- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- New Westminster—Burnaby
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $194,227.44
- Government Page
- Jun/11/24 1:27:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, although I think his reference to Conservatives does a disservice to socks. The reality is that Conservatives have not contributed anything to the debates in this House for years, and that is a tragedy. They will have to reckon with their constituents when they go back with their record of not doing anything for them and wanting to cut every benefit that they have.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:25:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On October 18, you took the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make quite a detailed statement on the matter of order and decorum in the House. In that statement you indicated that “order and decorum are signs of respect for each other and for the institution”. You further stated that the lack of order and decorum were most prominent during daily question period.
On that day, Mr. Speaker, you raised a number of concerns, from incendiary language to reference to the absence of members to heckling and personal attacks. One matter that was not discussed was the need to maintain question period for what it is: a tool for opposition parties and for individual members to hold the government to account.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
...time is set aside almost exclusively for the opposition parties to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions, and to highlight the perceived inadequacies of the government.
Speaker Bosley, in 1986, outlined a number of principles, including stating that:
While there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the government and calling the government to account for its actions.
The book continues in stating that when recognized in question period, a member should, “ask a question, be brief, seek information and ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual Minister addressed.” This is a key point, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will understand.
Clearly, the primary purpose of question period is to hold the government to account.
However, we have seen question period used in recent days and weeks, not to hold the government to account but to ask questions of individual members, in some cases government backbenchers and in other cases members from other opposition parties. As was previously the case, I would submit that such tactics should be considered out of order and not allowed.
I will quote extensively from some of the decisions that have been rendered by a previous Speaker who is now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
In that regard, here is what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when he was the Speaker, had to say in his January 28, 2014, ruling, and I quote:
It is for similar reasons that questions that concern...the actions...of other members, risk being ruled out of order....[A]s Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on June 14, 2010, found in Debates at page 3778, “...the use of [...] preambles to questions to attack other members does not provide those targeted with an opportunity to respond or deal directly with such attacks.” Thus, unless a link to the administrative responsibilities of the government can be established early in the question to justify them, such questions can be and indeed have been ruled out of order by successive Speakers.
In the same ruling, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who knows the House well, also said:
...we have witnessed a growing trend: we hear preambles to questions that go on at some length to criticize the position, statements, or actions of other parties, Members from other parties, and in some cases even private citizens before concluding with a brief question about the Government’s policies.
What we have, therefore, is an example of a hybrid question, one in which the preamble is on a subject that has nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the Government but which concludes in the final five or ten seconds with a query that in a technical sense manages to relate to the Government’s administrative responsibilities.
...since members have very little time to pose their questions and the Chair has even less time to make decisions about their admissibility, it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible.
Accordingly, these kinds of questions will continue to risk being ruled out of order and members should take care to establish the link to government responsibility as quickly as possible.
That was said by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker of the House.
The MP for Regina—Qu'Appelle, as Speaker, concluded with this:
In conclusion, I will continue to rule questions out of order that do not establish a direct link to the administrative responsibilities of the government. In the same sense, so-called hybrid questions will also continue to risk being ruled out of order when this link is not quickly demonstrated. Members should take care when formulating their questions and establish this link as soon as possible in posing their questions to ensure that the Chair does not rule what may be a legitimate question out of order.
On March 24, 2014, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle cut off two questions by the official opposition. I was in the House at the time. In response to a point of order raised by myself as House leader of the official opposition, he ruled:
...I raised the concern about questions that had no obvious link to government business, and informed members that they would run the risk of having their questions cut off unless that link was established early on in the question.
At the time I stood up to stop the members, I had not heard that link. If they feel they have a link to government business, I look forward with eagerness to their attempt to establish that, but as I heard it, there was no such link to the direct administrative responsibility of government. As relevant as it might be to public interest or to members, there has to be that established link to the administrative role of government.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to take this opportunity to commend you for your efforts to address matters of order and decorum. New Democrats are pledged to work together with you on this matter. We would, however, like to implore you, as part of this work, to ensure that question period remains a tool for keeping the government accountable. Parliamentarians, and Parliament as a whole, are not well served if that mandate expands, as we have seen this week, to matters that are definitely not within the administrative purview of the government.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this point of order and to use the tools the House has equipped you with to ensure that the kinds of questions we have heard this week, which are clearly out of order, are ruled as such before the question is finished.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention.
1137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 4:51:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 8, be concurred in.
I would like to start by acknowledging that this is a debate that was supposed to be held yesterday, but the Conservatives unbelievably rescheduled the debate to today. They denied consent yesterday to have this debate on the public inquiry, so now we are holding the debate today. As we well know, because the Conservatives did that procedurally, it delays the discussion we are to have later on about the tax increase on beer, wine and spirits.
For anybody who is tuning in to see that debate, because the Conservatives screwed up procedurally yesterday, we will have the debate later on about having the House call on the Liberal government to cancel its April 1 tax increase on beer, wine and spirits. The NDP will be voting yes on that, and there will be a round of speeches later on this evening, but because of the Conservatives screwing up yesterday and forcing the debate to today on the public inquiry, we are called upon now to have a debate on the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I want to read into the record of the House that report on the public inquiry.
This was an NDP motion, and I would like to thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River for putting forward this motion. She does extraordinary work at procedure and House affairs. What she has put forward, what procedure and House affairs has adopted, and what we are now debating for the next three hours is:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, March 2, 2023, the committee has considered the matter of foreign election interference.
Your committee calls on the Government of Canada to launch a national public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, including but not limited to allegations of interference in general elections by foreign governments;
That this inquiry be granted all the necessary powers to call witnesses from the government and from political parties;
That this inquiry investigates abuse of diaspora groups by hostile foreign governments;
That this inquiry have the power to order and review all documents it deems necessary for this work, including documents which are related to national security;
That the individual heading this inquiry be selected by unanimous agreement by the House Leaders of the officially recognized parties in the House of Commons; and
That this inquiry does not impede or stop the committee’s study on foreign election interference, including the production of documents and the calling of witnesses.
Members will recall that yesterday, New Democrats, playing their role as the adults in the House of Commons, forced the government, which had not been taking the issue of foreign election interference seriously, in our opinion, to relent and allow Katie Telford and other witnesses to come before the procedure and House affairs committee. Subsequently, we put in place in procedure and House affairs a motion that would allow for this foreign election interference study to be continued.
As I have said all along, the member for Burnaby South has been very clear, and NDP MPs have been very clear, that we believe that, given the size and scope of the allegations that have come forward, there is no doubt that we need a national public inquiry on the issue of foreign election interference.
I am going to outline some of those individuals who have a broad understanding of this issue who have also called for a national public inquiry. There is no doubt that this is an important issue. I understand that Bloc members also support the idea of a national public inquiry. Unbelievably, though, as we know, and we saw this yesterday, Conservatives denied the debate that was scheduled on the national public inquiry. They forced that debate to today. I will be talking about some of the evidence around some of the allegations that include Russian interference a few moments from now, but the reality is that the Conservatives have steadfastly objected to the idea of investigating foreign interference related to the Russian government and state actors, which I find disturbing.
There are the Chinese government and Chinese state actors, and I think all Canadians are concerned about why Conservatives would want to stop investigations into Russian government interference and Russian state actor interference. This concerns me because this should be an issue that rallies all members of Parliament. We should all be stepping up to ensure our elections are free of any taint of foreign interference, and that they are free and fair right across the country.
We have a proud tradition of free and fair elections. No one denies that the election results up until now have been election results that reflect, in a first-past-the-post system, what Canadians have voted for. We would prefer to see proportional representation. That would certainly change the representation in the House and make it more closely related to how Canadians have actually voted, but in a first-past-the-post system, which tends to disjoint the actual parliamentary representation, no one denies that our elections have been free and fair up until now.
The allegations are concerning, and that is why it is important that all members of Parliament vote on this issue in the coming day or two. We believe, very strongly, that members of Parliament have to respond to concerns that Canadians have raised. As a result of that, we are putting forward this motion today.
We would have preferred yesterday. The Conservatives stopped that from happening. They may say that it was inadvertent, that they just screwed up procedurally. I do not know. Whether it was inadvertent or purposeful, the reality is that they denied Canadians the right to hear the debate on a national public inquiry yesterday, which is so important. Fortunately, we are having that today.
I wanted to talk a bit about some of the evidence that has come forward, the allegations that are concerning, which are so important to triggering a national public inquiry. The member for Burnaby South has been exceedingly strong on that issue, talking about the importance of putting that in place. The government did not want to act, and we saw, as well, the government being reluctant even to offer key witnesses up. The NDP has forced that issue, so those witnesses are now going to be available to the procedure and House affairs committee.
We also believe, undeniably, that a national public inquiry is warranted. The rapporteur has now, again, because of NDP pressure, been given a date, a deadline, in the month of May, the third week of May, to submit that possible consideration of a national public inquiry.
I think that members of Parliament, by endorsing the NDP committee report, the motion for a national public inquiry, will get us considerably closer to the point where the rapporteur will be obliged, I believe, to respond to the concerns that have been raised by so many Canadians by actually putting the national public inquiry in place.
Who has said that a national public inquiry is warranted? The former director of CSIS Richard Fadden has said that a public inquiry is absolutely warranted. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, a former director of Elections Canada, has said that as well. This is very relevant, and I will come back to that in just a moment.
Gerald Butts, the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, has also stated that it is important to have a national public inquiry. Artur Wilczynski, the former head of the Communications Security Establishment, said as well that a national public inquiry is warranted.
There is no doubt. We have a situation where we have to put this into place. These are elements that the NDP will continue to push.
I wanted to, for the record, talk about some of the allegations that have come forward that are concerning. This should be covered by a national public inquiry. Members of Parliament will be asked to vote on this in the coming hours. It is important that they reflect what has been a broad concern for Canadians. Over 70% have said that a national public inquiry is warranted.
This started the more recent discussions, of course, over the last few weeks, but I would suggest that the implication of the Russian government and Russian state actors in the convoy last year also raised broad concerns, and there have been concerns raised previously.
There was a series of articles in The Globe and Mail by Robert Fife and Steven Chase. Sam Cooper from Global News has also done work as a journalist to bring forward some of these facts and allegations. These journalists have provided this information. I want to quote from one of the stories that came out, published on February 17 by Robert Fife and Steven Chase, in which they said the following of documents that had come out that raise serious allegations about foreign election interference. The article reads:
CSIS also explained how Chinese diplomats conduct foreign interference operations in support of political candidates and elected officials. Tactics include undeclared cash donations to political campaigns or having business owners hire international Chinese students and “assign them to volunteer in electoral campaigns on a full-time basis.”
Sympathetic donors are also encouraged to provide campaign contributions to candidates favoured by China – donations for which they receive a tax credit from the federal government.
Then, the CSIS report from Dec. 20, 2021 says, political campaigns quietly, and illegally, return part of the contribution – “the difference between the original donation and the government’s refund” – back to the donors.
These allegations are profoundly disturbing because what they represent is criminal activity, contraventions of the Elections Act. The Elections Act we have put into place is far different than what exists in other countries. For example, in the U.S., washes of money, dark money, can come in to influence the electorate. In Canada, we have strict financing provisions that must be followed, and if they are not, as former Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro found out, people go to jail for trying to skirt election laws. As the Conservative government found out, and the Conservative Party under the Harper regime found out as well with the in-and-out scandal, there are significant penalties for trying to get around our election laws.
The allegations contained within this article of having undeclared cash donations and of having business owners hire students to volunteer on a full-time basis, being in other words, paid students, and of ensuring that there is some kind of in and out where the money is provided to the campaign but is in some way reimbursed, are all illegal. These allegations contained in these reports show potentially serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.
Penalties, as I mentioned earlier, can be sizable fines and even prison terms. For the government to not move on this, to essentially stonewall this issue is, in my mind, hugely irresponsible. When we have allegations that point to what could be serious violations, criminal activity, around our elections, we have to make sure, if these allegations prove to be right, that the criminal penalties apply and the proper investigations take place.
This is the first concern we have, and it is why the NDP has been pushing in such a resolute way to ensure that we have a national public inquiry. It is because of the concerns that have been raised. These, being serious allegations, need to be treated seriously. This is the opportunity for all members of the House of Commons, on this NDP vote, to ensure they are doing everything to protect elections. Hopefully there will be a unanimous voice of all members of Parliament standing up to say to the government that it is time to put in place a public inquiry now. It has to be independent. It has to be transparent. It needs to happen now.
This is the reason why New Democrats have pushed for the type of public inquiry that handles all forms of foreign interference. I will say the Conservatives were very reluctant to have the Russian state actors and Russian government examined as part of this. They wanted to carve it off and make it a very targeted public inquiry.
Fortunately, we were able to push them back on that. Ultimately, the report that will come is the broad public inquiry I mentioned earlier in the report. However, that broad and public inquiry has to include Russia for the following reasons.
For the record, during the debates at the procedure and House affairs committee, I read a series of articles by Canada's National Observer that pointed to Russian state actor and Russian government involvement in the so-called convoy movement that hurt and harmed so many people, particularly in downtown Ottawa. Our memory is still fresh of the hundreds of businesses that were shut down, the hundreds of senior citizens who could no longer get their groceries delivered and the people with disabilities who were denied basic medications because of this unbelievable imposition and takeover of downtown Ottawa.
Without belabouring the details, what is of most concern in this particular debate is the Russian involvement. There have been a number of studies that have come out and a series of articles from Canada's National Observer, which are very important.
I want to read from a recent study that came out a few months ago, written by Caroline Orr Bueno and published in The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict and Warfare, volume 5, issue 3. It is an analysis of many of the sources that talk about the issue of the convoy and Russian involvement.
I want to read a few excerpts for the record.
It states, “Russia views homegrown protest movements like this”, referring to the convoy:
...as an opportunity to exacerbate social divides and sow discord as part of its asymmetric assault on western democracies.... [T]here is ample evidence of Russia’s involvement in far-right movements around the world.... From the National Front in France to the Northern League in Italy to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Russia’s ruling political party—
In this regime, which is a dictatorship, “has established formal and informal ties with ultranationalist movements across Europe”.
Members will recall that three members of the Conservative caucus met with the Alternative for Germany. This is very germane to the issue of foreign interference. The study goes on to state, “Russian disinformation campaigns have been cited as a contributing factor in pandemic-related protests, extremist activity, and unrest”.
I would profoundly disagree with saying that this kind of documentation is not something that should be taken seriously and that we should carve off Russian interference so that we just focus on one country. What is before the House is a comprehensive public inquiry, which includes not only the Chinese involvement, disturbing as it is, but also the involvement of Russia and other countries.
I want to conclude with some quotes about the convoy.
The study goes on to state:
In addition to amplifying convoy-related coverage on television, Russian state media also produced a significant amount of online content related to the convoy movement.
It also references that social media amplified that coverage by Canadian supporters of the convoy.
We also have concerns that have come up recently about Iran issuing death threats against Canadians in a study that came out from the Indian government.
A study came out this week by the British Columbia Sikhs Gurdwaras Council and the Ontario Gurdwaras Committee.
One of the quotes from that study states:
...there is significant evidence on the record establishing that Indian officials and intelligence operatives have manufactured news, offered bribes to [news] media outlets for favourable news coverage, amplified targeted messages to disrupt public debate, interfered in electoral processes across the country, and attempted to manipulate Canadian policymakers on a number of occasions.
It is important that we have a transparent national public inquiry. The NDP is moving this motion today to seek the support of all members. This should not be a partisan issue, but something that we all look into, because our democracy is precious. People have given their lives for democracy.
Looking to the future, it is important that we use all the tools at our disposal to prevent any foreign interference, whether from Russia, China or any other country. No foreign government or state actor should be able to influence our government in any way whatsoever. I hope that all members will support our motion.
2827 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we saw this week the travesty of an evening session where parliamentarians were supposed to get together and speak to important legislation, but the Conservatives turned it into a circus where debate was over which Conservative faction would put forward its speaker. It was lamentable. I have not seen, in my years in Parliament, an entire party say to the people of Canada that what is most important is its internal stuff rather than talk about important debates. We have seen bill after bill blocked by the Conservatives.
Why are the Conservatives blocking everything? Why, on a bill as important as official languages, are they refusing to get it to committee so hearings can be held and the legislation improved? These are all things I would think every member of Parliament should take to heart.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
