Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Procedure and House Affairs

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, again the member will not answer the question.

The question was this: If the Conservatives' opposition day motion was so important, to get Telford to the ethics committee, which I am on, by the way, and it was because of the NDP that we actually got Telford to PROC, not their useless motion, why can the member not stand up today and explain to all the Canadians who are watching this why the leader of the official opposition could not even be bothered to vote on their own motion?

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

Madam Speaker, why did it take the leader of the NDP two weeks to decide that he was going to do the right thing and ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testified?

If the hon. member wants to talk about why this or that happened, why does it always take so much public pressure to get the NDP to do the right thing? That is what the Canadians who used to vote for the New Democrats want to know.

I come from Saskatchewan, the home of the NDP. Since the New Democrats decided to sell out their core principles, as they used to be in favour of transparency and ethics, they have been shut out of Saskatchewan. Their caucus has diminished in every single election. If they want to continue to show Canadians that they are way more excited to be part of the club, that they can make deals with the government and move pieces around and feel like they are more relevant than they have ever been while they are selling out their core principles, they can fill their boots.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrence motion, which was strengthened considerably as a result of the Conservative amendment brought forward at the procedure and House affairs committee.

In the face of the alarming revelations of Beijing's interference in two elections that took place under the Prime Minister's watch, Canadians deserve answers. This interference has been characterized by Global News and The Globe and Mail based upon their review of CSIS documents as a vast campaign of interference in the 2019 election and an orchestrated machine in the 2021 election to help the Liberals secure a minority government and to defeat certain Conservative candidates. Canadians deserve to know about the scale of Beijing's election interference and what is really at the heart of this scandal, namely: What did the Prime Minister know, when did he know it and what did he do or fail to do about Beijing's attack on our democracy?

In order to get to the truth, two things need to happen. First, the procedure and House affairs committee, which is seized with a study on Beijing's election interference, must be able to do its work unimpeded. It must do its work without the obstruction that we have seen over the past several weeks, driven by the Liberals but often supported by the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP. It is important that an independent public inquiry be called. This is a position that Conservatives have consistently supported. Indeed, we strengthened the very weak NDP motion at the procedure and House affairs committee, which I will get into momentarily.

On both of these questions, what is the NDP's track record? Well, it is a pretty pathetic one. At the direction of their boss, the Prime Minister, NDP members joined with Liberal MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee to block the testimony of Katie Telford. They worked with the Liberals not once, not twice, but three times to block Katie Telford from coming to the committee. She is a key witness for getting to the bottom of what the Prime Minister knows and what he failed to do about Beijing's election interference. Again, it is what one would expect of the junior partner of the cover-up coalition.

Then NDP members, no doubt facing public pressure, suddenly flip-flopped and indicated that they were supporting my straightforward motion to have Katie Telford appear at the procedure and House affairs committee. One would think that if they were posturing their support that they would welcome the Conservative motion that was brought forward in the House. However, all of a sudden, they flip-flopped again and voted against that motion.

Now, in fairness to NDP members, they did ultimately support my motion when the Liberals finally ended their filibustering. Still, it took weeks of pressure from the public and Conservatives before they finally did the right thing and supported bringing Telford to committee. However, it must also be noted that they voted against a much stronger motion that Conservatives put forward in the House, which was voted on yesterday. The NDP, the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, sided with the Liberals and voted against a motion that had considerably more teeth than the PROC motion does.

In addition to that, as the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP has worked with the Liberals to cover up the production of documents at the procedure and House affairs committee, not once but twice. They voted against a Conservative motion proposing that the independent parliamentary inquiry review relevant documents, having regard for national security and other considerations. This independent review would have been instead of giving the government; the PMO; and the Prime Minister, who has so much to answer for, a veto over what is produced to the committee. The NDP voted against that. They joined the Liberals in blocking the production of documents.

The NDP talks a good game about a public inquiry, but the motion they put forward at the procedure and House affairs committee was considerably weak. It would have given the Prime Minister the unilateral power to appoint the commissioner of the inquiry. What Conservatives put forward as an amendment was to say no, that the Prime Minister should not have the only say. If there is to be a public inquiry, as we believe there should be, such an inquiry must be truly independent. Moreover, it must be perceived to be independent. Therefore, our amendment provided that all recognized parties in this House should agree upon the head of the public inquiry to ensure not only the independence of that inquiry but the perception of its independence.

In that regard, Conservatives considerably strengthened the very concurrence motion that this House is debating today. By contrast, the NDP were prepared to let the Prime Minister have a do-over of Rosenberg. There, the Prime Minister appointed a Liberal crony, someone who was the president of the Trudeau Foundation for several years. Not only was he the president of the Trudeau Foundation, but he also actually facilitated a $200,000 donation from a Beijing political operative to the Trudeau Foundation. We said that should not happen again. That individual was appointed to review the 2021 election, completely undermining the credibility of the findings of Rosenberg's report.

Again, there we have it: the NDP members playing games, talking out of both sides of their mouths, flip-flopping and putting forward weak motions at PROC. They say they want a public inquiry, but they were prepared to turn it over to the Prime Minister. What we have is a completely unserious NDP when it comes to getting to the bottom of foreign interference, specifically Beijing's election interference. The NDP has actually spent more time criticizing Conservatives, trying to hold us accountable, than they have the Liberal government. We know, based upon all the reports and the limited documents that have been produced to our committee, that the government has a lot to answer for given that the Liberal Party was a beneficiary or that, at least, Beijing's objective was to assist the Liberal Party.

Why would it take weeks for the NDP to get around to doing what should have happened weeks ago, which is for Telford to come to committee? After all, she is the Prime Minister's top political advisor. She is arguably the second most powerful person in the government, outside of the Prime Minister, and she was intimately involved in both the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 election campaigns.

I am glad the cover-up coalition's junior partner finally—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up.

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]

Madam Speaker, professional, apolitical civil servants have very clearly indicated that there was no impact from any international interference, particularly citing China, on the outcome of either the 2019 or 2021 election. The Conservative Party knows that.

We now have Mr. Johnston looking into the matter. He will be coming back with recommendations. He is an incredible Canadian with impeccable credentials.

Will the Conservative Party support his conclusions?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, Conservatives have been very clear that Beijing's election interference did not impact the overall election result in 2019 or 2021, but Beijing's interference may have had an impact in some ridings. If it had an impact on any riding, that is alarming; it is a matter of national concern, and it needs to be addressed. However, the Prime Minister has been entirely unwilling to do this; instead, he is dodging, deflecting and covering up.

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

Madam Speaker, there are so many unknowns in this story of foreign interference that the government's refusal to agree to an independent inquiry is absolutely unacceptable.

Three weeks ago, in the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship, I asked an RCMP officer that question. We now know that Safeguard Defenders says that the Chinese police stations start out as Chinese community centres offering help to the poor, helping them find clothing and shelter. Over time, these community centres become Chinese intelligence centres. Safeguard Defenders has documented evidence. Two such centres, one in Brossard and one in Montreal, were recently identified.

Three weeks ago, before the Journal de Montréal announced that these two centres were now Chinese police stations, the RCMP denied before the committee that there were Chinese police stations in Quebec. At the time, we knew that there were Chinese police stations in Toronto and Vancouver, but the RCMP denied it. The RCMP is like the government; at least we think so. It denied the facts and, three weeks later, we read the story in the newspaper. There is much we do not know.

What do the government and intelligence services know, and what do they not know? Does the RCMP know, or does it not know? What are they investigating, and what are they not investigating? It is absolutely unacceptable that we not get to the bottom of this with a fully independent inquiry.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my hon. colleague.

He highlights to what degree the Liberal government has turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference, not only in our elections but also in other aspects. These include interference in our sovereignty, such as by opening up at least seven illegal police stations under the Liberal government's watch. Chinese Canadian citizens are being intimidated and harassed.

What has happened? What have the Liberals done? No charges have been laid. No diplomats have been expelled. The best that the foreign affairs minister could say is that one diplomat's visa was denied. That is it. That is not a government that takes Beijing's interference seriously.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am confused. We heard the hon. member go on at length about the NDP, railing about the NDP and how he is very frustrated.

I can appreciate that. We were able to get done, at his committee, what he could not over weeks of work, which is to get Katie Telford there. The member should be thanking us. Instead, he stands up to deride us.

I am going to ask him the same question I asked the Conservative House leader: If the Conservatives' motion was so important, why did the Leader of the Opposition not even have the courage or the courtesy to Canadians to come in and support their own bill?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was the NDP that worked with the Liberals three times to block Katie Telford from appearing before the committee. That is the NDP record. New Democrats cannot walk that back, and they cannot hide from that track record.

It was only as a result of public pressure and Conservative pressure, and the fact that we finally put a motion before the House to have a vote, that the Liberals capitulated; finally, the NDP capitulated, too. I guess the cover-up coalition finally recognized they could not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to stand here today in the House. I would like to say hello to the citizens of Trois‑Rivières.

For weeks now, we have been talking about China's interference, and for weeks, most of us have agreed that we need an independent public inquiry. I think we all agree on that, with the exception of a few indomitable Gauls. Usually we are the indomitable Gauls.

What is at stake here is the public interest. There is no room for partisanship; partisanship is for elections. We need to act in the public interest. I must admit that what I am seeing is that the government is more interested in praising the leak than acting in the public interest.

Those who work in ethics always try to determine the right thing to do, so long as the intent is to do good. This is a serious question that requires introspection and a certain distance from the issue. It involves being willing to discuss the issue in question. In ethics, one tries to determine what should be done in the circumstances. Our anglophone friends talk about doing the right thing, whereas in French we talk about ce que nous devons faire pour bien faire. Whoever wants to do that needs guidelines.

Right now, I am unaware of any laws respecting foreign interference, so we cannot say that we will enforce the law. However, we will have to do something, since the current legal vacuum needs to be filled. In order to determine what to do, we need to determine what happened.

In the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am a member, we recently raised many questions concerning foreign interference. We are talking about foreign interference from China, but we could also be talking about Russia, Iraq or any number of other countries. I would especially like to mention a question I asked a few witnesses the other day. I asked them whether the current government was familiar with China, and the answer was a resounding “no”. I asked them whether the current government understood China, Russia or Iraq, and the answer was “no”. It is hard to stop a leak when we do not know that there is a leak. In this case, we need to start by recognizing that there is a leak.

Half-heartedly, feeling threatened, the Prime Minister recognized that perhaps it might be time to act. The decision was then made to appoint someone who would bear the title of rapporteur. European legislation often refers to rapporteurs. A rapporteur examines a situation, drafts a short summary and provides that summary. Unlike what is currently being alleged, the rapporteur will not decide whether there will be a public inquiry or not. The rapporteur will simply report facts. The person to whom the rapporteur reports those facts will decide what will happen. The rapporteur is being called independent. I will not question Mr. Johnston's résumé, obviously, but I will clearly question his proximity to the Trudeau family, with the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There is a lot of talking in the House. I would ask those who wish to talk to leave so that the hon. member can enjoy the respect he deserves during his speech and so that everyone can hear what the hon. member has to say.

The hon. member from Trois‑Rivières.

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

You read my mind, Madam Speaker.

I was about to say that in order to stop a leak, you need to recognize that there is a leak. We talked about the special rapporteur. The government says that he is independent. Not every interest is a conflict of interest. However, when we look at the interests, we have to sometimes wonder whether there is not a confusion of interests. Perhaps it is not a conflict of interest, but a confusion of interests.

There is a saying to the effect that justice must be done and that it must appear to be done. It is the same thing when we talk about a possible conflict of interest. We must appear to be above reproach. In this case, the very presence of Mr. Johnston raises a little something we call doubt and doubt causes mistrust.

What do we need to do here? Are we creating more mistrust? That does not make sense. Supposedly, we want to do the opposite.

If my colleagues are not interested in my speech, they can just tell me. Apparently, they are not interested.

I was talking about doubt. I would like to ask a question if I can be heard over the din of the many discussions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Jonquière on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time hearing my colleague. I would like to hear what he has to say.

Could the members opposite quiet down a little?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I had not noticed that it was worse than before. However, if people want to have conversations, they should do so in the lobby. As I said earlier, it is important that the hon. member who has the floor be able to deliver their speech and that others be able to ask their questions and make comments.

The hon. member for Trois‑Rivières.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is having trouble hearing, and I am having trouble thinking straight.

I was saying that we have a rapporteur. We are told he is independent. There must be no conflict of interest or confusion of interests. There must be an absence of appearance as well. I was saying that the mere presence of Mr. Johnston creates doubt. Doubt breeds mistrust. Mistrust breeds defiance. We saw defiance on full display last winter. We do not like defiance. We do not want to get to that point.

However, I have questions for the government about this. They will precede the ones that will be asked of me. Nevertheless, what does it mean to call someone independent?

In Latin,“in” means “in relation to”, and the word “dependence” speaks of a choice. Someone who is independent is free to make their own choices. Is the rapporteur free to make his own choices? I do not know. I have not seen his mandate, but I am going to suggest four other things we should rely on.

Can we say that the rapporteur is neutral? I would be surprised if he was, because he still has to be for justice, for the public interest. He is not neutral.

Is he impartial? Impartiality is often confused with neutrality, but they are not the same thing. Impartiality means being able to decide fairly by taking a higher vantage point. An impartial person has a choice between A and B. He will make his choice, according to the principles that have been proposed to him. Is he impartial? That is my wish.

However, the two concepts that pique my interest are objectivity and subjectivity. It will come as no surprise to learn that the word objectivity comes from the Latin objectum which means “something presented to the senses”. An objectum is an object that is presented to oneself. It is in front of us; we see it. That is objective in English. We often confuse it with subjectivity, the subjectum, which is the person holding the object that is not yet in front of us.

Is the rapporteur looking at the object or holding the object? I hope a colleague will ask me that question. I would love to answer that one.

There is objectivity and subjectivity. I, personally, am looking for objectivity, to be honest. I think we need objectivity; otherwise, doubts will continue to persist and we will head down the same path again.

Now the thing to do, and I am sure everyone will agree, is to act responsibly, and I am referring to what the government should do, not the rapporteur. The word “responsible” is often mentioned, but rarely defined. I will continue with my definitions. The word “responsible” comes from two Latin words. The first, res, means “thing”, and the second, spondere, means “promise”. A responsible person is someone who can promise a thing. Is the government being responsible in this case? To answer that, there is a little test with three questions.

Here are the three questions. Does the Prime Minister or the government have the choice of means? In my view, yes, they have the choice of means. There are many means available to the government. Next, is the government exercising that choice of means, or is it stuck with just one option? I think we have a problem here. The first question is whether there is a choice of means, the second is whether that choice is being exercised, and the third is whether there is a will to act.

As far the will to act goes, I think that if the government were any more reluctant, it would be dead. It is extremely reluctant to act, and this reluctance is not healthy for democracy. It is not healthy because even if everything that is being said were true, doubts are keeping us from finding out or understanding the truth of the matter. We will certainly insist on having a public, independent and, I would add, objective inquiry.

I am adding an extra layer of difficulty here, but if the government is so sure that it is right, and I will give it the opportunity to respond, it should agree to make an objective choice, which cannot be done with the presence of Mr. Johnston, regardless of his credentials. I am the first to acknowledge academic value, but the shadow cast by doubt leads us to believe that this will not work out.

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

Madam Speaker, Mr. Johnston, in his career, whether it was as Governor General of Canada, in his role on national leadership debates, or many other things he has done in his lifetime of 80-plus years, has been impeccable with his credentials. What is being asked of him is something I, and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians, would see he is quite capable of doing in an apolitical fashion and acting on what is in the best interest of Canada.

Based on the member's speech, is the Bloc's position going to be that, no matter what Mr. Johnston reports, it will see no validity to the report?

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

Madam Speaker, of course not. If he calls for an independent inquiry, then we will agree. However, I will say one thing. I will answer his question directly.

Imagine if, hypothetically speaking, the government appointed someone who has had an impeccable career in the field of, say, ethics, someone who has received accolades around the world, who received an honorary degree and is known for his publications. Imagine if it said that this person was independent, but that he had campaigned for the Bloc Québécois.

Setting aside my academic and professional record, would anyone have a problem with me being named rapporteur?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, if there is one person in the House I would trust with that role, it would be the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, because he is a subject matter expert. He has literally written books on ethics. I have the privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, so I am keen to hear his thoughts.

We heard about whether there would be credibility, but I would like to set that aside and ask him to create a distinction between credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public as it relates to public interest and just how deeply concerning this file is, particularly given some of the reports that continue to come out. There are reports that came out today which are deeply concerning.

Can he perhaps expand on how he might feel about the value of a public inquiry that is completely independent, that is given the purview to have access to all the important information rather than taking information in drips and drops as it is coming out in the press today?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits with me on the the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as he mentioned. I have to say that he always considers the public interest, which is remarkable. I will therefore consider his question carefully.

The question was whether credibility or legitimacy is at stake here. In terms of credibility, Mr. Johnston's reputation is impeccable. However, the relationship between Mr. Johnston and the other interests is not. It is somewhat obscure or murky.

In a matter as important as foreign interference, where information is being revealed in dribs and drabs every day, there is nothing better than to be lily white. One has to be beyond reproach, and that has nothing to do with credibility. It is something else. Therefore, I hope that we will have an independent and impeccable inquiry.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about objectivity and subjectivity.

People sometimes say that objectivity is just mass subjectivity. I would like my colleague to expand on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thought he was a friend.

To some extent, subjectivity is how one views an object. At the same time, we know that there are 360 degrees, and I believe that views can vary somewhat.

I am not convinced that subjectivity could be combined, nevertheless we must take inspiration from the fact that there are a number of viewpoints and we cannot neglect any of them. That is why we must be impeccable.

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

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech. It was inspiring as usual. It leads me to draw a parallel.

In 2022, I had the opportunity to visit a city in the former East Germany. While I was there, one of the first things I went to see was the famous Stasi Museum. The Stasi is the secret police that existed when the Soviet Union controlled East Germany. At one point, there were as many as 95,000 Stasi agents and 175,000 informers in East Germany. They were everywhere. The strength lay in the fact that nobody knew who they were, and that is how they managed to impose their reign of terror. No one knew who the Stasi agents or informers were. Basically, their strength lay in secrecy.

The government does not want to launch a public inquiry, which I think would bring secrets to light. That is pretty much what we are seeing with the Chinese regime right now. I am trying to understand why the government would want to maintain that secrecy when what would weaken a regime like that the most is greater transparency.