Debates of June 10th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech. One of the things I have heard people in my riding say is that it is important to restore trust in our systems, so the member's point was well received.

I agree that there is a difference between intelligence and evidence and that we must have trust in our independent systems. How should we continue to move forward while restoring Canadians' trust? Also, what should we do to ensure that decisions like these are not politicized and that we are able to do a good job of representing Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, trust is the ultimate goal. Trust means not having to prove anything.

How can trust be restored? There are several ways. Obtaining a security clearance is one way. The committee that was set up to deal with the Winnipeg affair is another. That all-party work produced all kinds of results.

I think there are a few ways. It is up to us to make the right choices.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue.

As we are all gathered here today, we must recognize and acknowledge that all parliamentarians swear an oath before they begin their important work in the House. We must all uphold the sanctity of that oath every single day. Canadians deserve nothing less.

Moreover, we must all work together to take any attempt to undermine our democracy very seriously. Together, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes and institutions. This obligation falls equally on both sides of the House.

I thank my hon. colleague for moving this motion. It gives us all an opportunity to debate the importance of the issue and commit to working together to counter interference in our democratic institutions.

I would like to begin by commending the considerable amount of work that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, put into producing the “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions”. The report is a testament to the parliamentarians' diligence and dedication in safeguarding the integrity of our democratic processes. It underlines the challenges we face with respect to foreign interference and highlights the need for constant vigilance and solid mechanisms to protect our democracy.

The government takes the recommendations in NSICOP's report very seriously. We will take them into account, along with the recommendations of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, and those of the independent special rapporteur when we consider our next steps. I know that the final report of the Hogue commission, which will be published in December, will also contain recommendations based on the public inquiry.

These reviews are essential for ensuring that all of the measures taken by Canada to counter the ever-changing threat of foreign interference be adapted, effective and progressive. Each of these review mechanisms was put in place to strengthen accountability when it comes to making sure that intelligence is taken into account and used appropriately to protect Canadians from all types of threats.

It is every bit as important to express our trust and confidence in Canada's intelligence agencies. Our intelligence professionals are committed to observing the highest standards when it comes to integrity and national security. They work tirelessly to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected from any undue foreign influence.

I would like to address the substance of the motion introduced today. The NSICOP's conclusions should give pause to every member in the House. It is unacceptable, not to say intolerable, that some members sit here in the House when they work behind the scenes to advance the objectives of anyone who does not first and foremost have Canadians' best interests at heart. The NSICOP's report indicates that that may well be what is happening now.

Our colleague across the aisle introduced this motion today to make sure that these concerns are carefully considered. He proposes that the Hogue commission be empowered to examine this issue. The commissioner already has a solid mandate, which was negotiated among all parties in the House.

Although it is not up to the House to give instructions to the commissioner on how to fulfill her mandate, we think she has the authority she needs to do the important job with which she has been entrusted. I think that we all agree that the commissioner has the ability and the obligation to interpret the terms of reference she was entrusted with in an independent manner.

Let me underscore our view on the commission's terms of reference in this way. First, as reflected in the language of the motion before the House today, the commission's terms of reference speak to “the cardinal importance of preserving the integrity of Canada’s electoral processes and democratic institutions and the need for transparency in order to enhance Canadians’ trust and confidence in their democracy”.

The terms of reference go on to state, “the leaders of all recognized parties in the House of Commons have supported the establishment of a public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions with respect to the 43rd and 44th general elections”.

In her initial report, Commissioner Hogue comments on her mandate as follows, at page 56, “The Terms of Reference refer expressly to both the 'electoral process' and to 'democratic institutions,' which indicates the government intended the Commission to look at foreign interference beyond elections.”

She then goes on to say:

...in the context of the Commission’s mandate, democratic institutions refer to Parliament and the executive branch. This is consistent with a key focus of my mandate, which is the federal electoral process. The outcome of which is the election of politicians to govern and legislate in the interests of Canada.

In summary, my mandate is to investigate potential foreign interference with:

The federal electoral process.

Law-making by elected members of Parliament.

Executive decision-making by Cabinet and its ministers in relation to their departments, including indirect foreign interference with ministerial decisions when such decisions are based on information originating at a lower level of government covertly influenced by a foreign state (or its proxy, agent, etc.).

I apologize for having quoted so extensively, but her comments make something very clear.

Justice Hogue believes that the impact of foreign interference, carried out wittingly or unwittingly, on how parliamentarians fulfill their duties as a legislative branch of government fits perfectly within the scope of what she was asked to examine.

The proposal that the commission examine foreign interference involving members of the House of Commons elected during the 43rd and 44th parliaments and members of the Senate raises important questions.

I would like to add to what I said earlier and stress how important it is that we all grasp that the commission's terms of reference must be understood within the framework of the Inquiries Act and the terms of the order in council. For example, although the government recognizes that the commissioner would have the latitude to examine questions raised in today's motion, her mandate does not extend to issuing findings or recommendations on civil or criminal liability.

In closing, I would like to repeat that the government launched the regulatory oversight report process, headed by the Right Honourable David Johnston, it asked the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to conduct studies on foreign interference, and it created the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference.

Several of these initiatives, except the commission of inquiry led by Justice Hogue, of course, were undertaken despite opposition from certain parties in the House. However, overall, we have the best record of any western government in the past five or six years. We know the extent to which other allied countries, other democracies, are under attack, either through social media or through any other form of foreign interference from suspect countries.

We have done all this because we believe Canadians and Parliament deserve to understand this critical threat to our democratic values. We welcome today's debate.

I look forward to hearing all members share their views on the importance of transparency and accountability in these areas.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to take note of the progress that has been made. That needs to happen.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees that we must all come together to act on this issue, given that interference has no political stripe or partisanship.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and, again, for moving today's motion.

We obviously believe that this is not a partisan issue; it must not turn into a partisan debate. I am afraid of that happening because that is what those who interfere in our democratic institutions want. They want to divide us, to tear each other apart over these issues. There is no greater gift or reward for these countries, for these players, than for us to tear each other apart as a result of their interference.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I would also like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières and the Bloc Québécois for their proposal today that focused on this theme.

Unfortunately, foreign powers have already won. Foreign powers made sure that there are people here in the House who got elected with their support and assistance. I am not the one saying it. It is the judge.

We know that this is a very sensitive issue for everyone, because nobody knows who is involved. That said, does the minister understand and accept the fact that, in order to lift the cloud of suspicion that is hanging over the 337 people sitting in the House, these individuals who were elected with the help and support of foreign powers hostile to our country must be clearly identified?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that I said very clearly in my speech that the 338 members must have loyalty only to Canada and its institutions when they come into the House. It is clear to us that this is the case. I think that the hon. member would also agree that in this democratic chamber, we must at all times respect our democratic institutions, such as our justice system, our intelligence services, our police services and our Criminal Code, which is there to root out what might exist and what has been alleged in the report, even if it is based on partial information.

To answer the member's question, yes, members must show complete loyalty to our country.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that, at the end of this report, there is a litany of scathing conclusions on the Liberal government's action on this file. I think that forms the basis as to why the opposition needs to take the government's promises with a grain of salt. The report states, “The slow response to a known threat was a serious failure and one from which Canada may feel the consequences for years to come.”

I also take note of the government House leader's comments that this should not be a partisan issue, but it does involve political parties. While the Conservative leader continues to hide behind a veil of ignorance by not getting the briefing that would allow him to take action as party leader, we have yet to understand what the Liberal Party will be doing as an institution. When the director of CSIS was before the public safety committee last week, he said that we do not have to rely on judicial processes or the police. There are actions political parties could take, such as removing members from their caucuses and not allowing them to run again.

What is the Liberal Party going to do to make sure that there are no compromised persons on the ballot when we vote in the next election?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, on the member's first question, I would put the government's track record of setting up formal processes, checks, balances and institutions against that of any other government. We know that governments across the G20 and the OECD are facing these anti-democratic incursions from foreign state actors, and this government has responded comprehensively, in the way that I outlined in my speech.

As for political parties, all political parties have a duty to uphold the basic principles of democracy within their party processes. Those are very solemn and important things, and it is important that we arrive in this chamber not only with the support of our electors and constituents but that, prior to that, we gain the confidence of the members of the political party to which we belong. That is a solemn process, and parties, of course, have the duty to continually review that process and ensure its integrity at the highest possible level.

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

Madam Speaker, even prior to the Prime Minister becoming the Prime Minister, in third party, we had advocated for a standing committee, NSICOP. If it were not for NSICOP, we would not have the report that we are talking about today.

It is interesting that, even in third party, when we were raising the issue, the Conservative Party opposed bringing in a NSICOP committee. It is important for us to recognize that, today, because of the persistence of this government, the committee exists, and there are representatives from all political entities in the chamber and in the Senate.

I am wondering if my colleague could just enhance his comments in regard to why all of us need to come together, as NSICOP has done, to follow through in listening to what is being said.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, that is the irony of the situation, that the government was determined, very early on, to create these processes and institutions that were designed to review relevant intelligence, to, yes, hold our intelligence agencies accountable, but more importantly, to report to Canadians on the effectiveness of the work that goes on, out of necessity, in secret.

We did this in spite of the opposition coming from certain corners of the House. It is purely ironic that today we debate one of the work products, the conclusions, of that very entity that we fought so hard to set up and that we fought so hard to ensure contained representation from all political parties and from the other place, and that it was able to report to us as honestly, as publicly and as transparently as this one has. That is indeed an irony.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, putting aside the government's continued obstruction of Madam Justice Hogue's inquiry, refusing to turn over certain documents and hiding behind cabinet confidence, when I listened to the government House leader's speech, I took it that he expressed vague support for the motion before the House.

I seek clarification. Is the government committed to turning over the evidence from the NSICOP report, on an unredacted basis, to Madam Justice Hogue so that she can make findings of fact and so that those MPs who wittingly assisted hostile foreign states could be made known to the Canadian public, yes or—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. leader of the government in the House.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I caution the member that any responsible government, from any political party, has to maintain the integrity of our security agencies and maintain the integrity of the information that is supplied to them, including the sources, the methods, etc. That is something that this government has a sworn and solemn duty to uphold and to respect, and it is one that we will continue to uphold and to respect.

I did say in my speech that the terms of reference that have been worked out among all parties in the House confer a wide latitude, not unlimited latitude but a wide latitude, on the commission of inquiry. For her to examine the issues that the member raises is something that we believe is possibly within the terms of reference already conferred on the commissioner.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, initially, it seemed that the government had done everything it could to cover up the issue. It began by refusing to hold a public inquiry. I want to know whether the government is now actually prepared to get to the bottom of the matter and expand the commission's terms of reference.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my speech answers my colleague's question.

We believe that Justice Hogue's mandate is quite broad and includes a good number of the aspects required to get to the bottom of things. That is our position.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

The report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians with respect to foreign interference is truly shocking. The report revealed that certain members of Parliament and members of the Senate have wittingly, and I emphasize the word “wittingly”, engaged in supporting and assisting hostile foreign states. This includes meeting and communicating frequently with foreign diplomatic missions, sharing privileged information with foreign diplomats and sharing information that was provided to members and to Senators, in confidence, with security officers of hostile foreign states, among other activities.

It should not need to be stated that the fundamental duty of every member of Parliament and of every senator is to put the interests of Canada first, not the interests of some other state. Any member of Parliament or member of the Senate who put the interests of a foreign state ahead of the interests of Canada has betrayed Canadians. They have betrayed the trust placed in them. They have betrayed their oath of office, and they have cast a dark cloud over the institution of Parliament and have undermined public confidence that parliamentarians are advancing the interests of Canadians and not the interests of other foreign states.

Since the NSICOP bombshell report was released, what we have seen from thePrime Minister is a total lack of transparency. The Prime Minister has seen the unredacted NSICOP report. He knows who the compromised MPs and Senators are. Indeed, it was the Prime Minister who made the final call with respect to redactions in the NSICOP report, including blacking out the names of the compromised MPs. Canadians deserve to know the names. They deserve to know who the members are, sitting in the House of Commons and in the Senate, who are compromised.

The Minister of Public Safety appeared before the public safety committee last Thursday. I was there. He had an opportunity, in the face of a lack of transparency from the Prime Minister, to clear the air and to answer basic questions. I have to observe how disappointed I was with the minister, as he provided non-answers. He was arrogant and dismissive in the face of legitimate questions being asked by members of Parliament on behalf of Canadians. The Minister of Public Safety, of course, refused to name names, just like the Prime Minister. He refused to disclose how many MPs and Senators are compromised. He refused to even provide a ballpark figure. Is it five, 10 or 20? How many are we dealing with here? How big is the problem? Tellingly, twice the minister refused to answer the very straightforward question I asked him, which was if he could provide the assurance that no one around the Prime Minister's cabinet table is among the compromised MPs. Twice, the Minister of Public Safety refused to answer that question, which I emphasize is telling and raises questions about whether foreign interference actors and their tentacles have extended to the highest levels of the Liberal government after nine years of the Prime Minister.

The Minister of Public Safety said that it would be irresponsible to make known to the Canadian public the names of those MPs and of those Senators who are compromised. I say what is irresponsible has been the total lack of transparency by the Prime Minister that has resulted in effectively shielding members of Parliament and members of the Senate who have put the interests of foreign states ahead of the interests of Canada. I say that is irresponsible.

The Minister of Public Safety said that there were sensitive intelligence and national security considerations. He has a point, but only up to a limited extent. I would remind the minister and the government that what is being asked of the government is not to make known to the public sensitive intelligence, or sources and methods. What is simply being asked of the Liberals, the government, is to provide the names of the compromised MPs and senators: just the names, please. It is not MPs or senators who have conversed with or met with foreign diplomats, but rather MPs who have knowingly, willingly and deliberately co-operated with and have assisted foreign states in undermining the interests of Canada. We want to know and Canadians want to know who they are.

So often we see from the Liberals that they hide behind national security and intelligence issues, and then we learn that it actually had nothing to do with those things, but that it had to do with protecting the interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, and to save the government from embarrassment for its many failings when it comes to standing against, and protecting Canada's democracy and sovereignty from, foreign interference. After all, we have a Prime Minister who has a very well-established and disturbing track record of turning a blind eye to foreign interference, so long as it benefits him and the Liberal Party.

This is a Prime Minister who turned a blind eye and covered up, until he got caught, Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, because he thought it would benefit the Liberal Party. This is a Prime Minister who was briefed, in the 2019 election, that one of his candidates, the current member for Don Valley North, was being assisted by the Beijing Communist regime. Upon being briefed, what did the Prime Minister do with that information? The Prime Minister did nothing. He allowed that candidate to stand as a Liberal in the 2019 election, resulting in his election to the House of Commons, and he covered it up for four years. Madam Justice Hogue concluded that the Prime Minister's actions in that case were based upon his concern for “direct electoral consequences”. In other words, it was about protecting the Prime Minister and the interests of the Liberal Party over protecting our democracy from Beijing's interference. Simply put, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government cannot be trusted.

However, the good news is that there is a reasonable path forward that was set out in a letter over the weekend from the opposition House leader to the Minister of Public Safety. That path forward would provide that the government turn over the intelligence and the evidence in the NSICOP report to Madam Justice Hogue on an unredacted basis. Madam Justice Hogue could then review the intelligence thoroughly and could make findings of fact with respect to which MPs wittingly assisted foreign states, and those findings of fact, with the names of those MPs, could then be put in a report that would then be tabled in Parliament. It would provide for the transparency that Canadians deserve, all the while protecting sensitive intelligence and allowing for a reasonable degree of due process in the circumstances.

If it really is about protecting sensitive intelligence and national security, then the government should turn over the evidence to Madam Justice Hogue. If the Liberals fail to do so, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn, which is that, once again, the Prime Minister is protecting himself, the Liberal Party and potentially compromised Liberal MPs.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks here today. I want to remind him of a couple of things.

The NSICOP report was very clear. The allegations refer to MPs from multiple parties being involved, either wittingly or unwittingly. When I listened to the member's remarks, he suggested, in a way, that the members would be entirely on the Liberal benches. I would caution him by saying that they were from multiple parties; he could be talking about some of his own colleagues.

The important point is that we need to be able to have some type of process here because of the way this has come to light. I hope the member will encourage the hon. leader of the official opposition to actually take a security briefing so that he can see the report.

The member talked about the different thresholds of culpability. The report talked about people working with foreign governments wittingly and knowingly versus individuals or MPs who might not have even necessarily known they were being targeted. Those are two different levels of evidence.

How does the member square the idea of putting names of people out in the public who might not necessarily be culpable? Reputational harm might be caused to the member in question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I said, and what the opposition House leader has provided for as the path forward in his letter, is for Madam Justice Hogue to thoroughly review all the intelligence, make findings of fact and release the names of those who wittingly, knowingly, deliberately and willingly collaborated with hostile foreign states. That is what we are proposing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member for Kings—Hants talked about, which is the continued reluctance of the Conservative Party leader to get a security briefing.

If we look at the NSICOP report, paragraphs 72 and 73 talk about the People's Republic of China and India directly interfering in the Conservative leadership process. If I were a Conservative Party leader, I would be treating that with a five-alarm fire response.

The NDP leader is going to get a briefing on these names. We all know that, in this place, party leaders have incredible control over their caucuses. They can control who gets to sit in the caucus and who gets to run again.

Why the continued reluctance of the Conservative Party leader to get the briefing so he can take action in case there are compromised MPs in his own caucus?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party does not have the authority to expel a member of caucus. That is a caucus decision. What could the Leader of the Opposition do based on a security briefing? In fact, it might impede his ability to act.

What we need is not more secrecy; we need transparency. We need a process so the MPs who wittingly collaborated with foreign states are identified and named, and Conservatives have provided a very reasonable process for that to take place. It is disappointing that the Liberals across the way have not seen fit to endorse that road map.

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

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear: The leader of today's Conservative-Reform party has made the conscious decision to say, “No, I want to keep being dummied up. I do not want to know and do not want to get the security clearance so I can ask questions.” The leader of the New Democratic Party has already asked questions. The Conservatives are using a false argument.

Why is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not getting the security clearance he needs to be better informed?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I simply say to the Liberals that if they have nothing to hide, they should release the names with an appropriate process. They can refer the evidence over to Madam Justice Hogue and let her make findings of fact. Let there be transparency.

The government has been repeatedly told that the best way to counter foreign interference is through sunlight and making foreign interference known to the public. Canadians deserve to know which MPs and senators happen to be compromised. I invite the government to get on with it.

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

Madam Speaker, one week ago, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians released a report containing its findings. The report came after more than a year of work by the committee. The committee reviewed some 33,000 pages from 4,000 classified documents. The committee members were briefed, and they interviewed dozens of top intelligence and government officials, including the Prime Minister himself. It was found that a few members of the House are witting participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics. This is shocking.

The report revealed that these parliamentarians had responded to the requests or instructions of foreign officials to inappropriately influence parliamentary colleagues or parliamentary business for the benefit of a foreign country. The committee noted in its report that some members in this House had violated the solemn affirmation or the oath sworn at the beginning of their term.

I will quote from the report, which found “examples of members of Parliament who worked to influence their colleagues on India’s behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.” It also found “a textbook example of foreign interference that saw a foreign state support a witting politician.”

Furthermore, it found “a particularly concerning case of a then-member of Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer.... [This] member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence.”

The report found that the People's Republic of China had established a “network [that] had some contact with at least 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers, some of whom appeared to be wittingly working for the [People's Republic of China].” The report also found similar activities by another network in the riding of Don Valley North.

The report also found that parliamentarians communicated “frequently with foreign missions before or during a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses which the diplomatic missions promise[d] to quietly mobilize in [their] favour”.

The report found examples of parliamentarians “[a]ccepting knowingly or through willful blindness funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies which ha[d] been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source”.

Furthermore, the report found that parliamentarians had provided “foreign diplomatic officials with privileged information on the work or opinions of fellow Parliamentarians, knowing that such information [would] be used by those officials to inappropriately pressure Parliamentarians to change their positions”.

The report found that parliamentarians had responded “to the requests or direction of foreign officials to improperly influence Parliamentary colleagues or Parliamentary business to the advantage of a foreign state” and had provided “information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.”

The report also identified those parliamentarians who wittingly and knowingly collaborated with foreign governments to the detriment of Canada and its people. We do not know the identities of those members of the House who wittingly and knowingly worked in favour of the interests of a foreign government. That is because of an order by the Prime Minister, under subsection 21(5) of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, that the report be redacted.

Every single member of this chamber swore an oath or made a solemn affirmation that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the sovereign. What we swore to or solemnly affirmed was to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to our constitutional system, which is enshrined in the Constitution Acts, in orders in council, in rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in the unwritten conventions that have governed Parliament and parliamentary democracies for centuries. In other words, we swore or solemnly affirmed that our first and foremost duty was to the people of Canada.

In its report, the committee found that a few members of this chamber had violated that oath or solemn affirmation. Those members need to be held accountable. Members who willingly, knowingly and wittingly assisted a foreign government to the detriment of members of this place and their privileges, as well as the interests of Canada and its people, need to be expelled from the House. The way expulsions work in this place is that all 337 members of this chamber need to vote in public after a debate on expulsion. I have had the difficult experience of participating in exactly such a debate on a former member several parliaments ago. It is not a pleasant thing to do, but it is necessary to protect the integrity of this institution. It should not just be a criminal standard to which we are held in this place. The oaths and solemn affirmations we take are to the people of Canada. Our conduct needs to be becoming of those oaths and affirmations.

Canadians also need to be able to go to the polls in the next election knowing whether their incumbent member of Parliament was one of the few parliamentarians referred to in the report. That is why the Prime Minister needs to name the names of those members, along with the relevant information to allow the House, its caucuses and its committees to hold parliamentarians accountable and take action to protect the integrity of this place.

That brings us to the motion in front of the House today. We once again find ourselves in the situation that we had a year and a half ago, three years ago and four years ago, where the government is not willing to respect the norms of parliamentary democracy and provide the House and its committees with the information necessary for them to fulfill their constitutional role. The government is not willing to release this information.

A year ago, we ended up in the same situation. We began debate and hearings on investigations related to foreign interference in the House and its committees in 2020. On November 18, 2020, a motion I had moved was adopted by the House, calling on the government to produce a robust action plan to respond to the threats of foreign interference.

In the subsequent years of 2021, 2022 and 2023, four committees of the House of Commons conducted hearings. The procedure and house affairs committee, the Canada-China committee, the foreign affairs committee, and the Subcommittee on International Human Rights conducted hearings with 70 meetings, 364 witnesses, 152 hours of testimony and some 1,902 pages of evidence, trying to get to the bottom of foreign interference.

A year ago, the government punted it to NSICOP. NSICOP has done its job and given its report, which contained the names of members of the House who knowingly and wittingly assisted a foreign state to the detriment of the interests of the people of Canada. Here we are again with the government refusing to release the information. Therefore, once again, we are left with having to go through an extra-parliamentary process to get this referred to Justice Hogue at the public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of this and understand who was involved. The House can then take action.

We had the same problem with the Winnipeg lab documents. It took us three years to get the information. We had to resort to an extrajudicial, extraparliamentary process through the ad hoc committee to get that done.

We support the Bloc motion, but in a spirit of collaboration, I would like to move an amendment to the motion as follows:

That the motion be amended by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: (c) demand that the government provide the unredacted version of the special report, together with all the intelligence documents and testimony which the committee considered to the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, the Hogue commission; and that the Hogue commission's terms of reference be expanded in order (1) to require the Hogue commission (a) to assess the statements made at paragraphs 55 and 56, the text box following paragraph 57, and paragraphs 58, 59, 61, 64, 68 and 164 of the special report concerning officials who wittingly assisted, supported or participated in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in Canadian politics; (b) to question the individuals named or referred to in those paragraphs and, out of respect for procedural fairness, to offer those individuals the opportunity to make representations concerning the statements; (c) to make findings of fact concerning these statements; and, (d) to produce and publish a report by October 1, 2024, on these matters, including its findings of fact and the names of any current member of the House of Commons it concludes engaged in these foreign interference activities so that this House may take appropriate remedial action; and (2) allow the Hogue commission to investigate other foreign interference efforts in relation to Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments, as well as senators.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.

Since none of them are present in the House to give consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.