Debates of June 10th, 2024

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote. We will be voting in favour and adding the votes of the members for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and Shefford.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour as well.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #806

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

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? Later today?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nunavut, Housing; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, The Economy; the hon. member for York—Simcoe, Carbon Pricing.

Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's Impartiality

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add some additional comments regarding the question of privilege raised by the NDP's deputy House leader.

In her comments on Thursday, as in her original submissions the week prior, the member for London—Fanshawe failed to offer any arguments that would extend the applicable requirements for the Speaker's impartiality to the other chair occupants. For his part, the hon. Member for Mégantic—L'Érable cited at length from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, as well as rulings delivered from the Chair, in 1993 and 2023, on the subject matter. The NDP deputy House leader failed to answer those points and explain how well-established precedents should be thrown out the window.

Finally, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe neglected to address the NDP's disappointing hypocrisy in raising these concerns, all while the NDP website leverages the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing's Assistant Deputy Speaker title for fundraising and volunteer recruitment purposes. Her silence speaks volumes.

I would just like to point out that when my colleague raised this point, the response from the NDP House leader was to refer to the question of privilege as “the dumbest question of privilege” he has ever heard. I agree with him. I just believe that his comments should be addressed to the member for London—Fanshawe's raising of the original point, not to the point that my colleague, the deputy leader for the Conservatives, made, which is that, if the New Democrats were upset with the original point, they should look at their own examples before they raised theirs in the House of Commons.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to agree with my hon. friend, the deputy leader for the official opposition, that there is no question of privilege here.

Record of the Proceedings of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would also like to address the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre regarding the hon. member for Saskatoon West. First, I am pleased to hear that she accepted the apology of our colleague when he rose on Thursday morning to advise the House that he had misspoken one word. It is an age-old tradition in this place that we accept the word and the apologies of our colleagues. That said, it apparently did not draw a line under the matter, so we are left to address the question of privilege raised concerning the accuracy of the Debates. I will read from page 1229 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

The availability of the blues on the House of Commons’ internal website permits Members and their authorized delegates to use the web page or email to submit suggested changes for Parliamentary Publications editorial staff to consider.... It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration.

These practices were the subject of a very recently delivered ruling by the Speaker; on May 30, at page 24087 of the Debates, he said:

While the Debates are published under the authority of the Chair, the House should know that the Chair plays no part in editing the Debates. The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.

The editors may make changes to the records of the House proceedings, whether or not those changes are proposed by members, in accordance with their own guidelines and long-standing practices.

If the Speaker himself plays no part in editing Hansard, then it must similarly follow that a private member on the opposition benches could claim no power or authority to override the editors' guidelines and long-standing practices. I would respectfully submit that, on that basis alone, the question of privilege must be dismissed.

In any event, though, I would also refer the Chair to these comments, found on pages 1229 to 1230 of Bosc and Gagnon, where we read:

Substantial errors in the Debates, as opposed to editorial changes, must be brought to the attention of the House by means of a point of order as soon as possible after the sitting, if a Member wishes to have the record changed.... When a question arises in the House as to the accuracy of the record, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to look into the matter.

In short, the correct procedure would have been for a point of order, not a question of privilege, to address a concern of this nature with Hansard. Therefore, the question of privilege must also fail on these grounds.

Nonetheless, I would underscore for the House that the member for Saskatoon West has done the honourable thing. He apologized and advised that he had misspoken one word, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks.

As such, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that you may now simply find the matter to be closed.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Foreign Affairs

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are currently 1,092 political prisoners in Cuba. That is why I am submitting the following petition, signed by hundreds of Canadians, with four clear demands: urge the Canadian government to demand that the Cuban totalitarian regime promptly release all political prisoners; enact a resolution to censure the unelected Cuban regime for its severe human rights abuses; recognize Cuban Canadians, whether citizens or permanent residents, as a voice of dissidence to the Cuban regime; and engage in discourse with Cuba's pro-democracy civil society.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

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

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the government is incompetent or complacent toward the interference confronting us.

Had it not been for the work of The Globe and Mail journalists, Parliament never would have been alerted to China's scheming in Canada. We would never have known that Chinese police stations were operating in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. We would never have known that Liberal nomination candidates were elected thanks to and with the support of China. We would never have learned that messages attacking the Conservative Party and the former member for Durham were sent to members of the Chinese diaspora in Canada through platforms such as WeChat. Without the work of journalists, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs never would have known that CSIS memos and briefings intended for the minister were not all being read, nor would I have learned in committee that if the person responsible was on vacation or off sick, the memo would be destroyed. We learned all these things in committee. We also would not have learned that the national security of a G7 country was being so grossly neglected by the federal government. We would never have known that this postnational Liberal Party ideal of excessive multiculturalism, a veritable doctrine for the Prime Minister, extended to a chronic lack of patriotism, so much so that Canada lags behind all other countries in terms of defending its strategic interests. I never could have received the CSIS briefing that I personally requested.

The government chose to brush off the interference files. The federal government demonstrated negligence with its extreme slowness. Yes, all western countries need to tackle this problem. Some, like Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, have even passed legislation to fight it.

Quebeckers and all Canadians have a right to know the extent to which some members are being manipulated, by whom and why. This is a matter of safeguarding democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would tend to disagree with the member's conclusion that the government did not take any steps. For the first time, we actually have a government that has recognized international interference is taking place, and there were modifications made in regard to elections. There have been changes in that different individuals have been called forward to look at ways we can deal with interference on the international scene.

Canada has been raising the issue among the G7 countries, and we have been very open and transparent. At the end of the day, NSICOP is the reason we have the report we have today. It is a creation by the government, in full co-operation with a majority of the members.

Would the member opposite not agree that NSICOP is why we have the report today and that this is something the House passed, with all members, except for the Conservatives, voting in favour of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I never said the government had taken no steps. In my speech, I said that there was negligence and complacency. In short, the alarm has been sounding for months. The government should realize that what is in place is not working.

The 70 meetings that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held made it clear what steps needed to be taken. It still took the government a long time to come up with to the bill we are discussing, which does not go far enough, to be honest.

My colleague is right. The government did take steps. However, what it did is clearly insufficient, and it is shameful for us internationally.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has put forward the motion about foreign interference today, yet its leader has rejected previous offers to review foreign interference documents. In two rounds of the foreign interference inquiry, the Bloc Québécois failed to show up even once. Do its members even care about foreign interference?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was bound to come out. Yes, I am aware. When there is an invitation and there are barely 10 of us, perhaps there are reasons we are not there. However, it was not because we did not care.

As for choosing to get the security clearance, we need to think about it. I would say to my colleague that many things have happened in recent days. No decision has been made. I took part in all the meetings, and our wishes have not changed at all. We want to maintain confidence in our democracy and in our elections and get to the bottom of this matter so there will be no more interference in our elections.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc for putting the motion forward today. It is an important one. It needs to be supported.

In the member's speech, she highlighted the point that there have been many failures of the government to act and to take foreign interference seriously. In fact, the NSICOP report raises a litany of examples of the government's failure to deliver. It has actually received information on the members of Parliament or elected officials who are alleged to have worked wittingly, knowingly and intentionally with foreign state actors. The Prime Minister knew that, but that information never came before the House. Members never knew about it.

To that end, is it not time now for the government to provide that information, not only to members of Parliament but to all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, a leader is someone who is able to take responsibility. It is someone who also has the humility to change course. When a leader is worthy of confidence, which is not currently the case, they do what is necessary to prevent, act and correct. Right now, we have reached the limit. I can say to my colleague that we are at the end of our rope. The alarm sounded last week. We do not want any more. Now we are waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a very meaningful word. It signifies power by the people, and I would add that it is also power for the people. Democracy has gone through changes since its very early days in ancient Greece, but the foundations remain. The people should be the ones making choices about their own future.

In light of the report on foreign interference, it behooves us to ask which people we are talking about, when we get right down to it. We may think that Quebec and Canadian parliamentarians represent the people of Quebec and Canada, but the report on foreign interference raises an important question: Are some members here for their constituents on Quebec and Canadian soil, or for foreign countries?

I think it is important first and foremost to clarify the difference between diplomacy and interference. Next, I will discuss certain troubling parts of the report. I will not discuss all of them, because we would be here until tomorrow morning. Lastly, I will go over some of the repercussions of this report.

Diplomacy is the branch of politics that concerns relations between nations. It involves representing a government's interests abroad, administering international affairs, and leading and conducting negotiations between nations. Diplomacy is the ability to resolve disputes. Diplomacy is also a skill. It is the tact involved in conducting state business effectively. Both definitions are important in our current situation. When we travel abroad for bilateral meetings with parliamentarians from other countries, we engage in diplomacy. We talk together to explain our realities. We share points of view and emphasize the important items to consider during negotiations between the governments concerned. Our ambassadors have the same duty to discuss and negotiate. Diplomacy serves the interests of nations and their people.

Interference occurs when one nation attempts to influence the domestic affairs of another nation. This definition illustrates the difference between diplomacy and interference. Interference is when one foreign state intervenes in another's domestic affairs. If we were to look a little closer at the history of humanity as a whole, we would see that several wars over the centuries have come about because of one country interfering in the affairs of another. Whereas diplomacy serves the interests of nations and their people, interference serves the interests of just one nation, and sometimes not the interests of any citizens.

With these two definitions in mind, we can only conclude that Canada has truly been a victim of interference, as have other countries around the world. Certain people have attempted to influence this country's domestic affairs, either wittingly or unwittingly. The report contains a number of elements, but I will focus on two or three of them. On page 25, paragraph 55 states:

Some elected officials, however, began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election. [*** Three sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. The sentences described examples of members of Parliament who worked to influence their colleagues on India's behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials. ***]

It says that they provided confidential information. That is worrisome. Despite the redactions, we understand that members helped facilitate Indian interference. We also found out that consulates and embassies would coordinate the actions of their networks. During the 2019 federal election, 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers had close ties to China, including several who appeared to be wittingly working for the People's Republic of China. Despite the redactions, we understand that candidates and staffers had close ties to China. In this particular case, the involvement of consulates and embassies is worrisome since they breached their duty, which is to promote diplomacy.

How does interference happen? There is a list of methods, including the use of social media. Countries can intimidate the diaspora. Disinformation and misinformation are also used. Countries can use clandestine networks. They can even buy influence. That is just a short list of methods that can be used.

What worries me about all this is the lack of interest from successive governments of all stripes. The current Prime Minister's entourage dismisses intelligence reports on the pretext that they contain only unproven allegations, while the Prime Minister himself admitted when he appeared before the commission that he did not even read intelligence reports. That is worrisome. The least they could have done would have been to meet with the people who were mentioned, to ask for some explanations. How can they know that the allegations are unproven if the reports are systematically dismissed? If the RCMP or CSIS are not being questioned, how can they be sure that they are just allegations? How can they be sure, when the Prime Minister does not even read the reports?

When I first entered politics, one old-timer told me that a person cannot be accused of what they do not know. My own view is that, if I know about a problem, then I can act and improve it. Unfortunately, I see that the Prime Minister's team is very old school when it comes to a duty to act. They are like the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. However, now we all know, or at least, we know some things. The Minister of Public Safety raised an important point. We cannot mention people's names without making sure that the alleged offences are facts and not just unproven allegations. However, it is up to the RCMP and CSIS to determine that. It is not up to us.

I would like to know that these people will never again have the opportunity to facilitate foreign interference, either wittingly or unwittingly. I would like to know that real action is finally being taken to ensure the vitality of our democracy, without interference, without foreign interference. I want to be clearly, meaningfully and officially assured that the people of Quebec and Canada can have full confidence in their democracy. The current situation is just one more factor fuelling cynicism towards members who put their heart and soul into their work. The government is taking last-minute, urgent action because the report was released. The government quickly cobbled together Bill C-70. Here again, there was no planning, no preparation and no long-term vision.

In short, it is important to make sure that the people's elected representatives represent the people who elected them. They must be free from any collusion resulting in interference. This is essential to protecting our democracy. We are requesting that the terms of reference of the Hogue commission be expanded because we have a duty to protect our democracy. In doing so, we protect all the interests of our fellow citizens. In other words, we protect their confidence in us, and we protect our economy and its ability to provide good jobs and a bright future. We protect those who chose to make their home in Canada, far from strife. We protect people who left countries where they were being treated poorly.

Protecting our democracy transcends the walls of this House; it transcends politics. We must recognize that. I have said it before, and I will say it again: True statesmen and stateswomen protect human dignity, particularly the dignity of people of lesser means.