Debates of June 10th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Is there no interpretation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The interpretation is okay.

Maybe, if the hon. parliamentary secretary were to look this way, he would not get sidetracked by some of the actions others are doing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the acknowledgement of not being able to reveal the names of the individuals in question. Does the member see the value of the leaders getting the classification so that they can get more information? After all, it is the leaders who sign off on candidates. Every leader could make the commitment to the electorate that they would not sign off unless they were comfortable with a candidate and, obviously, being treasonous would be a good reason not to.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer to his question is yes. That is actually what our leader decided to do, and I think that all the leaders should do the same to ensure that they have all the information.

Apart from that, what my colleagues and I wanted to say at the outset is that we thought that the parliamentary secretary thought we wanted names when we were asking questions. Obviously, we understood that he understood. It is very important for unilingual anglophones to listen with the earpiece to catch the subtleties of what is being said. However, my colleague is right when he says that it would be impossible to provide the names at this time. That is why we want to expand the Hogue commission's terms of reference so that we can get to the bottom of this matter and eventually identify these people to stop them from sitting in Parliament, because it is outrageous to allow people who work for other nations to sit here.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member that those who knowingly, intentionally, wittingly work with foreign states should not be sitting here as members of Parliament. They should not be running in the next election. There is no question about that.

At this time, because the NSICOP report has exposed that there are elected officials sitting around this table who are collaborating and working with foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic processes and democratic institutions, that means all of us are in a shadow. We are operating in such a way that quite possibly my privilege is being breached, and all of our privilege is being breached, because of this situation. Unless we were to know who they are, the privilege of all of us would be compromised. Would the member agree with that?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to know that at least one member listened to my speech from start to finish. We get along well and agree on most things.

That is why the commission's terms of reference need to be expanded, so that these individuals can be identified and each party leader can do their job and kick these people out of Parliament. I completely agree with my colleague that these members should not be sitting in this place. I agree with her that they should not be allowed to run again. We are on the same page. When she talks about parliamentary privilege, that is fine, but what I consider to be even more important is public trust in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, the interesting thing is that we now have the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which sits in camera. We also have the first report of the Hogue commission. We have all these facts and all these allegations before us, which brings us to our motion today.

We did not know these facts and most of us still do not know them. The Prime Minister knew them and the Prime Minister could have chosen to agree with the parties to expand the Hogue commission's terms of reference. Despite that, the Prime Minister rested on his laurels and did nothing. This brings us to an opposition day today where the Liberals seem forced to support us.

How does my colleague explain that it is the Bloc Québécois that ends up moving this motion? How does he explain the Prime Minister's lack of ambition for defending democracy?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a rational explanation. That is what I said for half my speech. The only explanation I have is that we are the adults in the room, we are the trustworthy ones. I am glad we are doing this. I am glad that the other parties support us.

When we have a Prime Minister who openly says that he does not read the CSIS reports, it makes us wonder. Does the Prime Minister know how to read or does he not want to read the reports? We know the real answer: He does not want to read them.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada has a strange democracy. It is a monarchy, with an electoral system that is not proportional and a parliamentary system where the separation of powers is vague, to say the least, and difficult to define. It has a Senate, a chamber with decision-making capacity made up of unelected people who are appointed. It has a Constitution that was imposed on Quebeckers, to which they are still not signatories to this day. It has a bunch of judges who have no problem eviscerating the statutes democratically passed by parliaments. Now we can add that this democracy is at the heart of a conflict, a confrontation between foreign powers trying to get their hands on candidates to influence parts of the political decision-making process.

Today, we are gathered not only as representatives of our respective constituencies, but as vigilant stewards of democracy and its sacred values and integrity, which is under threat. At least, that is how it should be. The Bloc Québécois is so concerned about safeguarding democracy, even a democracy as imperfect and as oligarchic as Canada's, that it has moved a motion of vital importance. If it resonates in the just and wise hearts of this chamber, this motion will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to sovereignty and freedom. It is our duty to respond to the pressing call of history.

The foreign interference commission under the leadership of Justice Hogue needs to have its terms of reference expanded, not to give into the temptation of suspicion or paranoia, but to respond firmly and with foresight to the troubling revelations of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. These revelations shake the very foundations of democracy.

It is now clear that the tentacles of foreign interference extend far beyond what we had previously imagined. Not only do foreign states dare interfere in Canada's diplomatic affairs, but they have also found allies among the elected members of this House. This dark collusion is hidden behind a shroud of confidentiality, and it threatens the very stability of our two nations.

NSICOP members, muzzled by the Security of Information Act, bear the burden of remaining silent forever. The truth, my friends, will have to come out at some point. We are called upon to lift the veil of darkness, to unearth buried truths and to protect our democracy from the dark forces that seek to corrupt it.

In its preliminary report, the Hogue commission has already shed light on foreign influence activities in the recent election. This is just the tip of the iceberg. By broadening its scope, the commission could finally answer the burning questions raised by the NSICOP report. We could finally find out whether our representatives are truly serving their country, or whether they have sold their souls to the highest bidders.

The stakes are high. This is not just about restoring public trust, but also about preserving the very essence of democracy. The Bloc Québécois calls for action, courageous and resolute action, action that tells the world that freedom and sovereignty are non-negotiable, that the light of truth will drive out the darkness of deceit and betrayal. It is high time that we lift the veil of wilful blindness and face the reality of foreign interference in democratic institutions and processes. History has reminded us of the urgent need not to turn a blind eye to the threats that are eating away at the foundations of our two nations.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius said, “He often acts unjustly who does not do a certain thing”. Recent circumstances have highlighted the Canadian government's failure to address this critical issue. In their insistence on ignoring the warning signs, government members have shown a disconcerting naivety. I use the word “naivety” quite politely, so as not to use another word. Only the weight of irrefutable evidence has persuaded them to admit that there is a problem of foreign interference, a problem that is poisoning democracy to its deepest roots.

The paltry attempts to cover up the matter are indicative of Ottawa's cavalier approach to this vital issue.

Delay tactics such as the appointment of a special rapporteur have only underscored the urgent need for a rigorous public inquiry. The Hogue commission, the result of relentless pressure rather than the government's initial will, is a step in the right direction. However, its restricted mandate and limited duration will not be enough to dispel the threatening shadows of foreign interference.

The report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians resonates like a thunderclap in a serene sky. These revelations, albeit redacted, suggest the insidious extent of foreign infiltration. Members of Parliament, blinded by the lure of power or darker motives, have compromised themselves in the service of foreign interests, undermining the foundations of national sovereignty.

The troubling ties between some elected officials and foreign governments, exposed with disturbing clarity, underscore the urgent need for action. The disdain shown by some members for the legitimate questions their peers asked about foreign interference reveals the extent of the complacency that reigns within this very Parliament.

We are faced with a huge moral and political dilemma. Foreign interference cannot be treated lightly, as it threatens not only security, but also the very legitimacy of institutions. By choosing not to act, Ottawa is shirking its primary responsibility to the people of Canada and Quebec. It is imperative that meaningful action be taken to counter this insidious threat. An educational program for politicians on intelligence and foreign interference could be a crucial first step in this fight.

It is only through widespread public awareness and determined political will that we can restore public trust and protect our democracy from outside attacks. It is time to rise above partisan interests and stand together against foreign interference. Our two nations, democracy and sovereignty are at stake. It is our duty as stewards of the political future to act with courage and determination to preserve the values we hold dear. Together, let us make our two peoples, the people of Canada and the people of Quebec, sure again that their voices are heard, that their will is respected and that democracy is preserved.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words that the member put on the record this afternoon.

NSICOP, which I commented on in my opening remarks as being a creation of the Liberal government, ultimately provided us with the report that we are tabling. Now we know that this is going to be reviewed by the Hogue commission.

The Hogue commission was put together in co-operation with all political parties. There will be a report, and through that report I hope to find all sorts of good pieces of information that will better equip leaders and others to deal with building confidence in the system in terms of minimizing indirect foreign interference.

I am wondering if the member could provide additional thoughts in regard to the public confidence and all political parties working together, in particular once that whole report comes out.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, at least one can say that my colleague is consistent. He has asked the same question about 15 times. Sometimes he changes the wording. He is tenacious. I admire that in politics. I respect that.

That being said, it is obviously not a bad thing to increase, enhance and expand the terms of references. That is the purpose of today's motion. I would remind the House that it has three components. First, we talk about taking note of the special report. The House needs to recognize the special report. Second, we are concerned that certain elected officials could be wittingly or unwittingly working in the interests of foreign powers. Now, here is the important part. We are asking that the commission's terms of reference be expanded. That is probably the most important of the three points, even though all three are fundamental. That one is important. I think that goes along with what my colleague just said.

However, I would like to remind him that this commission was not established because of a willingness on the part of the government. We had to hound the government non-stop to make that happen.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the areas the member touched on is the timeline of the issue. Aside from the fact that the government, the Prime Minister, knew of foreign interference activities for a long time and did not take the necessary action to counter this threat to Canadian society, to our democratic system, the other issue the NSICOP report highlighted was that a former member of Parliament engaged in foreign interference activities, allegedly. Supposedly, the individual also set up meetings and collaborated with foreign agents.

To that end, would the member agree that we need to ensure that Commissioner Hogue has the full breadth and scope when looking into foreign interference activities and is not just restricted to just the last two elections?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that this commission must have the resources to do its job. It is as simple as that. That is fundamental. If a commission is set up, it must not be turned into a mere political show, a way of trying to shut down a debate that is starting to become a nuisance. We must give it the means to get to the bottom of things.

My colleague said, “the Prime Minister”. Personally, I get the sense that there is more than just one prime minister who has turned a blind eye to foreign interference. I get the sense that we are witnessing a problem that is much more systemic and far more persistent, and that this is a problem with the system as opposed to a problem with the government. That is why I would also like us to look further back than just the last few years.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is our international trade critic, so there is something I cannot help but wonder. Some of our trading partners are obviously taking the foreign interference issue more seriously than we are. The United States would never have let something like this slide for so long, and neither would France. Here, in contrast, the second opposition party is the one asking the government to expand the terms of reference of a commission that the government itself created. In my colleague's opinion, how does that make us look in the eyes of our trading partners?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say we do not look very good. As a matter of fact, the United States even monitors investments because of concerns that foreign investments could jeopardize economic security.

It goes without saying that, by failing to take this seriously, by being total slackers, we are making ourselves look bad. I say “we”, but I should actually be saying “Canada”, because I do not feel l am Canadian. It makes Canada look bad, and that is bad for businesses and entrepreneurs in Quebec, too. When Canada behaves this way, when it slacks off, that does not look good at all.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise in this honourable House. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for the very near, and I say near because it is geographically near, riding of Ottawa—Vanier, who is a dear friend and great member of Parliament in the House.

We are having a debate on a very important topic, a topic none of us should take lightly and a topic we all need to think about, co-operate and opine on, because it impacts democracy in the country we live in. It is a topic that I know is very, very important to all of us and all of our citizens.

As the members opposite and all hon. senators know, the Government of Canada is firmly committed to combatting foreign interference.

Today, foreign interference poses one of the greatest threats to Canadian society, our economic prosperity, and our sovereignty. By giving law enforcement and intelligence agencies enhanced tools and powers, the countering foreign interference act will strengthen our ability to detect and disrupt foreign interference threats to our national security.

Activities such as the dissemination of false information and misinformation through traditional and digital means undermine public trust and sow doubt in our fundamental institutions, traditional media, and the legitimacy of elections. Not only do these activities spread misinformation, but, as we learned from testimony heard during the foreign interference commission's public hearings, foreign state actors are monitoring, intimidating, and harassing diaspora communities across Canada.

We also know from Canada's security and intelligence community that a growing number of states have developed and deployed programs to exert influence online as part of their day-to-day activities. Public Safety Canada is leading the work of this community to identify and develop the right solutions for Canada.

We are also aware of numerous reports, such as the “CSIS Public Report 2023”; the initial report of Justice Hogue's commission; and, more recently, the studies by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

Through their insidious online campaigns, foreign actors are trying to realign our decision-makers' choices, our government relations, along with our politicians' and our country's reputations. The countering foreign interference act will strengthen Canada's ability to counter the threat of foreign interference while defending Canadian values and interests and respecting the need for transparency.

One of the key pillars of the act and its commitment to transparency is the creation of a foreign agent registry to ensure transparency when it comes to foreign influence. This registry will require the public registration of the activities of any person or corporation entering into an agreement with a foreign official and engaging in activities to influence a government or political process in Canada. The purpose of a foreign agent registry is to promote transparency for all those who advocate on behalf of foreign governments or entities, as well as to ensure accountability for those who seek to do so in secret. This will reinforce how seriously we take our political and democratic processes, and will align Canada's process with international best practices

By aligning ourselves with international best practices, we can assure our allies that our mutual security will be respected and that our shared values of democracy, openness and human rights will be defended.

Canada has remained open to learning from the experiences of our international partners. Many other countries have already adopted a similar foreign registry. For instance, foreign agent registries already exist in other Five Eyes countries, such as the United States and Australia.

With Bill C‑70, the government is proposing that Canada's registry be overseen by an independent foreign interference commissioner to independently administer and promote compliance with the act. The act is by no means a single solution to foreign interference. This is a complex national threat that requires a multi-pronged approach. That said, a foreign registry would build on our government's long-standing and ongoing efforts to protect our democratic institutions from the threat of foreign interference.

While our security intelligence community is working to identify and counter threats and develop strategies to protect our country and our citizens, we cannot become complacent or overly optimistic about mitigating these threats in the current geopolitical context. Targeted amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act would enable the government and other Canadian institutions and entities to better strengthen their resilience and counter the modern threats that Canada is facing today.

When the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was established in 1984, the federal government was our adversaries' main target. However, as members know, foreign interference is now omnipresent in all spheres of Canadian society. Our adversaries boldly target not only the federal government, but also the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, industry, academics, community groups and individuals, both online and in person.

Among other changes, Bill C‑70 would allow wider disclosure of CSIS intelligence to those outside of the Government of Canada. With appropriate safeguards, this intelligence would help Canadians build resilience to threats. The bill would also allow CSIS to be more agile and effective in its investigations by introducing new Federal Court orders and warrants, and it would also improve the ability of CSIS to use data sets.

The proposed changes take into account the feedback received during consultations with individuals and entities from across Canada, and from various communities, industries and entities. Canadians have high expectations when it comes to the protection of personal information, including protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is with this in mind that these proposals have been developed. CSIS already has several layers of protection in place to ensure accountability and respect for the rights of Canadians.

I welcome any questions and comments that my colleagues may have.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his effort to speak in the language of Molière.

I would like him to explain something to me. If foreign interference and trust in democratic institutions are so important to his government, how come it took months for his government to take action? How come it is the Bloc Québécois that is moving a motion today to move things forward, so that we can get to the bottom of this and eventually remove the people who are here working for someone other than their constituents?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is very important. I represent the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Last year, I often said that it is very important to create a registry of foreign agencies. I supported that and I am in favour of such a registry. That is very important for our country. I am therefore very pleased that our government and the other parties in the House are moving forward with the creation of this registry.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard some Liberals today claiming that the government is leading the charge on this, yet a year ago the NDP put forward a motion for a national inquiry on foreign interference, and the Liberals voted against it. I am wondering what they were trying to hide back then.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay is a long-time member and a very learned member of the House. I will speak for myself on this issue because it is an issue of national importance when we are talking about foreign interference, disinformation and what is happening in the world, especially geopolitically.

We need to be measured. We need to be diligent. We need to be judicious, and we need to move forward. We also need to seek advice from all parties and all entities in our country on how we protect our democracy and our institutions, and how to do it expeditiously in the right manner.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his use of the French language. That was wonderful.

We all agree with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that the “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions” is a very serious report. Every parliamentarian and, I would recommend, most people involved in anything to do with politics or civil society should read it.

Does my colleague not agree that it is important for leaders of the opposition to accept the offer to get security clearance so they can see the full, unredacted report?

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

Madam Speaker, I am incredulous, if I am using the correct word, that any leader of any officially recognized party in the House would not have received security clearance to see these types of reports. That is called leadership. That is leadership 101, 100 or even 099. It is a complete failure in leadership for any leader in the House not to get that security clearance. If they would wish to be a responsible leader going into the future, they must do that. It is a real shame, and it is very disappointing.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I challenge my colleague on that hogwash. If he can name one instance in history when there has been a leader of the opposition who has had to be briefed on one of these matters in the background so he could do his job as the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition in holding the government to account, I would ask him to present that to me now.

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

Madam Speaker, in the context in the world we are in today, it is imperative that every leader of an officially recognized party in the House receives that security clearance. The technology that is being used today, the online format and the sophistication of criminals both domestic and foreign, or whichever entities, demand that every leader in the House who is officially recognized receives that security clearance.