Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting that the member, my friend, started the discussion this evening by talking about the carbon tax, or a price on pollution, whatever one wants to call it. He started off by saying we were misleading Canadians. On that particular point, I have to make mention of the fact that there were 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election who knocked on doors with an election platform. That election platform, under the stewardship of Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party at the time—

Madam Speaker, my apologies. I withdraw the name. The former leader of the Conservative Party campaigned on the policy that a price on pollution, or a carbon tax, is a good thing. The member stands up and says we are misleading Canadians, yet he campaigned on a platform that made it very clear to Canadians that, if the Conservatives were elected into government, they would put a price on pollution. I think the member needs to reflect on the issue of misleading Canadians, because there is no doubt about that. We could show him the platform position of the Conservative Party, the platform that he himself has raised. The member also made reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there was a net loss. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also indicated that when we factor in the rebate portion, 80% of the population will receive more money than they are paying in the tax. One might argue we should factor in this and that, but I would suggest that if we factor in this and that, like floods, forest fires and all the other factors, they would also have to be calculated in. The bottom line is that the same Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that, dollar for dollar, there is a net gain for 80% of the population. When we talk about other jurisdictions, we now have Atlantic Canadians seeing the benefits of having the rebate structure we have in place. Those provinces are now moving to the federal program, which is something they opted to do. I would suggest that one of the best ways of dealing with emissions and being sensitive to our environment is to recognize what many governments around the world have done, including this government, which is to assign a price on pollution. Interestingly enough, members might be surprised to know that the first legislative government to ever do something of this nature was the Alberta Conservative Party many years ago.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives will have to justify to Canadians sometime in 2025, I suspect, when we will be going back to the polls, although we never know in a minority situation, why they misled Canadians in the last federal election and are now saying they will get rid of the price on pollution. A part of that explanation should also incorporate that they will be getting rid of the rebate. The benefit of the rebate is that 80% of people are receiving a larger rebate than they are paying into the program. In essence, they would be taking more money out of the pockets of 80% of Canadians. In terms of hospitals and universities, this government has made significant investments, both capital and otherwise, in our health care and post-secondary facilities, and the numbers will—

Madam Speaker, the member across the way is trying to connect some very important issues. Talking about the opioid crisis, I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health could have expanded on the degree to which we, as a government, need to continue to work on that particular situation. A good part of that is recognizing that Canada, as a country, cannot do it alone. We need to work with provinces and municipalities, as well as first responders and others. There are many different stakeholders who are out there trying to deal with the opioid situation. That is an issue in itself. The other issue the member is trying to raise and make a connection to is McKinsey. That is kind of tacked on. McKinsey has a contract, but the member is trying to build the case that there is a wonderful, special relationship between an individual at McKinsey and the Prime Minister. Tying the three issues together is not very responsible, because there is no direct connection among them. The opioid crisis is there; it is real and tangible. The government is doing what it can and working with a multitude of different stakeholders. In regard to the contracts, if we listen to the Conservative Party on this particular issue, we would think that if they were in power, they would change the process of procurements and contracts that are being let out through the public service. The Conservatives are doing that process a disservice. The Liberal government, through transparency and accountability, has ensured that these contracts are done through the public service as much as possible. This should not be a surprise, because these types of contracts are done at all different levels of government here in Canada. Internationally, around the world, governments always look for those independent contracts. The issue is how those contracts are awarded. I have no problem comparing Canada's procedures with those of any other country. Often, we get other countries looking to Canada for the way our public service lets contracts out for tender. We can all take comfort in and have confidence in our public service in getting out those important contracts. Now, on the connection between McKinsey and the Prime Minister, this is one of those fishing trips by the Conservative Party. No matter what, they put on their tin hats and start asking questions like these: Where is it all connected? How could it be connected to the Prime Minister? They do this so they can dump all over the Prime Minister. That is the logic behind it. The member is taking a couple of serious issues and trying to somehow make it look as though something corrupt has occurred; in fact, nothing corrupt has occurred. The Conservatives are trying to give that impression, and then they are trying to somehow link it to the Prime Minister. I can assure the member that there is nothing there. In turning these little pebbles, he is not going to find—

Madam Speaker, I have confidence that our law enforcement agencies, the RCMP and our Department of Justice, along with the professional civil servants who are there, will provide the services needed. I suspect that if the grounds and evidence are there, we will see action taken by the government. We have witnessed, over the last number of years as a government, that we have protocols and procedures. We have the checks in place to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability in the government and the private sector to ensure that Canadians' best interests are being served. As the member knows full well, on the issues that Canadians are very much concerned about, the government will ensure that Canadians are well served.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today that calls upon members of Parliament in the House of Commons to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money in this country, with the aim of putting in place more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards to protect seniors, in particular from losing their lifetime savings and wealth to fraud. We recognize there is a growing retiring population in Canada. Increasingly, they are becoming the target of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over a lifetime to help support their retirement years, and are vulnerable due to lack of controls and protections through the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system. Seniors are seeing the savings they have built up over years removed. This is about consumer awareness and what we can do, as parliamentarians, to protect seniors' retirement.

Madam Speaker, if we listened to the Conservatives' questions during question period, or to their speeches over the last 24 hours, with all indications that they would like to continue to debate this issue, it is very clear that this is a political issue for the Conservative Party. It is an issue through which they want to attack the Prime Minister. They have been very clear. The Prime Minister found out last week; they know that, yet they continue to espouse misinformation. My question to the member is this: Is there not any sort of conscience on the other side, when the Conservatives continuously want to espouse misinformation and continue to want to ramp up this issue to politicize it? Why are they doing it?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect about the number of years that foreign interference has been an issue, even while Stephen Harper was the prime minister and today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democracy. Those individuals did absolutely nothing; they did zero in terms of dealing with this particular issue. The Prime Minister has done numerous things. When he actually found out about this specific case, just a week ago, he took immediate action. The Conservatives may disagree, but based on the speeches that I have been hearing over the last number of hours, this debate is more about character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about defending rights. What hits one affects us all, and the Conservatives are doing a disservice to the issue by ramping it up politically. Does the member not believe that the Conservatives need to turn the page, dial it down and ensure that we deal with the issue?

Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the spreading of misinformation. Last Thursday, I was heckled by a member who said that I had said the Prime Minister and the member in question had the same briefing. I stood up and I said, and I quote from Hansard: Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing. No matter what we tell the Conservatives, they have their certain spin. It is about character assassination. As we continue with the debate, as they continue to want to ramp up the politicization, it is more about the character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about the issue. When will the Conservative Party depoliticize this and allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to deal with the issue?

Madam Speaker, when it comes to foreign interference, it is really important to recognize, as I have, that foreign interference has been taking place for many years, even when Stephen Harper was there. Stephen Harper was aware of it. How does the member justify the secretive trade agreement or Stephen Harper doing nothing? The Prime Minister found out about this last week for the very first time. Within a week, that diplomat was asked to leave the country.

Madam Speaker, what has become abundantly clear in the hours of debate we have had thus far is the fact the Prime Minister found out about this just last week, and a number of measures were taken, including the expulsion of a diplomat within a week. Those are the facts. The member might want to speculate, hypothesize and all these other weird things, but those are the facts. The Conservatives continue to want to dial up the issue because they want to focus on character assassination more than they want to deal with an issue of substance. One member affects all members. This is an issue that will be discussed at committee. The question is this. There were 49 members of Parliament in 2022, a couple of dozen provincial legislators and even some local councillors. Does the member not believe that the best way to deal with this is to put politics aside and let the committees do what they need to do?

Madam Speaker, at times, we can witness that the coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc is doing quite well. It is kind of like the blue and the light blue. It is interesting. I went through premiers Gary Doer, Greg Selinger, Gary Filmon and, of course, former prime minister Stephen Harper, all in opposition. I am very comfortable with what we have been able to accomplish. I would challenge the member. He has a different view of the last eight years. I could talk about the tax break to the middle class; the GIS lifting hundred of thousands, going to millions, of people out of poverty; and the historic number of trade agreements signed off by the government. Shall we talk about COVID and about the nine million Canadians who benefited from CERB? What about the wage subsidy program? Shall we talk about post-COVID? We can talk about child care. We can talk about the health care agreements. We can talk about the Volkswagen deal. It is endless. That is a leader who has demonstrated an immense amount of focus, when every day, the Conservatives, and now the Bloc, are more concerned about character assassination. As those two political parties focus their attention on the negative, on the Prime Minister, and are spreading misinformation, we will continue to espouse what is important to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, just to pick up on the member's last points, people who are following the debate should be very much aware of the facts. The fact is that, whether the Conservatives want to agree or disagree, the Prime Minister first found out about this just last week. He took immediate action. Within a week, we now have a diplomat being expelled from Canada. Back on March 12, we talked about establishing a foreign influence transparency registry. On March 15, we put in a special rapporteur, who could well come back suggesting that we have a public inquiry. The Prime Minister says that if that is the recommendation, that is what we will accept. Would the member not acknowledge that the Prime Minister found out for the very first time last week, as he has indicated?

Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for his comments in recognizing the important role that mothers play in our society. I would echo those words. However, I am in disagreement with the member on virtually everything else he has said. I would classify it as spreading information that is factually not true. For example, we do know for a fact, and it is a fact, that the Prime Minister found out about this issue just last week. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister has taken a number of actions, and within a week, we have seen a diplomat asked to leave the country over the issue. Whether it was at the very beginning or where we are today, this government has taken the issue of foreign interference very seriously. Could the member explain to me why the former Conservative government chose to do nothing on the issue?

Madam Speaker, maybe the member can explain why it is that the Conservatives intentionally choose to ignore the fact that the Prime Minister did find out last week and, as I indicated, a number of actions were taken virtually immediately, one of which led to a diplomat being expelled from Canada within a week. I would suggest that is action. Why do the Conservatives continue to want to make this a political issue by spreading misinformation?

Madam Speaker, I would like to reinforce the fact that it has been very clear that the Prime Minister first found out about this just last week. I know it upsets a number of people in this chamber, but the fact is that the Prime Minister found out about it just last week. Since then, he has taken a number of direct actions to deal with the issue. Other issues, such as the registry and the public inquiry, could be dealt with by David Johnston, who was a Conservative Stephen Harper appointment. We will wait for that report to come. There is no denying that this government has been proactive on the file. Does the member not believe, when he talks about the credibility and integrity of individuals, that all members in this chamber are honourable, and if the Prime Minister says he learned about it last week, that is a fact?

Madam Speaker, there have been a number of actions that the Prime Minister has actually taken. This is what I find incredibly offensive. The members in the House are honourable members. There is no member, either the member who has just spoken or another Conservative member, who has given any sort of evidence whatsoever that shows that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth, yet they continue to spread misinformation, which causes more damage than I think members realize. Would the member not acknowledge that the Prime Minister found out last week and that we have taken virtually immediate action, which ultimately led to a diplomat being expelled from the country?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on not only how important the legislation is, but also on bringing in closure, as we are doing right now. Conservatives have made it very clear that they have no intention of passing this legislation, so without bringing time allocation or closure there is no chance we would see it get passed. Indeed, the legislation is a reflection of what Canadians want to see of the government.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member for, I believe, over an hour and a half in debate on this particular piece of legislation. It is very clear that the Conservative Party of Canada just does not support the legislation and will do whatever it can in order to prevent its passage. Given that, one has to expect that, if the general feeling of Canadians is that we should be strengthening our laws, the only way we are going to be able to do it is through some form of time allocation or closure. Otherwise, the Conservative Party would never allow the legislation to pass. Given that, can the member indicate why it is that the Conservative Party will do whatever it can to prevent this legislation from passing?

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the issue of perception or misrepresentation, because it does hit home when individual members of Parliament are using social media and other mediums to communicate a message that is not accurate. There are many Canadians, for example, who believe that this is a mechanism to take away hunting guns and impact indigenous communities. I wonder if the member could reinforce or continue her thoughts in regard to the dangers of spreading that sort of misinformation and the anxiety that many communities and individuals experience as a result.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. I always thought that it is a positive thing when a government is prepared to entertain and bring forward amendments, in the sense that this often reflects concerns that have been raised by MPs, other stakeholders or people who make representations at committees. Would the hon. member not agree that it is a good thing when government listens, brings forward amendments and supports even opposition amendments?

Mr. Speaker, let me start by talking quickly about why I suggest every member should get behind this legislation. We hear about ghost guns. This problem is growing across Canada. These 3-D printers are capable of printing what we call ghost guns. No matter which municipalities one looks at, one will find stakeholders, including police and first responders, who say that the number of ghost guns is growing at a very concerning rate. These are untraceable because they do not have serial numbers. This is something very tangible that this legislation attempts to deal with, in good part. Only the Conservative Party does not want to recognize those sorts of facts and allow the legislation to pass. The NDP speaker addressed it, at least in part, when he talked about the issue of money and fundraising. For those who are following the debate today, I would suggest that they not underestimate how much money the Conservatives have raised as a direct result of guns and rifles, and the type of misinformation they are prepared to share with Canadians to generate the money they have raised over the years. We are talking likely into the millions of dollars. I became an MLA back in 1988, and the Polytechnique shooting occurred about a year and a half after I was elected. That is when the whole issue, from my perspective, came to the fore. Many people might not necessarily realize this, but after it came to the fore, it was a Progressive Conservative government, and I underline the word “progressive”, under Kim Campbell, that received the recommendation from a Conservative senator for a gun registry. They were moving toward it. That is probably not very well known in the reform Conservative circles today. Today's Conservative Party is very different from the Progressive Conservative Party. Its members are far to the right. They have recognized this is an issue they can manipulate to get people angry, but to do that, they need to give out misinformation. A tangible example is that they will give the impression it is affecting hunting rifles. This is not in any form or way an attack on law-abiding gun owners, but we would not know it by the propaganda of the Conservatives. They know this would not affect hunting firearms. They know that, but if we check social media, we will see what it is they are actually saying—

Mr. Speaker, my friend should take a look at many of the things Conservatives say, whether in question period or in other debates. I am being somewhat mild in my comments. I am being truthful, but mild. There is a general feeling from Canadians that this is good legislation. It is legislation that should pass. It is with pleasure that we can say that we will finally see some movement on it. That is good for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, having grown up in the Prairies, whether in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, or in Alberta when I served in the Canadian Forces, I have had the opportunity to really get a good sense of what our Prairies are, even going into British Columbia. Food, as it has been talked about, is not something that is critical. It is even more important than critical, as life is dependent upon it. I thought I would try to give a bit of an image of driving in the Prairies. I can think of highways such as Highway 2 driving out in the Carman area or down Highway 1. One can see beautiful bright yellow fields, blue fields or golden fields, virtually wherever the eye can see. One of the most impressive sites is when driving on Highway 2 and one can see a line of five or six huge four-wheel drive combine tractors in the field bringing in the food. It is so impressive that one must realize it is a bread basket for the world. We export so much product, and our farmers have done such incredible work with the diversification of our farms. Canola, in particular, is one of my favourites. It comes from the University of Manitoba. There has been fine work done through science. It has been expanded to incorporate the Prairies, with some of the products going out of Saskatchewan into countries such as India. There are so many products. Canada does play a very important role when it comes to food security, not only for today but into the future. I would like to emphasize the imagination of individuals to take a look at the vastness of the Prairies and the work that our farmers do in ensuring that we have those basic crops, which are so essential to the existence of life. For diversification, it has been so important that the government support our farming community through the prepandemic, pandemic and postpandemic years, which it did with budgetary measures allocating hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as by looking at ways to enhance trade opportunities and ensure local food security through supporting the many different organizations out there. There is so much in that sector. This is a government that has a genuine interest in making sure that our agricultural and food sector industries are strong, healthy and viable. I believe that food day would fall on the first Saturday after the first Monday in August, so that this year it should be on August 5. When we designate days, weeks or months, we will usually hear fairly encouraging words about the topic of the legislation or resolution that is being debated. There is absolutely no doubt that education is a major component to any sort of recognition of a day. We have some amazing organizations out there. I have referred, for example, to Peak of the Market, which is located on Route 90, a nice, easily accessible highway in the past. I had the opportunity a few years back for a tour of Peak of the Market with the minister of agriculture. Food circulation is of critical importance, but I had the opportunity to have a wonderful tour, where I recognized the white potatoes, red potatoes, vegetables and storage capabilities available. There are all sorts of things that take place here. It is, for all intents and purposes, an organization to promote Manitoba-grown products and vegetables. It has had such a huge impact. People have referred to food banks. Peak of the Market donates thousands of pounds every year to food banks. Peak of the Market is out there promoting and encouraging people to buy local and to promote that product beyond the borders of Manitoba. We have great strawberry farms. Every year, when I was in the Manitoba legislature, we would get a basket full of strawberries grown in Portage la Prairie. Last summer or the summer before, I was north of the Interlake and was able to see cattle farms and even a beef farm. If people go to the southeast, they will see chicken producers. They have the barns where they are born, grown to 28 days old and then processed to provide food, whether it is for Kentucky Fried Chicken, hotels or grocery stores. We can look at the hog industry, an industry that I have talked at great length about in the past. The hog industry in Manitoba is huge, and it continues to grow. It is not just in Manitoba. HyLife is a great contributor to the Canadian economy with its significant footprint in the province of Manitoba, where it processes thousands of hogs every day, which ultimately get exported to Asia. This created jobs and provides essential food. It is endless. We can talk about the hog production plants in my home city of Winnipeg or in Brandon. Thousands of hogs are being produced for local consumption and export. They are the best-quality hogs. I would argue the best-quality potatoes are found in the province of Manitoba. Some of my Prince Edward Island colleagues might question me about that, but, from my perspective, I believe Manitoba does produce the best. There are industries we need to look into more for possible opportunities. I had an opportunity to look at the aquafarms in a very small way, but it is an interesting opportunity and something we should be looking at. It provides all sorts of opportunities from an educational point of view. We may be able to have aqua farms even in cold climates with greenhouses. The science behind food enables us to get more engaged. It is important, when we look at the food industry, that we need to recognize the degree to which our farmers have sacrificed. I referred to the farming of wheat. We can talk about the dairy farmers and the cattle industry. They are there today because of our agricultural products and food industry have one purpose at hand, and that is to ultimately provide the quality foods we see on our grocery shelves and being served to us, as one member said, whether it is in the MPs' lobbies or in our many wonderful restaurants throughout all of our communities. It is wonderful to recognize the importance of food and all those involved in ensuring we have food to eat.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the largest number of lakes in the world and makes up approximately 7% of the world's renewable fresh water. The recent federal budget has made it very clear: The government cares about our rivers, lakes and watershed areas. For the first time ever, Canada is establishing a national water agency. This new agency would be headquartered in Winnipeg where water science, the quality of water, floods and droughts would be studied and acted on in every way. Not only would it create good middle-class jobs in Winnipeg, but, more important, it shows that this government is serious about protecting and managing the critical natural resource of water.

Mr. Speaker, the member is now imputing my motives, as if I was mocking the Speaker of the House on Thursday. That is false and wrong, and the member is doing a disservice to, and showing a lack of respect for, the Speaker's chair. On Thursday, the Speaker was very clear and indicated that he would return to the House if there was anything worthwhile to report back to the House. He is reflecting on a Speaker's ruling from Thursday, and I would ask him to withhold his side comments or, at the very least, get on with his question.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard through a CSIS report that this is about not only one but a number of MPs. In fact, in 2022, there were 49 members of Parliament, many members of provincial legislatures and even city council members. We also understand that it is not only one country; it is a number of different countries. Would my colleague across the way agree that it is the broader picture of foreign interference that we need to look at, that it is not just one isolated case and that this is indeed what the priority should be?

Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated in my speech that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had ultimately known about the report, which gave the impression that it was the same report the Prime Minister received. At least that was the indication. Shortly after that, I stood up and apologized, saying that was not my intent. He had received a general briefing and not the special report. Members opposite should also have the same principles applied. For example, when the Prime Minister indicates that he first found out about it last week, should the same sort of principles not apply to opposition parties? In other words, if I am to believe one member, we should believe all members and we should be acting as one on this issue, because, after all, it is more than one member of Parliament. There were 49 who received a general briefing in 2022.

Mr. Speaker, if the member were to take the time to read the speech I gave on Thursday, he would find that I stood up for every individual member of Parliament. My question is more looking at it from the perspective of foreign interference, which has been taking place for many years now. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact, if we looked at the 2022 report, we would find 49 members of Parliament, a couple dozen MLAs and even local councillors or reeves. What might the Conservative Party's policy be in regard to CSIS? We know there were some general briefings provided. Does the member believe that all 49 members of Parliament and those who were in the report should have been better informed? Does he believe that CSIS did not do a proper job of ensuring that each of those members were more aware of why they were being given the general briefing?

Madam Speaker, I find that it is unfortunate that the Conservative Party is taking the tactic to try to bully or intimidate me in being able to address the House. I would ask that you, Madam Speaker, take it under advisement and review the number of points of order and the heckling that I get when I stand up to speak. I do not believe it is appropriate. As you can see, Madam Speaker, the heckling is going on right now.

Madam Speaker, I am sure that if the member were to reflect on question period and the questions he asked, he made a very clear indication in saying the Prime Minister knew. In fact, the Prime Minister was very clear in indicating that the Prime Minister did not know. Therefore, does the member believe that members should be respected when they say that they did not know and that the member is spreading misinformation by telling people that the Prime Minister did know? The member could maybe reflect on that. Does the member recognize that in 2022 there were 49 members of Parliament who had general briefings that were provided. Does he believe that 2022 was the only year or that, in fact, that might have been happening for a number of years prior?

Madam Speaker, the last time the member stood up on this issue and commented on it, I raised it and then he walked across the floor and threatened me. The member said to me that he was going to continue to rise on this issue until I apologized for something I do not believe I have to apologize for. I do not believe a member crossing the floor and making those types of verbal threats is appropriate. I would ask that the Speaker look into the matter, as I indicated earlier, about what actions members are taking to try to intimidate members of the government.

Madam Speaker, foreign interference is something that is not new. The leader of the Conservative Party is very much aware of that, because, after all, he was the minister responsible for democratic reform and he, in fact, had the opportunity to deal with foreign interference. The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, chose to do nothing, like the current leader. Would the leader of the Conservative Party not recognize that, in 2022 alone, there were 49 briefings provided to members of Parliament? That is not to mention how many would have happened before. In order for us to deal with this, we should actually be trying to depoliticize the tactics the Conservatives have been using for well over a week now. Does he not believe that would be in the interest of Canadians? It is time to stop politicizing the issue to the degree to which the Conservative Party of Canada is doing that today.

Madam Speaker, allow me to start off by indicating very clearly that an attack of foreign interference in any fashion on one member is an attack on all members of the House. I said this last week too. Maybe not in those exact same words, but I said it last week, and I have reinforced it. As a parliamentarian, I do very much understand the issue we are debating today. I understand the importance of dealing with the issue at hand. I want to cover a few different areas that I have been listening to and highlight some of the things I also said last week. The issue of foreign interference is something that is not new in Canada. This is something that has been going on for many years. There are a couple of things people should recognize. Number one, when we talk about foreign interference, influence and intimidation in any fashion, it is important to recognize that it is not just one country causing the problems. There are a number of countries that have been causing the issues we should all be concerned about. It is not one country causing the problem, and it is not one country receiving the intimidation. I would like to think that countries within the Commonwealth, allied countries, countries that have the same sort of values we have here in Canada, would be equally upset and would want to deal with the issue in a very significant and tangible way. On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to highlight a report that came out for 2022 from CSIS. The report highlighted some very interesting issues. One page talks about the intimidation of members of Parliament, and I have made reference to the numbers. What we are talking about is CSIS briefings to elected officials in 2022. In that year alone, CSIS made the determination that it would give what I believe to be general briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I was not one of those members of Parliament, but what I do know is that there were 49 in 2022. The content and the degree to which information is released to those individual members of Parliament are determined by CSIS. CSIS is the authority that ultimately makes the decision as to the seriousness of the potential threat and the circumstances around why there is a need to meet with the member of Parliament. It is not just members of Parliament. The same report states that there were 26 provincial briefings. I assume “provincial” means members of a provincial legislature. Not only did it hit provincial, but it also went municipal. That could be anyone from a councillor to a mayor or a reeve. There were 17 of those, and again, that was in 2022 alone. The report from CSIS states: In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security. In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference— I underline “foreign interference”. —terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The next part is what I would like members to appreciate: In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports. In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence products. There are 2,500 reports. We know there were 49 members of Parliament, 26 members of provincial legislatures and 17 mayors, councillors or reeves, based on the report. What we do not know is the context of what was conveyed to those individuals. To that end, we have to respect what we are being told. We often say that all members are honourable members. There does seem to be a double standard that comes from the opposition. They feel that they can say anything they want and they can mislead all they want and there is no consequence because, after all, they are in opposition. How many times have I used the words “character assassination”, coming from Conservatives toward government members? We never ever hear apologies from the other side when they make these bogus claims of misinformation, even when they know there is no merit to what has been said. They do not have qualms about doing that. We have been very clear that the official opposition has chosen to make this a political issue. All one needs to do is look at the questions the official opposition has been asking and some of the statements that have been made today. There is no problem at all in terms of attacking the integrity of members on this side of the House, but when practical issues are raised about members on the other side, how defensive they get. Talk about a double standard. As I said to one member, sometimes it is not advisable to throw a stone in glass houses, and that really needs to be applied.

Madam Speaker, no, I did not make it up. It came from the Manitoba legislature, and I thought it was a very good point. I was in opposition at the time. I can say that, at the end of the day, there are a lot of Conservatives throwing rocks in glass houses. I suggest that they need to dial it down, that there are alternative ways. We were the only country out of the Five Eyes countries that did not have a parliamentary review standing committee. One of the first things we did was establish that committee. There are parliamentarians on each side, all political parties, who get to participate in that group. This is a group of MPs who can listen and hold accountable organizations like CSIS. We do not know what is being said at that committee, but every party has representation on that committee and I suggest that they too, as a committee, are looking at this issue. One member stood and said that PROC is a wonderful committee. Yes, it is a wonderful committee. I sat on it for a number of years. Nothing prevents the opposition parties and the government from saying that, at the procedure and House affairs committee, they would like to look at foreign interference and study x, y and z. Today we saw that there is a great deal of support to have studies of that nature occur at standing committees. In particular, PROC has all sorts of mechanisms with which it can ensure a study takes place. We could be looking at the broader picture there because an attack on one is an attack on all, and it even goes beyond this chamber. I understand the dynamics of the large communities and the foreign interference that takes place within them. Not that long ago, I was at a local restaurant where some members from one community were so fearful of being caught meeting with me that they did not want to see anyone taking pictures because they were scared for their family members at home. We are not only talking about this country with respect to this issue. We need to realize that it is more than one country. We need to understand and appreciate that there is not one member in the House who would, in any fashion whatsoever, tolerate international interference, whether it were the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the NDP or any other member. I believe that to try to imply that is not the case would be dishonest. The Prime Minister found out about this for the very first time last week. Conservatives would know that if they listened to the questions and answers. Imagine the misinformation some are putting out there trying to give the false impression that he knew about it. Then they say that, if he did not know about it, he should have. It is as though they are somehow trying to justify it that way. They will say that it is a failure of the government to protect us. There were 49 cases just last year. Are they that naive to believe that 2021 and 2022 were the only years this happened? My colleagues raised the issue of what took place while the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservatives were told about it. They knew about it. Could any members on the Conservative side stand up today, with their integrity intact, to tell the House that, under no circumstances whatsoever, was there any intimidation or interference respecting a member of Parliament during the Stephen Harper era? I suspect not. Does that mean that Harper was an absolute failure? Does it mean that he was dishonest? I am attributing some of the incredible comments that have been coming from the official opposition toward the Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. As the prime minister at the time, he decided to not do anything. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to heckle or raise those types of comments toward the Prime Minister, especially given the actions we have taken to date. As a government, we have moved on a number of files to recognize this issue, so the Conservatives should not try to give the impression that there is a member inside this chamber who is not sympathetic to the impact that foreign influence has had on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are all concerned about it, each and every one of us. I would like to see this as a possible agenda item so we can think about it and talk about it. Members can think about what the purpose of foreign interference is, at least in part. It is to cast a shadow of doubt to make it look as though we have lost control of the issue. We can take a look at the Conservative Party's contribution to making a lot of those foreign actors happy when they see what is taking place in the chamber and in the media. There is a phenomenal amount of false information and misinformation being espoused by members of the House on such an important issue. We have recognized that. I will point out a few of the things the government has done. I made reference to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. As I indicated, members of all political stripes sit on that committee. They get to hear everything, and I understand foreign interference is one of those things they are hearing about. Are members saying that those members of Parliament do not know how to do their jobs? Are they going to reflect on that? Maybe they want to reflect on CSIS as an organization that has the decision authority. The Conservatives say that they do not know what it is doing when it has those general briefings by not explaining more. We do not know what they are saying because we have confidence in those general briefings. They are giving a general briefing because there is a need. Something has happened to cause them to provide that general briefing. We are all afforded the ability to ask questions, I suspect. I do not know for sure because I have not had one, and I am grateful that I have not. Reinforcing confidence in CSIS is also important. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, made up of the top independent experts, strengthens independent scrutiny and accountability of the national security agencies in Canada. These are incredible individuals who are there to ensure that the best interests of not only members of Parliament, but also all Canadians, are being taken into consideration and, in fact, acted upon. This government established the critical election incident public protocol, a protocol that is administered by a panel of the most senior federal public servants. They work with national security agencies and are responsible for communicating with Canadians in the event of an incident, or a series of incidents, that threatens the integrity of a federal election. We created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, which is composed of officials from the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada. The SITE task force works to identify and prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities from influencing or interfering with the electoral process in Canada. Because of a lot of the work we have done in the last number of years on this issue of foreign interference, we established a rapid response mechanism, the RRM, at the G7 summit to help G7 countries identify and respond to diverse and evolving foreign threats to democracy. In his speech, the leader of the Conservative Party was critical, saying that we do not care about a foreign influence transparency register. On March 12 of this year we announced the launch of a consultation to guide the creation of a foreign influence transparency registry in Canada to ensure transparency and accountability from people who advocate on behalf of a foreign government. At the end of the day, this is a government that has acted on the issue. We are suggesting that it impacts each and every one of us, and it is time to dial it down to make it less political in its partisanship. Let us wait until we get the report from the former governor general, and then we can follow the recommendations, even if it means having that public inquiry.

Madam Speaker, the member makes my point on misinformation and outright false information. Some members of the House will go outside the chamber to use their social media. They will talk to other individuals, knowing full well that they are, in fact, misleading Canadians. With respect to the 49 members of Parliament I referenced, what did the Prime Minister actually do? When he first heard about it, he made arrangements for the member in question to make sure he had the proper briefing on the issue—