Information & Ethics Committee on May 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We will resume the meeting. I'm sorry for the disruption.

Mr. Brock, when we left, you had the floor. Go ahead, sir, on the motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As much as I would like to continue my narrative, I'm mindful of the clock. At this point, I'll move to adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Mr. Brock moves to adjourn the meeting. It's not to be discussed. It's a dilatory motion. Do we have consensus to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We don't have consensus, so I'm going to ask the clerk for the roll call.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

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

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

No. I'm sorry, Chair, but on a point of order or clarification, because Mr. Brock moved that motion, would it not go to the next speaker?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's correct. I'm sorry. You're right.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek. You have the floor, sir.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the motion my colleague has moved. I think it highlights something that has been, shall we say, referenced and insinuated, and I'm glad that we're able to talk about it very directly.

I want to back up for a brief moment. One of the challenges that exist in talking about election interference and some of the very troubling circumstances, whether it be the Hogue report, which certainly was very enlightening, or the circumstances around other examples of election interference, is when the Prime Minister makes a declaration saying that there wasn't an issue with either the 2019 election or the 2021 election and that their integrity was preserved, etc. Something that has failed to be acknowledged is that it is, interestingly, a very American type of statement, because it speaks not to our system but rather to a system that is so often reflected in the narrative that defines much of the political commentary in Canada. That's because there is not one election in Canada.

In the case of the current and previous two Parliaments, there were 338 separate elections. We don't elect a president. We don't elect a prime minister. It may be a shock to those who are listening that I would make a statement like that. However, it is by convention that the prime minister is the leader of the government. There's a host of history as to why that's the case, and there have been constitutional challenges, but it's more or less the evolution of 800 or so years of Westminster-style democracy.

What is deeply troubling, and the reason I want to highlight a few of those specific things, is that we have a statement that there wasn't interference in the election. Well, let's look at some of the rules surrounding what an election is. There are the financial rules. All of us around this table, as members of Parliament and as those who have been involved in the process of running in an election, would have had our names on a ballot once, at the very least, and some of us more than that. Whether we were successful or unsuccessful, we would understand some of the dynamics around finances and the rules around advertising and the various.... We've talked fairly at length about some of those things.

I think one of the intricacies of our system that needs to be highlighted in the context of what we are talking about here is the need to understand an election race in the context of a larger general election. That's why they're called general elections in Canada. There is a dissolving of Parliament, and there cease to be members of Parliament. That Parliament literally ceases to exist. In fact, the constitutional clarity around that is pretty direct.

For any of us who have been in that circumstance, we understand that there are changes that do, in fact, take place. Then, in the case of the current Parliament and the previous two, there are 338 elections that take place to elect members to create a Parliament. Then there are some nuances around by-elections, when somebody either resigns or passes away, as we've seen tragically. There have been a number of those circumstances over the last number of Parliaments. Those dynamics exist.

I think it was absolutely irresponsible of our Prime Minister to make such a definitive statement that was simply not true. The Hogue inquiry made that point explicitly clear. I'll get into a few of the specifics and highlight some of the frustrations that certainly I and many of my constituents, who reach out to me on a regular basis, have when it comes to how the Prime Minister approaches things that would put his political circumstances at risk versus those of his adversaries. I'll get to that in a few minutes.

It needs to be highlighted—and for all those watching, I would emphasize this—that when one of those 338 elections is called into question, it causes questions to be asked about the entire system.

Now, the allegations have been very clearly articulated. My colleague Mr. Brock did a good job of outlining that in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East, but there are a number of other circumstances. Parliament is an interesting place. You get to know people. I know, having gotten to know Mr. Chiu over the time he served as an MP, including hearing from him how his stance to protect democracy was weaponized against him by malicious forces. However, there were a number of other examples.

Can one definitively point to a specific instance and say that was the turning point? It would be incredibly difficult. Quite frankly, it would be irresponsible to do so, in the same way that it would be irresponsible to claim that there was no influence.

Therein lies the key, Chair. We have to take seriously these allegations, because when one vote is compromised, it calls into question the entire system. I think—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Kurek.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Go ahead on your point of order, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

There was closure notice given in the House, so I think at 1:25 p.m. we'll have bells again. I just wonder if there might be consensus to dismiss our witnesses. There might not be.

I imagine that you have a speaking list there, Chair. I know that we can't debate whether or not to dismiss them, but perhaps you have consensus on this, out of appreciation for their having been here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that, Mr. Barrett. I do have a speaking list. I did ask the witnesses earlier their availability. They said they were at the disposal of the committee, but we do have a time allocation motion, as you say.

The bells will start ringing at 1:25. We have resources until 1:30, just to let everybody know.

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

I thought we had resources until two o'clock, Chair. That's what we understood.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Madam Clerk, do you want to answer that? My understanding was that it was 1:30 p.m.

We've now had it confirmed that it was 1:30 p.m.

I will ask for unanimous consent to relieve the witnesses.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to that same point of order, if I may.

We've been waiting. We have questions for our witnesses. It's not every day that we have such esteemed witnesses come to our committee on this very important topic. I'm hoping we'll move through this motion. I'm not understanding why members are filibustering their own motion here.

I'm more than happy to finish this and move on to our witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Kurek still has the floor, Ms. Khalid. Nothing will change that unless he gives up the floor, so I will continue.

I will ask again, based on Mr. Barrett's request, whether the committee agrees to release the witnesses.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

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

No, Chair, we don't.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

We will continue with Mr. Kurek.

I thank the witnesses again for their patience and for being at the disposal of the committee.

Mr. Kurek, go ahead, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It's just an interesting observation that when I, along with a number of those sitting around this table, had joined to be a part of the meeting last week, the Liberals certainly didn't seem very interested in working during the break week.

I digress on that point. I'll get back to the subject matter at hand.

As I was saying, when it comes to the integrity of our elections, it was incredibly irresponsible for the Prime Minister to make the assertion that he did. I don't know whether that was an intentional deflection. I don't know whether that was ignorance of what may have been happening under his watch. I, and certainly many, have postulated about why he may have said those things.

The evidence has become increasingly clear that the direct benefactor of some of these very serious instances of interference that did have a noted effect.... Did that change the results of the election?

We cannot make clear, definitive statements about the totality of that, but what is absolutely clear is that it did have an effect. As a result, the trust in the entire electoral process is compromised, especially when it is not taken seriously.

Chair, we have before us a number of seats—it's been said that it could be as many as eight seats—where there was a noted effect of the difference between being...that a hostile foreign actor, whether it's the Communist dictatorship in Beijing or others.... I know there have been a number of other instances where other states and quasi-state organizations have had an impact in endeavouring to influence the outcome of elections.

I think that the fact that it was so flippantly disregarded cannot be ignored. When we have such clear evidence when it comes to the riding in question in the Lower Mainland, where we've heard the testimony and we've seen the reporting, it is difficult to dispute the fact that it had an impact on the rights.... It does not come down to who sits in Parliament, necessarily. That's the result, but it comes down to whether or not Canadians are truly able to exercise their franchise.

I would suggest to you that when those circumstances are called into question, it constitutes a direct threat to our democratic institutions because at the very basis of what our democracy is, it comes down to trust. We have to be able to trust the process. We have to be able to trust the institutions. We have to be able to trust that when you go into that voting booth and mark your ballot, not only your vote, but also each and every vote in that electoral district, multiplied by 338 in the case of where we are in this Parliament—I believe it will be 343 in the next Parliament, with a few seats added—will be counted. You have to be able to trust that.

I would suggest that the conversation and this motion are so incredibly valuable because we have to be willing to ask the tough questions. Whether it's in the Lower Mainland in B.C. or whether it's the vote that every Canadian has the opportunity to cast in each and every electoral district across our country, not having that trust and not being able to have some of those difficult conversations erode our ability to address the challenges our system is clearly facing.

Chair, when it comes to the specifics around misinformation and disinformation, I'm glad we're able to have some of these conversations, because being able to confront that head-on is absolutely key.

I would note specifically that when dealing with the circumstances surrounding the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, it became so very clear that there was a concerted effort to have.... One political party in particular was a specific benefactor of those efforts.

That's not simply me talking. That's a clear consensus of what has been derived from the many conversations, whether they be testimony before a number of committees, the reporting that's been done on it or Justice Hogue's report. It is very clear that that's the case, yet when the Prime Minister, who has the first....

What should be the foremost responsibility of a prime minister is not their political fortunes. Now, it may come as a surprise that a politician would say that, but I think the circumstances in which we find ourselves have muddied some of the waters surrounding the integrity that needs to be had in the entirety of the process. If we cannot have some of those difficult conversations, it allows for these instances to be amplified.

Talking about it is step one. The investigations, whether they're the Hogue report or otherwise, need to be an important step two. Ultimately, however, it needs to come down to addressing the challenges that were brought forward.

Here is where I would suggest we see one of the biggest failures of Justin Trudeau's leadership. When his political aspirations were possibly being compromised, he spared no expense. He was willing to step in immediately and make requests to see social media posts removed in order to silence anybody who might be amplifying that disinformation, yet—and this is what is so astounding—had he been consistent and made that the case for those seen as his political rivals, one could have respected the fact that he wanted integrity in the process.

However, he didn't. When it came to Mr. Chiu being called.... For those watching, I cannot imagine the hell that Mr. Chiu and his family went through when he was being called a traitor to his race and being called anti-Chinese. He is somebody who is a proud Canadian of Chinese descent.

Can you imagine, Chair, your heritage being called into question? To see that there was such a flippant disregard for the impact that had on the integrity of our electoral process comes directly back to Canadians being empowered.

Chair, it won't be any surprise to you—and I know there are a number of other rural members who sit on this committee—that rural MPs spend a lot of time driving. I listened to a book over the course of the last constituency break, which was about, by and large, the construction of the railway across Canada and the role that played in stitching together the Confederation. I won't go into the details of that. It's a fascinating book.

What was very eye-opening was the reminder—I knew this, having remembered learning some of these things in high school—of how Chinese Canadians, specifically.... The heritage of how many of them came to this country is not a positive story. There's the fact that multiple governments.... I think it was Wilfrid Laurier's government that imposed a $500 head tax on Chinese Canadians. I believe it was implemented right around the turn of the 20th century. There's that sort of legacy.

All of a sudden, in the case of Mr. Chiu, you have somebody with Chinese heritage who was able to attain elected office and then had the rug pulled out from under him, stopping him from being able to have a fair fight. Nobody runs for office knowing that they'll win. If they do, they certainly have the wrong attitude, because whether they're so-called safe seats or swing seats, or whatever the case is—whatever commentators would suggest—no parliamentarian....

Certainly, I would never take for granted any electoral result, because it comes back to the people. It comes back to making sure that people, Canadians, are able to have their voices heard.

We see how the Prime Minister took quick and immediate action when it had to do with his political fortunes, but he either refused or delayed action when it came to those who might otherwise.... What creates such a concerning trend is this: When it comes to the actions of.... That's not an isolated incident. In fact, it was astounding. Not only is there a series of things that suggest the Trudeau Liberals have been soft on the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, but there's also a whole host of reasons as to why some of those troubling allegations seem to be ringing true.

Specifically, I would highlight that a motion was brought forward in the House for a vote. There was an opportunity to condemn the genocide of Uyghur Muslims, a minority group in China that has been persecuted relentlessly, with forced abortions, sterilizations and slave-type labour. We're talking the worst of the worst possible circumstances. What did the government do? There have been a number of opportunities. They have since hardened their tone. I would suggest it's the pressure that has been applied by Conservatives and many across our country, including diaspora groups. We had a minister of the Crown abstain. Not only was there an astounding lack of understanding of our parliamentary system—I won't get into too much detail in terms of how insulting, quite frankly, that was....

It speaks to an unwillingness to call out abuses that are so clear to the international community. Canada, at one point in time, could be trusted to be a leader in calling out those sorts of things, yet you had the Trudeau Liberals, out of fear of offending a dictatorship.... It's very clear that the current Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, spoke about it prior to his election. There was an admiration for...but also has continued in the.... That's not me simply saying things. He said that very thing when asked what country he admires. He could have said anything. He could have even prefaced that by giving caveats. You can look at the quote. It's absolutely astounding.

Chair, we see how, in that instance and so many others, there was a refusal to take firm action. Leadership requires making hard choices. Unfortunately, when it comes to many of the hard choices when dealing with the seriousness of protecting our democratic infrastructure, the Liberals are found wanting. It's unfortunate that there seems to be this unwillingness to have some of these tough conversations. It's not for a lack of possibilities in terms of fixing the problem. I would suggest, Chair, that leadership is at the root of how we fix those things. We need leadership as a nation. We need leadership collectively, as parliamentarians. There are 338 MPs who make up Parliament. It is the government that is then subject to Parliament. It is not the other way around. It is quite something when you have members of the government unwilling to take a strong stand.

I think about previous prime ministers who have taken very strong stands, whether it was former prime minister Harper when he refused to shake Vladimir Putin's hand, telling that evil man to get out of Ukraine a decade ago.... When it comes to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Kurek, but I do see that the bells are ringing to signal 30 minutes until the votes.

I am going to need unanimous consent from the committee to—

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

You have our consent, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll explain the problem I have, but first I'll get unanimous consent to continue until at least 1:30.

[An hon. member]

No.