Debates of May 30th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak. I want to say hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who talk to me about Chinese interference every weekend. They talked to me about it again recently and asked me what is going to happen with the special rapporteur. We do not really know.

Stromae sang, “I'm not alone in feeling all alone”. Mr. Johnston is also all alone.

We are here today to discuss the NDP's motion, which we support, even though it does require some clarification. Of course, the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry back in March. Now, the NDP is calling for the special rapporteur to recuse himself. I should really call him the “special raconteur” because he is telling us such a fascinating story. The NDP is also asking that the public inquiry be led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House. I am going to voice a concern about that, because unanimous support is a lot to ask. I think it would be better to aim for the support of two-thirds of the House or something like that. Nevertheless, we understand that Mr. Johnston is the only one who thinks he is right. The Canadian, Quebec and U.S. media are all saying that the situation is untenable, but he is digging in his heels.

I did not like the tone of the previous debates. Even in the weeks leading up to the analysis of today's motion, we were told that Mr. Johnston is an illustrious individual with unrivalled experience and a vision that has prepared him for this sort of job.

All of those things may be true. However, the problem that we have with Mr. Johnston is not his past. It is his present. Right now, he is in an untenable position. He is in a conflict of interest, or, at the very least, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In both cases, why do we talk about conflict of interest when it comes to ethics? It is because conflicts of interest can undermine trust, and trust is the cornerstone of democracy. To elect someone is to place one's trust in someone else. In a case like this one, trust was placed in the government, which decided to subcontract a decision to a person who is far from independent. All of this can affect trust and arouse mistrust. We should not be surprised if it eventually leads to distrust.

People are tired of seeing this sort of thing. Those who watch question period know that there is a reason it is not called “answer period”. Whenever we ask a question about Mr. Johnston's independence, the reply we get is that he is a model citizen. If my children had answered me that way when they were young, I would have scolded them for it, because that is not a real answer.

Foreign interference is nothing new. It has gotten worse over the years. Chinese interference flourished around the world in 2019, but the free trade agreements facilitated economic dependence and exchanges on various research and industrial matters. Interference became more and more common starting in the 1980s. Today, we cannot deny the fact that foreign interference exists.

The government's solution was to appoint someone and make up a title for him. In Quebec, the French word “rapporteur” is not a good quality. It is more of a defect. A “rapporteur” is someone who reports on what other people said, and not always in the right way. Nevertheless, they decided to appoint someone. The Prime Minister, who is the only one who can call a public inquiry, because that is his privilege, his power and his responsibility, said no. He decided that he did not want to be caught out and that he would delegate the responsibility to someone else and respect their decision.

I am sorry, but Mr. Johnston does not have the right to decide whether or not a public inquiry should be held. That privilege belongs to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can consult his party, and he could have consulted Mr. Johnston. He can consult all he wants, but it is not up to a third party to decide whether an inquiry should be called. That is called responsibility.

Honestly, responsibility is something people do not pay enough attention to today. Let me explain the concept. “Responsibility” comes from two Latin words: res and spondere.

Res means “thing”, and spondere, which gave us the English word “sponsor”, means “to promise”.

This means that someone who is responsible is someone who can make a promise. Logically, one would think that the Prime Minister can make a promise. However, there are three criteria for responsibility. Does the person have authority to act? In this case, the answer is yes. Does the person have sufficient authority to act? The answer is yes. The most important question is, does the person have a desire to act? In this case, I saw no desire to act. The Liberals saw the NDP's motion in March, but they disregarded it. They do not have much more regard for today's opposition motion.

Let us get back to Mr. Johnston, all alone in his corner. His reputation, his experience and the fact that he was appointed by Mr. Harper are the arguments coming from across the aisle. They have been repeated ad nauseam, which is a phrase meaning a very long time. That is not the problem. The problem is that there is no trust.

I was told I should have trust in Mr. Johnston because he is extraordinarily credible. I will repeat it in the House: Trust is “credibility plus legitimacy”. In this case, we do not have what comes after the “plus”. Mr. Johnston's legitimacy is contested by everyone except Mr. Johnston. My grandfather used to say that when someone feels like they are the only one who is right, there is probably something wrong. He has no legitimacy.

It has been said that Mr. Johnston participated to a certain degree in the Trudeau Foundation. It has been said that he sent his children to study in China. We do not know how he paid for that, though, because sending children to study in China is expensive. It has also been said that Mr. Johnston sponsored a Confucius Institute. I am not condemning Mr. Johnston for all this. I am simply saying that it affects his credibility, so much so that he has none left.

If there is no trust in the process, then as an ethicist, I would say that the process is useless. The government is delaying a decision because we got a striptease of revelations over time. Every time we almost get somewhere, there is not enough trust.

People are asking us why we do not look at the documents. In my opinion, it is a trap. The Liberals want to force us to remain silent. We will not paint ourselves into a corner. Moreover, we do not think we should listen to someone we do not believe is legitimate, period.

I now have a question concerning the NDP's motion. As my colleagues know, we will support the motion, but I still have a question for the NDP. If everything in this motion happens, after the adoption of a motion in March, what will happen? The hon. member for Burnaby South will see the documents. The hon. member for Burnaby South will be outraged. What will happen then? Will he get mad? Will he withdraw his support?

What is interesting is that withdrawing their support for the deal between the parties does not mean the government will fall, but there will be more tension in the negotiations, and I think that this dimension ought to be added to the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give a bit of a different approach from that of the member opposite and recognize that foreign interference is something that is not new to Canada. In fact, we have seen it now for well over a decade. When I take a look at what the former administration did, I find that it did nothing. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible, he chose to do nothing on the issue of foreign interference.

We have taken a number of actions to date on the issue of foreign interference, and I am wondering if the member could speculate as to what he believes the Conservative government should have been doing, if anything, when the issue was raised with that particular government. Does he believe that this is the only government that has been in a position to deal with the issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite the past. If the previous Harper government did nothing, quite frankly, that changes nothing with regard to today's foreign interference. That is where we are now.

Should the former government have taken measures? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the member across the way is asking me whether it is a problem that the previous government did nothing. The result we are faced with today is that this is where we stand now and we must act.

It is important to take action. In fact, it is necessary, because failing to take action only encourages foreign interference. I am not saying that nothing was done, but it is time to do more.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Bloc will be supporting our motion. I am a bit perplexed at the Bloc leader's decision to not look at the confidential annex. It seems to me that more information at this point is good. My understanding of the argument against seeing the annex is that it would preclude certain statements or actions based on the information, but those statements and actions are not currently an option for the Bloc leader because he does not know what is in there. It would seem that the leader could both see what is in the annex and push with us for a public inquiry, as they are not mutually exclusive.

Could the member expand on why the leader of the Bloc Québécois refuses to look at this additional information?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate his concern and wisdom.

I would say that, right now, there is one person, that is, Mr. Johnston, who is saying that he has seen something, but that he cannot talk about it. I am not sure that having three other people also tell us that they have seen something but cannot talk about it will restore public confidence.

My intervention is based on the need to restore trust. I do not think that Mr. Johnston's suggested method is the only one; there could have been others. Also, I do not think this is the best way, and I would like to hear about others. As we know, in essence, I am asking for Mr. Johnston's recusal, as is my colleague. I am not about to start following his recommendations, either.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his speech. I particularly enjoyed how he ended it with something of a question. He wondered what will happen otherwise. He did not say it in quite those words. He said it more clearly. Parents who have raised young children will know that we often have to threaten them to get them to brush their teeth. However, the children eventually figure out that these threats will never be put into execution, and they use that knowledge to manipulate their parents.

Today, the NDP has presented an extremely serious motion, written in a serious tone, as the subject at hand warrants.

I would like to ask my colleague from Trois-Rivières what answer he is expecting when he asks whether the NDP will continue to support the government despite the indignation it is expressing today. If not, what will happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, the idea of “what will happen” is what is missing from their motion. It is very important because, right now, the NDP has real power. It has the option of withdrawing its support for its deal with the government. If it withdrew its support, the government would be forced to act a bit differently.

I wish the NDP would tell us today that it is tabling this motion and that, if it does not work, it will withdraw its support for the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House. This is, again, the New Democratic Party showing leadership in the House of Commons, as we did on March 23, with the NDP being the principal party supporting democracy in our country ensuring that we have free and unfettered elections.

I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the New Democratic MLAs elected in Alberta last night. It was a complete sweep of Edmonton. There is not a single Conservative MLA now left in the city of Edmonton. It was also a sweep of the majority of the city of Calgary. Calgary is now orange. The majority of the MLAs now representing Calgary in the Alberta legislature are New Democrats. The reality is that, as we know, in a democracy every single vote counts, and 2,500 votes going to the NDP rather than the Conservative Party would have meant an NDP majority government.

We certainly congratulate Ms. Smith for her very narrow victory. We also congratulate Rachel Notley for an outstanding breakthrough across Alberta, electing every single MLA in the city of Edmonton and electing most of the MLAs in the city of Calgary. That is the hallmark of a democratic system. That is why we do this work. With the support of Canadians in a free and democratic society, we have the ability to choose our government and choose our representatives. This is absolutely fundamental.

That is why the NDP, the member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver East, who spoke so eloquently, and I will come back to her comments a little later on, have brought forward this motion today, as we did back on March 23. We put forward the original motion on the public inquiry. Now we are putting in a strengthened motion, and I will come to the details of that in a moment.

One might ask why the official opposition is not doing this work. I have no idea. I leave it to the official opposition to explain themselves, and why the NDP has been doing all of the heavy lifting on this issue from day one to ensure that we deal with not only the important issue of Chinese intervention but also the important issue of Russian intervention, which seems to have had such an impact on the so-called convoy movement that caused such misery in downtown Ottawa, cutting thousands of seniors off from their groceries and thousands of people with disabilities off from their medications, and closing down thousands of businesses. All of this, as we know from the National Observer series of articles, was tied to Russian foreign interference. We also know that both Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Iranian origin have been targeted by their foreign governments.

We are talking about a spectrum of foreign interference. The point of privilege that was raised by the member for Durham was very disturbing. It was about the extent of Chinese foreign interference. We believe we need to get to the bottom of that. That is why we need a public inquiry. We also believe that we need to examine the full extent of foreign interference in our elections, so that when we have an election, such as Alberta did last night, we know it would be free and unfettered, that it would provide results, and that moving forward, Canadians could have confidence in a democratic system that has been subject to the highest possible democratic norms and standards.

First, I would like to talk about what is in the NDP motion. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois touched on it earlier, but I would like to talk about what it means.

On March 23, the NDP tabled a motion that received the approval of all of the opposition parties and all independent members. They all voted in favour of the NDP's motion on March 23. This gave the special rapporteur and the government an indication and a direction.

Today we are proposing that a public inquiry be launched as soon as possible to “fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions”. We also want to move on to the next stages to make sure the public inquiry takes place.

We are also calling on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role. I will come back to that.

The Bloc raised an important question earlier about the possibility of having the House give an instruction. As members know, an opposition motion can give an instruction to the House or a committee. The motion requests that the House:

instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include.

Every member, whether they are a member of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or they are an independent member, needs to ask themselves the question this week. The NDP have already asked the question and will of course support this motion. Before proceeding to the sacred act of voting, everyone here should ask themselves if they agree with asking the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside and giving this instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In other words, this is about acting like an adult, like the member for Burnaby South has often done in the House of Commons, and taking the next steps to find this person and entrusting them with the mandate of launching a public inquiry. It is extremely important.

We are already suggesting what comes next. People are asking what the next step will be. They just need to read the motion. I am saying that to the members who have been asking what will come next. Since this morning, we have been debating a motion that explains what comes next.

The NDP does not think like the other parties. We are not questioning Mr. Johnston's credentials. He has had an exemplary career and is a man of integrity. He is someone people trust a lot. However, although the NDP trusts the individual, that does not necessarily mean that we will accept his report and his recommendations when the work is not sound.

This work is not sound for two reasons. First, as my colleague, the member from Vancouver East, has already said, the team cannot include a legal adviser who donated to the Liberal Party for years. She donated thousands of dollars. He was a major Liberal Party donor. In our view, entrusting this task to that individual showed a lack of judgment. That does not mean we are questioning the entire career of this very distinguished man, but questions must be raised when this work is assigned to someone who has given so much money to the Liberal Party. I believe the member for Burnaby South has already pointed out that lack of judgment.

Then, when we look at the report, we see that it is neither convincing nor sound. It is weak. I know my colleague from Vancouver East spoke about all the other contradictions in the report. According to the rapporteur, one of the main reasons for not holding a public inquiry into such sensitive issues is that the inquiry could not be held in public. However, public inquiries always deal with sensitive and confidential information. That has been the case for all the public inquiries we have seen.

As has been noted many times in the House today, people can distinguish between confidential information that should not be disclosed and information that is in the public domain. We cannot agree with a proposal that we feel is simply wrong. In general, the mandate of a public inquiry is to handle confidential and sensitive information.

In my opinion, the biggest reason that the Right Hon. David Johnston raises in his report, that leads to today's motion, is when he states that, “while we could launch a Public Inquiry on the issues I am required to address for my October report under my TOR, there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”.

He himself states that his work as a special rapporteur precludes a public inquiry. That overlap means that, as a special rapporteur, his position blocks the possibility of a public inquiry. It is written in black and white. The special rapporteur honestly states that, in his view, the overlap is something that should be taken into consideration.

This is exactly why the NDP is asking for a public inquiry. The public is asking for it, Parliament is asking for it, and all parliamentarians, except for those belonging to the Liberal Party, are asking for it. Now we have a special rapporteur who says very clearly that we cannot have this public inquiry if he is still in his position. This is an extremely important aspect.

What are we doing with the motion we are tabling? As we did on March 23, we are going to show leadership. It is not the official opposition that is doing this. It is the NDP that is being the adult in the House by showing leadership and setting out the next steps.

As a Parliament, we sent this motion and this vote to the special rapporteur. Basically, the special rapporteur says that, because he has already started this job, a public inquiry cannot be held. He says that we cannot keep the information secret. We already know that this claim is wrong. It is clear that we could do both. What he is saying is that if there is to be a public inquiry, he will have to resign.

That is where we end up and that is why the NDP has brought forward this motion. The member for Vancouver East was so passionate in talking about the impacts this morning of the lack of a public inquiry and this foreign interference that touches the foreign interference that we saw from Russia in the so-called convoy that caused such misery, in the Chinese foreign interference that the member for Durham just spoke about, the member for Vancouver East has spoken about and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has spoken about. These are of broad concern, like the concerns from the diaspora of Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Iranian origin who have seen foreign interference from their governments. We need to move forward on this.

The most substantial part of what we are presenting today is not so much the public inquiry. The public inquiry is already something that Canadians are galvanized about and rallied behind. They believe that, as do almost all of the parliamentarians except those from the governing party. We believe that we need to move forward with a public inquiry. Of that there is no doubt, but to do that we have to reference the report that the special rapporteur produced.

I want to thank the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, for his lifelong service to Canada. He has worked, as we know, with Conservative and Liberal governments and has always shown the highest respect for democratic values. Of that we have no doubt. The fact that he issued this report, and now parliamentarians are called to judge that report, is something that he needs to heed. Each member of Parliament, in the coming hours, will weigh how their vote should go on this motion.

The first part of the motion reiterates the public inquiry and directs the Prime Minister to put in place a public inquiry.

The second really follows what the special rapporteur has so clearly identified in his report. I flagged the French version a little while ago, and now I am going to flag the exact quote within the English version, on page 4, at lines 19 and 20, where he says, “we could launch a Public Inquiry...[but] there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. What the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, is saying is that he is an impediment to a public inquiry being held.

Therefore, the message parliamentarians will be called upon to decide is this. If the Right Honourable David Johnston heeds a parliamentary vote, which I believe he will as he is an honourable man, and if the majority of parliamentarians vote as the motion very clearly calls for, and I come back to the wording around this, which is that we “call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur”, knowing his career, his honesty and his integrity from his background, which the NDP has never put into question, I believe if that is the choice that each parliamentarian will make in the coming hours, to call upon him to step down, he will do that. I have no doubt that, because of the integrity he has shown in his background and years of public service, he will respect this parliamentary vote. That is a key element.

The NDP, the member for Burnaby South, the member for Vancouver East and the member for North Island—Powell River have all worked extensively on this subject and have already included the next step, which is a referral to the procedure and House affairs committee and, because it is a referral, it would allow for a direction from the House that the committee make it a priority. The committee would then be called upon to work to find out who would be the appropriate person to lead the commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include.

If the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, does what I believe he will do, which is to step down after facing this parliamentary vote, that would send a clear indication that parliamentarians, our democracy and the democratic will of this House have asked him to step down and I believe he will. By doing so, the procedure and House Affairs committee would have already started the work, which would be the next step to finding a consensus on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. Therefore, the NDP motion today is a package that reinforces our democracy and allows a commission of inquiry to report back before the next election.

For those who are saying we should have an election now, while at the same time are saying that foreign interference is real, meaningful, has an impact on our elections and that we have to worry about it, that is simply inconsistent, juvenile and petulant talk. We need adults in the room. The member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver East, who has sponsored this motion, are showing the adult way through by using our parliamentary tools to put in place the next step, which is a public inquiry. As parliamentarians, each one of us has to decide whether we are asking the Right Honourable David Johnston to resign. That decision the MPs make will start a series of steps that will follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to say how incredible a Canadian David Johnston is. On the other, they have no problem saying he needs to step aside and get out of the way, because he is not producing the results they want.

I found it very interesting that the House leader of the NDP went to great lengths to specifically talk about how much respect he has for David Johnston. He even went on to say that he knew, as a matter of fact, that if David Johnston were asked by this House to step down through this vote, he would comply with that.

What if he did not comply with it? Would that mean the NDP would lose faith in and respect for David Johnston? Is that the case? Would the NDP members say they still respect this individual and the contributions he makes? I would like to hear this from my NDP colleague: What would his position be with respect to his feelings about the great integrity of David Johnston if he did not heed the ask of this Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, because we are the adults in the room, I will not pass a partisan comment about the Liberal government not respecting votes in the House of Commons. I do not think that would be appropriate.

The question the member is asking is what the Right Hon. David Johnston has said about himself. I will refer to his report because it is very clear to me that many Liberals in the House have not read it. As the debate continues, I suggest that they should actually read the report. At page 4, lines 19 to 20, he says, “there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. He is referencing a public inquiry. He is saying that the reason we cannot have a public inquiry is because of that overlap.

I believe that if he has sent that signal to us, he will do the honourable thing and heed a vote in this House. How will this vote go? I do not know, and neither does the member. If a majority of members of this House voted to ask him to step down, I believe he would do so.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I also commend the NDP for moving this motion. I think it is very courageous and timely, because the issue is extremely important. What is at stake is democracy and the confidence that Quebeckers and Canadians have in democracy and the functioning of their Parliament.

There are several items in this motion, but the most important item for me is the one calling on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside and calling on the government to urgently establish a public inquiry. That is what the opposition parties are asking for. I cannot speak for the Conservatives, but the Bloc Québécois will most certainly support this NDP motion.

This is a very important motion to which the NDP is also attaching great importance. Will the NDP tell the government that this motion is the condition for its continued support for this government? Is it important enough for the NDP to stick its neck out and tell the government that enough is enough, that its confidence in the government, in their deal and in their alliance will be decided by the vote on this motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Drummond, but a bit less so for the Bloc Québécois strategy of calling into question in a very personal way the Right Hon. David Johnston. Furthermore, the leader of the Bloc refuses to review all the information available. Only the member for Burnaby South is following up. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are refusing to look at the vital information.

We have already talked about what happens next. I mentioned it in my speech and I will repeat it. I will ask my colleague from Drummond, who I greatly respect, to read the motion. It will be easier for the New Democrats to answer questions, if the questions have not been answered in the motion.

In the motion, we “instruct [it is a mandatory instruction] the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead...a commission of inquiry [on foreign interference] and what its terms of reference should include.”

What comes next is already in the motion. I am asking all my colleagues to carefully read it before asking questions, or making comments or speeches in the House.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague is saying all the right things. He sounds very strong. However, this motion is non-binding. This would not force the government to act, just like the March 23 motion calling for a public inquiry that the member proudly referenced. That was also non-binding. This makes me wonder if this is all simply performative, in part, because there seem to be a remarkable number of consistencies between the NDP's and the Liberal Party's talking points in criticizing other opposition parties. This leads to my question.

There is only one opposition party in this House that actually has the power to compel the government to act through the confidence and supply agreement between them and to turn the member's really strong, fine words into real action. Will the NDP do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I will say it for the third time: I do not want to repeat myself too much, but please read the motion. It is very clear. This would be binding when they instruct the committee. The motion states:

(b) instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, with your learned experience as Deputy Speaker of the House, that would be binding on the committee. The committee cannot say it is not going to do that. The committee members cannot say they are not going to follow this instruction. This would be a binding obligation on the procedure and House affairs committee, and so it would be bound by that and obliged to do that.

There is the question of whether the Right Hon. David Johnston would be obliged to resign if Parliament asked him to. Is there a binding obligation on him? I think there is a moral obligation. I have followed his career; I have seen him work with both Conservative and Liberal governments. I believe he is a man of integrity, and if the House of Commons makes the decision in the coming hours to ask him to step down, I believe he will. In that sense, I believe there is a binding moral obligation that would follow the vote on this motion in the House.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would really like to hear from my hon. colleague, who brings a great deal of information and wealth of knowledge to this debate, about doing that work.

The NDP has clearly put forward a path here. As my colleague has mentioned, it is consistent with being the adults in the room, being committed to doing the work and ensuring that a path is laid out and that there is a plan. As a result, Canadians will know that the will of Parliament is being followed here, as the government has unfortunately not done, and that we are the ones putting forward the plan and laying out the procedure.

The is much like the leader, the member for Burnaby South, has done in terms of demanding a briefing, taking that briefing and then going forward with a plan if needed. Again, this is unlike what the Leader of the Opposition has done. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her leadership on this. The NDP members have been the “adults in the room” pushing this along. We have seen the Liberals try to cover everything up and the Conservatives being petulant and juvenile. The NDP has been the one party bringing forward concerns of Canadians, as I know her constituents in London—Fanshawe have expressed to her, to get to the bottom of this and to get answers. Whenever our next election is held, we need to make sure that we have fully examined this issue and put in all the measures that protect our elections. The NDP will get us there.

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

Mr. Speaker, where to start on the issue? It is not that often that I have a few pieces of paper in front of me because there is just so much that I would like to say. I recognize that I have a very limited amount of time.

We all had a constituency week just last week. There were a number of ministers; Minister Joly came. We talked about the Philippines. I am sorry—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe that the member does not know the rules of the House. Perhaps he would like to rephrase the last name that he used.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think the hon. member was ready to retract that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary was really quick to admonish the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if there were a way to wipe all that out and just start fresh, that would probably work best.

When one starts talking with Canadians to try to understand what they want us to be talking about here in Ottawa, we find that we get caught in the Ottawa bubble at times. Just last week, we had a constituency week. During the constituency week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stopped by Winnipeg. She met with a wonderful group of people and visited a couple of businesses. The Minister of Seniors also stopped by and made a wonderful announcement about the New Horizons for Seniors program. I tried pickleball for the very first time with the Minister of Seniors, which went pretty well. Then there were a couple of other announcements, and I met with a lot of constituents.

In fact, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg just last week and had an open public town hall. Hundreds of Winnipeggers, and I suspect others from outside Winnipeg, attended it. Whether it is from any of the events I listed or from my annual visit at the local McDonald's, I can tell members that not one person raised this issue that seems to be so deeply engaged in what I classify as the Ottawa bubble.

It makes me reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister often tells us how we want to ensure that our constituents' ideas, thoughts and concerns are being brought from our constituencies to Ottawa and not vice versa. This is what we are hearing a lot about, and we need to put this into a real-time reality check. What are we talking about here? When we stop and think about it, we are talking about foreign interference.

Opposition parties have already made their decision; they want to spend millions of dollars to have a public inquiry. What we need to do is look at how this issue has evolved. In the first place, we need to recognize that this is really not something new. Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the issue of foreign interference brought up to him and his government many years ago. He chose to do nothing, which is fine. It is the government's prerogative, I guess.

The current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada today also chose to do nothing. We need to remember that he was the minister responsible for democratic reform at the time of those allegations. He chose to do nothing.

We fast-forward to today, when he now chooses to be ignorant of the facts. Remember, the reality is that we have a special rapporteur, who comes by and makes his report. In his report, he does not recommend a public inquiry, for a wide variety of reasons. He sets in place a special annex, and in order to be able to look over that part of the report, one needs a certain security clearance. He has invited the leader of the Conservative Party to read it, but the leader of the Conservative Party says, “No, no, I don't want to do that.” He comes up with some lame explanation. The reality is that he does not want to know the truth behind the report.

It is the same thing for the Bloc party. I will give the NDP credit in the sense that its leader recognizes that there is nothing wrong with being more informed on the issue of foreign interference. I give him full credit for that. He is doing this as opposed to blindly saying things and politicizing the issue, which is what we have been hearing from the Conservative Party for weeks now. Its members are more concerned about ratcheting up the political interference issue. They are doing this to such a degree that, I would ultimately argue, they are almost doing what foreign interference is meant to do. This is to try to instill a lack of public confidence in our democratic system.

They go out of their way on social media to get their constituents upset about an issue that has been there for over 10 years. Imagine, we have the leader of the Conservative Party tweeting out all these horrors of foreign interference, but while he was the minister of democratic reform, those horrors were taking place and he chose to do absolutely nothing. That seems to be a double standard.

What we are seeing from the Conservative Party is not what is in the best interests of Canadians, our democracy or our institutions. It is what the leader believes is in the political best interest of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what we are witnessing. Just because there is united opposition on an idea does not make it right. Even a minority of one can be correct.

Who is the special rapporteur? He is the former governor general of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointment and someone who has actually done thorough investigations in the past. Members can read what Stephen Harper had to say about the Hon. David Johnston at the time of the appointment. He was outstanding and unquestionable in terms of his integrity and “a great Canadian”. Members can also look at the investigations Mr. Johnston conducted previously.

If members think that Mr. Harper was wonderful in his praise and recognition of the integrity of David Johnston, they can take a look at what the former senior NDP member David Christopherson from Hamilton had to say. I do not have the actual quote, but I heard it earlier today. If members think that Stephen Harper was kind, generous and truth-telling in describing the Hon. David Johnston, they should read what David Christopherson had to say, a former senior New Democratic member of Parliament who was universally well respected by all political parties. He gave him glowing marks. How could one possibly question his integrity?

However, because we have opposition parties prepared to politicize this issue to the nth degree, I would suggest they are prepared to throw a great Canadian under the bus so they can score cheap political points. I do not say that lightly. It is not like this issue surfaced three or four years ago. This issue has been there for many years.

The procedure and House affairs committee had the opportunity to investigate the issue. How many motions did we receive three years ago from the Conservative Party or any other political party at PROC suggesting that we look into foreign interference? It was there and it was real, but it was none.

Standing committees have wonderful opportunities. They can travel the country to investigate and can call all forms of witnesses before them. They can do that to come up with recommendations and policies and provide guidance to the government, political parties and their leadership circles. However, that did not take place.

One of the first actions we took as a government with this Prime Minister was establishing the parliamentary security committee, which is a committee of the House of Commons with all-party participation that has top secret clearance. Its members have the highest security clearance one can have, and they have looked into this issue. I suspect they are looking into the issue even more, and there other agencies doing so. By the way, this is a committee that the Prime Minister put into place.

The parliamentary secretary for electoral reform listed off about six or seven items that this government has acted on since we became government. This is a government that has taken action on foreign interference, unlike Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party when he was minister of democratic reform, who did absolutely nothing on the issue. This government has actually taken action on the issue.

What the Conservatives do is everything they can think of. This is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc. Before the Prime Minister was the prime minister, we sat with third party status in the far corner. If we read the S.O. 31s from that time, we will see that they were about personal attacks on the then leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. Even after we became government and the leader of the Liberal Party became the Prime Minister of Canada, every opportunity they have had, whether it was justified or not, they have attached the word “scandal” so that social media lights up, with the plug-in being from the Conservative Party of Canada.

They are on the track of doing the best they can with character assassination, not subject matter. It is not about the issues of the day. The issues of the day, I would suggest, are inflation, housing, immigration and health care. These are the issues that Canadians are talking about if we listen to what constituents are saying. However, that is not what is happening in the Ottawa bubble, because the Conservative Party wants to continue to push an issue that it took absolutely no action on when it had the opportunity to do so, contrary to what this government has done.

We talk about the foreign registry. The Conservative Party clicks its heels and says to make it happen and then asks why it is not happening today. We are moving in that direction. There is the word “consultations”. They need to take place. The Conservatives know there is an obligation on the government to work with other stakeholders. They know that, but they seem to believe that all one needs to do is wave a magical wand around and, poof, we now have a foreign registry and everyone has to register.

It is completely incredible the way the Conservative Party is so focused on not what is in the public's best interest but what is in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is unfortunate.

Take a look at some of the numbers. CSIS provided a report, and I would like to quote from that report. This is actually their annual report of 2022. It is apolitical, unless they are now going to accuse our law enforcement agencies of being political:

In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security.

In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference—

Let us underline those two words, “foreign interference”.

—terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

I said to underline the words “foreign interference”. Let me go on to the next paragraph. There is something really important here: “In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports.” Here is the next part, which I want to underline: “In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence [reports].” It is a busy agency.

When we think about those reports, we hear about two or three members of Parliament. It is a lot larger than that. They provided federal briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I do not know if that means we are going to have another 47 matters of privilege being raised. I suspect that those briefings are taking place. Maybe what we should do is have PROC look into the matter. However, the Conservatives do not want anything unless it can be publicized with the word “scandal” attached to it so that they can fundraise off of it. Shame on them.

It is not only members of Parliament. There are 26 others provincially. I am assuming they are talking about parliamentarians, or MLAs in the province of Manitoba. They also note 17 municipally elected officials, who could be, I suspect, anyone from a mayor to a councillor to a reeve. There is no denying that there is a serious issue. The Prime Minister himself has said that an attack on one is an attack on all of us, but it is about the manner in which we choose to deal with the issue.

When I posed a question to a Bloc member, he said we could have had more detail; we need more detail. Bloc members need to realize, like the Conservative Party, that their very own leader does not want the details. The Bloc has already agreed that it wants a public inquiry. There has been no difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc. They have wanted a public inquiry right from the very beginning. Where was the Bloc when Stephen Harper saw this? Why did the Bloc not argue for a public inquiry when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of democratic reform? Where was the Bloc then? It did not have a very strong footprint here, that is true, but I can tell members one thing: Even with that little footprint it was nowhere to be found.

Today, what is the difference between the Bloc and the Conservatives?

[An hon. member]

The shade of blue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the shade of blue, as my colleague says. That is really about it in many different ways. Yes, one could—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am worried about people in the stands who are having to hold their ears. Could the member keep it down so that it is at a more respectful level?