44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 10, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/10/24 12:19:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too was shocked to read the report, and I will be supporting this motion.
Is the hon. member recommending that the leaders of the political parties be authorized to read the report before they start talking nonsense in the House? Right now, we do not want to see partisanship on a matter that has to do with our national security.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:20:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for that very relevant question.
I said it, and my colleague said it: Foreign interference has no allegiance, no political stripe. It affects everyone. The offer to get the clearance necessary to see the documents ought to be taken up and is worth following up on. People will be able to find out for themselves, within their own party, whether there is anything there or not. Of course, they will not be able to reveal the content of the report, that is clear. Still, it is worth considering.
Yes, any political party leader who respects Parliament should request that security clearance.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:20:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have cited protecting sensitive intelligence and other national security considerations for not making the names of the compromised MPs and senators known to the Canadian public.
However, I have to say that so often when the government cites national security and intelligence, it turns out that what it is really about is protecting the interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. Given that there is a path forward by turning over the intelligence to Madam Justice Hogue, if the government does not cooperate, can the member come to any other conclusion than that it is about protecting and covering up for the Prime Minister and the interests of the Liberal Party, not about national security and sensitive intelligence?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. We had the opportunity to work together to examine Bill C-70 in depth. His comments were always insightful.
At this time, we know that the NDP leader has gotten security clearance, that the Prime Minister has automatically received the information and the leader of the Bloc Québécois is completing the process to receive security clearance. Of course the Conservative Party does not want to do so. I like my colleague's expression, when he talks about a veil of ignorance. It reminds me of my studies in philosophy with John Rawls.
I think that we cannot afford not to push together. I repeat, interference has no political stripe. It is a real threat. It is financial, it is democratic. It is steamrolling everyone. Parliaments all over the world are interested in foreign interference. Last week, a law was passed unanimously in the European community. I think we cannot be against it. If we are against, I have serious doubts and I have a problem with that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:25:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, more than 70 committee meetings have dealt with this issue during the last Parliament. There have been meetings with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment and the House of Commons administration. The most significant finding pertains to protocol. Each one does its work but no more than that, even though alarm bells are ringing.
We are asking that the commission set up and chosen by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons be independent. That is where we are today, after all these months. We are calling for a truly independent commission. Does my colleague agree with me that in Canada we do not have a culture of information management to protect our citizens, as compared with other countries?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for raising this matter. Last week's special report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians followed the testimony given by many witnesses at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as well as numerous other reports. Communication was identified as a problem, along with siloing.
Bill C-70 seeks to solve part of this problem, but we will study that tomorrow. For now, I feel we should allow a culture of intelligence sharing, but above all, we should develop a culture of protecting ourselves and realizing that interference exists in 2024, that it is already here and that, whether we like it or not, it is spreading. I am in complete agreement with my colleague. I hope this type of procedure can be put in place.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:29:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, trust is the ultimate goal. Trust means not having to prove anything.
How can trust be restored? There are several ways. Obtaining a security clearance is one way. The committee that was set up to deal with the Winnipeg affair is another. That all-party work produced all kinds of results.
I think there are a few ways. It is up to us to make the right choices.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 2:30:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our government is always working to protect democratic institutions and to strengthen the measures needed to ensure the integrity of our electoral process.
Law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are always on the job and they take their responsibilities seriously. I have full confidence in our national security agencies, and I have full confidence in the Hogue commission, which is looking at the exact scenario my colleague was talking about.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 2:50:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was warned multiple times about security threats from foreign interference. He was told measures to protect something as fundamental as our democracy were insufficient and he repeatedly failed to do anything about it.
We now know that members of the House knowingly assisted hostile foreign states against Canada's interests, and the government hides behind national security and cabinet confidence, while these members are still allowed to sit in caucus, sit in the House and serve their communities.
The Liberals have redacted and withheld documents from the Hogue commission. Will they hand over all the documents unredacted with names?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 4:00:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party for availing herself of and accepting the offer the minister has written to all party leaders to get their security clearance to be able to read the important report. I know that the minister would be happy to continue discussing that with her, as with all parliamentarians, and I will certainly raise this with him in terms of scheduling.
However, I will point out once again that we urge the Conservative leader to receive his security clearance so he can be better informed on the issue of foreign interference.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 6:30:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his use of the French language. That was wonderful.
We all agree with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that the “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions” is a very serious report. Every parliamentarian and, I would recommend, most people involved in anything to do with politics or civil society should read it.
Does my colleague not agree that it is important for leaders of the opposition to accept the offer to get security clearance so they can see the full, unredacted report?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 6:31:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am incredulous, if I am using the correct word, that any leader of any officially recognized party in the House would not have received security clearance to see these types of reports. That is called leadership. That is leadership 101, 100 or even 099. It is a complete failure in leadership for any leader in the House not to get that security clearance. If they would wish to be a responsible leader going into the future, they must do that. It is a real shame, and it is very disappointing.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 6:32:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the context in the world we are in today, it is imperative that every leader of an officially recognized party in the House receives that security clearance. The technology that is being used today, the online format and the sophistication of criminals both domestic and foreign, or whichever entities, demand that every leader in the House who is officially recognized receives that security clearance.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 6:58:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given the power and authority that all leaders of political parties have in terms of even signing off on the ability to be nominated and run in a federal election, would the member not agree that all leaders should take advantage of the opportunity to get the security clearance, so that they can actually take a look at the documents and see the information, a lot of which is information that the member has been talking about as critical information? Leaders do have that opportunity, yet the Conservative leader continues to say, “No, I do not want to know.”
I am interested in what the member's thoughts are in regard to when he made reference to moral responsibilities. Is there a responsibility for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the security clearance so that he can actually see the information we are talking about?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 6:59:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said that he was thinking about the opportunity of such a briefing. At one time, it was seen as a trap. Agreeing to this security briefing means getting the information and the names. However, those who obtain the names are not allowed to disclose them, not allowed to talk about it and not allowed to act on this information. We are effectively being shut down. I think that the NDP leader received the security briefing, but so what? Do we know anything? The answer is no.
To me, I think that the leaders should calmly and seriously think about receiving this briefing, making their decisions and, legally, take the necessary measures within their party. However, that is no substitute for the Hogue commission, which has to get to the bottom of things and report publicly on what it can.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
