44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 10, 2024 11:00AM
- 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
Madam Speaker, “I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.” I have uttered those words three times now: once in 2015, once in 2019 and again in 2021. Of course now our allegiance lies with His Majesty King Charles II.
It is important to note we are not giving our oath to the person. It is really given to the embodiment of the Crown as an institution, which is, of course, a symbol of the Canadian state, a ship that continues to sail on despite the occasional changing of its captain.
I never thought I would arrive at a moment in time when I had to seriously doubt the sincerity of that affirmation or oath from fellow members of Parliament, but given the astounding report we received last week from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, that is the moment we have all arrived at.
I do want to note that I am incredibly proud to be a member of a caucus that has consistently led the way on trying to get results on the file we are considering. I take members back to just over a year ago, when, on May 30, 2023, my hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver East, used our opposition day in the House of Commons to make sure we debated a motion calling for a public inquiry.
As members will recall, at that time, the government had set up a special rapporteur, the right hon. David Johnston, but it was quite clear the faith in Mr. Johnston's abilities had become compromised because of his close relationship with the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. That is why we felt at the time, as New Democrats, it was necessary for the House to call on Mr. Johnston to step aside in his role and for the government to finally get serious about the matter of foreign interference and urgently establish a public commission of inquiry.
I am pleased to report that, thanks to all of the opposition parties, the motion brought in by my party passed by a vote of 174 to 150; unfortunately, the Liberals were the ones who voted against it. It did have results, because Mr. Johnston resigned the following week. He understood at that moment in time that it was simply untenable for him to continue in his role while not enjoying the full confidence of the House of Commons. As well, we know that finally the foreign interference commission was set up on September 7, 2023.
I am a member of a caucus that has seen its leader, the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, being directly impacted by foreign interference. We know that my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, has also suffered the same. In our small, close-knit NDP caucus, we know all too well how pernicious foreign interference is, because we have seen it directly implicate, constrain and negatively affect two of our members. It is very personal for our caucus.
That brings me to the motion the Bloc Québécois has brought forward on its opposition day for the House to consider and eventually vote on. I want to break up my speech into several parts, looking at the various components of the motion.
Let us take a look at the first part of the motion, “that the House take note of the Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.” Let us take note of the report. First of all, I want to note that in the opening paragraphs, the following appears: “the Committee noted the intelligence community’s consistent assessment that threat actors continue to consider Canada a permissive environment, viewing interference activities as a low-risk, high reward way to pursue strategic interests.”
At the end of the report, there is a litany of scathing conclusions against the Liberal government, complaining that the delays in developing policy demonstrated a lack of urgency commensurate with the gravity of threat, that delays in actions undermined the government's operational responses to the threat, and that a slow response to a known threat was a serious failure and one from which Canada may feel the consequences for years to come. Let that sink in, “for years to come”.
We are very much behind the eight ball on this issue. The warnings have been there, our country has been slow to act and those are the findings of NSICOP. Furthermore, we know now too that the Liberal government is withholding more than 1,000 pages of documents from the committee, just as it has withheld documents from the public inquiry. Those are hardly the actions of a government that is dedicated to transparency. I would argue that at this moment in time, what we need is transparency, we need to rebuild trust and we need accountability. This is an issue that rises above any one political party. This comes to the foundations of our democratic system itself. That is not full of hyperbole; that is the actual truth.
There is a real deficit in trust in the Canadian public right now and underpinning all of that is trust that we have faith that our democracy will continue through the turbulent times, that we can have faith that the people we elect to this place are doing their job honourably, on behalf of their constituents and in the best interests of the country we call Canada. It is clear that we have arrived at a moment where we must forcefully push back against hostile foreign powers that seek to undermine our democracy.
Let us go to the second part of the motion, which states that the House “express concern that certain elected officials may be wittingly or unwittingly working in the interests of foreign powers”. The NSICOP report landed with the force of a bomb last week. Its allegations that sitting members of Parliament are working on behalf of foreign interests is an incredibly serious issue that this House must be seized with. For example, paragraph 55 in the report talks about “Some elected officials...wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election.” The paragraph was heavily redacted, but the description of the redacted elements make mention of “members of Parliament who worked to influence their colleagues on India’s behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.”
Paragraph 56 talks about a foreign state, and it does not mention which one, supporting a witting politician. Again, it is heavily redacted. Paragraph 57 talks about the People's Republic of China establishing a quid pro quo relationship with MPs where it would mobilize its network in Canada in the members' favour in return for positive engagement with the PRC. On and on it goes, detailing clandestine networks influencing the political process, the use of proxies, covertly buying influence with candidates and elected officials, etc.
I want to take a moment to ask a question that I think is on a lot of Canadians' minds, and it is certainly on my mind. What is going on with the leader of the Conservative Party's ongoing refusal to get the clearance necessary for a top secret briefing on this matter? The NDP leader already has the clearance and is going to get the briefing on who these compromised politicians are. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there is ongoing refusal on the part of the leader of the Conservative Party. The only thing I can derive from that fact is it seems he would rather talk about things he does not know rather than know things that he cannot talk about. The report, specifically paragraphs 72 and 73, talks about where the People's Republic of China allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada and India allegedly interfered in the Conservative Party's leadership.
That is a five-alarm fire. That is something that all parties need to take seriously. We know, of course, of the allegations that exist out there with the Liberal Party. It has already impacted one of their sitting MPs, who is now sitting as an independent. Again, this is an issue that I think every single leader in this place needs to get up to speed on. I will tell us why.
Last week, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we were doing a thorough review of Bill C-70, which I will talk about later, which is designed to deal with foreign interference. One of our witnesses was David Vigneault, who is the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I asked him about this, about whether it is in the intelligence community's interest that key members of Parliament, i.e., leaders of parties, get briefed on this information. He said yes, that it is in their interest to make sure that as many key members of Parliament, of the whole Parliament of Canada, are briefed on this.
Again, I understand that there is a wide gulf between intelligence and evidence but there are other mechanisms that party leaders can make use of within their own caucuses, so that if a party leader learns the identity of a compromised MP, there are actions that leader can take within their caucus to make sure that the Canadian people do not have a compromised person on the ballot in the next election. That is one avenue that can be taken.
It is shameful, I think, that, so many times, there is a deliberate choice to play partisan games rather than become informed. In my opinion, that is simply not leadership. There is a veil of ignorance on the Conservative side, but on the Liberal side, their continued reliance on judicial process and the RCMP investigating is also a cover, because, again, there is that gulf between intelligence and evidence. The intelligence does not always meet the high standard that is necessary in a court of law. Often, intelligence agencies are very loathe to share that intelligence because it could compromise their sources that gathered the information in the first place. Again, to the CSIS director's point at committee, there are actions that party leaders can take, but they can only take them if they make the conscious choice to become properly informed. We have yet to see that from the Conservative Party leader.
The final part of the motion from the Bloc Québécois is asking that the terms of reference for the foreign interference commission, known as the Hogue commission, be expanded to investigate Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments, as well as senators.
I have listened to some of the debate thus far, and some members believe that the existing terms of reference already cover this. I would say that given the heightened attention and interest that there is on this issue and the very real concern that Canadians have with it, if there is any way we could ask the government to give more specificity and direction to what the terms of reference should be to the commission, then I, for one, would be in favour of it. I do think it is reasonable to ask for that because, again, we need to make sure that the inquiry has full access to all of the classified material. We cannot have cabinet confidences blocking the inquiry's search for the truth. That is very much a fact, and I think most Canadians would very much agree with that.
I think we are all very well aware of how serious this issue is and the attention that we need to pay to it from this point forward. The next question is: where do we go from here? I love reviewing Canadian statutes, and the statute, of course, that is most at play in these circumstances is the Security of Information Act. Anyone, under that act, who is permanently bound to secrecy commits an offence when they intentionally and without authority communicate or confirm special operational information.
In this case, that would be the names of these MPs. We are in a conundrum here. On one hand, we have the Security of Information Act, SOIA, with very stiff penalties. If one committed an offence under the SOIA, one could be found guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years. That is a serious punishment for breaching these conditions in the act. Again, members of NSICOP are members of Parliament, but, looking at the act that created that committee under section 12, no member of that committee can “claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege”. They have waived their parliamentary privilege to be a part of that committee. As a result, they are also bound by secrecy. They cannot utter the names because they would be found liable to imprisonment as well.
I must return to the rights of the House of Commons itself, because I think we are setting up a battle here between the rights of the House versus existing statutes. We all know that two of the most powerful mechanisms that the House of Commons has are the regulation of its own internal affairs and the power to discipline. Those are the dominant rights and powers, among a few others, that the House of Commons has. I would submit to colleagues that breaking the oath of allegiance or the affirmation that we all made to have the privilege of sitting in this place is probably the most serious offence that I can think of. It is something that I think the House would be well-versed to seize itself with and to find the appropriate punishment. I am not sure where this battle is going to go, again, because we have rights as members of Parliament in that anything we say here on the floor of the House is protected by parliamentary privilege. We literally cannot be held liable for the things that we say on the floor of the House, because there can be no impediment to an MP doing their job. Members of Parliament cannot fear prosecution to be able to do their job. We have to find a way where this information becomes known. The ultimate goal I want is for no Canadian to face a possibility where there is a compromised politician on the ballot who may be working on behalf of a foreign power, rather than the interests of the community they represent or to our country as a whole.
In this last two minutes I have, I do want to mention that, in terms of where we go from here, Bill C-70 is going to go through clause-by-clause this afternoon. I am going to be there, at committee, reviewing every single one of those clauses. It is going to be reported back to the House, hopefully by Wednesday. I think there are some substantive measures in that bill. We are certainly happy to be supporting it. I think it is important that we set up a registry. I think it is important that the CSIS Act gets updated so that it can work in a digital world. I also think it is important that the Security of Information Act gets important updates so that for clandestine interference, we have appropriate punishments for people who are engaging in those kinds of activities.
However, let me say this. With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think that foreign governments need to hear the message that their meddling in our internal affairs is now clearly on our radar and we are going to act. This is an item that the country is seized with, that this Parliament is seized with, and we are now prepared to take measures to make sure we root this problem out and get the perpetrators the justice that they so clearly deserve. The allegations that MPs knowingly received help from a foreign government are deeply disturbing. No one with those interests in mind should be sitting in this House of Commons. They should not be welcome in the Parliament of Canada. Canadians ultimately do deserve to know who these MPs are, who they are in undermining our democracy, and the government must find a way forward with this. All parliamentarians have an obligation to do everything they can to address foreign interference.
With that I will conclude by saying that we will support this motion. We will always be on the side of supporting efforts to get to the bottom of this issue and treating it with the seriousness that it deserves.
2842 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
