Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the member is right. I do not necessarily agree with her conclusions or her thoughts. I do agree with the idea that we could have been talking about a wide spectrum of different possible issues, but it is not to take away from the critical issue that we have at hand. It is important for us to ultimately recognize that the Prime Minister found out about it, just as I and I assume most, if not all, others did, just last week. If we look at what has transpired between last week, when everyone found out about it, to today, we see that a great deal of action has taken place. If one believes the Conservative spin, one could easily draw the conclusion of being somewhat disappointed. However, I would suggest that they should not believe the Conservative spin because a lot of that spin is not true.

Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily want to indicate that I fully understand the timing and the way in which things ultimately unfolded. However, I would like to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the public inquiry. At the end of the day, I believe that we have an incredible individual, who was an appointment by Stephen Harper as the Governor General of Canada, an individual of impeccable credentials, who has now been assigned the task, as special rapporteur, of looking into the whole issue of foreign interference, influence and so on, and coming back with a report. I think everyone in the House has had the opportunity to express their thoughts about the public inquiry. The commitment from the Prime Minister is that, if the report comes back with that recommendation, a public inquiry will, in fact, be taking place. I would not underestimate the impact that the NDP has had on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I think the member is sharing a little bit of the frustration of when we look across and see the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative Party, on this particular issue, given the fact that foreign interference and influence have been taking place for many years. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for the issue, he, let alone the prime minister at the time, chose to do nothing. That is what I mean about throwing rocks in glass houses and looking in a mirror before they make some of the statements they make inside the House. At the end of the day, we should try to wind things down in terms of the politicization we have witnessed over the last little while on this issue and resolve it.

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, this government truly believes in doing what it can to combat foreign interference and intimidation. It is very interesting how the Conservatives, on the other hand, play politics with the issue. It is important that Canadians who follow the debate today realize that CSIS is the deciding authority as to when and how things are brought up. The Prime Minister found out on Monday. The Prime Minister then followed up by saying that he wanted to have updates on the issue whenever MPs were brought to the attention of CSIS. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years. The question is whether that member has brought it up with the member for Calgary Midnapore or any member of the Conservative caucus. Has he brought it up inside the chamber? Has he done anything on the issue? Why has the member—

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East gave a very passionate speech, as we have all attested to. We very much value and appreciate her comments. It is not just about China. There are other countries. An attack on one member is an attack on all members of the chamber. When death threats are made against members, all members universally acknowledge that we have to do what we can to fight for our democracy. Does the member believe that the special rapporteur has any role at all in looking at this and reporting back to the government?

Mr. Speaker, it is highly irregular for a member to be able to stand up and then, an hour or two hours later, try to reflect what I might have said from my seat. I would suggest that the member needs to look at what the leader of the Conservative Party was heckling at the Speaker yesterday or at the Prime Minister the day before. If they want to talk about behaviour and inappropriate language in Parliament, they can look at what the leader of the Conservative Party does on an ongoing basis. That is what one should be ashamed of. If anyone owes an apology, it is the leader of the Conservative Party who owes an apology to the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, CSIS is the deciding authority that ultimately determines what is brought to a higher level. CSIS did not make the Prime Minister aware of this until Monday of this week, yet the Conservatives have been accusing the Prime Minister of hiding. The member is asking for members of this side of the House to apologize. He should look in a mirror. Does he not see the hypocrisy that is oozing? Is the Prime Minister not owed an apology, a collective apology from members of the Conservative Party, for their behaviour on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate thus far. I hope to be able to contribute to it in a relatively positive way. At least that is my initial intent. I reflect on what the New Democratic member put on the record regarding the impact it is having in one community. It is a good starting point, recognizing that international interference takes all sorts of different forms and comes from a wide variety of other countries. It is not just from one country. That is important for us to understand and appreciate as we continue the debate today. It is also important for us to realize that Canada is not alone. It is not as if Canada is the only democracy in the world being looked at as a country that is vulnerable to foreign interference. We can talk about the U.S.A., Australia and France. We can talk about other democracies where the same sorts of attempts are being made in different ways by different countries. It is an intentional attack to try to undermine the things that Canadians value so much: our democracy, our freedoms. These are the things that are important to Canadians and to all members of the House. At the end of the day, it is important that we recognize those two facts. The other really important thing for all of us to recognize is that members of Parliament have been targeted in a very real and tangible way. It is not only members of Parliament, but also members of legislatures across Canada, councillors and others. A CSIS report gave some numbers for 2022. There were threats against 49 members of Parliament; 26 provincial threats, which I cannot say with certainty were against MLAs, but I am pretty sure they were MLAs; and threats against 17 municipal councillors. These were cases that CSIS was involved in. It affects all of us when one person, let alone dozens of elected officials, is being made vulnerable, being manipulated or threatened in any fashion. In my political career, I have had one or two occasions when my life was threatened. I like to think, whether it is a minister, a prime minister, leaders of political parties or others in the chamber, that we would all get behind the member and their right to represent the constituents to whom they are assigned through our electoral process. There are mechanisms in place. When members of the New Democratic Party stand and say that we need to dial it down and make it less political, there are mechanisms to make it less political. It is not the governing party that is bringing the issues up. In many ways, the governing party has been listening and has even been taking serious and significant verbal abuse on the issue. All one needs to do is look at the question periods from earlier this week. However, the government continues to respect the work that CSIS has done. I think it is important to recognize the role that CSIS plays in this whole area. When we really get down to the nuts and bolts of it, it is a question of whether we have confidence and faith in CSIS. The Government of Canada does. That is why we have seen people, whether the Prime Minister, the minister responsible or others, reflect as much as possible on what they know through CSIS, as far as their participation in CSIS allows. When the Prime Minister said that he was made aware of it on Monday, all the allegations, the heckling and the words being said on the record, by the Conservative Party primarily, I would suggest, did politicize the issue.

Mr. Speaker, as they continue to want to heckle, they can look and review. The government, in a very real way, has been clear. An attack against one member of Parliament, in any form, is an attack on all members of Parliament. When the Prime Minister found out about it earlier this week, he ensured that CSIS would have meetings with the member in question, like the other 49 members in 2022. I do not know the content, but I understand that there have been numerous members to whom CSIS has provided a general briefing.

Mr. Speaker, the member who is heckling now does not know the content of those briefings, just as I do not know. I do not know, and the member should admit he does not know either. It was on Monday that the Prime Minister found out about it, and he took immediate action. If we want to start to depoliticize, as some in the chamber are saying is so important for us to do, we need to look at what it is. Do they support CSIS? Let us put it into perspective the work that CSIS does. Let me read from the CSIS report. It says: 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, 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. This is what I really want to emphasize, just so that members have a sense of the reporting and how important it is that we have a protocol put in place. The report states, “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”, like the one I am citing right now. CSIS has produced over 2,500 intelligence reports. That is, I would argue, one of the reasons that it is CSIS's responsibility to recognize those issues that need to be elevated. It has a responsibility to all members of the House. If there are concerns in regard to their safety or something that it believes that a member should be aware of, it can have that consultation. I have never had that consultation. Maybe that is something that, as a standard rule, CSIS should provide in the future for all members of Parliament. I think it might be something worthwhile. Every member has the opportunity to ensure that they have that discussion, and it is CSIS that determines what information it is prepared to release, whether to the individual in question or whether to someone higher up. Like the rest of the House, we just found out about the case regarding the particular member. The Prime Minister has now indicated that all cases, and I would assume that would include the 49 in 2022 that CSIS looked into, should be brought to the attention of the PMO. I see that as a tangible action, just like I see a tangible action where we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs now calling upon the ambassador to come before the government. We constantly hear from the Conservatives, “Expel the diplomat, expel the diplomat.” They do not even know the content, yet they feel that they can be judge, jury and whatever else. They have made the determination. That could be the determination, but I do not know the facts. How could the opposition know the facts? Do they know something that we do not know? Maybe the members of the opposition should be a little more transparent. If they know something, they should tell us. All they are saying is that we must get rid of the diplomat. That could ultimately be the case, but I think we have to go through the process and have confidence in CSIS. We can take a look at a government that has been proactive on the issue of political interference. In the days of Stephen Harper, not all of those days but a good number of them, I sat in opposition. What did Harper actually do? Let me tell members some of the things that the Government of Canada has done since we have been in government. We established a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. When we were in opposition, we called, virtually begged, for prime minister Harper to bring in that committee. We attempted to get that committee. It was one of the big pushes that we made. Shortly after getting elected, we instituted that committee. The Conservatives even protested it for a while. There was about a year during which they would not even participate in the committee. What does that committee actually do? It would address the issues we are talking about today. The committee could actually have CSIS come before it and obligate CSIS to share the information. The individuals who sit on that committee are Conservatives, Bloc members, Liberals, NDP members, I believe, and members of the Senate. That is something that we put into place shortly after the election. What about the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, again, bringing together an organization to ensure that there is a proper review in process to protect the integrity and the safety of our freedoms and our democracy? That is a substantial initiative by the government. We had a critical election incident public protocol put into place, with top civil servants, so if something does happen during an election, in terms of foreign interference, there is something tangible through the group that deals with security, intelligence and threats during elections. We established the rapid response mechanism for sharing intelligence with our G7 partners. Because Canada has made significant progress, a lot of the knowledge that has been gathered to date is now being shared among our allied countries. Those are some of the initiatives we have taken as a government, because we take the issue seriously. Let us compare that to Stephen Harper.

Yes, the ghost of Harper. He is haunting. He is kind of spooky, I agree. Mr. Speaker, look at what Stephen Harper did. Let me think about what he did. I could not come up with anything because there was nothing that the former prime minister did. The ultimate irony is in who was responsible for democratic reform at the time, when CSIS first raised the issue of foreign interference. Let us think about who it was. It is almost like a Trivial Pursuit question. I think my colleague from Kingston and the Islands knows the answer. What we find is that it was the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is why it is difficult, when we see the members of the political party opposite feeling they can be as political as they want. They can take all the cheap shots and say whatever they want, and there is no recourse. Heaven forbid they are called out on it. If I point out some of the obvious things, then I am the bad guy. In fact, I listened to Conservatives this week, and the language they were using this week—

Mr. Speaker, we have to admit, it is somewhat cute. I say that they have their speaking points and that they have been assigned the responsibility. I make reference to it, and they all start waving it. They all have the same clip. I think I saw three paragraphs on each piece of paper. They have been given their directions. At the end of the day, let us be real here. I have tried to amplify exactly what the Conservative Party did, and it is not hard to imagine it. While the Conservatives were in government, they did zero. I gave a lengthy list of the types of things we have done. I know we could do more. That is the reason we appointed former governor general Johnston as the special rapporteur. This is something that could ultimately lead to a public inquiry. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that. If Mr. Johnston comes back saying that a public inquiry is necessary, that is what is going to happen. However, we are hoping that there will be a number of things, and that could be a part of it. When the Conservatives talk about the registry, that is now already in the works. We have a minister who has opened up the department to getting the feedback so we can ensure that we develop a registry that is going to be effective. Not only have we done things in the last number of years, but we are also looking forward to continuing to build on protecting Canada's democracy and rights and ensuring that whether a person is a member of Parliament or a Canadian citizen, we have a process in place to protect them. The person does not have to be an MP; they could be a Canadian citizen. Not that long ago, I was meeting with some constituents who were fearful to have a picture taken with me. They could not afford to see it in any form on social media because of potential repercussions in another country. I do not need to be told how real it is. I will defend the rights of all members of Parliament on this issue. No one should be intimidated. I am proud to be a part of a government that recognizes this and has actually taken tangible actions in the past and continues to do so today. In the future, we will continue to build a stronger and healthier system so that Canadians feel comfortable and know we have a democracy that works for all Canadians. We will continue to support CSIS.

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that I actually said in my comments that in 2022, there were 49 members of Parliament; 26 MLAs; 17 councillors or reeves, those classified as municipal; and a huge number of Canadians affected. Some of them were really tangibly affected. I just made reference to, not that long ago, meeting with individuals who were nervous to have pictures taken for the simple reason that they were concerned about repercussions back home. That is the motivating factor for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and, indeed, I would like to think, for all of us. No one inside this chamber, I would like to think, supports in any way whatsoever that a foreign country would try to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the lives of Canadians. This is the reason that the Prime Minister and the government take the issue seriously; this is why we have taken the actions we have taken to date. It is just the Conservatives who continue to want to politicize the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, in my speech, that I made reference to any single country. It is quite possible I might have, but I did start off by making it very clear that there is no single country that participates in political interference and interventions in Canadian society. Rather, there are a multitude of different countries doing this. Moreover, Canada is not alone; there are other countries, whether Australia, the United States, European countries or other democracies, that also get interfered with by a wide variety of other countries. I am very sensitive to the issue. I would suggest to the member that she might want to give serious consideration to having confidence in the former governor general doing the work he needs to do, which could ultimately lead us to have a public inquiry. He was a Stephen Harper government appointment as governor general.

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the former governor general, the hon. Mr. Johnston, in terms of his being able to look at what would be in Canada's best interest and how we can best proceed. If that means we have to be patient and wait an extra few weeks or a couple of months, I am quite prepared to be patient, knowing full well that at the end of the day, it could lead to a public inquiry, if it is deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, what it does is it reminds us all that foreign interference is not new in Canada. It has been around for more than a decade. CSIS has made us aware of it. What is important to recognize is that this government, since 2015, has taken concrete steps toward providing assurances. There are many other opportunities for us to not only improve this system, but ultimately to work in an apolitical fashion, hopefully, through standing committees and other mechanisms, so we can all get onside and assure Canadians we have a democracy that is healthy, vibrant and that will be there for future generations.

Madam Speaker, as the government has recognized and said, an offence on one member of Parliament is an offence on all members of Parliament. We should all be concerned. It is one of the reasons we have seen literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of government investment in places like the Board of Internal Economy to ensure that MPs have things such as panic buttons and cameras around homes. We have seen all sorts of actions, such as legislative initiatives, to deal with the issue of election interference and foreign interference. At the end of the day, I would suggest to the member that, when we take a look at the—

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, the government has been building and will continue to build upon the work that we have done over the last number of years dealing with election interference and the issues that we have before us today. We have commissioned a special rapporteur, a former Stephen Harper appointment, the hon. Mr. Johnston, to conduct a report, which could ultimately bring in a request for a public inquiry. Will the Conservative Party of Canada support what the former governor general brings back to Parliament?

Madam Speaker, it is always encouraging when we get members standing up speaking on legislation who share their personal story. I do want to thank the member. I know I speak on behalf of all members. When members explain a very personal story, such as she has done in such an elegant way, it really brings the importance of the issue to the floor of the House. The deputy House leader and I did get a chance to talk about the issue. I think there is a great deal of sympathy in regards to why the government should do what it needs to do in order to enhance EI. I am sure that the member is aware that we, as a government, have talked about the importance of EI generally speaking. However, when we think in terms of the specifics of what this legislation would do, we talked about during an election and post election. We saw a very passionate minister who is actually very keen on looking at ways in which we can improve the employment insurance regime. A considerable amount of consultation needs to take place, but I will bring a bit of a different perspective. There is absolutely no doubt of how an adoptive parent and adopted child love and care, which is reciprocated between them such that, in essence, we could drop the word “adopted”. The adoptive parent will raise the child as his or her own, and we will see the multitude of sacrifices that are made by the parent for the child with a very happy heart, because it is their child. As the child grows, we will see that it is most often reciprocated where the child sees the adoptive parent as their parent. There is no denying the strength of that bond, which is equal, I would suggest, in many ways to a natural birth parent in terms of the care and love connection. I would like to add something to that. Last year, I was at an event in Winnipeg North with my daughter. We were sitting beside this wonderful lady, Myrna, who is a foster parent, which we just found out that evening. We knew she had a wonderful family, as I had met Myrna in the past, and I had seen her children, who are older, but I did not know that she was a foster parent. I was so impressed with the discussion that we had that we were inspired to do something with respect to foster parents, because the connection that foster parents have with children is strong. In fact, we will find that there is a very direct link when a person gets a child virtually from birth, and this happens quite often, until adulthood. I do not know if it was in March or April, but there was a debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the connection between non-biological parents and children who are adopted or provided foster care. I have seen the connection. It is very tangible. In fact, what we ended up doing in that particular situation, and the same principles could be applied elsewhere, is recognize them with the jubilee pins we were given for honouring foster children. Based on the discussion we are having here this evening, I suspect we could have just as easily, and I wish we had, given some recognition to adoptive parents, because we should never take this for granted. When we look at what the government has been talking about, I am sure the member is aware that the minister has a mandate letter. Within that mandate letter, as I understand, there is direction with respect to adoptive parents. We have to take a look at what has been taking place over the last couple of years. One thing we have seen is that the whole EI area can be very effective at responding to the needs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We saw that during the pandemic. We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic and the crisis that all Canadians had to deal with at that time. However, let us not let that discourage individuals following this debate from trying to push forward the idea and principle that we need to recognize adoptive parents through EI reform. The minister herself has indicated that she genuinely wants to see changes to the EI system. The Prime Minister himself has recognized the importance of the issue. The Prime Minister not only came up with the mandate letters, which all prime ministers have done in the past, but also singled this issue out to this particular minister—

Mr. Speaker, the petition I would like to table today is in regard to the growing retiree population in Canada that is increasingly becoming a target of fraud. They have built up wealth over their lifetime to help them support their retirement years and they are vulnerable due to lack of controls and protection in the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system. Seniors are seeing their savings, built up over years, removed in many cases through sophistication and deceit and trickery. They are calling upon 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 more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect our seniors.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add a few thoughts regarding the bill. I know the NDP wants to focus a lot of attention on the issue of tail ponds, and I will deal with that right away, along with the members of the Green Party and, to a certain degree, even my friends in the Bloc. I find it interesting that they are maybe playing a bit with words on the issue. It is not to take away from the seriousness of the issue. We have recognized that. I believe the member knows full well that, in good part, what she is talking about as a concern is already there and the amendment is somewhat redundant. It might make a nice social media post or something of that nature. Giving the member and those who have been speaking on it the benefit of the doubt, I will say that maybe they just do not fully understand everything that has been explained through the legislation. It is important to recognize that information with regard to tail ponds is already being collected through CEPA. It is important for us to—