House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was beer.

Topics

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought up the convoy. During the convoy, we saw that it was trying to sow division among Canadians. We saw the threat to the security and safety of Canadians here. However, a lot of the convoy was also being promoted through Russian television. We saw the Conservatives out there with convoy members who came with a manifesto to overthrow the government. They were backslapping them. There were Conservatives with MAGA hats on. Many of the Conservatives were supporting the convoy participants out there who were doing illegal things.

What can the member say about that? She brought up the convoy. Can she talk about the interference that came from Russia with their television stations, their radio and how they were trying to promote the convoy that the Conservatives were supporting?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I think that is a serious question. I want to add that there was actually a public inquiry and it really helped us translate what had happened. We saw a significant amount of money come from multiple countries, including the United States.

We need to make sure this is a broad spectrum. We cannot focus on one country; we must focus on all countries. Threats have come to our attention, and CSIS has been clear about which countries they are from. We need to take this very seriously because these are our democratic institutions. People want to have faith that when they vote, the people around this table are the people they voted for.

The convoy was very destructive, and it created an environment of fear. That is not what we need in this country. It was disheartening to see such strong support from the Conservatives and to hear such a strong and clear message about white supremacy coming from the convoy. They were not honouring the fact that in this place, we should support all Canadians.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, respectfully, why the NDP joined the Liberals in blocking Katie Telford from appearing before committee not once, not twice, but on three occasions? They did finally come around and support my motion, and that is a good thing.

Earlier, my hon. colleague said that Telford was a mere staff member and that she should therefore not be called. The second most powerful person in the government is the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Why did the NDP block Telford?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I invite all Canadians to listen to me. I have been on the record at PROC many times. I sit with the member on PROC, and we certainly do not always agree, but I respect some of the work he has done.

At the end of the day, it is very simple. I do not believe in bringing staff for decisions that ministers and prime ministers make. I think ministers and prime ministers have to be accountable for their actions. I am surprised the member is asking me this question since I have already answered it, but as I said at PROC, it got to a point where the leaks kept coming. At some point, we have to say that if this continues, it will build distrust in our systems, and we need to make sure we have transparency. In addition, as the member knows, it was the first motion that did not have anything about documents in it, and I felt very seriously that it could not be put before the committee without wrecking national security. I will not stand for that.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I must say that am surprised to hear my colleague claim that we are being too partisan. What are we dealing with tonight if not partisanship?

What is happening tonight is that the NDP realized that it was sticking too close to the government, so it is hoping to use this China situation to restore its public image. It decided to cut the Conservative Party's opposition day short, not by going back to the purpose of the motion, which is to get results, but by trying to distance itself from the Liberal Party.

It is pretty funny, especially when I hear my colleague telling us that there is too much partisanship. I need her to explain partisanship to me.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, if the member would stop yelling, I would certainly be happy to answer the question.

At the end of the day, our commitment, which I noted repeatedly in my speech, is to Canadians. We feel strongly that this needs to be voted on. Canadians want to see where we are on the public inquiry. Our leader asked for it first. We have heard other leaders asked for it. It took them a while, but this is how we can be transparent to Canadians and that is our goal.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Let us be very clear: The confidence of Canadians is shaken, and the only way that we as parliamentarians can help to restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic system is through an open and public independent inquiry. We in the Conservative Party have called for this very clearly, and we are once again calling for it today. However, let us look back at what has happened in the past few weeks and in the past few months.

Unfortunately, we in the Conservative Party have had to drag not only the government but also the NDP kicking and screaming to hold those in government accountable. At the procedure and House affairs committee, three times our efforts to hear testimony from the Prime Minister's chief of staff were blocked by the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners. Why? It is because they are hiding something. If they are not, they should open up and allow the chief of staff to testify.

We need to know what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and why he sat on it. Why is that so difficult for the government to understand? Why is it so difficult for its members to see that Canadians' confidence has been shaken? Certainly, I have lost confidence in the government, and I think a lot of Canadians, each and every day, have more and more difficulty trusting the government. Why have they lost trust in the government? It is because it will not stand up and be clear with Canadians, and it is being aided and abetted by the fourth party, the New Democrats. The New Democrats are failing in their duty as opposition parliamentarians.

The opposition has a sacred duty to the people of Canada to hold—

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

You can thank us for the debate tonight.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. I just want to remind members that it is not yet time for questions and comments. I hope they are going to wait and take their turn then. There are seven and a half minutes for the hon member to do his speech before we have questions and comments.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my friends from the far corner of this chamber. There is a reason they are so far in the corner, and frankly, in the next election they will not even be in this chamber, because Canadians are losing faith in them to fulfill their role as opposition parliamentarians.

It is our role as Canadians—

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Wishful thinking.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. One more time, I want to remind members on all sides to make sure they hold on to their questions, comments and thoughts. They might want to jot them down instead of yelling them out.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I seem to have hit a nerve with certain NDP members in this House, but the truth hurts sometimes.

That is what we have seen for weeks on end at the procedure and House affairs committee. In fact, over a period of three weeks, we listened to filibuster speech after filibuster speech by Liberal parliamentarians. One Liberal MP even went so far as to say the OC Transpo light rail inquiry was a good example of why we should not have an inquiry, as though OC Transpo's light rail should ever be an example cited in this House on anything, let alone the need for a public inquiry on foreign interference into Canadian elections.

I want to highlight something. A year ago, bureaucrats recommended to the government the need for a foreign agent registry. A food bank, for example, has to register in order to lobby the Liberal government. However, when bureaucrats recommended this for foreign governments trying to influence Canadian public officials, the Liberals sat on it. They sat on it for months on end.

The Conservatives took real action. We took real action back in April 2021, before the last election. Our former colleague from Steveston—Richmond East, Mr. Kenny Chiu, introduced what was then called Bill C-282, which would have required the creation of a foreign influence agent registry in Canada. Now we are finally seeing the Liberals come around to that, but they are not actually taking action. They are not taking the action needed to restore the confidence of Canadians. That is why we need an open and public independent inquiry.

We heard testimony from experts, some of the folks who have been in service to our country. I want to note one example, the former Canadian ambassador. He said:

Australia has its registry of foreign agents, which requires transparency of Australians who act for foreign governments. The United States has the Foreign Agents Registration Act. It has also taken steps to prosecute people who have been found to be interfering in the business of Congress, and indeed congressional elections. The U.K. has identified a person who was very active in British politics and funded several politicians as a foreign agent working for China. Those things send messages.

Recently we also saw Britain leaning on the Chinese consulate in Manchester, England, after protesters were dragged into the consulate and beaten. The result was that five diplomats left the consulate.

They're taking action, but we aren't.

The former ambassador made a great point. He cited other examples of governments taking action. However, where is the Liberal government? How many diplomats has it expelled? It is none, zero, not a single one, despite having authority to do so under the Vienna convention. It has failed to act and has done nothing to make those who may be interfering in Canadian elections persona non grata under the rules provided to us.

I also want to quote Charles Burton, a senior fellow. He said:

Certainly, the disinformation that was launched in the recent election, in particular in Steveston—Richmond East at former MP Kenny Chiu, was largely in the Chinese language and largely inaccessible to people who are monitoring elections. In other words, we don't have the capability within the Canadian system to deal with activities in the diaspora community that could affect election results improperly.

Let us be clear. We need to stand up and protect each and every Canadian's democratic rights, and that includes Canadians in diaspora communities from around the globe. The disinformation and intimidation being used in online apps and discussion groups, through which foreign forces are trying to dissuade, persuade and improperly interfere in our elections, need to be stopped and need to be addressed. However, what we see time and time again from the Liberals are efforts to deny, deflect and then finally delay. That is what we are seeing right now. We are seeing delays. Not until the end of May will we actually have an opportunity to hear whether or not maybe, perhaps, kind of, if they feel like it, we will have a public inquiry.

We are calling for a public inquiry. We are calling for it now, to stop the delays and actually take action to end foreign interference by the Communist party in Beijing.

What we are hearing from different members, including government members, is to let NSICOP look at it, let NSICOP do it. I will remind members that NSICOP is not a committee of Parliament and does not come with the rights and privileges that Parliament enjoys. In fact, I would draw the House's attention to the 2019 report from NSICOP, in particular paragraph 298. The Prime Minister was given this report in August 2019, before the 2019 election, and yet did not implement the recommendation in paragraph 298, which included informing and training members of Parliament on foreign interference. Of course, because the Prime Minister got the report first, before every other Canadian, he sat on that report. It was not made public until 2020, after the 2019 election.

Forgive me if I do not have faith in the Liberals using a secret committee, where they hear secret testimony and have a report that goes first and foremost to the Prime Minister, and if I do not believe that this would be an alternative. The only alternative is a full, public, independent inquiry where Canadians could have their faith restored that we are not being impacted by foreign interference into Canadian elections.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

March 22nd, 2023 / 7:20 p.m.

Pickering—Uxbridge Ontario

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Madam Speaker, I find the speech by the member opposite interesting. First he asked what the Liberals were hiding and why they would not let the Prime Minister's chief of staff come to the committee. Can the member opposite not take yes for an answer? The chief of staff is coming to committee.

In addition to that, he spoke about the former member Kenny Chiu. Officials who appeared at committee said that it was Canadians who determined the outcome of the election and that officials could not determine that the source of chatter in that election against Mr. Chiu could be identified back to a foreign agent.

Is the member opposite suggesting that he knows more than the national security community? Will he stand in his place today and say that he has information and disagrees with the non-partisan public service?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, the experts in the public sector and in the private sector are warning against the impact of foreign interference in Canadian elections.

The member can try to deny it. The member can try to downplay it. However, Canadians are worried. Canadians are concerned. Leading experts who have dealt in diaspora communities, who have seen the undue influence, who have seen the foreign police stations being used as intimidation in major cities in our country, see what is happening and understand what is happening. For the Liberals to try to downplay this as a serious issue is really pathetic, and it really diminishes the trust of Canadians in what is happening in our country today.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask a question about my Conservative colleague's speech, but there was a question a moment ago from a Liberal member about my Conservative colleague's speech. I must admit that, as a good Quebecker, I was “flabbergasté”.

I know Kenny Chiu. I worked with him. He is a respectable, upstanding man who deserves respect.

In the last question from the Liberals about my friend Kenny Chiu's experience, it looked to me like they thought what happened to him was funny.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the seriousness with which the Liberals are talking about Chinese interference in our democracy.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, it is indeed very sad and depressing to hear the Liberals with their accusations, saying that this is not a big challenge, that this is not something that Canadians should be concerned about.

Canadians know very well that it is a problem if the Communist Party in Beijing has had any influence. Even if only one Canadian was affected, that is one too many.

One impact on a single Canadian by a foreign government is one impact too many, so we need to stand up and say very clearly that the Communist Party in Beijing has no role and no right to impact Canadians in our democratic elections.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Madam Speaker, let us play the facts game.

The facts are that New Democrats were the first to call for a national public inquiry. That is a fact. As a matter of fact, we are debating that right now. The members of this House have an opportunity to join New Democrats and ensure that there will be a national public inquiry into foreign interference.

One more fact is that Conservatives are playing defence for terrible oligarch regimes like Russia, which they do not want included in a public inquiry. Why did the Leader of the Opposition fail to even show up for his own opposition day motion, which called for some of the things they are talking about now? I want to know why the Conservatives are blocking our attempt to ensure that there will be a transparent public inquiry into this work. We need to see this inquiry expanded to all—

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

We have to allow the hon. member to answer.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington, a brief answer, please.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, let us talk about the facts. Three times the members of the NDP voted against hearing from Katie Telford. Three times they blocked the Prime Minister's chief of staff from coming to committee to say what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it, and why he covered it up.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, as well as for setting the stage for the debate we are having tonight.

Tonight, we were supposed to be once again discussing this government's efforts to raise taxes on Canadians. It is making the cost of living continue to rise and taking more money from the pockets of people who have none to spare. We wanted to use our opposition day to discuss issues that I, personally, think are of great concern to Canadians.

Opposition days are simple enough to understand. Over a given number of weeks during a parliamentary session, the opposition parties get certain days when they can choose the topic of the day and thus force a government vote on topics of the opposition's choice. Since we are coming to the end of this parliamentary period, we were entitled to two opposition days this week.

We used our first day to demand that Katie Telford and several other individuals appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to testify about foreign interference. The vote was scheduled for Tuesday. The opposition parties do not always work together, but it was expected that all opposition parties would agree that the Prime Minister's chief of staff should appear.

A lot has happened since then. I have to say that I am disappointed with the NDP's attitude.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I hear them shouting. They have been doing it all evening. They shout, they complain. Then they claim that they were the first ones to call for a public inquiry. Then they are outraged because it is not working. They say to themselves that that they might step on the government's toes, so maybe they should change their position. Without the other opposition parties, the NDP would not have a national public inquiry, because the motion would not have passed in committee. On their own, the NDP cannot get anything done.

They found a dance partner. When it suits them, they work with the government. They form a coalition. Now they have realized that they are getting a little too cozy with the Liberals on this issue. It took some time for them to realize it. It dawned on them little by little.

It started with the articles that were published by Global News. This started last November. We started to see articles on foreign interference. First there was one, then another, and another. Gradually we came to realize that, unfortunately, there really was a problem with foreign interference in our elections by the regime in Beijing.

The opposition parties started to ask the Prime Minister questions. The Prime Minister did what he always does. Whenever there is a scandal, he starts by denying it. Then he tries to deflect the question. Then he finds someone else to blame. In this case, it was the media, the big bad media, for daring to break stories about the elections and Beijing's interference in our elections. More stories broke, and then an opportunity presented itself at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We have often called on the Prime Minister to answer those questions. The Prime Minister has never answered a single one of our questions. The Prime Minister was given the opportunity to act responsibly, and to take responsibility for his decisions and for the things he did or did not do. He was asked whether he was aware of it and whether he had been informed there was foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. He was asked what action he took. I can no longer remember the number of questions he was asked in the House. Unfortunately, as I said, the Prime Minister never gave any answers. He changed the subject. He went off on multiple tangents. He accused the Conservatives of partisanship and of all the world's ills rather than accept responsibility. That is the crux of the debate: accepting responsibility.

None of the Liberal ministers who have been found guilty of ethics violations or poor management of their department have taken responsibility. The passport crisis and the crisis at the Canada Revenue Agency come to mind.

We decided to turn to other sources of information so that Canadians could find out the truth. We decided to call the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to appear. We wanted to ask her to come forward and tell us what she knew, when she found out and what the government did. We also wanted to ask her if she told the Prime Minister what she knew, when she told him and when the Prime Minister took action, which he never did.

The big surprise was that NDP members refused in committee to support a motion to hear Ms. Telford's testimony. They refused to do so not once, not twice but three times. In fact, this is no surprise because the NDP is in a coalition with the Liberal Party. The NDP members rejected the motion three times. Meanwhile, the articles kept coming out day after day. At one point, the pressure built up so much that—surprise, surprise—the NDP finally announced that they were going to support the motion before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that Ms. Telford could be called to appear.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

That is utterly ridiculous.