Debates of March 20th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I remind members not to speak directly to one another. They should speak to the Chair and through the Chair when speaking to individuals.

I will let the hon. member for Brantford—Brant finish up the last 30 seconds of his speech.

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

Everything that I said in my last 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, was always through you. The fact is that I turned and looked at NDP members. Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the leader, but, notwithstanding that, the choice is there.

Will the New Democrats continue to prop up the government, or will they get to the heart of the scandal and find out what Katie Telford knew?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I know we have a point of order, but I will bring up that members cannot say whether a member is in the chamber or not, and they cannot speak directly to a person and must speak through the Chair. Those are some basic rules that we follow in the House of Commons, and I want to remind everyone of them.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts on the inconsistency that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party. When he was the minister responsible for elections and democracy in Canada, we know there was foreign interference. Today's leader of the Conservative Party had the opportunity to do something about it and he chose to do nothing.

If we look at the motion the Conservatives are proposing today, the leader of the Conservative Party indicated back then that it is not the staff but the ministers who go to committee. Once again, we have the leader of the Conservative Party saying one thing when he is in government and saying something totally different when he becomes the crown prince of the Conservative Party.

I am wondering if the member shares my concerns about consistency and hypocrisy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The irony is that Liberal members have been pretty quick to point out anything that comes close to skirting the rules and procedures of this place. I would ask for guidance as to what the member just stated regarding the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We all need to remind ourselves that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are really important to us, and we should all follow them as closely as possible.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint my friend, but there is very little my friend says that I agree with, and it should come as no surprise to my friend that I completely disagree with the characterization of his question.

The point of the matter is that Katie Telford, as the chief of staff, is not an ordinary staffer. She is a staffer who has been so closely intertwined in everything the Prime Minister has done. When he was leader of the third party in Parliament, she was responsible for all of his elections. She is his principal, primary adviser. She is the one at the heart of the matter who can finally shed some light on the mystery shrouding the Liberal government and fostering mistrust.

In my opinion, both she and the Prime Minister ought to be testifying, because the Prime Minister has much to answer to as well.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We know that China thinks that the Liberals will go easier on them. Given everything we have learned, the leaks, we see that China is probably right in thinking that. The government knew about this for a long time but did nothing.

That said, I would ask my colleague why he did not take this opportunity today to ask, instead, for a public and independent commission of inquiry. The motion before us could have been discussed in committee; it is a committee motion.

Why not ask for a public and independent commission of inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear in my speech. The leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition has always been very clear on this point. We fully support an independent public inquiry that has subpoena power. We would not be in this particular situation if the justice assigned to the public inquiry could subpoena the Prime Minister and Katie Telford. We would not be in this mess.

To answer the member's question, yes, that is the ultimate outcome that we as Canada's Conservatives would like to see, but until such time as that becomes reality, if at all, we need to have Katie Telford testify.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for an important intervention, but to clarify important facts, the New Democrats stand firm on our call for a public independent inquiry into foreign interference. Why politicize all of this and not talk about other foreign actors like Russia, for example? In committee, we mentioned foreign interference by forces like Russia. The Conservatives played defence for them and said they are not the problem and we need to look at China.

We fully agree that China is a serious problem. However, would the member agree that foreign interference by other countries is also worth investigating? Would the Conservatives join our call for a public inquiry into all foreign interference?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that there are problems with foreign interference by other nations, and this is not exclusive to China. Russia is one of them. However, this particular motion is narrowly defined. We are here to discuss China, not Russia and not any other nation.

Insofar as the member's overall goal for a public inquiry goes, this motion is not about a public inquiry. This motion is very specific to Katie Telford. I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether this member will address the constituents in his riding in Alberta who are calling for Katie Telford to shed some light on this controversy. Will he speak for those constituents?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the member would like to speak to me directly about these questions, I would be very happy to speak to him directly. However, simply saying “through you”—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order, and I would invite everyone to step outside and have a discussion if they need to, because we want to keep up with what is going on here in the House of Commons.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is making a point of order. At the end, he said that simply saying “through you, Mr. Speaker” does not allow members, given what the rules are, to start speaking to somebody directly.

[An hon. member]

Debate.

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

How is that debate? I am literally talking about a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I welcome everyone to speak to one another, to come up with plans and to debate things judiciously on the floor of the House of Commons. Knowing that, I want to move on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, time is up. The public confidence in our democratic system is rightly in question. Explosive allegations of foreign interference from senior security officials ignored by the highest levels of government, including the PM himself, splashed all over the front pages of our newspapers have Canadians asking a couple of simple questions: What did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it?

The NDP members have a choice to make. Will they vote for transparency and answers on Beijing’s interference in our elections, or will they vote for the Prime Minister’s cover-up? Will they vote to cover up what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and what he did or did not do about it?

For those watching at home, here is what we do know. It starts with sums of money of up to $1 million that were given to causes near and dear to the Prime Minister, including a donation of nearly $200,000 to the Trudeau Foundation and a gift of $50,000 to put a statue of Pierre Trudeau up. These transfers were arranged by a billionaire who was described in The Globe and Mail as “a senior official in...[a] network of state promoters around the world.” He appeared at Liberal Party fundraisers in the intimate presence of the Prime Minister and, according to sources, was reimbursed for his activities by the Communist Party in Beijing. This should raise concern.

Again, two questions remain. What did the Prime Minister know and when did he know about it? NDP members have a choice to make today, a simple choice: Do they want to know, or will vote for the Prime Minister’s continued cover-up?

To get back to what we know, the goal of these endeavours, everything I just talked about, was to curry favour with a government that was perceived to be friendlier to Communist interests. As one official was quoted as saying, “red is good and blue is bad.” They sought cash for access. They sought positive trade terms. They sought international co-operation. By most accounts, the relationship was going swimmingly well, and many in Beijing were “extremely pleased”.

Again, what did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it? Will NDP members show some courage tomorrow when they vote? Will they vote to cover for the Prime Minister? Will they vote with the Liberals or will they vote with Canadians?

Let us fast-forward to 2018. Here is more of what we know. The association between Canada and China began to sour. However, senior Communist officials saw another opportunity to destabilize and discredit elections here in Canada to gain greater influence in our country. They had the goal of electing a Liberal minority government, one that would be friendlier to the Communist Party than the alternatives, and one that would be unstable and marked by backroom deals and infighting. One senior diplomat said it best when they said Beijing likes it “when the parties in Parliament are fighting with each other, whereas if there is a majority, the party in power can easily implement policies that do not favour [the PRC].”

We know they waged an unprecedented campaign to make that ideal a reality. They meddled in nomination processes to get their preferred candidates chosen. They funnelled money to 11 candidates in the GTA alone. They organized volunteers. They coerced and intimidated voters. That was all in the newspapers. CSIS uncovered evidence of this interference, but according to sources, the warnings of our intelligence agencies were ignored. This was in the papers.

Again, what did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it? That is why we are here today. We are also here to see whether NDP members agree. Will they cover for the Prime Minister? Will they cover up the interference? Will they cover up what he knew and when he knew about it?

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians gave a specific warning that meddling from Beijing was “eroding the foundations of our fundamental institutions, including our system of democracy itself”. It does not get much more serious than that.

With all of that out in the open, the Liberal Party failed to overturn the nominations of compromised candidates that were brought directly to their attention, according to what was written. They failed to seriously grasp the message offered by our security agencies, according to what was written. In fact, they failed to take any action at all.

Therefore, I will ask this again. What did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it? That is the question today.

The Communist strategy worked so well that it was repeated in 2021, possibly even on a wider scale. Misinformation and disinformation were rampantly and blatantly spread to voters. Preferred candidates were promoted and opposed candidates were targeted. One senior diplomat from Beijing even boasted about having defeated two Conservative MPs in the last election. This is known. It is in the public domain, and no one on the other side is able to give Canadians a single rebuttal saying it is not true. We have asked.

Again I ask: What did the Prime Minister know, and when did he know it? That is why we are here.

There is evidence that the answer is “a substantial amount”. The Prime Minister's own national security advisor confirmed that she briefed the Prime Minister multiple times on foreign interference. CSIS intelligence was shared, but again, warnings were ignored, and no substantial action was taken.

There is evidence that Beijing's strategy is working. They have opened police stations in our own country to harass and survey free people living here. It is crickets from the Liberals.

A scientist fired from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg was named on several documents in China related to discoveries from her time working in the federal government. Several of our universities have collaborated with scholars associated with the Communist regime. The government has vacillated on important issues relating to national security, such as the Huawei issue.

We are seeing a pattern here in our own country. Why would anyone conclude that in the absence of doing anything at all, this would not get worse? Canadians need to know that their government is at least taking an interest in how to stop this or answering the basic questions that Canadians have. This is cloaked in secrecy by a Prime Minister who is ranting from a podium daily about how everybody should learn a lesson or take this seriously or is saying that everybody is racist. That is what we are hearing from the Prime Minister, but there is never a single answer about this.

What did the Prime Minister know, and when did he know it? Empty platitudes are not going to cut it, nor is having a secret committee with secret evidence that provides secret conclusions to the Prime Minister, who could redact those documents, or telling everyone that it is important but continuing to do nothing about it.

Our efforts have been met with never-ending spin and the ever-so-familiar playbook that we have seen time and time again to deny, deflect, divide and distract. It is like a recipe, and the Liberals always use the same one.

It is time for unfettered access to officials, including the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, and documents and briefings, all at committee and out in the open. It is time to shine a light on foreign interference, just like our intelligence agency says is the way to root it out. It is time to get answers and to end the charade.

The Prime Minister has run out of excuses and other people to blame. It seems that he will run out of people who are his friends to appoint to important positions. The NDP should not be giving the Prime Minister cover today.

The Liberals have been filibustering a motion for hours on end at committee, and that is the reason we are here. What are they hiding? It must be bad. Why else would the Liberals go through this whole process, hide at every turn and continue to spin, attack and divide? That is not really behaviour of people who are innocent.

This is about our election integrity and the integrity of our democracy. It is about every member in this House. Any time there are even questions about those processes, we owe every Canadian nothing less than the most detailed explanations and answers.

We do that through this motion and not by listening to members of the government carry water for the Prime Minister or take orders about filibustering. I have a question, and I know that Canadians are wondering the same thing. Does anybody over there have any courage? Does anybody over there wonder what the Prime Minister knew and when he knew it? Did anyone over there bother to ask? What did we all know about this?

If the Liberal members want to talk out the clock at a committee process they control, then it is time we put it in the hands of parliamentarians interested in the actual truth. It is time for the NDP to show some courage when it matters instead of the bluster we hear at the podium, when we are only disappointed by the unwavering support they constantly give to the Liberal government.

Anything less than a complete disclosure is not good enough for Canadians. Anything less than full answers will not be accepted by the opposition. What did the Prime Minister know, and when did he know it? We need to find out.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member has indicated that the government has been trying to hide at every turn, which could not be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, we have had two ministers already come and answer questions by committee on this. We have told Canadians about a number of different measures we are going to take. The issue for me is inviting staff and requiring them to come to a committee, when at the end of the day, ministers are responsible, not staff. The member does not have to take this just from me; she should listen to her boss, the member from Carleton and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2010, he said:

...ministers answer questions on behalf of the government and not staff. We are not going to be changing 300 years of history all of a sudden at the behest of the coalition parties. We are not going to have the staff members appear in question period to answer on behalf of the government. We are going to do it the old-fashioned way, the way it has always been done right up until the last several months. We are going to keep ministers, the guys in charge, responsible for their duties.

That was the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, who said that not staff but ministers come to committees. Why is it okay now to do this, but it was not for the member for Carleton back then?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was okay for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify in the WE scandal at committee and to appear during the scandal of sexual assault in the military. It was okay on those two occasions. I think the better question is why it is not okay today. If she does not want to appear as the Prime Minister's chief of staff, perhaps she can appear as the campaign director of the Liberal Party campaign and the member's own leadership, who oversees nominations in his party. Why does she not appear under that title?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister, who was simply the member for Papineau at the time, said in 2013 that he had “a level of admiration...for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime”. We are still not sure if he meant the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, or the Tiananmen Square massacre. However, enough about that.

We know that there were all the stories about financing activities. We also know that the Prime Minister wanted to sign a free trade agreement with China that would have been disastrous for Canada and that he even wanted to include China in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that was meant to unify Asia through trade without China.

None of it makes sense, but the common thread is complacency. We also learned that, in November 2022, a warning was issued about Chinese interference in the 2019 election. Does my colleague think the problem is that the Prime Minister does not see it, or that he does not want to see it?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the hon. member's assessment and that, at every turn, the current government has hidden the truth, and we want to know what that is. It has hidden what the Prime Minister knew about the potential election interference that is now splashed over the pages of our newspapers from foreign intelligence officers, and it has done nothing about it. In fact, it has kicked the can down the road even further to have a plan to maybe look into it or to appoint somebody who will then tell us that they could possibly have an inquiry. Canadians deserve the truth. The time is up for these guys.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know from NSICOP's foreign interference report from a few years ago that there is a number of countries alleged to be interfering in Canadian democratic processes. Does my hon. colleague think the motion is broad enough to encompass all those countries, not just China? I think Canadians want to make sure their elections are free and clear of all foreign interference, not just that of one particular country.

My second question has to do with the fact that we know the only person who has resigned from a caucus in this country so far over interference is a Conservative MPP in Ontario, Vincent Ke. We have also heard allegations that there was potentially Chinese interference in the ousting of the previous Conservative leader, the member from Durham.

Can the member tell us what steps her party is taking to root out alleged Chinese interference in the political internal affairs of the Conservative Party?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's first question. We have detailed reporting from a courageous whistle-blower who probably told the government. The government probably did not listen to him and then splashed it over the front pages of our newspapers. I do not know how the member is going to explain to his constituents that he does not want to know more about it or that he is going to support the cover-up of the Prime Minister.