Debates of May 30th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

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

That was not a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I cannot believe that my NDP colleague is trying to silence the member when he is representing his constituents and properly debating in this House.

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

Maybe this is giving the hon. member an opportunity to catch his breath.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way attempting to silence the hon. member. It is just that it is Tuesday and my head does hurt. He could give me some Aspirin. I am just asking him to consider the rest of us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect my friend has not dealt with his alcohol problem and maybe that is the reason why—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I withdraw the comment. I suspect he does not have an alcohol problem.

At the end of the day, we need to recognize—

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

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where anyone mentioned an alcohol problem, so if he is going to maintain a level of debate, he should keep his stick on the ice.

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

All right. Once again I will ask everyone to take a deep breath.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the same principle of the statement the member just made should have been put to himself, looking in a mirror, prior to him standing up on the first point of order. I can assure this House that the tone of my voice is at times not quite as loud as that of the member who made the point of order.

Getting back to the issue at hand, at the end of the day, this is an issue of a government that has in many different ways taken tangible actions to ensure that the integrity of our system is in place and protected. As the parliamentary secretary clearly indicated to the House in a very detailed way, the government has taken a number of steps. Those steps, I believe, are somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven or eight tangible things that have made a difference. There are opportunities for us to deal with this issue.

The issue for me is whether the Conservatives and the Bloc in particular are going to want to continue to use this as a political tool. Are they prepared to put the politics aside and deal with this based on what is in the best interests of Canadians as opposed to those of their respective political parties? To me, that is the real question, because if they really want to get down to business, there are all sorts of ways we can do that in a co-operative way. Something we have consistently been saying from the beginning is that for an issue of this nature, an attack on one is an attack on all. We will continue to do our best to ensure that any sort of foreign interference is minimized.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned putting politics aside, but he did not mention that the Liberal Party has benefited to a great extent from the Communist Chinese government's involvement in our democracy. It is a very serious situation. I hear Liberal members laughing, but this is no laughing matter whatsoever. We have Chinese Canadians who are being intimidated.

Will the member not admit that the special rapporteur should have pulled himself out in the first place and not accepted this job, considering his special connection with the Prime Minister and his involvement in the Trudeau Foundation? Would the member please respond?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like there is still a sense of soreness on the other side that they did not win in the last election, so now they are trying to come up with excuses or any sort of rationale that they can blame, as opposed to it being their platform or other issues related to the Conservative Party. I will provide a quote from an article for the member, just so that he is aware. It says, “The U.S. Ambassador to Canada says the question of whether or not foreign election interference is happening is less important than whether it’s been successful, and he hasn’t seen any proof that alleged interference attempts by China in Canada’s elections have managed to affect the results.”.

I know the member thinks very highly of the American counterparts. Maybe he would recognize that at least this particular individual is right. Maybe that would give the member a little more sense of comfort in recognizing that the Conservatives were not defeated because of foreign interference, but because of the campaign period itself.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House since 10 o'clock this morning, and all I am hearing is what could be described as “mud-slinging”. To put it another way, it is like a ping-pong match, but things are getting a bit out of hand. I would like to bring a little decorum back to the debate.

That being said, in his speech, the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about Mr. Johnston. This is not about Mr. Johnston and his values. It is about democracy. Even the Chinese diaspora is calling for an independent public commission of inquiry. This would undoubtedly confirm for the government that what the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knows may only be the tip of the iceberg. It would reveal and teach us even more, and would therefore be even more democratic.

This is not about using the inquiry as a political tool, but rather ensuring that it serves democracy. I have a question about democracy. If this NDP motion is adopted, the House will have adopted three motions calling for an independent public inquiry. Will the government finally agree to launch an independent public inquiry this time?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the special rapporteur, David Johnston, comes out with the report. A part of the report is an annex. That annex explains and provides justification for the report for not having a public inquiry.

It is really important for Canadians to understand that the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Bloc Québécois have made the decision that they do not want to hear the facts on the issue. They do not want to know why the former governor general came to the conclusion that a public inquiry was not warranted. I would suggest that Canadians from coast to coast to coast should be asking the question of why it is that the Conservative and Bloc leaders do not want to know the facts. It seems to me it is because they are more interested in the politics than they are in the facts, and that is somewhat unfortunate.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has had a track record, since this issue has come up, of minimizing it. Today we hear him competing on who has been worse on foreign interference, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. I think they are in clear competition. That was followed up by what I just heard, which was an award-winning mansplaining to the Bloc member.

The NDP is offering solutions. We are offering solutions. We are the party that put forward the idea to begin with for the need for an independent public inquiry. Today we are putting forward a motion about the appointment of David Johnston and questions around that appointment.

Is the member going to take this seriously? Is he going to take the will of Parliament seriously, and should the will of Parliament decide that David Johnston should exit his post, would he really respect democracy and respect the will of Parliament?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the official opposition in the House when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The member can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that Thomas Mulcair ever raised the issue, even though we know foreign interference was taking place then.

The Conservative Party has seen the political optics for calling for a public inquiry and tying it to some sort of scandal. The Bloc has bought into it, but hopefully the NDP will not buy into it because, as the member knows, even when Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the NDP, sat in opposition, he never raised the issue of foreign interference, even though it was happening then. Today we have a government that has taken numerous actions to deal with foreign interference. It seems to me today that the opposition is more prepared to deal with the partisan politics of the issue as opposed to dealing with what is in the best interests of Canadians, including protecting our democratic institutions.

If opposition members were concerned about that in the first place and felt a public inquiry was necessary, why would they not have argued it when it was happening years ago? Why did they not raise the issue years ago? I would suggest it is because there is a new, shiny leader of the Conservative Party who has determined that this could be a good political issue. Other opposition members are buying into it or do not want to be seen as being soft on the issue, when there are other ways this issue could be dealt with that would minimize foreign interference. That is what what I would recommend members to look at doing.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not usually one to correct the member for Winnipeg North, but he did say that members of the Conservative Party were mad that they lost the last election. I would like to correct him. They lost the last three elections, to be truthful.

The member also mentioned that this was first highlighted when Stephen Harper was prime minister and led the government, and there was nothing really done. The Conservatives were informed of foreign interference and did nothing.

Could the member highlight why he thinks it was the case that they did nothing and did the opposition at the time demand a public inquiry?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the correction. The member is correct that the Conservatives did lose three consecutive elections.

However, it is a bit dangerous to ask me to put myself in the minds of Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party as to why they chose not to call a public inquiry. Back then, I would not have supported it, and I have serious doubts about it today and do not support it. When dealing with international foreign interference, there is a better way of doing it. I believe that, if we are prepared to put party politics to the side and start dealing with issues that Canadians and constituents want us to debate in the House of Commons, everyone would be better off for it.

It is not an issue of avoiding the topic. As I say, this topic has been around for 10 years. If we listen to experts, we will find that it will continue to be around, and that is one of the reasons why it is worth us taking a look at it, and why we have committees that are looking into it. It is to ensure that we can minimize foreign interference. In no way is it acceptable to any parliamentarian, no matter where they sit in the House.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying I will be splitting my time with the member for Burnaby South.

Let me start by going back to what I think is important. What we have before us today is a motion that sets a way forward for dealing effectively with the real problem of foreign interference in our democracy. Let us go back to what that motion actually says because most of the debate has said nothing about that.

The first thing it does is call on the right hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur. Having issued his interim report, he says that he intends to keep working, but even in that report he says that the fact that he is there is an obstacle to a public inquiry.

Very clearly, I think Parliament will end up calling on him to step aside to make way for the public inquiry New Democrats have been talking about now for weeks. We were the first ones to put forward a motion at PROC, and the first ones to put forward a motion in this House, calling for a full public inquiry.

What is different about the motion this time is that we have specified in the motion that we should have all-party agreement on who should lead that public inquiry so that we maintain the public confidence that, for whatever reasons, the right hon. David Johnston has lost as the special rapporteur. Let us get all-party agreement working through PROC on the person, and let us get all parties working through PROC, the committee of Parliament, on the mandate to review foreign interference from all states, not just China. The last part is, of course, that this report come back before the next election.

That is what it is. It is a clear plan for how we proceed from today, something that I expect we will be voting on tomorrow. We will see where that leads us. This is a difficult problem for Canada because we are an immigrant nation with large diaspora populations from many countries around the world, and inevitably those people keep close relationships, not just with their families but also with their culture and their countries of origin. Many maintain dual citizenship. Obviously, there will be those close relationships, and they are not inappropriate in and of themselves. People want to maintain their culture and their contacts, and many governments promote building those relationships.

What becomes a problem is when that relationship building crosses a line into interference in our democracy. We have clear evidence that that interference has taken place, as I said, not just by China but also by India, Iran and many others. What we need here is a study that shows us both the scope of the problem and how we could effectively respond to it. I do not believe there is any way to get that without the public inquiry.

There is a separate interference concern that I have always held, which is not subject to this motion and not subject to the special rapporteur, and that is the concern about interference of private interests from abroad in Canadian democracy. We had a very serious example of that having taken place with U.S. dollars supporting the convoy that was parked outside the House of Commons, which was calling for the overthrow of the Canadian government. There were more than 51,000 donors, documented, from the United States, giving several million dollars to that attempt to interfere with our democracy. That, unfortunately, is not covered. What we are talking about here is state interference in our democracy, which is a serious problem.

Unfortunately, the report from David Johnston only muddied the waters. From the beginning, this respected Canadian was put in an impossible situation. His report leaves many questions unanswered, including who changed key briefing documents for the Prime Minister, and it leaves some unasked. How could we get a report without even talking to Elections Canada about what happened?

The waters have been further muddied by the refusal of the Conservative and Bloc leaders to accept a briefing on foreign interference, as though this would somehow silence them, yet we have heard very eloquently today from the member for Durham, the member for Vancouver East and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all of whom have received confidential briefings, yet were able to speak very clearly on the important issue of foreign interference after those briefings.

The last thing I want to say is that I have difficulty understanding the arguments of the Conservatives and the Bloc that the NDP needs to bring the government down over this issue. If we were to bring the government down over this issue, we would go to an election where we have done nothing about foreign interference, where we do not know how big it is or how to respond to it. This motion we have proposed today clearly specifies a public inquiry should report back before the next election, so we would have a chance to counter that foreign interference and not go directly into another election with the same problems that we have seen before.

I hope to see all parties support this motion, but frankly, I do not expect to see the government support it. It has been stonewalling the public inquiry from the beginning.

Where will we be after Parliament votes? I hope this will pass. I hope the special rapporteur will then step aside. The government should then realize there is no point in further stonewalling a public inquiry and will then work with the other parties to get that public inquiry going as soon as possible.

Guelph Literacy Leader

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am rising to recognize Steven Kraft, the CEO of the Guelph Public Library. Steven has been a leader in the library field for over 40 years, starting in the Guelph Public Library as the children's librarian in 1983.

With a passion for our community and for engaging in and understanding the positive benefit of libraries and what they do for us, he has been a leader in Guelph, in our community and in the library community, driving the library toward new heights of excellence. Through his leadership, he has improved programming, collections and facilities. He has spearheaded the development of new initiatives to support literacy, STEM education and social justice, working collaboratively with many community partners.

I thank Steven for his community service, his passion for public libraries and his role in equality, social and civic engagement and the promotion of literacy in Canada.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my mom's birthday this week. Hers is the story of so many Canadians. Her family saw Canada with little more than the clothes on their back because Canada was the land of hope and opportunity, where, if they worked hard, played by the rules and dreamed big, they could succeed. That was the deal. In turn, my parents gave me and my brothers a middle-class upbringing in small-town southern Ontario. Using common sense and dreaming big, that was all possible.

However, the deal is now broken. I hear this frustration every single day from new Canadians and young people. After eight years of the Liberals, housing is out of reach and the cost of living is crushing. I hear the exasperation in people's voices and I see the tears in their eyes.

That is why common-sense Conservatives and our leader are working so hard to turn hurt into hope. We will bring home bigger paycheques, scrap the punishing carbon taxes and bring down the cost of living, so we can dream big in Canada again. Let us bring it home.

Tree Planting at Pinhey's Point

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this spring, volunteers from across my riding are setting out to plant 10,000 trees at Pinhey’s Point, thanks to investments made by our government and the City of Ottawa. These trees will transform over four hectares of land into an amazing forest, providing residents with new trails and trees to explore and appreciate. As we know, these new trees will help combat climate change by removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

This investment was made possible by our pledge to plant two billion trees across our country, an ambitious goal that is both combatting climate change and improving the quality of life for people in my riding. I cannot wait to watch these trees grow to become a lush forest. I look forward to the many hikes I will have in the years to come.

60th Anniversary of the Centre Mgr Marcoux

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Centre Mgr Marcoux in Limoilou is celebrating its 60th anniversary. It is often said that with age comes wisdom. However, it did not take the Mgr Marcoux Centre 60 years to become wise and caring.

The centre is a pillar of our community. It welcomes tens of thousands of people every year. They come to take French classes, play tennis, take swimming lessons, cook together and so on.

They go there because it is a welcoming environment. It truly teaches people how to live together better; it is a centre where everyone can find solace and friendship without ever being judged and always being welcomed with open arms.

I tip my hat to the Centre Mgr Marcoux for 60 wonderful years of heartfelt support and hard work. Congratulations to the teams who have worked there in the past and those who work there now. I wish the Centre Mgr Marcoux continued success.

Seniors Month

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as June marks Seniors Month, I was delighted to start visiting seniors' residences in my community of Orléans last week. After a few years without being able to meet with our seniors, it was so nice to sit down, hear their stories and simply enjoy their company. I have to say it was a joy to see the smiles on their faces. The resilience and strength exhibited by the residents was truly inspiring.

It was also an opportunity to join the Dumoulin family at Portobello Manor to mark Germaine Dumoulin's 100th birthday. I also want to thank all the staff for their warm welcome and dedication to seniors. I finished my week at Club 60 Orléans to celebrate the 50th and 60th wedding anniversaries of some of its members.

Congratulations and thank you.