Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Procedure and House Affairs

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would really like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for her great work in protecting Canadian democracy. She shows that every day in her work at procedure and House affairs, and she has a national reputation as a result.

The reason we are having this debate now is that we have had Liberals say that they do not want a public inquiry because this is not an issue of enough importance to warrant it. We profoundly disagree.

Conservatives have said that they want a public inquiry, but it should not touch Russia. They do not want to go there. Again, that is profoundly disturbing.

The NDP wants to have a public inquiry that touches on and examines all forms of foreign interference. We believe that is where Canadians are as well. We believe Canadians want this to be tackled in an effective way and that all the measures that some other countries have taken as well would be put into place. However, a public inquiry is warranted and needed, and we believe it is needed now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor to agree with the important points being made here today by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

The Greens are also calling for a public inquiry that is expanded rather than being limited to foreign interference from the People's Republic of China. As the member was just pointing out, there is abundant and very clear evidence of Russian interference, and I would also say, of U.S. right-wing Republican interference in our domestic affairs in recent times. We need to know what other countries have interfered in our elections over historical periods. This should include other countries' large companies, like fossil fuel industries headquartered in the United States, that interfere with our elections in a very specific way through misleading and inaccurate political advertising.

Does the hon. member have any further thoughts on whether we expand it to look at the United States?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why the NDP has proposed a comprehensive public inquiry into foreign interference.

That could include U.S. sources as well. Certainly there seem to have been allegations of right-wing groups in the U.S. funding the convoy. Is that something that could have an impact on election campaigns? Not if we put measures into place to ensure that that does not influence our next election in any way.

That is why we wanted to make sure that all tools are being used and that a public inquiry put into place examines all facets of foreign interference. I think this is something that Canadians want to see as well. They believe in our democratic system and the rights and responsibilities of members of Parliament. We need to take that democracy seriously and put into place measures to ensure that this democracy continues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that this was where the day would go, but I guess we have to be prepared for anything.

I have to hand it to the NDP. They said that they wanted to bring forward their concurrence on this particular report, and they did that. The reality is, for those who do not really understand what is going on, that the Conservatives have an opposition supply day today. However, what has happened because of the fact that they sidelined the NDP yesterday, I guess, is that this is just payback for that. Nonetheless, it is a very important topic. I am glad that we have the opportunity to continue talking about this.

I do not think that my position, personally, is too far from that of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. However, I do take exception with his last comment that the Liberals said that they did not want a public inquiry. I actually was very clear about this.

By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I was very clear about this at committee. I said in a speech at committee, at the beginning of this, when a public inquiry was first floated, that I actually thought a public inquiry kind of made the most sense. Why not broaden it and allow the public to have that insight?

We heard from the experts who came forward that a public inquiry would not gather any more information than what could be provided at committee. A public inquiry of this nature, which is going to dive into some highly sensitive information and highly sensitive reports, needs to be treated with the classification specifications that surround it.

It is not just in our own domestic interest to ensure that it occurs. It is also in the interest of the relationship that we have with our allies. We share secrets. We share information. They share information with us. If it becomes very apparent to our allies that we are unable to hold information safely, then they are not going to be interested in continuing to work with us. This is what we heard from the experts who came to committee and who talked about why a public inquiry was not the right route.

At the beginning, I started off thinking that, yes, a public inquiry kind of makes the most sense. However, I was very easily persuaded by those experts coming forward to actually see this occur in a different way, in a way that allows for the classification of that information to remain intact. I find it unfortunate that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would make that comment and say that Liberals are against it. No, Liberals listened to the advice of the experts, and we formed our opinion based on that.

That is the only difference, in my opinion, between my position and that of the NDP. I agree with them. Why not look at all foreign interference? The Conservatives have been very hell-bent on ensuring that the only issue we look at is Chinese interference, but we know that interference comes from other foreign state actors.

Foreign interference in elections is not a new concept. This has become more obvious and more real within the last 10 or 15 years, as people have been able to infiltrate through social media networks to get information out there in different ways and be sinister in ways that may have been a little more difficult in the past. What we have are real threats. I think that Canadians should be concerned, and they are rightfully concerned.

For me, this does not come down to a matter of whether we study foreign interference. I am actually relieved to see so many people interested in this. The previous minister of public safety, in 2020, sent an actual copy of election preparedness and foreign interference to every single member in the House. He sent a physical copy of a report that he put together, specifically talking about China in that. Not a single member in the House stood up. No Conservatives stood up to say they wanted to talk about the report by the previous public safety minister.

In one sense, I am glad that we are having this conversation out in the open and in the public forum. It is important to do that and to get to the bottom of these issues, but it is also really important to study all interference, not just by China, and to do it in the context that respects the classification of the information. We heard from expert after expert, and I do not think there was a single individual who came before PROC, with expertise in understanding how to utilize this information, who said that a public forum would be the best place to have this discussion.

Having said all of that, the government appointed a special expert to specifically look into this: former governor general David Johnston. He was tasked with looking into a number of things, one of which included the best way for Canadians to go forward with this issue to fully understand it. The Prime Minister said, when he announced this, that he will take whatever recommendations come forward from that independent expert.

Of course, Conservatives, as they are heckling me right now, will say that Mr. Johnston is biased, that he is a family friend and so on. We are talking about David Johnston, who is 81 years old. Now they are laughing about it. We are talking about David Johnston, one of the most highly respected Canadians in this country, who is going to look into this issue. If they want to continue to heckle and run all over his incredible reputation, they can go right ahead, like the former speaker of the House, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

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

On a point of order, I have a quick question, Mr. Speaker. It has been a while since I occupied the Speaker's chair and oversaw the House administration. I know that the hon. member had a “check for context” label attached to his last week. Does Hansard do that when an hon. member misleads the House?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We will have to go back and take that under advisement for the member.

In the meantime, I am going to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not been caught with any hashtags or tags associated with my YouTube accounts yet, but I would remind the former speaker that perhaps he should take some lessons from his predecessor, the Hon. Peter Milliken, who was able to sit in that chair much longer than he was.

In any event, the point here and the important thing to consider is that we need to take the politics out of this issue. We saw Conservatives who came forward and spoke on video. I forget the name of the member's riding right now, but he sits on PROC with me. He said, on video, that a member of Parliament is an agent of Beijing. A sitting Conservative member of Parliament said that.

[An hon. member]

Red Deer—Lacombe.

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

It was the member for Red Deer—Lacombe who said that a member of this House is an agent—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I do believe we are getting a little off topic here.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is all very erudite, but a member on the Conservative backbench was, I believe, threatening the member from Kingston with his phone. I do not think one can threaten people with their phone, but he was waving it around, at least as a prop or a possible weapon.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not really think people were trying to read it. It is really hard to read at that kind of distance.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, nobody was threatening anybody with a phone. The member happened to have it in his hand. That is ridiculous. It is beneath the House for someone to suggest that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There we go. Everybody take a breath. Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay's pointing that out, but I can assure him that, despite the big game that they talk, there is no Conservative in here who actually threatens me, not successfully anyway.

What I was getting at was that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe actually said that a member of Parliament is an agent of Beijing. He said that in a video, and now they want to laugh and to talk about who is playing politics. Who actually does that? I would like to hear one Conservative who gets up to ask me a question actually address that. I have asked the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, and I have asked multiple times in committee. Nobody will actually address it. The members took the member for Red Deer—Lacombe off the committee, and they did not let him continue to go to the committee, as a result of what he said. That is actually what happened.

Let us get back to this concurrence motion. It is very important that we study this. We have to be careful about the venue in which we do it, and that is the only difference that I have from the NDP on this particular concurrence motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague is a good soldier. He goes on and on and quotes lots of things. I would like to quote something from the media that is breaking news, and perhaps he would like to check his phone. The breaking news right now is that a “Liberal MP...secretly advised Chinese diplomat in 2021 to delay freeing Two Michaels”. I would like to ask my hon. colleague for a comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking for the last 15 minutes, not including interruptions, and I am unaware of the breaking news that this member is referencing. I look forward to looking into it.

We see, once again, the exact same rhetoric that comes from Conservatives. We see the exact same thing the member for Red Deer—Lacombe was trying to do, when he was walking through an airport and was looking like the hero on his way back to Ottawa saying, “I'm on my way to Ottawa to fight for you and deal with the agents of Beijing.” Come on, that is not what this place is supposed to be about. The rhetoric that comes from Conservatives, including that last question, is intentionally trying to mislead Canadians, and I find it extremely unfortunate.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the beginning of my colleague's speech, but I understood the end.

This is not the first time that the Liberals and Conservatives accuse each other of partisanship, but I can tell my colleague that, in the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship this week, the Liberal members treated some witnesses appallingly.

We were talking about Chinese police stations. Experts came to talk to us about that. There was also Safeguard Defenders, whose studies indicate that there are Chinese police stations in 100 countries around the world. It is believed that there are 233,000 people around the world who have been deported, questioned and brought back to China because of China's interference in other countries' affairs. This NGO has documented evidence. The Liberal members cast doubt on all of that.

Why would Canada, which is average in almost every area, suddenly be better at fighting interference from a world power like China? It is absolutely unacceptable to think that.

Partisanship always comes from both sides, and always from the same place.

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

Mr. Speaker, we certainly did not dismiss the issue. As a matter of fact, the minister, on a number of occasions, said that he was dealing with it. I find it very interesting that the Bloc today is suddenly coming to the defence of the Conservatives. It is like blue and blue lite. Why do they not just get together?

I realize Conservatives do not believe in climate change. They are nowhere near as progressive as Bloc members are on climate change, but maybe if the Bloc got together with the Conservatives it could impart some of that wisdom, as it relates to climate change, to the Conservatives. I think they would actually make a great party if they got together.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be a lot of questions regarding the mandate of this special rapporteur nobody asked for. When it comes to a public inquiry, we only need to look at what happened after the Emergencies Act. When the Liberal government refused to co-operate with the parliamentary committee, it took the Rouleau commission to get the answers Canadians deserved.

We know this is a very serious issue. Does the hon. member agree that, should the special rapporteur come back and finally call for a public inquiry, he would finally allow that to happen, at that point at least, rather than continue the delays, the filibusters, and all the theatre and shenanigans that the hon. member is used to?

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

Mr. Speaker, I really wish he had listened to my speech, because not only did I say I would accept it, but the Prime Minister also said he would accept it, when he announced this. We have already made it very clear that we will accept any recommendation that comes back from the expert who is looking into this on behalf of Canadians, a former governor general. We will implement what those recommendations are, including if it is a public inquiry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sat in PROC with the hon. member during this, and time and time again, we saw the Conservatives ignore the fact that it was actually under our government, in 2019, that NSICOP first tabled the report on foreign interference. Does the member agree that the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel and they are only waking up to this issue now?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, they did absolutely nothing, and we have done a number of things since then. We brought in NSICOP. We brought in a special panel that oversees elections. We brought in Bill C-76, which tightens up foreign interference and which they voted against.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on from where my colleague and friend just left off.

I think it is important for us to recognize that from the government's perspective and, I would like to think, that of parliamentarians in general, there should be zero tolerance for international foreign interference in our elections. Ultimately, I would suggest this should be done in an apolitical fashion.

The Conservatives, for a wide variety of reasons, fundraising being one of them, have chosen to politicize this issue. It is indeed very unfortunate, because they do a disservice to an issue that is very serious.

Canadians are looking for responsible leadership. We see what the Prime Minister and the government have been able to accomplish over the last number of years in dealing with the issue, and we see a huge vacuum of leadership—