Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Procedure and House Affairs

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2015, I heard someone say that light was the best disinfectant. It seems clear to me. We could apply that concept today.

When I was young, there was a dictionary we used at school that was called Je doute, je cherche, je trouve, which literally translates to “I doubt, I seek, I find”. Right now I doubt. The government does not want to seek, so we may not find.

What I would like right now is an independent public inquiry.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, early on in this, there was some discussion about how this information was being leaked and the sensitive nature of it, as it is about national security.

However, given the recent revelations, or at least what is being reported on and alleged, and I have to make it clear it is an allegation at this point, could the hon. member share, with his subject matter expertise on ethics, the importance for institutions such as the federal government to have built-in, whistle-blowing protections for civil servants?

Even sometimes in the highest, most sensitive breaches, should they come across thresholds that may breach criminality, whistle-blower protections would be an essential foundation or component of protecting our democracy.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an exceedingly difficult topic.

Protecting whistle-blowers is something many people are concerned about, but they are not doing anything about it. We need to get to the heart of the matter.

It is important to understand that, at CSIS, for example, a whistle-blower is a person who has reached the limit of what they can tolerate. CSIS members serve the government, and as someone who knows a few of them, I can say that they care very deeply about their country. When they reach that limit, the situation becomes intolerable. When they speak out, they are doing their duty. They are not criminals; they are heroes. We should come up with a system.

It is hard to understand, but we really need to consider creating a proper system for protecting whistle-blowers. If not, what is going to happen? There will be more situations like this one.

Today, more allegations have been made by Global News. I have only one word to describe them: devastating. To add insult to injury, at a certain point, I think an independent public inquiry becomes unavoidable. We need to think about what will happen in the wake of this, such as a system for protecting whistle-blowers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, could the member provide his thoughts on other international players? It is not just China that is involved in doing this. Could he provide his thoughts on that matter?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that foreign interference has become more common in recent years because of technological advancements, but the tried-and-true persuasion techniques have always worked.

Earlier I mentioned Iran, China, obviously, Russia and other countries. The United Arab Emirates are now surveilling more countries than anyone else. They have the technology, and they are open about it. They are among the most prolific spies in the world in terms of the number of countries under surveillance. No one is worried about them.

Whether they are spying on Canada, I have no idea. One thing is certain, though: Surveillance is becoming increasingly common, increasingly harmful, and increasingly intrusive.

To be honest, I would look much further afield than just China.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

I am glad to rise on this important issue. Time and time again I have stood in the House to talk about the importance of standing up to strengthen our democracy and our democratic institutions, and to talk about foreign interference being a persistent and real threat. The problem we are seeing throughout this debate, and I have been a regular at the PROC committee these days, is that the Conservatives have tried to make the issue of foreign interference a partisan issue when it is in fact a Canadian issue. Every single Canadian in this country, regardless of who they vote for, should be able to know that their democratic institutions are strong and that they protect against foreign interference.

However, we have seen that the Conservatives stood by for years. They closed their eyes and covered their ears to any sort of issue around foreign interference until they felt it could be in their political interest. It was not a surprise to me, but it should be shocking to Canadians, that when the Minister of Democratic Institutions asked the Leader of the Opposition why, when he was the minister of democratic institutions, he did nothing to protect and safeguard our institutions and elections, he said it was not in Conservative partisan interests to do so at the time. That should tell Canadians everything they need to know about how reckless Conservatives are when it comes to national security and foreign interference.

They keep speaking about how it is a cover-up or there is something Liberals are trying to hide. Talk about an incompetent opposition. They are claiming a cover-up when a 2019 NSICOP report that was tabled in this very House raised the issue of foreign interference. Talk about hiding in plain sight. I guess Conservatives prefer not to read the reports that are tabled in the House.

We have not only been busy working on addressing foreign interference but we have also taken additional steps. The mandate letter of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities talks about strengthening our democratic institutions from foreign interference. However, the Conservatives once again pretend this is something we have never talked about, that we have never discussed and that we are not seized with, but there is documented evidence that we are the only government that has put forward the most concrete steps to strengthen our democratic institutions.

That is not to say that more is not needed to be done. In fact, we supported the study at PROC to look at additional ways and measures, and things that we could be continuously doing. The fact remains that foreign interference is going to be pervasive, and it is going to constantly change, so any member in the House, or any Canadian, who thinks they have the answer and we will never need to look at this again, is wrong. This is something that Parliaments and governments around the world have to ensure they are constantly staying on top of so these pervasive threats do not take hold.

I also find it interesting that the Conservatives proclaim they support our national security community, yet our national security community has said that Canadians, and Canadians alone, determine the outcome of our elections, but Conservatives continue to undermine that fact. The non-partisan national security community has stated it time and time again at committee, but Conservatives try to undermine that. They try to sow doubt in our non-partisan public service. We do not believe in that. We trust that these officials are seized with keeping Canadians safe. Our national security community wants to ensure that national security documents are handled with the care and protections that national security documents require.

The Conservatives would have us believe that they should just release all of this information because a few members on PROC feel like looking at it, instead of going to the appropriate location, which is NSICOP, where every member of that committee has national security clearance, where there is extreme care given to the documents that are provided and handled, and where an enormous amount of information is provided. The committee is extremely independent, it tables reports and is extremely professional. Might I add, the secretariat is above all.

I actually served on this committee, so I can speak with extreme passion and knowledge to the fact that the NSICOP secretariat is a professional resource that parliamentarians now have. In fact, NSICOP's reports have been regarded around the world for the work it has done, and the Conservatives want to ignore that fact and undermine the work that has been done. It is a multi-party committee, with representation from all parties and the Senate, so I find it interesting that the Conservatives do not want to use this committee that, in fact, we ensured was created in the House, where parliamentarians could access these top secret security documents in a way that is responsible.

I think every Canadian would want their parliamentarians to treat national security with the seriousness and responsibleness that national security deserves. It keeps not only us as Canadians safe but those who have stepped up to serve and protect our country. However, the Conservatives, once again, continue to be reckless with our national security community, and I think Canadians have seen through that time and time again.

It is also no surprise to me, but it is interesting that members of PROC and my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, mentioned the behaviour of one individual on that committee who was actually pulled off. I also find it interesting that the behaviour and conduct of several members of the Conservatives at that committee has been absolute chaos. It has been partisan and has resulted in nothing. There is so much turmoil, and I guess Conservatives just going in circles, that Conservatives are abandoning their PROC members and saying, “Ah, maybe we should take this to ethics” where maybe their members can get it through the finish line, I do not know. However, Conservatives themselves are infighting and cannot seem to even stay on track with what their objectives are, because their objectives are not to strengthen our democracy; their objectives are to simply throw partisan grenades, and it is not working.

I think that if we want to have reasonable and serious debate about—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives had come to this debate with the seriousness that it deserves, not only would their leader and House leader have not abandoned their PROC committee members in trying to punt this to ethics, where they might have a different result, but Canadians would also have more faith. The fact is that this is nothing more than a Conservative partisan ploy, just like their leader confirmed on why he never did anything when he was the minister of democratic institutions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has twice put this piece of information out there, which seems to be a back channel way of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, this proves the point that Conservative members have the weakest chin I have ever seen. They sit here and throw insult after insult to members, and the second I stand up they have a point of order because they are unhappy with the comment their own leader made. I would ask the hon. member to check Hansard, and to also toughen up, because if they can dish it, they should be able to take it.

I will conclude with the fact that our government takes this issue incredibly seriously. That is precisely why we have implemented a committees such as NSICOP and the critical election incident public protocol, or CEIPP. This continues to be in the minister's mandate letter. We want to study this and continue to have more recommendations. That is why we have appointed a special rapporteur. We look forward to, and we will accept, all of his recommendations.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, how can the parliamentary secretary stand in this place after filibustering with her Liberal colleagues for 24 hours to prevent the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying before the committee?

My question is very simple. What is the government hiding from Canadians?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is hiding absolutely nothing. In fact, what I think, certainly from my—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the members can laugh; it means nothing.

In many speeches at PROC, I actually highlighted the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party, the fact that foreign interference has been happening for years and the Conservatives did nothing, and the fact that former Conservative political staffers have come out criticizing the Conservatives on this issue. I continue to point out that the Conservatives do not actually call out the members of their own caucus who sat down with an alt-right member of a foreign government, and did not call out the attempts of foreign interference amongst their own ranks.

At PROC, I called out Conservative hypocrisy and I continue to do so now.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech by my colleague opposite.

First, in listening to her speech, one would have thought that this debate was initiated by the Conservatives. That is quite something. I am not a Conservative supporter, but we must set the record straight—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is not time to make comments. Order.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was saying that I wanted to set the record straight. The NDP asked for this debate. It seems that the Liberals are afraid to mention it because the NDP is a member of their coalition.

Now for my question, which is about partisanship. In her speech, my colleague used a certain word about every three sentences, perhaps even in every sentence, and that word is “partisan”. She was once again accusing the Conservatives of partisan politics.

I do not understand why she is only targeting the Conservatives, because the Bloc is also asking for a public inquiry into Chinese interference. The NDP is now asking for the same thing. Many people in civil society are asking for the same thing. It is as though anyone who asks for something the Liberals do not want is being partisan. I am trying to understand this.

Is it not the other way around? Is it not the Liberals who are being partisan and have things to hide or partisan interests to protect?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel bad that the Bloc members feel left out. I can offer this: I find it interesting that the Bloc members are standing up about foreign interference now, yet they actually declined to come to foreign interference briefings that our government put forward to ensure that all parties had information on foreign interference and could help protect their campaigns and know how to spot it.

Fear not, Bloc members, I do not leave you out of being reckless. When you have opportunities to get briefings from the national security community about how to predict and prevent foreign interference, I suggest you take them. It is serious.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for splitting her time with me. I really do appreciate having a voice in this important debate this evening.

My question to the member is about something she mentioned in her speech, which is that she feels NSICOP is the right place for these conversations. However, we know we are in now in the situation that Canadians are concerned, and we have just had another leak come out through the media that is extremely concerning for Canadians. They are the focus for all of us in the House.

We need to honour national security, but there are ways to do it that are public, transparent and independent. I am wondering if the member could speak to why her government does not want to support that.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague a lot, as well as the work she does on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think we actually want to achieve some of the same things. I think where we are having difficulties is the fact that we are not finding the committee to be the place where we can have these honest conversations. I have said, multiple times, that I would love to see PROC bring in witnesses from, for example, international sources, countries that have been facing this, and looking at the policies they have implemented and what we can learn from them.

If we can get down to business and work on how to strengthen our democratic institutions, I am all for it and I am happy to work with any member in the House to do so.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be here speaking on behalf of the good people of North Island—Powell River, who have expressed to me some of their serious concerns around foreign interference and what that means for Canadian elections.

I am also really disappointed, in a way, that we are here, because I know that on Monday, my dear friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, gave a very important speech in the House and spoke very clearly about his desire to bring forward this motion on Tuesday. I also know that, after that very public statement, which was also talked about in the media, the Conservatives, the next day, decided to do something different to block that opportunity for us to talk about why a public inquiry around foreign interference in our democratic institutions is so important .

I wish we had had this discussion yesterday. I think it would have been incredibly important and I think it is a good reminder that we are in a position right now where I see partisanship coming much too much into this conversation.

I think Canadians are calling on us very loudly and very clearly, to the best of us honouring national security, saying they want to understand what is happening in this country and what it means for our democratic institutions when foreign interference is becoming a growing concern.

We heard today, just about an hour ago, of a strong allegation against a currently sitting MP in relation to the two Michaels, whom we all fought so hard in the House to get home.

As this keeps coming and we keep seeing more and more indications of foreign interference, Canadians are rightfully wondering what is happening. They want to make sure the process is accountable to them as the voters in this country and accountable to people running for office in whatever roles they are running for, and that when they are put in these situations, they understand, at least basically, what the process would be moving forward.

I am the member who sits on the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs. I really appreciate the important work PROC does. I have been put in a very difficult situation in PROC over the last few months.

Often, my Conservative friends come in and propose things around national security that really scare me. This issue is so serious. It is about how the people in this room are chosen and the processes behind that.

I have had to vote against the Conservatives numerous times because they are bringing forward motions that really do not honour our sacred trust in making sure that our processes are clean and that we do not expose, outwardly, anything that would be sacred for national security.

I hope everyone in the House understands that, even though we have our partisan realities and we want to contrast with other parties and show how we would do a better job, we must never forget that what we owe in this place, beyond our parties, is an oath to Canadians. It is an oath that, at the end of the day, we will do what we feel is in the best interest of all Canadians.

I think that, as we go through this, we have to honour the fact that the Conservatives keep focusing on one country. They keep focusing on China, when we know that multiple countries have been involved in trying to have foreign interference in Canada and other countries.

My granny used to always say to me that, if it is coming out of my mouth, I had better make sure I am paying for the words, because if I am not paying for what is said, then somebody else is paying and I owe them.

We have to remember that when we talk about these issues, there are Chinese Canadians in this country who have been begging for this country to take this seriously for a very long time, years and years under both Conservative and Liberal governments, saying they feel the pressure and they know it is out there and they want us to take action on it.

I hope that, as we remember this, we also honour Chinese Canadians in this country and the hard work they have done to try to bring this forward. That is important because we have lived through hard times and we do not need to see any discrimination happening in that way.

Recently, in fact just yesterday, the NDP was able to use its leverage to make sure we had transparency, and Katie Telford is going to be coming to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I think that is an important step, one that our leader worked very hard on. He was the first person, the first leader, the member for Burnaby South, to call for a public inquiry. That is why we are here today. We are here today because, in PROC, a motion was brought forward by the NDP saying that a public inquiry is the best way to go forward. Why is it the best way to go forward? It is because it is independent, because it is transparent to Canadians and it is public.

There is a time and a place, I fulsomely believe, to make sure we honour national security, we have those important conversations that are behind closed doors, and we are held to account by what happens outside those doors. With all of the leaks we are seeing, there is concern, and that is why we need a public inquiry.

I respect that a special rapporteur has been put in a position and given a mandate. However, I will not accept it until we get to a place where there is actual accountability to Canadians that honours national security but will also make sure our processes are clear, so we do not have people coming forward in the media, either elected officials or people who have run, who feel very insecure about what they have experienced and the information is not clear to them. We need to know. We need to know when these things are coming forward and that they are real.

The Conservative members moved a motion. I, in my role, amended it. It was accepted as a friendly amendment. Absolutely, the next concerning thing is that we went through hours of filibustering by the Liberals. Now that has ended and hopefully we get to the next step, which is action. It was unfortunate to see that, when our motion came forward, everybody in there except the Liberals voted for it.

Looking at the behaviour we saw at committee, I think all Canadians would agree the best place to move forward is a public inquiry. When partisanship gets into this, it becomes more and more ugly. Not too long ago, the person who came forward secretly to the media on some of these very serious issues said in an article that they came forward because they truly believed they needed to. They felt that not a single leader in the House was a traitor to this country and that they wanted to see all actions be public but non-partisan.

What is unfortunately happening in the House is that we are seeing way too much partisanship. We are seeing it at committees. I would say that does not honour the responsibility we all have to Canadians. When we do not have trust in our institutions, it begins something really terrible. We have seen this historically in other countries.

I was reading a book the other day by Gabor and Daniel Maté. One of the things I found very profound was a line in it that said, and I am paraphrasing, that when people cannot trust, when they do not believe in the systems around them, they will believe absolutely anything. We must be clear. As we become more afraid, people will begin to believe things that are not true.

We saw what happened during the convoy. We saw what happened during the pandemic when people became so fearful that they lost their sense of connection to their communities and to their families. When people lose their connections to their communities and their families and their country, we see a lot of things start to fall apart.

I am asking everyone in this place: Please remember our commitment to Canada. Please remember our commitment to creating strong institutions. Please make sure we do not encourage Canadians to lose faith in those democratic institutions but to question them and see how we can make them stronger. When we start to question these institutions without an intention to create stronger institutions we can trust in, when we are just using partisan games that are trying to get us points, then we forget our commitment to Canada.

I hope everyone in this place knows we have a lot of work to do in this country, but building a better and stronger country should be the commitment we all share. I hope everybody will support this motion, because a public inquiry will help Canadians have faith in this country.