Debates of May 30th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

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

How could that possibly lead anybody to believe that Conservatives would have a problem with David Johnston, when the member for Perth—Wellington is saying that in committee?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have mentioned to the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that it was not time for him to make any more comments or ask any more questions. Unless he has already given a speech, he may want to see if he can get on the list. However, in the meantime, I would ask him not to be yelling across the way when somebody else has the floor.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's speech, and I think there is a little bit of confusion about what a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict of interest is and what it means when such a charge is made.

Nobody is questioning the eminence of David Johnston or his lifetime of service. Many eminent people can have impeccable integrity but can still be caught in a conflict of interest or a potential or perceived conflict of interest simply because of their relationships. Mr. Johnston obviously had a family relationship with the Trudeau family, including skiing with the children of the Trudeau family. He was on the board of directors of the Trudeau Foundation, the same Trudeau Foundation that is implicated in the interference file because of its reception of money from the Chinese government.

Does the member not agree that the optics are such, leaving aside Mr. Johnston's pristine reputation and record, which we do not doubt, that this places him in a perceived conflict of interest? Does he not agree that it would be better for everybody and for Canadians' confidence if we found another eminent Canadian, with the same impeccable credentials but who is not in a perceived conflict of interest, to look into this matter?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the member that he has to be careful, as he did mention the Prime Minister's last name when he talked about the family. I would ask the member to be careful when he is using the name. I know that he mentioned the foundation, but he also mentioned the family.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, for starters, the member said that nobody is calling into question Mr. Johnston's reputation. Well, members of the NDP may be saying that they are not, but let us not forget that the Conservatives are doing that in full force. They will not miss an opportunity to challenge and to call out his reputation.

The member's question of perception is an excellent point. There is a difference between a conflict of interest and a perception of a conflict of interest, but let us not forget who has created that perception of a conflict of interest. The Conservatives have been doing that, the Bloc Québécois has been doing it, and now, for some reason, we see the NDP joining in on this too. However, nobody has purported and built upon that perception of a conflict of interest, which, in my opinion, does not exist, more than the Conservative Party of Canada has.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague puts on a pretty lively show. To hear him talk, we should give Mr. Johnston the Nobel Peace Prize, the Oscar for best actor, and the Medal of Bravery, and name him patriot of the year. While we are at it, we should call the Pope and ask him to elevate Mr. Johnston to sainthood. This is so absurd.

Today, we know that Mr. Johnston is a friend of the Trudeau family. That is documented. He himself does not deny it. How can he be objective when it comes to the Prime Minister? It is inconceivable. He co-chaired the “no” committee in 1995. The woman he hired as his legal adviser, whose name escapes me, is a Liberal Party donor, a fact that is well known and documented.

How can my colleague defend such a preposterously biased report? The only way to get to the bottom of this affair is to launch a full, independent commission of public inquiry. That concludes my intervention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the hon. member that he mentioned the Prime Minister's last name and that he should not do that in the House. I want to remind everyone once again to refer to members of the House by their title, not their name.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, it is incredibly flattering to have a former entertainer and actor himself refer to me as a very dramatic person. I take that as a compliment, and I appreciate it.

I do not think that former governor general David Johnston has a conflict of interest due to the fact he happened to live on the same street, was a neighbour, or one thing or another. I cannot understand how that would impact how he does his work. It certainly did not impact it in any way that prevented Stephen Harper from appointing him as a governor general. It certainly did not impact it in the manner in which so many Conservatives referred to him as a eminent Conservative, which I read about in my speech.

Getting back to the NDP's previous question, this is what I was talking about, what we are seeing right here, this display. This is where the perception of conflict of interest comes from. It comes from Conservatives and the Bloc getting up and repeatedly saying there is a conflict of interest. Just because they say it does not mean it is true.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could expand on his comments about the commissioner, David Johnston, making it very clear that there is an annex to the report, which has a security-related issue, and has really encouraged all three leaders of the opposition parties to listen to the briefing, read the report and participate so they will have a better understanding of why there is no need for a public inquiry. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, the individual who the Conservatives and Bloc members want to jump all over and be so incredibly critical of delivered a report, stating what can be made public and that there is an annex to it. I really encourage them to get their security clearances so they can see the rest of it.

Now the leaders of the Bloc and the Conservative Party will be saying they have seen enough and know what they want to say, then jump up and start fundraising, and accusing the government and a character assassination of a former governor general, who Stephen Harper appointed. This is the reality of the situation. If nothing else it says to Canadians that this is it, they are not even interested.

The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, is not even interested in looking at the classified information. It would not prevent him from talking about the rest of the public report. He could go on, just as he is right now, but also having that knowledge. Why would he want to have that knowledge? To properly inform himself to represent Canadians.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we listened to a 20-minute speech from the member for Kingston and the Islands, and unfortunately, it was more heat than light.

Now he is accusing us, all the opposition parties, of creating this conflict of interest that David Johnston finds himself in. We are not creating it. We just uncovered it, and it was a pretty easy job to do. The fact he is a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which has become part of the story, is clearly a conflict of interest. I have a lot of respect for David Johnston, as do all my colleagues. That is why we are so disappointed that he accepted the appointment when he knew that he was in a conflict of interest.

I am not surprised the Prime Minister made the appointment because we are used to bad judgments there. Did nobody on the government side of the House advise the Prime Minister that this might turn out badly?

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

Madam Speaker, when Conservatives say things like, “I do not think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston as he is an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian”, or when Conservatives say stuff like, “I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment that Mr. Johnston is an eminent Canadian”, or when Conservatives say things like, “There is no doubt as to the integrity, experience and résumé of Mr. Johnston”, how is anybody supposed to believe, based on those comments, that the Conservatives would have a problem with David Johnston? They do not, and do members know why? It is because their own former prime minister, Stephen Harper, appointed him Governor General.

What the Conservatives do want is to score cheap political points for political gain and fundraising opportunities. That is all they are doing with this. That is what this entire exercise is about. They are smearing an individual's reputation, an individual who has served this country extremely well, and I find it absolutely disgraceful.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Carbon Pricing.

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

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

I want to thank members of the House for providing me with the opportunity to talk today about this motion.

The New Democrats, of course, are disappointed by the recommendations from the special rapporteur. In order to move forward in a proactive and productive way, we are calling for the House of Commons to support our motion for a public inquiry.

Canadians deserve better than a process that raises doubts about the independence and impartiality of its conclusions. The integrity of our democratic institutions and protection of the diaspora communities are of paramount importance. It is essential that we address the allegations and concerns and restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic processes. That is what the New Democrats are trying to do through this motion today.

The NDP leader was the first leader to call for a public inquiry on foreign interference. The NDP moved the motion at PROC calling for the inquiry and forced debate and a vote in the House in March. The NDP has now put forward this motion and will continue to use every tool we have as parliamentarians on this issue. I am proud that we are not afraid to do the real work and dig into this issue, unlike past consecutive governments.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have rejected our calls from the very beginning. They had an opportunity to show that they take this issue seriously at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the NDP was pushing for a public inquiry. Instead, they decided to filibuster our motion.

The Liberals' failed to call a public inquiry and are now hiding behind the recommendations of the special rapporteur they appointed. It undermines public confidence in the electoral process. This is part of a bigger pattern and one that worries me greatly.

My colleagues and I have a great deal of respect for the former governor general. We have been very clear about that today, a lot, but on this report we disagree. Again, I reference that the majority of members of the House disagree with him. I know that some folks have forgotten this in this place, but it is possible to disagree with someone, still respect them and still treat them with respect.

I disagree with Mr. Johnston's findings and the report, and I reference the fact that when he was investigating whether the leak that China preferred a minority Liberal government was true or not, he wrote, “I asked the Prime Minister and ministers if they were aware of any orchestrated effort to elect a Liberal Party of Canada minority. They were not.” Mr. Johnston dismissed this allegation simply because the Prime Minister and members of cabinet told him it was not true. I do not believe this is a sufficient reason.

Mr. Johnston also retained a lawyer to assist in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing the materials for interviews. The same lawyer was a donor to the Liberal Party of Canada between 2006 and 2022. Why was this not flagged as a conflict of interest?

Years of entitlement have skewed the government's perspective, and at a time when we need the Liberals to step up for the health of our democracy, they seem to want to say instead that everything is fine and there is nothing to see here. The longer they refuse to step up and the longer they refuse to call for a full public inquiry, the more Canadians are losing trust in the Liberals. More worrisome is that Canadians are losing faith in the institutions that are in place to serve them. More and more Canadians are disenfranchised and divided. We need all parliamentarians to come together to protect our democratic institutions and our diaspora communities.

While the Liberals are focusing on avoiding the headlines, the Conservatives are only interested in flinging mud and scoring political points. They are not interested in finding solutions. At committee, they filibustered and used bad faith tactics against the NDP motion on a public inquiry. They have used divisive rhetoric to divide Canadians and, sadly, to fundraise.

There was expert testimony at committee around the scope of foreign interference, not just by China but from Russia, India and Iran. They refused to talk about it. We have heard about the oppressive regimes harassing and targeting activists in diaspora communities. We have heard reports about foreigners financing the “freedom convoy”. However, the Conservatives are not talking about that.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, we just concluded a study on cyber-defence. We heard a lot of expert testimony on the threats of foreign interference and how states like Russia interfered during the convoy. I want to quote one of the expert witnesses we had, Marcus Kolga. He is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He said:

The broad goal of Russian information warfare is to undermine public trust in our democracies and the cohesion of our societies. They do this by weaponizing issues and narratives that have the greatest potential to polarize us. They inject and amplify narratives that exploit both Conservative and Liberal biases and any issues that have the potential to drive wedges between Canadians.

We have seen this type of foreign interference through disinformation campaigns in action, and we know the tool box for foreign disinformation campaigns has only grown bigger with the emergence of technology.

I will give a few examples. First, we are seeing the rapid expansion of deepfake videos. As artificial intelligence technology advances, it is becoming easier and easier to produce video content that looks incredibly real. They can create videos of politicians, newsmakers making announcements, news anchors breaking stories on major world events. These videos are completely fake and generated by a computer, but will be a powerful tool for disinformation campaigns.

Second, artificial intelligence is driving massive innovations in social media bots. Bad-faith actors will be able to create fake social media accounts, which they already do, but they will be able to engage with real Canadians and have full conversations. It will become increasingly difficult for everyday Canadians to tell the difference.

Third, the social media algorithms and data mining are always innovating. Big tech executives are finding new ways to get Canadians to increase their social media activity, and that has led to the proliferation of divisive content. These will be the new tools for foreign actors to drive wedges between Canadians, and if we do not get over the partisan and political games and mudslinging, if we do not get to the bottom of foreign interference through this public inquiry, those divisions and polarizations for Canadians will get worse. We want to work together to find a solution, a well-informed, facts-based solution.

In closing, I want to remind members on all sides of this House why foreign interference is occurring. Oppressive regimes are harassing, intimidating and silencing Canadians who are speaking out. I will quote my colleague from Vancouver East, who spoke this morning quite passionately about this issue. She said, “For people like me, who are outspoken against human rights violations, the genocide of the Uyghurs, the erosion of basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the National Security Law, we must be vigilant of attempts by foreign influence actors working to coerce, co-op, re-orient, neutralize, or even silence our voices.”

This motion is not about Liberals avoiding another scandal or Conservatives making the evening news. This motion is about protecting human rights and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and creating a path forward that is reasonable and abides by the will of the majority of parliamentarians. That is what New Democrats put forward in this House in March and that is what we are putting forward in this House today. I hope the government will see that and respect the will of Parliament.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask for your perspective on the confidentiality and the security clearance needed to look at some of this information. The initial reservation we heard from people who thought a public inquiry was not a good idea, as well the report, refers to the fact that so much of what needs to be discussed cannot be discussed in a public inquiry.

How can we have a fulsome discussion about the very issues that are being raised? I am not referring to the broader issues that have been mentioned that we can talk about. This whole thing was about specific cases of foreign interference and we cannot talk about the specifics. Therefore, why do you think a public inquiry, where we cannot talk about the specifics, would be useful?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member should refrain from using the word “you” and address all questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Madam Speaker, the last point in our motion is to instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to report back to this House, to create recommendations on who should lead the commission and to put forward the terms of reference that need to be included in that study.

Members of this House who have, unfortunately, been subjected to a lot of foreign interference calls should be able to do that in this House. There are ways we can do this safely and securely. That has been proven repeatedly. I do not think there is anything in this motion that sacrifices any of what the member is talking about.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin my question, I just want to recognize the birth of one of our newest constituents. Her name is Léonie Angelina Potestio, daughter to Camille Cook and Oliver Potestio. I want to welcome her to this world here, a few days ago.

My hon. colleague talked about human rights and the importance of human rights, and I think we can all agree that democracy is incredibly important, so much so that we should be looking at this in the most serious manner possible. Is my colleague, therefore, on behalf of the NDP, prepared to commit that we either have an inquiry or have an election?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for allowing me to bring forward one of the points that my brilliant colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke raised earlier. We are asking for the government and for a committee of this Parliament to do the work that is necessary. If we were to call an election right now, we would be going in with the exact same rules that we have now and potentially the exact same problems that we have now. Therefore, if we are able to come together to do the work necessary to ensure our institutions are protected and those democratic processes are protected, then we can have the faith of Canadians in this place to go forward with an election free from interference.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to read from an open letter written by Eric Montigny, professor of political science at Laval University, published in today's La Presse:

[The Prime Minister] has mastered the art of stalling for time. When controversy tarnishes his government, he usually resorts to the same strategy: first, play down the scope of the scandal and then sit tight while the storm blows over. That is what he is again trying to do in the matter of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

The political science professor goes on to say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the member. I believe there is a problem with the interpretation.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my hon. colleague, but I do not believe we have English translation at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are going to check on that. Is it working now?

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Madam Speaker, it is working. It has been working for me the whole time, so I wonder if the member just has a problem with his hearing piece.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It seems to be working now.

I remind the hon. member for Mirabel that he has only one minute to speak, so I would ask him to ask his question in 30 seconds.

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