Evidence of meeting #56 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was interference.
A video is available from Parliament.
March 2nd, 2023 / 2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I'm so sorry, but I'm hearing a lot of feedback. I'm not sure if there's another mike on in the room.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
No. I'm not hearing it right now.
Maybe Mr. Cooper can try again. I think there was some kind of technical glitch. I'm not sure if it was on my end or in the room.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Well, we want to make sure that every member is heard. I'll return the floor to Mr. Cooper, but should it happen again, do exactly as you've just done.
Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I hope I'm coming through more clearly now.
As I was saying, we don't think it's appropriate that Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister, should be able to unilaterally decide who heads this inquiry. After all, the Prime Minister is implicated to the degree that his office was reportedly—
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Madam Chair, my sincerest apologies to you and Mr. Cooper. I'm not sure if it's on my end, but I'm just hearing a lot of feedback. I don't know what it is.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Can I just ask other colleagues who are on screen if they are hearing feedback as well?
Ms. Romanado, do you hear feedback when he speaks?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I'm getting a bit of scratchiness. I'm going to unplug and plug back in and see if it's me.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Turnbull or Mr. Brassard, are you hearing feedback when Mr. Cooper speaks?
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
I'm not hearing feedback. I'm hearing feedback when Ms. Khalid is speaking.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I haven't heard any feedback, other than when a mike is on in the room and someone else online is trying to speak.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
The technicians are going to call Ms. Khalid and maybe touch base with Ms. Romanado, who's hearing scratching as well.
Now it's sounding better. It's not scratching.
Mr. Cooper, we'll go back to you.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We don't believe that it's appropriate that Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister, should decide unilaterally who heads this inquiry. The Prime Minister has a conflict. He has a conflict to the degree that serious allegations were made in a Global News report last week that several of the Prime Minister's senior aides were briefed by CSIS in 2019 that a Liberal candidate and now sitting MP had the assistance of Beijing's Toronto consulate in his nomination campaign and that they turned a blind eye. They did nothing about that in the face of those warnings from CSIS. We have also seen no answer from the Prime Minister on the veracity of those reports. He has refused to answer basic questions, including whether he had been briefed.
Needless to say, the Prime Minister's office is involved in matters that go to the heart of what this inquiry is about, and the heart of the matter is about what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and what he did or did not do about Beijing's interference in our elections. In order for there to be confidence in such an inquiry, it needs to be not only an impartial and fair process; it needs to be seen as such. This amendment to Mr. Julian's motion would do just that. It would provide an opportunity for all of the House leaders of all of the recognized parties to reach agreement unanimously as to the individual who should head the inquiry.
While this inquiry is important, it is also important to recognize that much of the work of the commissioner and the panel members may be in a venue that is not open, that is not before the public, having regard for classified documents and other information that might be subject to the review of the inquiry. Given the very serious allegations that have been made, given the almost daily reports of some new aspect, some new issue, some new scandal involving election interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections, it's not enough to simply say that we should let the inquiry do its work behind closed doors and at the end of it issue a heavily redacted report.
Again, we welcome an inquiry, but we don't welcome it as a substitute or a replacement for the work that this committee is doing to undertake a study of election foreign interference and the work that we have been tasked to undertake specifically with respect to interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections by Beijing.
The advice of CSIS in respect to the manner in which foreign interference should be responded to is based upon sunlight and transparency. It is that the interference should be made known to the public, and this committee provides a forum for there to be sunshine and transparency now and to get answers now, although we might not be able to get all the answers. That's why I support the objective of Mr. Julian's motion, which is to establish an inquiry.
It would not be, I believe, in the interests of getting to the truth and getting to the bottom of this to simply shut down the work of this committee. We need to continue to do our work. We need to continue to hear from witnesses and we need to continue to insist on the production of documents. There are lots of witnesses we need to hear from, including Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. The Prime Minister said that when you're talking to Katie Telford, it's like talking to him. She is a key witness in getting to the bottom of the central issue at hand, which is what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and what he did or didn't do in respect to Beijing's interference in our election.
Given that, I think this would strike the right balance with the openness and transparency of this committee to be able to move forward today, next week and in the weeks to come as we learn more about this very serious interference, which the Prime Minister, up until now, has been anything but transparent about, as he seeks to deflect and block and cover up his inaction based on everything that has been made available up until now.
I will probably have other comments to make, but I will leave it at that for now. I'm hopeful that this amendment will be well received and will be adopted.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
I will continue with the list as it was. It will be Mr. Berthold, followed by Mr. Fergus and then Mrs. Romanado. I also have Madame Normandin, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Julian and Mr. Gerretsen. For the main motion, when we get to it, my list will still be Berthold, Fergus and Romanado. The others were added on after the amendment was moved. This is just so we're on the same page.
Go ahead, Monsieur Berthold.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What did Prime Minister Justin Trudeau know and when did he know it? What did Prime Minister Justin Trudeau do, or rather, what did he not do, when he learned about the many allegations of interference by China in Canada's democratic process? That is the basic question that requires a public inquiry. In fact, yesterday the Leader of the Conservative Party said as much.
Why? Because, as the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau is ultimately responsible to Canadians for all matters relating to national security and the respect of our democratic process. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Prime Minister was briefed several times on foreign election interference by the Chinese communist regime, as we learned and as witnesses in the know and who were involved have confirmed, never once did the Prime Minister's Office feel it was necessary to share its concerns with the RCMP or CSIS. It was as if there was nothing unusual going on.
I would like to remind you that these are indeed serious allegations. There's talk of a clandestine network of 11 candidates who received financial support from the Chinese regime. There's talk of so-called volunteers who in actual fact were not volunteers and who were subsidized by people close to the Chinese regime to help candidates during the election campaign. There's talk of orchestrated campaigns to help elect a minority liberal government and defeat certain Conservative candidates.
Not a day goes by without new information appearing in the news or on social media about interference by the Chinese regime in our democratic process.
Today we learned that the amount of information and evidence needed to brief candidates on election interference by the Chinese regime was so significant that it was unlikely the threshold would ever be met.
Yet, the first thing the Prime Minister said in his defence was that all of the information was given to the panel charged with determining whether the election had been undermined by foreign interference, and that the panel had determined that there was no foreign election interference, and that the process unfolded as it should have. That's a fact: this is what we have heard from the Prime Minister from the outset. Incidentally, the Prime Minister himself struck the panel. That can mean many things and raises too many questions.
That is why my colleague's amendment is very relevant. You can't just let the government decide who will conduct the public inquiry, since the government is led by the Prime Minister, who is himself directly implicated in the many allegations reported by media, be it Global News or The Globe and Mail, other media or reporters' news feeds.
As well, we need to absolutely ensure that the public inquiry is done responsibly, of course, and that it focuses on all political parties. This is where I'd like to reach out to my NDP colleague, who pleaded for consensus and unanimity at the start of his presentation. The NDP said that the inquiry must absolutely be non-partisan, that we must absolutely be on the same page and send a unanimous message to the House of Commons and to the government that we are calling for an inquiry that is in line with what we are asking for. In its motion, however, the NDP is forgetting its own party. It doesn't want to hear from anyone from the NDP. It doesn't want the national inquiry to hear from people from the NDP.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It is simply because the NDP is in no way involved in those activities.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
That is a matter of debate, Madam Chair, not a point of order.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Today we are learning a lot about what is and is not a point of order. Maybe that's a study we'd want to take on. It would be within PROC's purview.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
In that case, Madam Chair, I will continue.
So, I take at face value—