Debates of June 10th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on what the member was saying toward the tail end of her speech.

One of the best ways we could counter foreign interference would be by building support from all sides of the chamber in not only recognizing the serious nature of foreign interference, but also acting as one strong voice, which would send a very powerful message. Often foreign interference is an attempt to promote and encourage public distrust. If people were to work together, partisanship aside, to combat foreign interference as a top priority, that is one way we can build public confidence in the system.

I wonder if the member would provide her thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, foreign interference usually aims to divide us. How does the saying go? Divide and conquer. That is pretty much what foreign interference tries to do.

That said, I am sure we all agree that foreign interference is a problem we must stop, although we might disagree on how to stop it. That is why it is important to sit down together, because the beauty of a minority government is that we can take the time to negotiate and discuss before finally reaching a consensus that will truly and fully protect democracy and our constituents.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP report noted that the foreign interference actors, particularly those from China and India, are most pervasive. The implications are significant to Canadians, to our democratic institutions and to our processes. While the government has known about this for a long time, our system is deficient in addressing the issue.

Paramount to the motion today and to ongoing efforts to counter foreign interference activities is ensuring that the commission has access to all unredacted documents, most certainly the ones that NSICOP received and, as well, the information from cabinet. Would the member support the call for the government to release all unredacted documents to the commission?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in my colleague's question.

First, maybe there should be no more working in silos. Right now, the problem is that everyone clings to their prerogative and runs their own show. They see certain information as belonging exclusively to them. Nobody talks to one another. That has to change.

They also need to stop being willfully blind. There are none so blind as those who will not see. They have the information. The Prime Minister had the information. His office had the information, but it refused to look at it or be briefed.

Now, it is important that the Hogue commission receive the documents it deems necessary and that it take whatever action is appropriate.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether the government has given any indication that it is willing to work with the other parties in the House of Commons on issues like this, particularly foreign affairs, and to provide more information to all Canadians, or whether it is a farce when our colleague opposite says we should be working together in this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is crucial that we work together. Is the government willing to do that? During question period, the government indicated it would support our motion. As we all know, however, supporting a motion does not mean implementing it. It will have to be implemented as well.

The government must show that it understands the beauty of a minority government. A minority government sits down, negotiates and engages in discussion in order to reach a consensus. In this case, the consensus is for the well-being of our democratic future.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of what happened today during question period, I think you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the proceedings on the opposition motion standing in the name of the member for Trois-Rivières shall conclude no later than 7 p.m. today.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member for Surrey—Newton, who is in fact one of the members who really tackle the issue head on.

Members will recall that Motion No. 112 received unanimous support from those who were inside the chamber voting. It also dealt with the issue of foreign interference.

I want to put things into perspective so those who are following the debate get an appreciation of what we are actually talking about and what led us to where we are today. It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize, and it does not matter what side of the House we are on, that an assault of any nature, anything direct or indirect, through international or foreign interference is an assault on all of us. We should all do what we can to dispose of international foreign interference.

As a government, we have taken a number of actions. Let me first put it in the context of the degree to which the current Prime Minister and, in good part, the government have been acting, even in 2015. Going back to when the Liberals had third party status in the chamber, there was Bill C-51. We argued that Canada needed to be able to establish a security clearance standing committee of the House that would be able to take a look at all forms of information. It was nothing new. Canada is one of the Five Eyes countries, and we were the only one that did not have such a committee in existence.

At the time, the Conservative Party, which was in government under Stephen Harper, said no to us. It did not recognize, nor was it interested at all in proceeding with what we call NSICOP today. In fact, if we look at the history of the issue itself, we see that the it was actually brought to the government's attention in 2013, knowing full well that there was foreign interference taking place in Canada.

Today's leader of the Conservative Party was in cabinet. Not only Stephen Harper completely ignored the issue, but so too did today's leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward the suggestion of changing the law to incorporate NSICOP, the Conservative Party opposed it. The federal election took place, and one of the first initiatives Liberals took was to establish NSICOP. We did a great deal of consultation on it, believing that it was in Canada's best interest.

When we put NSICOP in place after passing the legislation, the Conservatives boycotted it and withdrew some members. NSICOP as a standing committee has representatives from all recognized political entities in the chamber. It even has participation from the Senate. However, the Conservative Party did not support it. Fast-forward to today and listen to some of the quotes that can be provided, in terms of the degree to which the Conservative Party has actually politicized the issue. How many times have we heard the Conservatives stand up and demand that we release the names? Constantly it is “Release the names of the members of Parliament.” Then, through social media, the Conservatives created the idea that the Government of Canada was trying to hide something.

There are Conservative members who sit on NSICOP. They would have just as much right to see the names as the government does. If the Conservative Party wants the names released, why do the Conservative members who sit on NSICOP not release them? I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they are a bit concerned about potential charges or investigations, because it would not be appropriate for them to release the names.

Earlier today, the minister responsible indicated that he had a discussion with Deputy Commissioner Flynn about releasing the names, asking whether he could do that as a minister. He was told by the deputy commissioner, who is the second in charge, that if he were to do that he would be opening himself up to criminal prosecution. The Conservatives, on the one hand, are asking us to release the names, knowing full well that we cannot release them, but that does not prevent them from going around spreading misinformation on the issue.

It does not end there. The Conservatives are saying that they do not want their leader to be informed. The government has said that a leader of a political party can get the security clearance that would allow them to request the information. The leader of the NDP has done just that, but not the leader of the Conservative Party.

It is interesting that just this past weekend, on the issue, the host of CTV's Question Period was conducting an interview. She quoted the national security adviser and the head of CSIS. Then she said, “Just because your leader is briefed on this intelligence does not mean that he can't act.” In essence, she was saying that the leader can in fact be briefed and can act on the issue.

Let us follow what happens afterward. The host then asked the Conservative panellist, “Why not get briefed? Why could [the leader of the Conservative party] now not just get that information and then act on it?” The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who spoke earlier today, responded with, “What the Prime Minister is asking [the Leader of the Opposition] to do is essentially tie his hands behind his back”, even though the New Democratic leader had the same briefing. He goes on further to say, “That process would require [the Leader of the Opposition] to sign an undertaking and to swear an oath of secrecy not to divulge this information to anyone else, and, therefore, not be able to tell anybody else to act on this information to hold individuals accountable.”

The host then poses this question: “Respectfully though, am I supposed to believe you over the director of CSIS?” Get this; this is what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said: “Yes. Yes, you are.” He said to believe him over CSIS. That is incredible. He said, “because I think the director of CSIS and the RCMP may not be as knowledgeable about the processes under the Reform Act that govern [our ] party caucuses”. Really?

It highlights how the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative-Reform party, choose to be dumb on the issue intentionally, come up with lame excuses and then spread misinformation all over social media. Where is the sense of responsibility? The Conservatives are definitely found lacking when it comes to common sense and responsibility in dealing with an issue that Canadians are concerned about.

Why will the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today not take the government up on getting the security clearance so he would understand in more depth what is taking place?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my friend, the member for Winnipeg North, speak. I cannot believe that he can talk on any issue for 10 minutes to 20 minutes. He always has something to say, but nothing very serious.

We know for sure that in the House there are people who have been elected with the support of foreign countries that are not fans of Canada. We know that, but what we do not know is who they are. We think that it would be a good idea to have the names, which is not a position that my colleague supports. That is what democracy is all about. I understand what he is talking about, as I am sure he understands what I am talking about.

The point is, can the member assure this country that no cabinet minister is on the damn list?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member across the way that there are two Conservative members of Parliament who sit on NSICOP. Those two members would be just as entitled to know the names as anyone else. The Conservatives say, “Well, we do not want them them to speak about it, but we want the minister to speak about it.”

The minister said earlier today that he cannot share the names. All the member has to do is listen to what the deputy commissioner said, because he too would be eligible for prosecution. Therefore the NSICOP members are being responsible. The government minister is being responsible. The only one who is not being responsible is the Conservative-Reform party leader in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain his vision. In his opinion, why are trust and truth so important in a democratic system like ours?

I would also like him to explain why his government does not act unless it is pushed into a corner. I do not think it is right that the Bloc Québécois was the one that had to move a motion on this matter. If there were effective governance, action would have been taken more quickly. I would like him to explain that to me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister have not been pushed on the issue. I would ultimately argue that, in a certain way, it is the government that has been pushing the issue. All that members have to ask about is why we have the report that we have today. The Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the third party, insisted that we should have a committee like NSICOP. In 2015, when we took over the reins of power, we actually started to take action to put NSICOP into place. We would not have NSICOP today except for the current Prime Minister and government. That is the report we are actually talking about today.

NSICOP has representatives of all political entities of the chamber. To say that we have not taken action is not true. There are more actions that I could talk about, but I am out of time.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, according to the NSICOP report, “foreign actors covertly supported or opposed candidates by exploiting vulnerabilities in political party governance and administration.” It goes on to say, “This included interfering with nomination processes or attempting to influence or control electoral district associations. CSIS considers the nomination process to be a particularly soft target”. Unlike Australia and the United Kingdom, Canada does not criminalize interfering in nominations, leaderships or any other political party processes.

Would the Liberal government agree that it is time to do what our ally countries are doing to tackle foreign interference?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the report talks about the Conservative leadership itself. I think that, yes, we do need to look at ways, maybe working with Elections Canada and other agencies, in which we can protect the integrity of our democracy.

It would be nice to see all political parties get onside and do it in such a fashion that it reinforces public confidence in the system. In order to do that, we have to be prepared to put party politics at the time to the side.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the members opposite and all hon. colleagues know, the Government of Canada is deeply focused on combatting foreign interference. Today, foreign interference poses one of the greatest threats to our Canadian society, our economic prosperity and our sovereignty.

Following the tragic killing of Mr. Hardeep Singh Nijjar at a place of worship in my riding of Surrey—Newton, a Canadian who was assassinated on Canadian soil, I introduced private member's Motion No. 112, which called for the government to protect diaspora communities from acts of political interference, violence and intimidation on Canadian soil by persons or agents of foreign states.

With Motion No. 112 receiving support from all members who had voted, our government also introduced Bill C-70, the countering foreign interference act, to further combat foreign interference. By giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies enhanced tools and authorities, the countering foreign interference act would strengthen our ability to detect and disrupt foreign interference threats to our national security.

Activities such as spreading misinformation and disinformation through traditional and digital means undermine public confidence and spread doubt in our fundamental institutions, mainstream media and the legitimacy of elections. Not only are they spreading misinformation, but, as we know from testimony at the public hearings of the foreign interference commission, foreign state actors are monitoring, intimidating and harassing diaspora communities across Canada.

We also know from our security and intelligence community that a growing number of states have built and deployed programs dedicated to undertaking online influence as part of their everyday activities. Public Safety Canada is leading work across this community to identify and develop the right solutions for Canada. As well, we have this knowledge from numerous reports, such as from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service entitled “CSIS Public Report 2023”, Justice Hogue’s interim report of the foreign interference commission and, most recently, studies from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

Through their deceptive online campaigns, foreign actors are attempting to reshape our policy-makers’ choices, our government relationships, and the reputation of our politicians and our country. The countering foreign interference act would further strengthen Canada’s ability to counter the foreign interference threat, while upholding Canadian interests, values and the need for transparency.

One of the main pillars of this bill and its commitment to transparency is the creation of a foreign influence transparency registry. This registry would require that all individuals or entities who enter into an arrangement with a foreign principal and who undertake activities to influence a government or political process in Canada would be required to publicly register these activities. The goal of a foreign registry would be to promote transparency from all people who advocate on behalf of foreign governments or entities, as well as to ensure accountability from those who would seek to do so in secret ways.

This would reinforce the seriousness with which we take the protection of our political and democratic processes and would align Canada with international best practices. This is what we would like to see for Canada. By aligning with international best practices, we could reassure our allies that our mutual security would be upheld and our shared values of democracy, openness and human rights would be defended.

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

In Bill C-70, the government proposes Canada's registry be overseen by an independent foreign influence transparency commissioner, who would be responsible to independently administer and promote compliance with the act. However, the act is by no means a single solution to foreign interference. It is a complex national security threat that requires a multipronged approach.

This said, a foreign registry would build on the government's ongoing and long-standing efforts to protect our democratic institutions against the threat of foreign interference. While our security and intelligence community has been doing the hard work of detecting and countering threats and developing strategies to protect our country, we cannot become content or overly optimistic that these threats will decrease given the current geopolitical environment.

Targeted amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act would better equip the government and other Canadian institutions and entities to build resilience and to counter the modern threats Canada faces today.

When the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was first created in 1984, the federal government was the primary target of our adversaries. However, as we know today, foreign interference is widespread across all facets of Canadian society. Our adversaries boldly target not just the federal government, but provincial, territorial and indigenous governments, industry, academics, community groups and individual Canadians, both online and in person.

Among other changes, Bill C-70 would enable a broader disclosure of Canadian Security Intelligence Service information to those outside the Government of Canada. With appropriate safeguards, this information would help Canadians build resiliency to threats. This legislation would also increase the ability of CSIS to be more agile and effective in its investigation, by introducing new Federal Court orders and warrants. It would also enhance the capacity of CSIS to use datasets. These proposed changes incorporate the input we received during the consultations with individuals and entities across Canada and from diverse communities, industries and entities.

People in Canada have a high expectation of privacy, including the protection provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These proposals have been developed with that in mind. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service already has multiple layers of protection to ensure it is accountable and that the rights of people in Canada are protected. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians also provide an important review function for CSIS activities.

I want to reassure my colleagues in the House and Canadians the government is and will be using every possible tool at our disposal to keep them safe.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, my colleague, who I work with closely on the immigration committee, talks about the importance of making sure democracy goes forward and that the foreign interference he has experienced, even in his riding, in the most egregious form does not continue across Canada. The NSICOP report, of course, indicated that is happening throughout the country. What was redacted in the report before it came to Parliament were certain things that parliamentarians should know. It is a choice that those things were redacted for Parliament.

Would the member go back to his leadership and ask if the redacted parts of that report could be unredacted and tabled in Parliament?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, for his friendship on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

When it comes to members of Parliament, diplomacy is part of our service, but when we go beyond that, irrespective of which party MPs belong to, that is unacceptable. I have had discussions to see if the names can be released, but, today, the Minister of Public Safety clearly indicated in this House that he sought advice from the deputy commissioner of the RCMP and was told that if those names are released, he can be criminally charged. That answers that question.

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

Madam Speaker, several Liberals are telling us that there is already a system of accountability because the leaders of the political parties could have gone to get their security clearance to get the information. That is what the member for Kingston and the Islands said in a televised interview earlier today. Now, if they have that information, they cannot use it or disclose it, so they cannot take action. There is no accountability, and as a result, the only one who could really act is the Prime Minister. By his own admission, the Prime Minister does not read the security reports because he does not want to know anything about them, or he asks the security service to amend the reports to ensure that he does not know anything.

Does my colleague not agree that it is time to change the terms of reference of the Hogue commission so that, from now on, it can introduce what the government has never been able to introduce, that is, a mechanism that will make it possible to anticipate and take action when elected officials are compromised? There is no such mechanism in place today, not in government, not in law, not in the Prime Minister's Office.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, regarding the question from the hon. member for Mirabel, I already answered it when the member from Calgary East raised the issue.

I can tell the member what the Prime Minister and the government have done. We set up the national security and intelligence committee, which is made up of parliamentarians. Members from all parties sit on it, do the work, know exactly who these people are and know their boundaries. I have introduced Motion No. 112, which the Bloc Québécois supported, and our government put forward Bill C-70 to further protect Canadians and Canadian democratic institutions from foreign interference.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NSICOP report noted that the government was aware of the extent of foreign interference activities since 2018. In fact, the unredacted information was received by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Therefore, it is not like the Prime Minister did not have the information or the Liberal government did not know the extent to which foreign interference activities were taking place in Canada. It has taken these many years and months for the government to take action.

Why is it that the government is resistant to ensuring that Commissioner Hogue gets access to all unredacted cabinet documents related to foreign interference?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, as far as the information I have is concerned, I think the minister has made it very clear in the House today that Commissioner Hogue has access to this report and all of those documents the hon. member for Vancouver East is talking about.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House. I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my respected colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot. I say that it is always a privilege to speak because it is a great privilege just to be in the House. Out of more than 40 million people, there are 338 members. It is a prestigious position, and the people have put their trust in us. That is what I want to start with: The people have put their trust in us. What we are here to do, every time we stand up in the course of our work as parliamentarians, is work for the people who have put their trust in us, for the common good.

That is not always evident because we sometimes play partisan games, but things are worse than usual right now. We have learned that there are people who are probably working for foreign powers. It is completely mind-boggling, surreal even. It is like something out of a bad movie, especially considering the incidents that have already taken place in Surrey—Newton. I would like to tell my colleague that we stand in solidarity with the people in his riding who have suffered this horrible tragedy. If all the information we have is correct, it is absolutely atrocious. It is appalling that something like this could happen in a G7 country.

Not only is this appalling and surreal, I find it unbelievable that the Bloc Québécois is once again the only responsible adult in the room. The political party that seems best placed to govern is the only political party not interested in forming a government. How ironic. I do not understand why a government that claims to be responsible did not take stronger action than that to counter foreign interference. I will return to that later.

What our motion proposes is quite simple. We take note of the report on foreign interference. We note that some elected officials could be acting under foreign influence and working not for the people in their ridings, but for other countries with interests that, more often than not, are probably detrimental to our own. People are saying that this is outrageous, and that something must be done about it.

What we are saying is that the Hogue commission's terms of reference need to be expanded, that it should not just investigate the last two elections, for a few months, within the framework of a modest, very restricted mandate that requires a report to be tabled by Christmas. What we are asking for is a full investigation of this country's democratic institutions, including its members of Parliament and senators. We need to investigate all parliamentarians. We need to figure out what happened. We need to get this information out.

In the House, we are often caught between right-wing populism and left-wing populism. Some people want names, even though everyone knows perfectly well that that is impossible, as things currently stand, without facing a harsh penalty or even criminal sanctions. No names can be released. The Conservatives can create sound bites for four days, demanding names, but everyone knows that is impossible. The way to get those names out is to expand the commission's terms of reference. That is what we want to do. I am pleased that all political parties in the House of Commons will be supporting this motion.

The revelations are extremely serious. People who likely received money, people who are in the pocket of foreign powers, people whose election was financed with money from foreign countries, it is all outrageous.

I am going to offer a bit of a solution to prevent foreign forces from funding electoral activities. I am going to suggest, once again, that Canada look to Quebec, which reformed its election legislation. Let us be serious, how many people, just ordinary citizens, are in a position to give a political party $1,700? There are some. I know some, obviously, but there are not that many. How is that some ridings have so many of them? It may be because those people want something in exchange. It is at least an incentive. In Quebec, we solved that problem by setting the maximum annual contribution at $100.

We have prevented that from happening. There is public financing. This public financing had been removed by the Conservatives, who found that the Bloc Québécois was too powerful. I will not get into that. That would be a solution that could help us prevent this type of foreign influence.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary had the nerve to tell me that his government was very proactive, that it has done good things and that it established the commission of inquiry, which would not have happened were it not for this good, forward-thinking, serious and proactive government. I am sorry. First, CSIS agents had to leak information to get the ball rolling and to inform the opposition of what was happening, because we were not aware of it. Then, we asked questions for weeks and months. The good Liberal government did what it usually does and turned a blind eye and waited for the problem to go away on its own, hoping that everything would be okay, but that did not happen. After hearing it over and over, it seems to me that the government should be beginning to understand that there comes a time when it has to take action. When the government waits six months or a year to act, then it always seems to be behind and is never able to catch up. The next time something happens, the government should ask our advice if it wants our help. When a party forms the government, it has to take action. This is appalling. I cannot believe how many times we have had to repeat this.

I was a teacher for 25 years before becoming an MP. I always told my students that it is okay to make a mistake. There is nothing wrong with that. The important thing is being able to admit it. A person has to be humble enough to say that they missed that one. They have to look at what they did wrong and not do it again. This government has been dragging its feet on every file, all the time, for the nearly five years I have been here, and it was probably doing the same beforehand. It is appalling. The government needs to learn.

I was told earlier that the government is taking action. First, it took leaks to get things moving. Then we insisted on an inquiry, but the government said we did not need one. They threw vague answers at us for weeks. Finally, one weekend, on a Saturday afternoon while barbecuing, they had a brilliant idea: They would appoint a special rapporteur who would say that there was no issue and who would put an end to the affair. For that task, they chose a good friend who had donated several thousand dollars to the party in recent years. Everything would be fine. Except that it did not work out that way. We asked questions for months. We questioned this person's integrity. By the way, he was an honourable person. I am not attacking anyone. It is mind-boggling to see the way the government is acting. Earlier I was told that if it were not for the upstanding Liberal government, there would not be an inquiry. Can we be serious for a minute? Why is it that the Bloc Québécois is the one saying today that we have to go further responsibly? Are we are the only ones who are able to do so? I wonder.

We have to clean house, because the people are watching. They are being accused of cynicism toward politicians and all that, but considering how this kind of issue has been handled, how could it be otherwise? This is serious. It puts us under a cloud of suspicion, a permanent cloud. Every time I talk to a member of another party, I wonder which country he or she is spying for. Am I in danger because of what I just said? Did I just compromise something? It is crazy. Knowing that some of the MPs among us are under foreign influence but doing nothing about it is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois chose this as its opposition day topic because more must be done. Let us be serious about this. The grown-ups in the room are urging all 338 MPs to adopt this motion unanimously.

I hope that the inquiry will produce conclusive results and that we will be able to restore people's trust. That is what this is about: trust in elected representatives.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of providing names. He seems to acknowledge that it would not be appropriate for us to be providing names, whether of government or opposition members or of those who sit on NSICOP. I appreciate that comment—