- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- New Westminster—Burnaby
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $194,227.44
- Government Page
- May/8/24 10:03:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is precisely for that reason that the NDP moved the motion that led to the public inquiry into foreign interference. The Hogue commission is the result of the NDP's initiative in Parliament.
We believe that we should act in the national interest and think first about how to do everything we can to prevent foreign interference in our politics, in our democracy and in our elections. We have taken all these steps. We have documented all the work that we have done because we truly believe that we have to do everything we can.
Now, there are people who make comments and say that there is nothing to see. Maybe there is nothing to see except if we take action. If we put in place every possible measure to prevent foreign interference, we will secure Canadian democracy for years to come. I am not one of those who believe that there is nothing we can do about it. There are many things we can do and it starts tonight with referring the motion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 2:49:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the NDP, a public inquiry has been called by the government into serious allegations of foreign interference. The inquiry needs to investigate the Indian government, which allegedly ran a global assassination program that targeted and murdered a Canadian on Canadian soil. Other deeply concerning allegations have come up as well.
Does the minister agree with the NDP that the public inquiry should also investigate interference from the Modi government, including in the recent Conservative leadership campaign?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:17:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Drummond, but a bit less so for the Bloc Québécois strategy of calling into question in a very personal way the Right Hon. David Johnston. Furthermore, the leader of the Bloc refuses to review all the information available. Only the member for Burnaby South is following up. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are refusing to look at the vital information.
We have already talked about what happens next. I mentioned it in my speech and I will repeat it. I will ask my colleague from Drummond, who I greatly respect, to read the motion. It will be easier for the New Democrats to answer questions, if the questions have not been answered in the motion.
In the motion, we “instruct [it is a mandatory instruction] the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead...a commission of inquiry [on foreign interference] and what its terms of reference should include.”
What comes next is already in the motion. I am asking all my colleagues to carefully read it before asking questions, or making comments or speeches in the House.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, because we are the adults in the room, I will not pass a partisan comment about the Liberal government not respecting votes in the House of Commons. I do not think that would be appropriate.
The question the member is asking is what the Right Hon. David Johnston has said about himself. I will refer to his report because it is very clear to me that many Liberals in the House have not read it. As the debate continues, I suggest that they should actually read the report. At page 4, lines 19 to 20, he says, “there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. He is referencing a public inquiry. He is saying that the reason we cannot have a public inquiry is because of that overlap.
I believe that if he has sent that signal to us, he will do the honourable thing and heed a vote in this House. How will this vote go? I do not know, and neither does the member. If a majority of members of this House voted to ask him to step down, I believe he would do so.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:08:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member in her characterization of the Leader of the Opposition.
For the Leader of the Opposition to not seek the information is something that I find unbelievable. Each member of this House has the responsibility to get to the details and find out that information. As the member has said, she has been briefed on security information. She is capable of giving a speech in this House of Commons. I agree with some of it and I disagree with other aspects of it, but she is able to do that. She is not muzzled by the fact of having that security information.
What she did just this moment was actually support the NDP motion. She talks about the fact that contradicts Mr. Johnston's primary focus in not having a public inquiry, that factual questions around this sensitive information cannot be discussed in a public inquiry. The other aspect, he says, is that there would be a clear overlap of a public inquiry with the work he has already started doing.
He would heed, I believe, a vote of this House expressing that he must step aside. Would the government heed that vote as well?
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:43:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the passion, intelligence and wisdom that she brings to the House with this motion. The member has spoken very eloquently about the impact of foreign interference on Canadians of Chinese, Iranian and Indian origin. The impacts of this foreign interference have ramifications right across the country. The question I want to ask is, quite simply, this: If the Liberal government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry, though I think that resistance is starting to diminish, what message does that send to Canadians of diverse origins who are concerned about the impacts of foreign governments trying to impact our democratic system?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:41:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a motion was moved in the House of Commons for an independent public inquiry. The NDP moved it, after having moved it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It was the NDP that did that.
There were procedural problems, as members will recall. The Conservatives blocked the intervention on the motion. I thought that was rather unfortunate, but that is their right. Then, we moved the motion and it was adopted almost unanimously. Except for the Liberal Party, every independent MP and all the opposition parties voted in favour of the motion.
I expect the special rapporteur to take this into consideration when he makes his recommendations in the next two weeks. I expect that when the special rapporteur makes these recommendations, the government will immediately call a national public inquiry. That is extremely important. That is what the NDP is working toward. That is our role in Parliament, and we will continue to carry out this role.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:02:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute the courage of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has demonstrated a great deal of dignity given the situation he has been placed in.
As we know, he raised a question of privilege. As a representative of the NDP, I supported his question of privilege. Both of us cited several cases that indicate that this is undoubtedly a question of privilege that should be raised and debated in the House. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills described a situation that clearly demonstrated the importance of this debate.
I would like to ask my colleague a question, in addition to thanking him for raising this point in the House of Commons. Does he believe that this now merits a public inquiry as quickly as possible so we can get to the bottom of this?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:39:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague in the House is well aware that I appreciate him very much, but his speech really takes the cake.
The facts he concocted about the NDP's involvement in moving this motion today and also in getting Katie Telford to testify at committee—all of that was thanks to the work of the NDP. I am glad we had support from the other parties, but really, as he well knows, it was the NDP that got the job done.
I have three questions for my colleague.
First, why did the Conservatives try to eliminate the Russians from the scope of this public inquiry? Second, and this is an important question, why did they remove Katie Telford from our original motion? Today's motion makes no reference to Katie Telford because the Conservatives amended it. Third, why did his leader, the member for Carleton, refuse to vote on the Conservative motion yesterday?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:18:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would really like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for her great work in protecting Canadian democracy. She shows that every day in her work at procedure and House affairs, and she has a national reputation as a result.
The reason we are having this debate now is that we have had Liberals say that they do not want a public inquiry because this is not an issue of enough importance to warrant it. We profoundly disagree.
Conservatives have said that they want a public inquiry, but it should not touch Russia. They do not want to go there. Again, that is profoundly disturbing.
The NDP wants to have a public inquiry that touches on and examines all forms of foreign interference. We believe that is where Canadians are as well. We believe Canadians want this to be tackled in an effective way and that all the measures that some other countries have taken as well would be put into place. However, a public inquiry is warranted and needed, and we believe it is needed now.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:42:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the NDP is presenting its motion on the public inquiry. Tomorrow, Conservatives will have a chance to vote for the NDP motion. The Conservatives have been all over the map on this, trying to pull apart the NDP proposal for a vast and extensive public inquiry into foreign interference. I hope that tomorrow Conservatives will support the NDP motion.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:40:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the fact that my colleague from Waterloo spoke in French and I also appreciate the work that she does as the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The reality is that we are calling for a public inquiry. As the member is well aware, the NDP proposed to the committee a broader public inquiry on foreign interference. The Conservatives tried to amend the NDP's motion and reduce the scope of this public inquiry by removing the allegations of interference that we have already seen, even though the agencies have indicated that they are just as worrisome. Take, for example, the interference by Russia, Iran and other countries. I do not know why the Conservatives wanted to reduce the scope of this inquiry.
The NDP is proposing a broader scope. It is important that the government take action now to set up this public inquiry, which should absolutely be transparent and independent.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is being disingenuous. I absolutely did answer the question, but he did not like the answer.
The reality is that if we ask Canadians from coast to coast to coast what they want to see, they want to see resources invested now in a national public inquiry that is transparent and independent. I am answering this question now for the second time. It is the same question he asked, and I am giving the same answer. Resources need to go to a national public inquiry now. That is what Canadians want.
My question back to the member for Kingston and the Islands is simply this: Why is the government stonewalling something that Canadians want, and want to see now, and why is the government not investing those resources so that we can have the national public inquiry that so many Canadians want to see?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the right use of resources is putting into place a national public inquiry on foreign interference now, to make sure it is independent and to make it transparent. That is what the will of the House, I think, will be this week, and that is why the NDP is presenting the motion tomorrow.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:37:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk more about the NDP and our position on holding a public inquiry.
I recently had the pleasure of attending meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when our usual representative, the member for North Island—Powell River, was in her riding. Unfortunately, at that time, attending meetings virtually was not an option. As a result, I spent several days with my colleagues from the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
As everyone already knows, the NDP succeeded in passing a motion that was then debated in the House. This week, perhaps even tomorrow, we intend to introduce this motion which calls for a public, transparent and independent inquiry. That is extremely important. Later in my speech, I will read the motion that we hope to introduce in the House tomorrow so that the vote can take place in the coming days.
There is no doubt in our minds. The member for Burnaby South, our national leader, has already stated numerous times that holding a public, transparent and independent inquiry is extremely important. Nothing less would satisfy Canadians' need for answers to all the questions raised as a result of all the articles published not only over the past few weeks but also over the past few years.
As members know, there was a convoy last year that had a stranglehold on Ottawa. It was a very dark and sad time for the residents of Ottawa. Seniors could no longer go grocery shopping, people with disabilities could not get their medications and there was the incessant noise, which prevented families from sleeping at night. Furthermore, hundreds of businesses had to remain closed. After the departure of this so-called freedom convoy, which breached the freedoms of the people of Ottawa, we learned from a series of articles published in Canada's National Observer that there were ties to Russian actors and the Russian government and its institutions.
There is no denying that the issue of interference has been simmering for a long time. It is something that must be on people's minds. When we look at recent reports of interference by the Chinese government and other state actors, some very worrisome facts have come to light. Although everyone agrees that this did not affect the outcome of the election, the allegations are serious. It seems as though the Chinese government interfered in Canada's affairs. Furthermore, some of these revelations raise concerns that election laws may have been broken.
We really need to take this seriously. I remember some election laws being violated under the Harper government. Examples include the in-and-out scandal and the Dean Del Mastro situation. Such violations of election laws are criminal.
We are talking about allegations of money being given, services and goods being provided and boundaries being crossed. These disturbing allegations truly call for a transparent and public national inquiry, in my view and that of our caucus and our party.
It it worth noting that this is exceptional. Our election laws protect us all. There are strict election spending limits. We are not like the United States, where people can spend as much as they like. Candidates can receive secret donations, donations that are not transparent.
Our election laws place limits on how much people can spend. In my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, my 100,000 constituents are my bosses. They are well aware that all candidates are limited to spending roughly $100,000. This limit is strictly enforced, as we saw in the Dean Del Mastro situation. The former Conservative MP did jail time because he tried to hide the fact that he had exceeded the spending limit.
Allegations of involvement by the Chinese government or Chinese agents mean that this spending limit could have been exceeded.
Second, the fact that candidates can only receive donations from Canadian citizens or Canadian residents is an aspect of the Elections Act that is strictly enforced. Gone are the days when people could give $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 to a candidate or party. There are strict limits.
This year, the limit on the amount people can give is $1,675. That cannot be exceeded. Whoever tries to exceed it is breaking the Canada Elections Act. Under the previous Harper government, the Conservative Party tried to play around with that, but donations are strictly limited by the act.
The third aspect that is also important is the issue of donations of goods or services. Again, the limit is $1,675 for someone who wants to donate services or contribute in that way. It is the business value that counts. For example, a business owner who wants to donate space to any party is limited by the commercial value of that property. If the commercial value of the property exceeds $1,675, it is clearly a violation of the Elections Act, as it is not permitted. The candidate must give, must provide, must pay the full commercial value. Contributions of goods and services must be strictly limited. These are contributions that are limited to a value to $1,675, as are financial contributions.
These three limitations are consistent with the law. They cannot be exceeded, and to do so is an unequivocal violation of the law.
The allegations reported by The Globe and Mail and Global News are troubling, because they point to a possible attempt to circumvent election laws. We cannot just leave it at that. We really need to get to the bottom of things. That is why the NDP called for a public inquiry and why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed that one was necessary.
Tomorrow, the NDP will move a motion that I believe reflects the will of the vast majority of Canadians. There is no doubt about it, because people want answers to all the questions about the allegations reported by The Globe and Mail and Global News. They also want answers about the allegations of Russian interference reported last year by the National Observer. These are all important aspects.
It is not just the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, who called for a national public inquiry that is both independent and transparent. The former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden, also said that a public inquiry was absolutely necessary. Jean‑Pierre Kingsley, a man for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, also called for a national public inquiry, as the former head of Elections Canada. Artur Wilczynski, a former senior official at the Communications Security Establishment, is calling for an inquiry as well.
These people certainly talked about interference by the Chinese government, but also interference by the Russian government and that of Iran. All of them support the NDP's call for a public inquiry. That will be tomorrow's debate. That is what the NDP wants to propose. We want every MP to be able to vote this week on having a national public inquiry.
The government says it appointed a rapporteur and that is why it is setting aside the idea of a national public inquiry, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It is true that under the former Harper government, a rapporteur was appointed to address the scandals around Airbus and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, but, as we know, this very quickly led to a public inquiry. It is very clear, in my opinion, that the idea of appointing a rapporteur does not preclude this possibility and this need to launch a national public inquiry.
That is what our leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus will be speaking about tomorrow in the House. We will argue that this requires a national public inquiry, as indicated by all the people I have mentioned.
Today's motion is nothing like any motion the NDP would have moved. It does include some positive aspects and others that are curious, such as the request to call the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the long list of people to call. The list does not necessarily offend me, in the sense that there is some logic to it. However, it omits a lot of people.
For example, the NDP introduced a motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to call certain witnesses identified in the Conservative motion, as well as others. I thank the chair of this committee for her work, because long meetings were held over several days.
To be clear, the allegations concern both the Liberal and Conservative parties. It is important to remember that nine Liberal candidates and two Conservative candidates were the subject of allegations of foreign interference. Since both parties are implicated, we suggested to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the Conservative and Liberal national campaign directors be called as witnesses.
We also talked about inviting Jennie Byrne, given the allegations that I already mentioned about the Russian government's involvement in the so-called freedom convoy, as reported in the National Observer. So many people in Ottawa were robbed of their freedom during that time. These are important details.
Now, I want to take the time to read the report that we hope to table tomorrow and to talk about various principles in the Conservatives' motion that appear to be somewhat contradictory.
First, I want to read, for the record, the report that the NDP is tabling tomorrow.
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.
The 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is what the NDP will be tabling in the House tomorrow for debate and for a vote. At this point, we are certainly hoping that there will be a consensus from the House of Commons, to say, very clearly, to the Prime Minister that a national public inquiry is needed.
A final point that I want to make is on the contradiction between the Conservative motion today and their past principles, in terms of ministerial responsibility. I want to cite the member for Carleton, who answered a question in the House back in 2010. I certainly remember that. The idea was that, instead of summoning the minister who was responsible, it would summon a member of staff.
The member for Carleton said, “Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that for hundreds of years, the principle of ministerial accountability has been paramount here in the House and in its committees. We will continue to respect that principle in order to improve and build a Canada where politicians are accountable.”
At that point, he was saying no, of course, to having staff appear at committee. It is a bit of a contradiction now.
I think I have outlined the importance of what the NDP will be bringing to the House tomorrow on the public inquiry. That is certainly where most Canadians are. Canadians want to see a public inquiry that is transparent and independent. The NDP has made that happen at the procedure and House affairs committee. It will really be up to all members of Parliament to heed the debate tomorrow and to also ultimately vote on that question this week.
2060 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:30:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very troubled about the allegations of foreign interference in our elections, but the Prime Minister does not seem concerned at all.
The former head of CSIS, the former head of Elections Canada and even Morris Rosenberg, who wrote the 2021 federal election report, are all encouraging the Prime Minister to go forward with a national public inquiry on foreign interference. PROC of the House of Commons has even adopted an NDP motion that the House may vote on soon, calling for a public inquiry as well.
Therefore, why is the Prime Minister so opposed? Why is he refusing to get answers for Canadians?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
