Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2024

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

I have a point of order. The amendment we're talking about right now is to remove the partisanship. I would just ask him to get back on track and be a little bit relevant and speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I've allowed a lot of latitude on both sides, Mr. Fisher. You know that, and I expect that Mr. Cooper will bring it home.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I was so rudely interrupted—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to stop the crosstalk here, please.

Thank you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

The Liberal government has absolutely no credibility when it comes to foreign interference, because this is a Prime Minister who turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference in two federal elections. This is a Prime Minister who was repeatedly briefed about Beijing's disinformation campaign. This is a Prime Minister who turned a blind eye, along with his officials, when a sitting member of Parliament, Kenny Chiu, was specifically targeted in a sophisticated campaign of disinformation by the Beijing-based regime using various online platforms, which contributed to his defeat in the 2021 election.

In fact, the Liberals didn't just turn a blind eye to the campaign against Kenny Chiu, which had real direct electoral consequences; they actually amplified that disinformation, spreading lies about Kenny Chiu's private member's bill to establish a foreign influence registry, something that CSIS and national security experts have long said would be an important tool to combat disinformation and other foreign interference activities from hostile foreign states.

This is a Prime Minister who, out of direct electoral concern, allowed a Liberal candidate, who is now the member for Don Valley North, to stand even after he had been briefed that Beijing had actively interfered on his behalf to help him secure the Liberal nomination. When I say that the Prime Minister made a decision to allow that to happen out of direct electoral concern, those are not my words. Those are the conclusions of Madam Justice Hogue. In other words, according to the findings of Madam Justice Hogue in her first report, we have a Prime Minister who put his partisan interests and his personal interests ahead of our national security and ahead of our democracy. That is the record of this Prime Minister.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, please, on relevance to the amendment to remove a sentence or two. On the amendment.... Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. I'm going to ask Mr. Cooper to stick to the topic at hand here.

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

We'll be on the topic for the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, and I expect you to do that.

Go ahead, sir.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It simply illustrates why one party is singled out.

[An hon. member]

That's right.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

That's what I'm getting at when we talk about the total lack of credibility, and not just the lack of credibility, but a record—a disturbing record—with respect to the Prime Minister and how he has handled things.

Of course, I spent much of the last two years as the vice-chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, working to shine a light on foreign interference and, to Mr. Barrett's point, the Liberals have been dragged kicking and screaming.... They obstructed—repeatedly—our efforts to get to the bottom of foreign interference.

So far did they go that the Prime Minister appointed his ski buddy, David Johnston, to serve as his fake rapporteur, who then hired a bunch of Liberal hacks, including Liberal donor Sheila Block as the counsel. His report, when he came to committee—the Prime Minister's ski buddy, Mr. Johnston—had no credibility. His report was ripped to shreds within minutes of questioning from members—of course, not Liberal members, who tried to cover for him, but members of the other opposition parties.

Then, of course, we have, as Mr. Caputo said, a Prime Minister who won't name the 11 compromised MPs. In fact, speaking of the public safety minister, I was at the very committee that Mr. Caputo was at, back in June, when I asked Minister LeBlanc whether any of those 11 MPs were sitting in Justin Trudeau's cabinet, and he wouldn't answer. We don't know. I think it's quite telling that the minister refused to answer.

Look, the bottom line is that we'll support this motion. I support the amendment and I support the motion, but I will not stand and take lectures from the Liberals on matters of foreign interference, because I'll put our record of standing up to foreign interference any day against the record of their efforts to cover up sophisticated campaigns that benefited the Prime Minister and benefited the Liberal Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Fisher, on the amendment, please go ahead.

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

I was going to suggest a subamendment, but I get the sense that people are generally in support of moving forward on the motion, so I'll take my name off the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, that's my sense too.

We're on the amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan. I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand. I didn't have you on my list. Go ahead.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Yes, Chair, just on the comments of my colleague Mr. Cooper, methinks he doth protest too much. Yes indeed, so we're going for the Shakespeare references, because when we look at the amendment that is being proposed, it in no way.... The amendment proposes to delete the reference “claiming to have attended a rally held by the Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, on July 31, 2024”, but if you look at the entire sentence, deleting that example—and it is an example, and one that I would agree is egregious to anybody who is ethically conducting their political business—removes the context of the sentence.

We can look at that part (a): “The devastating impact of malicious, artificially generated online bots used by foreign and domestic actors. This includes Russia's propaganda machine, to manipulate public discourse, and fake bot accounts”. I take it there's a period somewhere in there maybe, but there's no context there. We could include other examples, but if I were on the other side, which I once was some 20 years ago—but we'll get into that another time—I would be very much concerned about clearing the names of those political organizers who indeed were directly affected by these fake bot accounts.

I am against deleting the remainder of that sentence because I think that example gives a very clear context, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mrs. Shanahan.

We're on the amendment. I don't have any other speakers on the list.

We're going to call the vote on the amendment. Madam Clerk, go ahead, please, on the amendment—

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

I'm sorry, Chair. I know you already called the vote, but I just want to make sure I know what I'm voting on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're voting on the amendment that was sent to you.

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

Does that amendment include Mr. Villemure's...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The electoral part in the subamendment was already approved by the committee. What you're voting on is the amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett, which I read out and which you were sent right off the top of his moving that amendment.

I'm going to continue with the vote.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I have a list on the main motion.

Mr. Villemure is first on the list.

Okay.

I then had Mr. Caputo on the main motion—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm sorry, but I believe.... Mr. Barrett, do you want my turn? I think I said what I needed to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, so I had Mr. Fisher.... Are there any other speakers on the motion as amended? There are none.

Do we have consensus on the motion as amended? We do. I am seeing heads nod.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I go back to the top of my list. I have Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move the following motion:

That the committee expand its study on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages by no less than four meetings; that the committee invite Elections Canada officials; representatives from Shepherd’s Care Foundation and/ or the Christian Care and Support Association/ Christian Care at Home Trust; Malvina Ghaoui; officials from Edmonton Police Service; Ian Stedman, assistant professor of ethics and governance at York University; Curtis James, Super Poly employee; Carla Rodych, president of Canada Medical; and any other related witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that motion, Mr. Cooper.

The clerk has the motion in both languages. It's being sent now.

I'm going to come back to you, Mr. Cooper.