Debates of June 12th, 2023

Democratic Institutions

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the Bloc Québécois can see, Mr. Johnston's departure is not restoring public trust in democracy. The problem is his botched report. His suggestion to hold public hearings is nothing but a ploy to avoid a serious inquiry. This report proves that an independent public inquiry is essential.

Today, the government is finally showing some openness to the idea, and that is good news for democracy. However, the government needs to state its intentions first.

Does it want to relaunch David Johnston's hearings under a different name, or is it making a clear commitment to a genuine, independent public inquiry?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the start of question period, that has always been an option.

I know that the Bloc Québécois will never form the government, but the Conservative Party is well aware that a public inquiry involving the most heavily protected national security information cannot proceed irresponsibly.

I think that everyone would benefit from a substantive discussion on how to approach the next steps in the public process and, if a public inquiry is the option chosen, how it will proceed, what its terms of reference will be and what the timeline will look like.

Housing

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, interest rates have shot up so quickly that families are struggling to pay their mortgages. We can give an example of someone in Toronto. An average family that bought an average home a year and a half ago would have to find over an additional $27,000 by the end of this year. That is a shocking amount.

What advice would the Prime Minister give to these families that are struggling with the cost of a mortgage for how they can come up with this additional amount of money?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely aware that housing is a significant challenge for far too many Canadians. That is why I am really glad that we have now put in place something we promised to do, which is the tax-free first home savings account. That is going to help a lot of first-time homebuyers save for that crucial home. I am also really glad that we have now put in place a $4-billion housing accelerator plan.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, none of that helps a family that is struggling with the cost of a mortgage right now.

Here is a similar example. In Montreal, a family has to come up with an additional $13,000 a year. That is crazy. Families are already struggling to make ends meet.

What advice does this government have for these families when it comes to paying their bills and their mortgage?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, our government absolutely agrees that housing may be the biggest challenge facing Canadians and Canadian families.

That is why we have already put in place a tax-free first home savings account. This will be important, especially for young Canadians.

We have also put in place a housing accelerator fund to help municipalities create more of the housing that Canada really needs.

Democratic Institutions

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been eight months of denials, foot-dragging and cover-ups from the Liberals when it comes to foreign interference in our election. Here are the numbers: countless promises of protecting our democracy, hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Trudeau Foundation, one special rapporteur, zero answers and zero results. The Prime Minister now gets to go back to the drawing board, where he can keep delaying this investigation, continue his cover-up and find someone else to do his bidding.

The opposition has agreed to the new request. When will he give up the charade and finally commit to a public inquiry?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we think that a discussion about issues as important as protecting Canadian democratic institutions from unacceptable foreign interference would benefit from all of us lowering the partisan temperature. That is why we believe the decision of Mr. Johnston to leave the special rapporteur role gives all of us an opportunity to discuss what the next steps are in a public process.

The opposition says it wants a public inquiry. What would be the terms of reference of that inquiry? How would they protect necessary national security information in the interests of Canada? What would be the timeline? Those are the conversations we are anxious to have.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canadians want a public inquiry, and this is the kind of thing we have been seeing for eight months. The party that unequivocally rejected a public inquiry and ignored the will of this Parliament just weeks ago now says one has always been on the table. It should have been the first resort, not the last resort.

It is very clear the Liberals have no plan and never intended to investigate foreign interference in our elections. When will they stop delaying this with their games and just call a public inquiry?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise members that I do not share some of the exaggerated premises of our hon. colleague's questions.

What we have said, and members of the Conservative Party know this well, including the leader of the Conservative Party, who sat in government, is that this was designed and decided to protect national security information from public release. The Conservatives know that. Saying they want a public inquiry right now is not, in fact, a responsible suggestion. They should tell us what the terms of reference would be, how they would protect the national security interests of Canada and who might lead this process—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 31 weeks, more than seven months, since the news that the government knew about the PRC's interference in our democracy came to light. Since then, we have asked hundreds of questions in this House and in its committees, but we have gotten very few answers. The only thing we have gotten are a few answers here and there, heavily redacted documents and a mountain of process with NSICOP, NSIRA and a special rapporteur.

Will the Prime Minister commit to a public inquiry with the full powers of a public inquiry so we can get answers to exactly what happened?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague across the way highlights the mechanisms that shine a light on how we are protecting our democratic institutions from foreign interference, including through the creation of NSICOP, a multipartisan endeavour; through the creation of NSIRA; and yes, through Mr. Johnston, who has now determined that he will not be carrying on and has charted out a course.

What is important is that we work together to address the concerns that have been raised with regard to foreign interference, but doing so in a way that is responsible to protect our national security. That remains the commitment of this government, and we look forward to taking the next concrete steps with all members in this chamber.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a related national security matter concerning the Winnipeg lab breaches, it was two and a half years ago that the House of Commons ordered the production of documents. The government refused to comply with the order. Then it hid behind NSICOP. Now, finally, two and a half years later, the committee that is looking at these documents has just been stood up.

We cannot wait two and a half years for more process to unfold to get the answers we need about interference in our democracy that affects all members and all parties of this House. Will the government commit today to a public inquiry so this democracy and Canadians across the country can get the answers they deserve about the PRC interference?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when Justice Iacobucci and Justice O'Connor made recommendations about critical changes that needed to happen to make sure that parliamentarians could see into every corner of government, the Leader of the Opposition, as minister at the time, ignored that request. In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition had his way, there would be no way to look at any national security documents.

What we did with the Winnipeg lab is offer all of the documents to be seen at NSICOP. When the Conservatives refused, we created an alternate process with a panel of independent arbiters who could look at every redaction to make sure they were legitimate. It took them nearly a year to agree to that process. They finally have. They took a long time to appoint their members. I am glad they finally have.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why has the Prime Minister not already announced an independent public inquiry into Beijing's interference?

The Prime Minister wanted to sweep under the rug the fact that the Beijing regime helped him in the 2019 and 2021 elections, so he created a special rapporteur position and appointed his friend, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, to fill it. David Johnston resigned on Friday after failing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the appearance of a conflict of interest between him and the Prime Minister was unsubstantiated.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, launch an independent inquiry today and finally work with the opposition to ensure that Canadians know the whole truth?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the government is always ready to work with the opposition, including the Conservatives. However, it was the Conservatives who refused to receive a briefing from the intelligence services. I hope that now, with a renewed spirit and this new opportunity for collaboration, we will be able to work with the opposition, because this is an extremely important issue. It is critical that we address the threats posed by foreign interference, and we need to work together to do that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, rather than making a decision immediately after David Johnston's resignation, as he could have done, why did the Prime Minister not announce an independent public inquiry? Instead, he sent another friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to make political statements to the media.

When will the Prime Minister realize that he cannot take help from a foreign country to win elections and decide on the inquiry process? His plan to lie low and buy himself time has failed. When will he stop the cover-up and immediately announce an independent public inquiry?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is telling is that our colleague opposite believes that it is petty politics for a government minister to say that he wants to consult the opposition parties and collaborate on such a crucial issue as protecting our democratic institutions.

On the contrary, there has frankly been too much petty politics on this issue, including on the part of the Conservatives. We want to work together to find the best way to move forward, and we look forward to substantive discussions with the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, David Johnston was trapped. From day one, the mandate he received from the Prime Minister went against the will of the public and the House. Now that he has honourably stepped down, the government is signalling openness and is asking us to suggest candidates to lead an inquiry. The Bloc will collaborate, but first the government needs to clarify what kind of inquiry it is talking about.

Is it talking about a public and independent commission of inquiry, or is it talking about restricted hearings with no power or independence? In other words, does the government want the names of potential commissioners, or does it want the names of people it can trap like Mr. Johnston?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, we have always been willing to work with the Bloc. We invited the Bloc, and all members of Parliament, in fact, to receive a briefing from the intelligence services so that we could make fact-based decisions. Yes, another opportunity is now presenting itself to work together. All the options are on the table. We must do this work together to better protect our democratic institutions.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that David Johnston has stepped down, we are back at square one. The government has been trying to avoid an inquiry for almost four months now. The Bloc Québécois salutes the fact that the government is showing signs of openness today, but after four months, the government really needs to get its act together.

We need an independent public commission of inquiry. The commissioner must be selected by the House and must have enough leeway in setting the terms of reference to answer all of the public's questions.

Is the government prepared to launch such an inquiry before the House rises, yes or no?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we are not back at square one. A lot of work has been done and a lot of meaningful action has been taken by this government, including the creation of a new national coordinator's office, public consultations on the creation of a registry, and investments in budget 2023 to add resources to the RCMP to protect Canadians. There are plenty of examples to show that we are in a very good position.

Now, we need to ask some serious questions and consider this matter very seriously and attentively. We are always willing to work with the opposition.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about this every day since February. Everyone is calling for an independent public inquiry.

That includes Canada's former chief electoral officer, former intelligence officials and senior officials, not to mention the public, minorities threatened by the Chinese regime and the House of Commons. Of course there will be in camera meetings, as is the case with any inquiry that involves sensitive content.

It is not the means to responsibly investigate that is lacking; it is the will of the government.

Will there be an independent public inquiry, yes or no?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by our colleague's comments about the kind of public inquiry that will have to be considered by the government and by the House of Commons.

She specifically identified one of the challenges when it comes to top secret information, which is so classified in order to protect the safety of Canadians and those who work for our security agencies.

Rather than simply repeating the call for an independent public inquiry, it would be helpful to hear exact terms and conditions, specific suggestions on how to protect top secret information, the ideal person to conduct that kind of discussion or public inquiry, and the timelines.