Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay, colleagues.

Ms. Mathyssen, I think you said you withdrew. Did I understand that correctly?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes. I guess there was a split in terms of how the committee decided before I was a part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Got it.

Colleagues, here's where we're at. We have an admissible subamendment. We are now moving to debate on the subamendment.

At this point in time, I want to pause for a moment, as I am a new chair. As a courtesy to members, I hope that we can for a moment be informal in the following discussion.

There are two ways in which we can handle speaking lists. I have a long speaking list from the previous debate as it pertained to Ms. Mathyssen's amendment to the motion. We can talk about creating a new list specific to the subamendment, or we can talk about continuing the list as it was prior to that.

Mr. Gerretsen, do you have a comment on this?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I do.

The way the previous chair did it was that she held on to the existing one and went to a new one. After we were done there, it went back to the other one.

I think doing it that way also encourages people to stay on topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, are we in agreement that we will start a new list?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

With that, just to inform colleagues of where we're at, we are moving to debate with a new list on the subamendment. The existing list as it pertains to the amendment will hold.

I have Mr. Gerretsen, Mrs. Romanado and Mr. Calkins.

Is there anybody else pre-emptively, or will we just see how our conversation goes? I have Madame Gaudreau. Okay.

Our colleagues here are just in the process of getting translation. Do we feel, colleagues, that we can move into this conversation without the translation in front of us right now, or do we want to wait a moment? I'm seeing some nods.

Mr. Gerretsen, the floor is yours in relation to—

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

Mr. Chair, I had just moved it and indicated that I wished to speak to it. Normally, the mover of an amendment speaks to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Mr. Cooper. You're correct. We'll go to you on your proposed subamendment.

Colleagues, just quickly—I know there's a lot flying at us—I will reiterate where we're at.

Mr. Cooper has moved a subamendment.

Mr. Cooper, perhaps you could graciously speak to it, just so that we have some clarity for colleagues. Then, of course, you are permitted to speak to it at whatever length you desire.

From that point in time, we will go to Mr. Gerretsen, followed by Mrs. Romanado and Madame Gaudreau. If the list is exhausted at that point, of course, we will vote on the subamendment. Depending on the direction we get there, we will move back to our long and comprehensive speaking list number two, which I alluded to a moment ago.

With that, go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will read the subamendment again and then explain it if there's any clarity needed. Then I will speak to the substance of the subamendment.

The subamendment is to (a) add, following “the committee” where it first appears, the words “after it has completed its study on foreign election interference”; and (b), delete all the words after “to the House”.

Just for clarity, if this subamendment were adopted, the motion as amended would say, “the committee, after it has completed its study on foreign election interference, invite”. Then there would be the individuals listed in paragraphs (a) to (l). As well, after the words “to the House”, the subamendment would remove that the report of the study be returned “no later than October 31, 2024”. It would remove that date.

That is the subamendment.

Do you have a point of clarification, Mrs. Romanado?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Go ahead, Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding after which “committee” you're putting your (a) and (b). Is it after “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the committee”?

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

Yes. That's correct.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

The rest stays the same until the removal at the end of “no later than October 31, 2024”. Is that correct?

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

Exactly.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Are you good, Mrs. Romanado? Is that the clarity you needed?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, the floor remains yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is about setting priorities among ourselves versus fulfilling our responsibility to provide oversight and to hold the government accountable on a matter of significant importance and significant concern. That is foreign interference, particularly by the Beijing-based Communist regime, in our sovereignty, in our democracy and in our elections.

The report of Madam Justice Hogue is a damning indictment of Justin Trudeau and his government. Madam Justice Hogue confirmed that interference “occurred in the last two general elections” and that “the right of Canadians to have their electoral processes and democratic institutions free from covert influence” was impacted in those elections.

Justin Trudeau turned a blind eye to the interference that was taking place in the 2019 and 2021 elections, notwithstanding that he had been repeatedly briefed and warned by the security and intelligence establishment. He then attempted to cover up what he knew and downplayed the extent of Beijing's interference.

Madam Justice Hogue, on the contrary, confirmed the credible reports from Global News and The Globe and Mail that were first reported in the fall of 2022, which were, as I said, that Justin Trudeau was worried about Beijing's interference but did nothing to stop it. He worked to cover it up. Not only that, but in certain instances, Justin Trudeau was complicit in Beijing's interference when it benefited himself and the Liberal Party.

Among the most damning findings in Madam Justice Hogue's report is how Justin Trudeau handled Beijing's interference in the 2019 Liberal nomination in Don Valley North. Madam Justice Hogue determined that there were “well-grounded” indicators that Beijing interfered in the nomination to help the current member for Don Valley North secure the nomination. There were “well-grounded” indications that Beijing interfered in that nomination to help the member for Don Valley North win the nomination.

Think about that. Think about when those first reports of Beijing interference came to light in the media and how the Prime Minister and certain members of this committee responded to them. They said, essentially, that the reports weren't true and that the member for Don Valley North was a great member of the Liberal team. They launched personal attacks on certain members of this committee who dared to ask questions about the fact that a sitting member of Parliament was facing allegations that Beijing had interfered in his nomination to help him secure it.

It's quite interesting that the Prime Minister no longer utters the name of the member for Don Valley North. He can't utter his name. The Liberals no longer talk about the fact that he is a member of their team. I know a certain member of this committee, Mr. Gerretsen, has spent much time defending that member. I'd be curious if Mr. Gerretsen would do so today. I have my doubts.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Are you done?

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

No.

I'm going to wait and see when the member for Don Valley North has an invitation to return to the Liberal caucus. Maybe it's in the mail. Who knows? I have real doubts.

It's one thing that there were allegations Beijing interfered to help the member for Don Valley North, which were found by Madam Justice Hogue to be well grounded. What's worse is that top Liberals were briefed by CSIS that Beijing had interfered to assist the member for Don Valley North. Three top Liberals were briefed during the 2019 election. Those top Liberals were the Liberal designates for the SITE task force: the national director of the Liberal Party, Azam Ishmael; Braeden Caley; and Mathieu Lafrance. They received that briefing at the end of September. I believe it was on September 29, 2019. It was a classified briefing.

We know Mr. Ishmael, in turn, briefed then Liberal campaign director and now top adviser to the Prime Minister, Jeremy Broadhurst, about the contents of that briefing. It should be noted that Mr. Broadhurst had the appropriate security clearance to receive the contents of that briefing. Mr. Broadhurst, quite appropriately, thought the information provided by CSIS was concerning, as he has said. He proceeded to brief the Prime Minister the next day. As it so happened, the Prime Minister was in Ottawa. Mr. Broadhurst briefed the Prime Minister about the contents of that briefing the next day in Ottawa.

What did the Prime Minister do with the information he had that Beijing interfered, going in to assist one of his candidates to secure the Liberal nomination? A leader who is concerned about foreign interference, as this Prime Minister claims to be, would have, at the very least, inquired for more information, but Justin Trudeau didn't do that. That is the very least that a leader concerned about countering foreign interference, about the integrity of our democracy and about the threat Beijing posed would have done.

With the information the Prime Minister had, I would submit the appropriate course of action for him to have taken would have been to remove that individual as the Liberal candidate for Don Valley North. However, the Prime Minister didn't even ask any further questions, let alone take what I would submit is the appropriate action. At that point, the individual should not have been the Liberal candidate for Don Valley North. Instead, the Prime Minister did absolutely nothing. He gave a pass to the candidate, allowing his name to stand as the Liberal candidate in the 2019 election. Madam Justice Hogue concluded that Justin Trudeau did so out of concern about the “direct electoral consequences” of removing a candidate, one the Prime Minister was briefed about having been assisted by Beijing.

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was more concerned about his own electoral interests and the electoral interests of the Liberal Party of Canada than protecting our democracy from Beijing's interference. Those aren't my findings. Those are the findings of Madam Justice Hogue—the Prime Minister did it out of concern for “direct electoral consequences”. Direct electoral consequences to whom? It was to him.

I would submit that says everything Canadians need to know about this Prime Minister and is further evidence of his complete and utter unfitness to hold the high office that he serves in. This is a Prime Minister who—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

He's not going to [Inaudible—Editor]. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry. Is this a point of order, Mr. Gerretsen?