Information & Ethics Committee on May 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek. I will make sure that the clerk looks after that.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor on the motion. Go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm mindful of the comments of my colleague Ms. Khalid in terms of having these witnesses present. I'm very doubtful that I will be in a position to cede my opportunity to speak on this motion within the next 40 minutes, which I believe will coincide with the ringing of the bells. Nevertheless, things could change.

In any event, should my motion pass, I will just offer this as an observation. Clearly, key witnesses in my motion will be members of CSIS—very likely, Ms. Giles and Mr. Basler—getting into more specifics of how Mr. Bains furthered and propagated the disinformation originating from Beijing, China. It really begs the question: If it happened in that particular riding, did it happen in other Mainland B.C. ridings?

We know that other members of the Conservative Party have levied accusations of foreign interference. I have heard and read of those accusations at a very general level. I think some of those former members have actually testified at committee how they felt foreign meddling and foreign interference, particularly from Beijing, China, altered their perception of fairness in the 2021 election and, in some cases, the 2019 election.

I think what I can say as fact—I believe this is the position of CSIS; it's certainly the position of former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole, and it's certainly the position of the Prime Minister and the government—is that regardless of the interference, the results of the election were sustained, there was integrity and it would not have altered the composition of government.

Our former leader, Erin O'Toole, has surmised that, in his opinion, interference affected the outcome in at least eight ridings. I know of one in central Ontario and several in British Columbia. Therefore, I think it's incumbent upon this particular committee, on this particular study, to expand its ambit to do a really in-depth review and examination by hearing from various experts on this matter as to why and how the messages of misinformation and disinformation were amplified and used specifically against Conservative members.

I take, for example, former member Kenny Chiu. As I indicated in my opening question to the CSIS members, Mr. Chiu testified twice. The first time he testified, he just talked about his perceptions that foreign interference impacted the outcome, without naming anybody. I was part of that particular committee hearing, and I was intrigued, listening to his testimony.

In fact, there was an intervention by my colleague Mr. Villemure—he may not remember this, but I'm sure he does—when he actually opened up a thought as to whether or not Mr. Bains is now in a conflict of interest by sitting at that committee and specifically hearing about his riding and the interference that happened in his riding, where he took absolutely no steps to correct the misinformation and disinformation, but did something even further, which I think undermines the character of Mr. Bains. He amplified it. He took that wrong, incorrect message and used it for purely partisan reasons.

It's appalling. As a parliamentarian, we come to this position, we come to this office and we come to Ottawa maintaining integrity, honesty and character.

I believe in the concept of fair play. I teach that to my children. Taking advantage of someone's miscues is not acceptable.

In this case, it was taking advantage of a foreign entity, a foreign enemy and a communist government that wanted to maintain diplomatic relations with the Liberal government of Canada notwithstanding that, at the time, the two Michaels—two Canadian citizens—were wrongly detained.

We have evidence of many members of the PRC stationed here in Canada openly bragging about and supporting the concept that their foreign interference worked. They got the outcome they wanted: They got the Liberal government in power again, and they got into the position where a prime minister says one thing to the public and does the complete opposite in reality.

The Prime Minister talks about the integrity of this country and how our elections need to be fair and transparent, and he says that we have mechanisms in place to deal with foreign interference. Clearly, those mechanisms failed miserably, but what does that say to the Canadians who are now listening to my intervention? What does that say about the character of a Prime Minister who, in the lead-up to the 2015 campaign, openly bragged about his admiration of the basic dictatorship in China?

We are a democratic nation. I can't think of anything worse from a potential prime minister than the admiration of the suppression of human rights and a nation that illegally detains and executes its own citizens. Think of Tiananmen Square and the aftermath of that debacle on the world stage; our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was very proud of the administration in China for committing those abuses.

It's absolutely appalling, but it runs deep in his family. His father admired basic dictatorships and admired China and Cuba. His brother admired that, as well. When we heard from his brother, Alexandre Trudeau, at committees studying the Trudeau Foundation issue, it was very clear that he had been on a number of trips to China and was welcomed by the government of China. It's clear from all the evidence I have heard that China has no relationship more special than its current relationship with the Liberal government here in Canada, and in particular with the Prime Minister.

I look, as well, at the genesis of this motion to see all the overt attempts by Justin Trudeau and his government to avoid having any study, inquiry or thorough examination into the extent that foreign interference was involved in the 2019 and 2021 elections.

Take a look at all the times these issues came up and, of course, the Liberal members exercised all of their tools to avoid any sort of study or any further examination. Take a look at the Prime Minister himself, who talks about the integrity and the fairness of elections but, when it comes to scrutinizing his actions and those of the government, says, “There's nothing to see here, Canadians. Just trust us. Trust that we have a robust system in place to detect, flag and suppress the influence of our enemies and keep our elections fair and square.”

However, when it comes time for asking repeatedly—as Conservatives did, supported by the Bloc—for a full inquiry into all the circumstances, we were met with the complete opposite from this government. Only at the very last opportunity did Justin Trudeau finally accede to the will of Parliament in asking for sunlight on this issue.

What did he do before that? He hired his special rapporteur, someone who had the most respect of all Canadians and whose judgment we would not dispute for one minute. To that, I say yes. Yes, our former Governor General has that position in history. He's earned it. He is a man of integrity. He has served this nation very well. In fact, anecdotally, he is a former president of my University at Waterloo. He was a lawyer, a law professor and a dean.

That's what bothered me when I was invited—and I was privileged to be invited—to committees where David Johnston actually had to testify and defend his initial report. I say “initial”, because he ultimately resigned before he tabled his final report.

However, to all the lawyers sitting on this committee, on the question of conflict of interest and bias, it's not only real bias or real conflict of interest; it's the perception of a conflict of interest. When we had evidence, evidence that still exists, that there was a close familial relationship between our former Governor General and the Trudeau family, that they lived fairly close to each other, vacationed with each other and dined with each other, it raised, from a legal perspective, the perception of conflict.

When I had an opportunity to raise these issues directly with the former Governor General, I was actually surprised, as a lawyer and listening to his understanding of the conflict, that it wasn't an issue to him. I understand it's not an issue to him, but it certainly was an issue to Canadians. It was an issue for parliamentarians that a conflict does not abate over time. It still exists.

Of all the esteemed and learned remarkable men and women who have served this country well in various positions, why did we have to choose David Johnston, given the baggage that existed between him and Justin Trudeau's family?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Brock, I'm going to just ask you to pause. You still have the floor. The normal time when this panel would have ended would have been 12:05, and I would have been dismissing the witnesses. Therefore, I'm going to, given the list I have and the—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

We still have questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do you want them to stay?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I would appreciate that.

[A voice]

I have questions.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I know. We're hoping this matter ends quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have a speaking list on this motion.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

That's right. It's just unfortunate—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let me defer to the witnesses.

Mr. Basler and Ms. Giles, are you able to stay while the committee...?

[Dr. Nicole Giles]

We are at the disposal of the committee, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Brock. You still have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I was talking about my interventions when our Governor General appeared and defended his report. Leaving aside the conflict issue, because I think I made my point on that, he didn't see it the way that parliamentarians, particularly in opposition, and Canadians saw it, that there was an actual and a perceived conflict of interest.

Did it come to anyone's surprise across Canada that his recommendations and his conclusions—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Brock, to interrupt you again.

I see that the bells have begun ringing.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

You have UC from our side, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do we have UC to continue?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

There's no UC here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. I'm sorry—I don't have UC.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I think it's very important. You don't need 30 minutes to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't have UC, so we are going to suspend the meeting until the votes, and then we're going to return.

Thank you.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can we go for 20 minutes? Do we still have time to go vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I need unanimous consent, Mr. Fisher. Those are the rules.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

The Conservatives are giving UC on their own motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We don't have UC. It doesn't matter who gives it. We don't have UC, so the meeting is suspended.