Debates of May 30th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that my colleague is going to repeat his intervention from the start and that he will be given the same amount of time he had before my colleague's point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There was one minute and 25 seconds of speaking time overall. I forgot to tell the member that he only had enough time to ask a brief question. I would ask the member for Mirabel to ask a brief question because time is running out. The member can begin his intervention from the start, even though he was almost finished.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that he had almost finished his speech, but there was a problem with the interpretation. It has nothing to do with the time he had left or the time he was given. The Chair did not indicate that he had to ask a brief question at the beginning. Regardless of how much time had been used, when there is a problem with the interpretation, the member has to start from the beginning, period.

We are not going to argue about the Official Languages Act.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

What I just told the hon. member is that he had one minute and 25 seconds for the question and the answer. There is one minute and two seconds left, but the hon. member may start again. I will let him do that, but I will simply advise him that he has to try to finish his question. I will let him ask his question, but he cannot go over a minute. He would not have had more than a minute of speaking time in total.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

No, the matter is closed.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Laval University professor Eric Montigny is calling for a public inquiry today in an open letter.

He states that “holding a public inquiry into foreign interference must first be seen as an exercise in protecting Canadians' confidence in Canadian democracy.”

What the Liberals are doing today, in pointing the finger at the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP instead of recognizing the need for a public inquiry, is further undermining public confidence in Canadian democracy.

Does my colleague not think that the Liberals' attitude today is highly irresponsible and that they should take the high road in this debate and recognize that we must launch a public inquiry to restore public confidence?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the majority of my speech today, and I hope that this was recognized, was about us all coming together, doing what is best for democracy, putting that first above all the bickering and squabbling, and delivering what Canadians have asked for and what the will of this Parliament has asked for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All of that took less than one minute.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak on an NDP opposition day motion.

I am a little disappointed that this is what we have to do at this point. It is something that matters greatly to me. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, and we have been working very hard and diligently for quite a while on the issue of foreign interference in our Canadian elections.

Here we are today, discussing this yet again. Hopefully we are going to get to a place where we really do what I think is fundamentally the most important, which is assure Canadians that our democracy is being cared for and that we should have trust in those systems that provide us with the ability to allow people to govern and be our voice for every region across Canada.

Today the NDP is asking for a few things. The first is that the independent special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, step aside. I do not take this lightly. This is an unfortunate situation that we are in, and when I listen to some of the discussion and debate in this House, it is amplifying the reason that I think this is so important. The discussion is becoming about whether or not this human being is a good person or not a good person, when, really, the focus should be on whether Canadians have trust in our democratic institutions. Are they concerned and how do we address that in a meaningful way that makes Canadians feel heard and that feels transparent and accountable to them?

At this point, we are simply not in that position. In fact, the special rapporteur has lost that confidence across this country. We could blame the Conservatives for it. I have heard the Liberals do that. They have said it is the Conservatives' fault. We could spend a lot of time having that discussion. I hope we get to the next step of the conversation, which is our duty is to Canadians, and how we make sure that this process that happens assures Canadians to have faith in our systems.

Perception matters, and I think all of us know that. This really addresses this, it says there is a perception, we need to deal with it, and we need to make sure that we have a process that is accountable.

The second part of this is that the government launch a public inquiry into election interference by foreign governments. There are multiple countries of concern. I heard a question earlier today from a Liberal member who said this was a public inquiry and a lot of this was top secret information, and that we should not have a public inquiry because of this. There is a very long list of very important issues that were dealt with where there were aspects of those issues that were held in confidence. However, again, the process was clear enough that Canadians had trust that the people doing the work and seeing the information would report back to them in a way that they could have confidence and faith in.

We are also asking that the commissioner of the public inquiry be selected by all parties. One of the things that concerns me, it has concerned me in this House and it concerns me at the committee where we are studying foreign interference, is that these issues are becoming increasingly partisan. It is very unfortunate that we hear the Conservative leader keep talking about how everything is broken. I know Canadians. There are hard things that we are struggling with right now, but Canadians are not broken.

It is not us that make this country. It is Canadians, collectively, who make this country. There may be things that we do not like. There may be things that we are really concerned about, but I do not believe, in any way, that the Canadians of this country are broken.

We need to have a place where this is not partisan. That means we actually have to do the hard work of bringing in the agreement of all parties. I am willing to do that work, and I am certainly hoping that other members in this place are as well.

The next part is that the report on the public inquiry be tabled in this House before the next election. I have heard from the Conservatives “Let us bring it all down,” while we are debating whether it is safe to have an election or not. I do not know what is going to happen. At any point the Liberal government could make the decision to have an election. It has done it before. Other governments have done it prior to this.

We have to make sure that people have faith in these institutions so that when we do have elections, people feel they could go out and have their voices heard. We need to make sure that our processes are as safe as possible. The reality is, and I think we all know this, what is happening in terms of foreign interference in elections is changing. It is changing very rapidly, and we are having to respond to it at an accelerated pace. We need those processes in place to deal with this ever-changing issue, because if we do not, we are betraying the trust of Canadians.

It also calls on PROC to report to the House the terms of reference and a possible commissioner or a list of commissioners. I think that is great work for the committee to do, and we have to get focused on creating non-partisan solutions.

Democracy is more important than ever, especially when we are looking at the changing realities of this planet. It is a changing world, where we are seeing so much more misinformation. We are seeing an increase of divisive dialogue that is really bringing about a further distrust of our systems.

Collectively, we need to do things in this House that pull Canadians together, that bring them together. We need to say that we are going to focus on the outcome, which is making sure that our elections are safe and that, when there is foreign interference, our methods are accountable and transparent. This is what we need to do.

We are asking every party in this place to take that leadership. That is what we need to see. Canadians need to see collective leadership, a focus on bringing us together and creating solutions. I believe that this can be done only through a public inquiry.

Mr. Johnston wrote in his report that he could not support the idea of a recommendation around a public inquiry. I think that is really unfortunate and, at this point, there is so much concern about his capacity to do this job, regardless of who has made Canadians feel that way, that we have to bring this forward.

Today, in committee, Mr. Stanton, former executive manager of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and Mr. Wilczynski, former assistant deputy minister and director general of intelligence operations at the Communications Security Establishment, spoke about this issue. They said that they believe, fundamentally, that there needs to be a public inquiry. Mr. Stanton even said that if we had asked him a couple of months ago, he would have said there did not need to be one. However, at this point, the way this has happened, it is in a place where there absolutely needs to be an inquiry. I focus on their intentions and their expertise, and I think we also need to focus on that.

The trust that Canadians have in our democratic institutions matters. It should matter more than our partisan rhetoric. It should matter more than anything. Hopefully, people will take this seriously in this place and understand that, until we take this out of political partisanship, we are just in a place where we are debating opinions on things that are drip-dropping through the system, through the media. They are unclear. There is not enough information provided for clarity, and it makes Canadians not feel trust.

We have been studying this issue. I have heard very clearly that one of the things we need to do is update our legislation. We need a higher level of accountability, particularly in the role of the national security and intelligence advisory. What we heard, which was in that report as well, was that information was shared with different ministries; however, nobody knew how to open the email, so nothing got dealt with. We need more accountability, so things do not get lost.

It was quite shocking to read in Mr. Johnston's report that somebody may be sick one day, and they do not bring the binder to the appropriate person. That cannot be our system. Our system cannot hope that somebody knows a password or that somebody remembers to bring a binder. This is serious. This is about national security. It is about foreign interference in our elections.

We need a better system to let MPs know if they are being targeted by a foreign entity. We have had two points of privilege now that are talking about this information. What we know is that the system is simply not working, and we need to see that fixed.

We need to focus on diaspora communities. They need more protection. We have been hearing in committee about people who are being targeted by authoritarian governments across the planet, people who have families in different countries and people who are from those communities. They are going to their local police and RCMP and saying, “Please help. I am very concerned about this. This is what is happening to me.”

Unfortunately, we do not have anything strong enough to support those folks as they go through that situation. Often, they have a file number, but nobody ever gets back to them. That tells us the system is broken. It is not working. Canada is not broken. The people of Canada are not broken, but we do have systems with significant challenges that we need to address.

We can also look at things like disinformation. We know, for example, from a part of the world that I have been watching, which is Finland, that there is a lot of education on disinformation. This is not only in elementary school, middle school and high school but also into college and university. Even if someone is learning to be a carpenter, they are also learning how to develop a critical mind and understand disinformation. They have kids making fake videos so they can show just how realistic they look.

There are some amazing things out there that could really provide guidance for us. This is why we have put forward this motion. It is because we care about Canada. We care about the systems, and we care that Canadians have trust in our democratic institutions. I hope everybody will support this. It is certainly time for that to happen.

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

Madam Speaker, in my comments earlier I made reference to the Ottawa bubble, and I really do believe there is an Ottawa bubble on this particular situation. We had our constituency week last week. The Prime Minister was in Winnipeg and did a town hall. Hundreds of people showed up for it, and no one is talking about this in the community. Canadians are concerned about a wide variety of other issues.

This specific issue has been there for over 10 years. It is only in the last couple of years we have seen more attention being given to it. There are other mechanisms. I am wondering if the member can provide the sort of feedback she is getting from her constituents on the priority of issues.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not often say this, but I will thank the member for his question. I actually think it was somewhat thoughtful. There are numerous constituents who really do care about this issue. It is absolutely true. I live in a part of the world where there are a lot of folks who are fighting for this because we have weather stations that tell people who are either on the water or flying if it is safe to do so, and a lot of them are not working. Because of this, there is a greater increase of risk for them and for the well-being of their business, so we are definitely working on things like that.

Housing is a big issue, as is the opioid overdose crisis. All of these things are really important, but it does not mean this is not also important, because people need to trust in our systems and we are seeing it is broken. As parliamentarians, our job is to identify where the problem is and provide a solution. I am hoping we get out of the partisan rhetoric and really get into dealing with this issue in a way that is mindful. I hope the colleague will join us in that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for joining us in calling for a public inquiry. I agree with her that this has nothing to do with Mr. Johnston's qualifications or his exemplary service to Canadians over many years. This has to do with the Prime Minister and Mr. Johnston walking into a huge conflict of interest scandal around the whole issue of foreign interference in our elections.

I mention to this member that the Prime Minister will continue to breach ethics rules and guidelines. He will continue to walk into conflicts of interest as long as the NDP sustains this common-law marriage with the Liberal Party. It is only when the NDP will finally pull the plug that we will actually be able to see Canadians have an opportunity to hold the government accountable. I would ask the member when—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member has a perspective. I do not share that perspective. When it comes to being very concerned about the leadership of the Liberal government, I share a lot of concerns. Part of the work I do is really to make the lives of Canadians better, and I take that really seriously.

When I think about the people who come to my office and talk about the challenges they are facing, it makes me frustrated, so I have a responsibility to make sure every step I take I am as accountable as I can be to my constituents. However, I also focus on what I said I would put forward and make sure it gets done. When I think of things like dental care, moving forward with pharmacare and dealing with things that matter to Canadians, such as making life more affordable and making sure they have a bit more money in their pockets, I will fight every day for that.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I am a person who favours consensus and I completely agree with her that we must encourage positivity. I endorse that way of thinking.

I am just wondering about how long it took for my NDP colleagues to react to this appointment. We have been speaking out against it for weeks because it caught our attention right from the start, while they are only responding today. That is surprising.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I was waiting for was the Right Honourable David Johnston to do his job, but what happened to the process was that we just saw more and more issues come forward. To me, this is not about partisan politics; it is about the fact that Canadians have lost faith. I do not know that Canadians had lost faith with him in the beginning, so we allowed him to do his process. Unfortunately, we have gotten to a place where we have heard people on either side blaming about who did what, but the reality is that we are not seeing the work that we need to.

In the media, I actually said that we would wait to see what the report brought forward, as I believed in it very clearly. If we had any concerns at that point, we would continue the work that we felt was important, which was toward a public inquiry. It was our leader who asked for it first. It was our party that brought forward the motion.

The committee will continue this work until the work is done.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise in this most honourable institution, in the House, and speak to a very important issue today, the New Democratic Party's opposition motion.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for London West. I look forward to hearing her remarks as well.

Everyone knows that Canada is recognized internationally for the strength and stability of its democratic system and institutions. In addition, the majority of Canadians say they are satisfied with how our democracy works. It goes without saying that we have good reason to be proud of the trust Canadians have in their institutions.

Indeed, as the independent special rapporteur on foreign interference reminded us in the very first line of the report released last week, democracy is built on trust. Truer words have never been spoken. Naturally, it is this principle that guides how the government interacts with Canadians, develops policies and sets up programs not only to maintain the state of our democracy, but also to continually improve it.

Nevertheless, we can all agree that democracy is a work in progress requiring our constant attention and that it is under constantly evolving threat. That is why we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We want to better protect and preserve the trust that Canadians have placed in us, which is why we are continually developing new measures to protect our democratic institutions and respond to emerging issues that seek to weaken them.

One of these measures is the plan to protect Canadian democracy that the Government of Canada implemented ahead of the 2019 federal election and renewed in the lead-up to the 2021 election. I would like to point out that this plan is the first of its kind globally. It comprises a range of initiatives designed to improve and strengthen Canada's democratic institutions and protect them from threats.

One thing is clear: When Canadians have access to reliable information and are better informed about the tactics employed by foreign and malicious actors, they become our best line of defence in our efforts to safeguard democracy and fight foreign interference. This is one of the fundamental premises of our plan to protect Canadian democracy, and it is why the plan's initiatives include enhancing citizen preparedness through measures such as the critical election incident public protocol.

The protocol is a mechanism for senior public servants to communicate clearly, transparently, and impartially with Canadians during an election in the event of an incident or a series of incidents that threaten the election's integrity. This is one example of an information-sharing success story. The protocol serves as a bridge between the expert panel, which is composed of independent, professional senior government officials, and the national security agencies represented on the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force.

As we know, during the last two federal elections, the expert panel did not detect any incidents that might have threatened Canada's ability to have free and fair elections. I would like to reiterate that this does not mean that there were no attempts at foreign interference or incidents of foreign interference. In fact, the experts made it clear that there is always a certain level of foreign interference. What it actually means is that Canadians can be certain that the outcome of these elections was determined by them and them alone. As the independent special rapporteur points out, there is therefore no call to doubt the results.

In addition, several independent assessments have demonstrated the usefulness of this protocol, and that includes the assessments of the implementation of the protocol that were carried out after the 2019 and 2021 general elections. Both assessments assured Canadians that the protocol should remain in place. They also suggested areas for improvement, which we take very seriously.

For example, significant updates were made to the protocol following the 2019 election report. The government is currently reviewing all the recommendations published last February following the 2019 elections. Members will recall that this is what the government committed to in its April 6 report aimed at providing an update on the recommendations for preventing foreign interference in our democratic institutions.

More recently, the independent special rapporteur also said that the mechanisms that protected the 2019 and 2021 elections were sophisticated. It seems quite clear to us that the protocol is one of these mechanisms. He also affirmed that the measures taken to date have countered the threats of foreign interference and minimized their impact on Canadian democracy.

These independent assessments have given Canadians the assurance that these measures help protect our elections from all types of threats. That is why we relied on these measures to protect the byelections currently taking place in four ridings across the country from any form of foreign interference. On May 16, the government announced that the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force would increase its monitoring of foreign interference threats during the current byelection period.

Our efforts do not stop there. The government recognizes that Canadians want more information about threats to our democratic institutions. Accordingly, after election day, the task force will produce a report that will include its assessment of any foreign interference it detects during the byelections.

As I am sure my colleagues will agree, these measures address the needs and priorities of Canadians. They also reflect our vision. Just because Canada's democracy is one of the strongest and most stable in the world, it does not mean we should not always strive to do better. That is what Canadians expect and what they deserve.

My intervention today focused on certain elements of the plan to protect Canadian democracy. It goes without saying that these are just a few of the measures implemented by the government to protect our democratic institutions from all types of threats. However, I hope to have clearly demonstrated the government's commitment to strengthening Canada's democracy, responding to Canadians' concerns and continuing our efforts in that regard.

The independent special rapporteur submitted his report to us last week. He pointed out improvements made to information sharing. The government has implemented measures to help address this issue and is working to create others. By the end of October, we will receive his second report, which will include a set of recommendations primarily aimed at ensuring that malicious foreign states cannot jeopardize our democratic institutions.

As I mentioned, members will understand that the government is looking forward to the release of this independent report. I am convinced that the strategic recommendations in that report will enable us to continue to improve how we protect our democracy.

I invite Canadians who wish to be heard to participate in the public hearings that will be held soon by the special rapporteur. Finally, in closing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up, but I am sure he will be able to continue during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could please explain to me his perspective on perception of conflict and conflict. The reality, for me, is that when somebody is perceived a certain way, we have to start focusing on what we want to see out of this. I think what all of us want to see out of this is a process that is accountable and transparent to Canadians so they can trust in our democratic institutions. I am wondering if the member could share his thoughts on that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for North Island—Powell River for bringing forward this opposition motion. It is obviously important and needs to be debated.

In this situation, in relation to the question that was asked, I would point to former Supreme Court justice Iacobucci. He is very esteemed and held in high regard, and was actually appointed by, I believe, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney a few decades ago. He has led a number of inquiries and has done much work for the federal government. He is someone I hold in an esteemed position. I am glad that he was contacted to provide a letter to say there was no conflict, and we will go with that.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Liberals do not want to have an inquiry. For one thing, what benefits them politically is the status quo. Most of the ridings held by Chinese Canadians went Liberal in the last election, primarily because of threats and because all sorts of things were happening, such as money being funnelled.

I wonder if the member could comment on this. The special rapporteur, in spite of his credentials, is not acceptable to the opposition because of his connections to the Trudeau Foundation and because he is a personal friend of the family. Is it not self-evident that this is not appropriate?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from British Columbia for the question. It is a very sincere and substantive question.

As I have said in the House repeatedly, I am for a foreign agent registry. That avenue needs to be pursued and is being pursued vigorously by the Minister of Public Safety. I think we need to put that in place with the proper guardrails and due diligence. I also believe that we have committees, NSICOP and NSIRA, that do good work. One of those committees has members of Parliament on it.

We do have institutions in place. We must always maintain confidence in our electoral institutions and in our democracy. We will continue to do so. No matter which government is in power, that must be a priority.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am astounded by the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's convoluted logic. He started his speech by telling us Canada is known for the quality of its democracy and that people trust it.

Then, he went on for 10 minutes talking about generalities just to end up telling us that we do not need a public inquiry. Basically, what he was saying is that Canadian democracy is like good wine. Since it is good, we can pour some vinegar in it until it spoils.

Then, he had the gall to conclude by saying that we must do better. Can he explain to us why an independent public inquiry, which a majority of members has called for, would not enable us to perhaps do better?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is a very important issue for me. I understand what he is saying.

We as a government put in place a special independent rapporteur, someone who is very distinguished. The independent rapporteur did deliver a report and there is a second report to follow.

At the same time, we as a government must act. We must put in place a foreign agent registry with the proper guardrails, as I stated in my prior answer. We do have committees, NSICOP and NSIRA, that are doing good work, and a number of other initiatives are going forward. We must be sure that Canadians have confidence and trust in their democracy.

We know that the 2019 and 2021 elections were not impacted by foreign interference, as has been ruled in reports. They stated that the outcome was fair and that the outcome was decided only by Canadians.