two elections?

123 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/10/24 6:16:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that this commission must have the resources to do its job. It is as simple as that. That is fundamental. If a commission is set up, it must not be turned into a mere political show, a way of trying to shut down a debate that is starting to become a nuisance. We must give it the means to get to the bottom of things. My colleague said, “the Prime Minister”. Personally, I get the sense that there is more than just one prime minister who has turned a blind eye to foreign interference. I get the sense that we are witnessing a problem that is much more systemic and far more persistent, and that this is a problem with the system as opposed to a problem with the government. That is why I would also like us to look further back than just the last few years.

156 words

Commission

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/10/24 6:16:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is our international trade critic, so there is something I cannot help but wonder. Some of our trading partners are obviously taking the foreign interference issue more seriously than we are. The United States would never have let something like this slide for so long, and neither would France. Here, in contrast, the second opposition party is the one asking the government to expand the terms of reference of a commission that the government itself created. In my colleague's opinion, how does that make us look in the eyes of our trading partners?

103 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/10/24 6:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say we do not look very good. As a matter of fact, the United States even monitors investments because of concerns that foreign investments could jeopardize economic security. It goes without saying that, by failing to take this seriously, by being total slackers, we are making ourselves look bad. I say “we”, but I should actually be saying “Canada”, because I do not feel l am Canadian. It makes Canada look bad, and that is bad for businesses and entrepreneurs in Quebec, too. When Canada behaves this way, when it slacks off, that does not look good at all.

107 words