Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Procedure and House Affairs

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind hon. members that they do not have the floor and it is not their option to speak at this point.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what we have witnessed is a huge vacuum of leadership coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

As soon as you guys got into Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just mentioned to members, one of whom is sitting right beside me and I am sure heard me properly, that there is no option to speak when somebody else has the floor.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to make a fairly simple point here. If we take a look at actions on this issue, we see it is not new. Not only is it not new, but it affects many countries, not just Canada. We can talk about the U.S. We can talk about some countries over in Europe. There are other democracies where we have witnessed and seen international foreign interference in elections. That has been happening for years now.

In fact, when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we all know that a report went to him at that time. Ironically, the minister who was responsible for democratic reform is the current leader of the Conservative Party. It is safe to say that while he was the minister of democratic reform under Stephen Harper, they did absolutely nothing when they were made aware of the issue.

We can fast-forward to the 2015 election, when there was a change in government. We saw a number of changes by the Prime Minister and parliamentarians back in 2015 that made substantive changes in a wide variety of ways. There were legislative changes that, for example, saw Canada complying with what our other Five Eyes countries were doing by implementing a parliamentary committee of the House, which also has participation from the Senate, with the security clearance to investigate this issue in every possible and imaginable way.

As we have seen, our independent agencies, like Elections Canada and CSIS, and the top security adviser to the Prime Minister have given opinions in regard to the issue of the 2019 and 2021 elections. The conclusion has been very clear: Any interference has not affected the outcome of either one of those elections. The Conservative Party is aware of that, yet its members choose to continue to flaunt the issue and ratchet it up in the hopes that they can get Canadians even more upset with the issue. When I hear of issues such as foreign interference, I ask what they hope to achieve. They hope to achieve interference, cause problems and confusion, and cause the public to lose confidence. That is what these agents from abroad are hoping—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Again, I want to remind members that unless I have asked for questions and comments, there is no option for them to be speaking at the moment and mentioning people by their names. Members should wait for questions and comments, because there will be five minutes of questions and comments for the hon. member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point is that the Conservative Party of Canada, in co-operation with a few others, is ultimately doing what a lot of these perpetrators of foreign interference are trying to do, and that is to take away public confidence in our elections. The Conservatives have no problem with feeding into that, even though every member of this House knows full well that we have had independent, well-respected agencies and individuals come forward and be very clear that there has been no impact on the last two federal elections. They know that for a fact.

We can look at what has been brought forward by the government just recently with the establishment of a special rapporteur in the name of David Johnston. David Johnston is a former governor general of Canada, someone appointed by former Prime minister Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister. He is an individual with impeccable credentials. He is a true Canadian in every imaginable way. He has the expertise and background to look at the situation, as other independent agencies and individuals have done, and come forward with recommendations.

The Prime Minister himself has been very clear that if Mr. Johnston comes back and says a public inquiry is necessary, that will happen. One would think the Conservative opposition, in particular, would respect that. Instead, what they are doing is assassinating the character of an incredible Canadian, much as we have witnessed over the last number of years. The Conservatives have no hesitation in making personal attacks on the Prime Minister or anyone else in the government.

I would just suggest and ask that the Conservatives be more open-minded to doing what is in the best interests of Canadians, step aside on some of the partisanship stuff they have put on the table and recognize that David Johnston is in fact a positive way for us to move forward in dealing with this very important issue.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, during the debate in the House, we received some breaking news from Global News, and I think the member would want to get to the bottom of some of the allegations that continue to come out. We have heard that a Liberal MP advised Chinese officials that they should keep the two Michaels held hostage in China for longer, because if they were released it would benefit the Conservative Party. Those types of allegations continue to drip out day after day.

Is not the best way to get to the bottom of this foreign interference once and for all to hold a full independent public inquiry as soon as possible?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize, first and foremost, that Canada is not the only country where election interference allegations have been levelled. It is also important to recognize that China is not the only player. The Conservative Party always seems to want to raise the issue of China, whether it is over the pandemic or whatever it might be. I find that most unfortunate.

At the end of the day, we need to remain focused. What has been assigned to our special rapporteur is something the Conservatives should be a little more patient and respectful about. Let us see what comes from Mr. Johnston.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk this week about the special rapporteur. People keep saying that he is independent. I have my doubts about that.

I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North a question. If the rapporteur is independent, is he objective?

I am asking him the difference between independence and objectivity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that if we take a look at what Mr. Johnston has done over the years as an individual, a great Canadian and someone who has contributed, he is virtually second to no other in the capacities and roles he has had in our society. At the end of the day, I believe in his integrity and look forward to ultimately seeing his report.

I suspect the member will see a government that is very proactive in acting on the recommendations that are brought forward. However, whether one is a member of the Bloc or Conservative Party, trashing this individual and throwing him under the bus or sandbagging him is very much disrespectful and completely uncalled for.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives blocked our efforts to have an inquiry into foreign interference in the election system. Today, we are calling on the government to do the right thing, because we have to restore public confidence in our institutions.

We just heard very disturbing allegations that a sitting MP gave advice about the treatment of the two Michaels. These were two innocent Canadians held illegally by the Chinese government. To think that in any way they could be treated as political pawns for the advantage of either the Conservatives or Liberal Party is shocking. We need to get this to an inquiry that has the tools to draw witness testimony and that can do this in a transparent manner so that Canadians get answers. It would also stop the Conservative leader from his character assassination against people like David Johnston, who have served our country with integrity.

I have no problem with Mr. Johnston. I have a problem with the lack of a full inquiry, and I am asking the Liberals to do the right thing and restore confidence among the Canadian people at this time given the shocking allegations we just heard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if I was to take a hybrid approach to what NDP members are proposing, I would suggest that one thing I like about their suggestion is that this be broadened to go beyond any sort of foreign interference in elections by China, because there are a number of players. I would also suggest that we take into consideration that Canada is not alone in this as a democracy. There is a much bigger picture to look at.

I have full trust and confidence in Mr. Johnston being able to do what is necessary to provide Canadians a great level of comfort through the recommendations he will be coming forth with. I believe that will be happening before the end of May.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to represent the interests of the good people of Regina—Qu'Appelle and represent my caucus as the opposition House leader.

We need to frame what is going on here because what we saw over the last few weeks was a despicable display at committee, a mockery of the parliamentary process. We found out that the Prime Minister has known for years about allegations of foreign interference from the Communist regime in Beijing, specifically helping the Liberal Party. Chinese representatives of that Communist regime here in Canada said they preferred a Liberal government, and there are reports coming from The Globe and Mail, citing CSIS reports and national security committee reports, indicating that there is a large “clandestine network” of funding of candidates that is coming from the Communist regime in Beijing. Conservatives have been trying to shine a light on this at committee. We have all seen the lengths that the Liberals have gone to.

Today is what is called an opposition day. Today is the supply day when opposition parties are allowed to introduce a topic and have a debate on something. Normally the government gets to set the calendar. This is its right, as it brings forward legislation, but a certain number of days throughout the year are allocated to each opposition party. For today, the Conservatives put forward a motion to call on the government to abandon its plan to increase taxes on beer, wine and spirits. That is what we are supposed to be debating right now.

On Monday, we had a fulsome debate on this whole issue of foreign interference, and I should point out that Conservatives, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, indicated to the NDP that we are totally fine with expanding the scope of the investigation. We believe that if there are allegations of foreign interference coming from any country, they should be investigated. We were willing to work with the New Democrats on that. We were hoping that they would vote in favour of our motion on Monday calling on the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee. The problem was that they did not let us know. They kept ragging the puck. It was a very simple question. It was the exact same motion that we had proposed at committee. Even the NDP House leader had indicated his support at committee.

It kind of reminds me of something that happened a little while ago. I was in the chamber and I saw the NDP House leader get up and try to indicate that the NDP opposed certain amendments at committee when it was dealing with Bill C-21. Of course, Bill C-21 is the piece of legislation that would massively expand the power of the government to take away lawful firearms from Canadians. I am not trying to mix topics too much, but the reason I am talking about this is that Conservatives recognized instantly what was going on. We saw it at committee. We said it was going to make unlawful so many firearms that hunters and indigenous communities use every season for their long-held Canadian heritage and history of using firearms legally.

What happened was that Conservatives at the committee saw that not only were these bad policy amendments, but they were also out of order, beyond the scope of the bill itself, so at the committee, almost immediately, we asked the chair to rule those amendments out of order. The chair said no. The Liberal chair said that the amendments were in order.

Why do I bring this up? At committee, the Conservatives challenged the chair. We asked our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP to please support us on this as the amendments were out of order. The NDP voted no. The NDP voted to keep those amendments in Bill C-21, yet the NDP House leader came to this chamber and asked the Speaker to do what his team actually voted against at committee. He tried to take credit, saying they were bad. It was only after their MPs heard from their constituents, who told them how terrible it was. This is exactly what we are facing here today.

We have tried to give the opportunity to the NDP members multiple times to hold this government to account and yet, time and time again, they are showing Canadians that they would rather prop up Liberal corruption and help keep the truth covered, instead of shining a light. It is very disappointing. It is very disappointing that we see the NDP here on an opposition day move this motion. They are trying to come up with this phony story.

Conservatives want a public inquiry. We have called for it. We were trying to get this report back in the House; we could have dealt with this last week. They are the ones playing procedural games and we are not going to let them get away with it. We are going to highlight to Canadians the hypocrisy that the NDP has been showing.

I just want to indicate that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

In closing, I want to make a couple of points about this. I hear from colleagues across the way who are throwing all kinds of baseless allegations that are just not backed up by facts. Conservatives have been calling for a public inquiry. The first time the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue in the House, the Prime Minister said that he did not know anything about it, so we started to press. We started to call for this. We started to call for a full, independent public inquiry. What did the government do? It appointed a special rapporteur.

I understand. I understand the hon. government House leader and I am hoping to have a discussion with him in a few moments, but it is important to set the stage for it.

I will wrap it up with this. It is impossible to restore the confidence that has been shaken by the Prime Minister's inaction on this file without a public inquiry, not a special rapporteur with close family ties to the Prime Minister, not someone on the Trudeau Foundation board. We support the call for a full public inquiry and we are just disappointed that it took so long to drag the NDP kicking and screaming to ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testifies at committee.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard the hon. member speak at length, in fact, trying to make his party a going concern in this conversation, when even in its own opposition day motion, which, by the way, turned out to be useless, its own leader did not even vote for it. Could the hon. member please tell all Canadians, with all the bluster the Conservatives have just had over the last week, why, if their opposition day was so important, their own leader did not even decide to show up and vote for it?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, if we just replay what happened on Monday, if the NDP had just indicated that it was going to support our motion right from the beginning, the Prime Minister would have realized it was inevitable and we could have addressed—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind members again, and I am sure those members were already in the House a while ago when I mentioned this, that when somebody else has the floor, it is not an option for them to speak. If they have other questions and comments, they should wait until I ask for questions and comments.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, if the NPD members had not turned their phones on silent and stopped reading their emails as we were trying to work with them to get their support, and if they had said, “Yes, we are going to support your motion and we are going to tell our coalition partners that we are going to support your motion”, we could have had all of this taken care of on the weekend and we would have been happy to move a different motion on Monday. If anybody was wasting the House's time with that, it was the NDP, taking so long, getting dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.

That is why that happened on Monday.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, just after watching that exchange there, I cannot be more struck by the difference in position in 2004, 2005 and 2006 with the NDP leader at that time with the sponsorship—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seems to be some cross-debate here and I would just ask members to please wait until it is time for questions and comments, and for the hon. member who is going to answer the question to maybe listen to the question, so that he will know what he is responding to.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want the hon. member to comment on the difference in the NDP approach right now versus the NDP approach back in 2004, 2005 and 2006, around the sponsorship scandal. Those two positions, those two approaches, around transparency and holding the government of the day to account could not be more different.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague was very active in politics. I think he joined the House in 2006, but of course he would have been watching all that unfold in 2004.

Finally, at the right time, the leader of the NDP at the time suddenly realized that he could not keep propping up a government that was under that kind of scandal and with that cloud hanging over it, which ultimately worked out for the NDP down the road. The NDP ended up having a bigger caucus in the 2011 election after standing on that principle. We have seen what has happened in the last few elections under the current NDP leader, when the caucus has diminished after every election.

I think the two things go hand in hand, and I appreciate the hon. member's pointing that out.