Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the government does take foreign interference very seriously. We have seen that in the legislative measures and other resources. We have had all sorts of different types of discussions. We have had reports provided to Parliament. We have continued to bring forward legislation as recently as earlier this week. The point is that we do take it very seriously. We also recognize that Canada is one of a number of countries around the world being targeted with foreign interference. There is more than one player persistently trying to undermine democracies. We are very much aware of those players. The question I have for the member is this. Looking forward, it is important that this goes to the procedure and House affairs committee. Collectively, it is in all of our best interests for that to happen. I wonder what the member's thoughts are on the importance of working on a consensus and trying to build something out of PROC to ensure that we have a united front in taking on foreign international interference.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage those individuals who are following the debate on this issue to give serious consideration to actually reading the entire context in which the Speaker made his presentation, and I would assure individuals following the debate that the government has taken and continues to take foreign interference very seriously. One will see that in the actions that we have taken virtually from 2016 all the way up to this past week. Having said that, I would look to my friend across the way and ultimately argue that I think Canada is in a relatively good position to be able to demonstrate leadership on the issue. We want to see the issue go to PROC. PROC has the capabilities and the abilities to come forward, hopefully, with a report that has the support of all political entities in the chamber. I am wondering if my colleague across the way could provide his thoughts in regard to how good it would be if we are able to have a report come back from PROC where we have the support of all political entities inside the chamber. Does he not believe that this would give a much stronger impression, collectively, of us working together to deal with foreign interference?

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the manner and the tone in which the member speaks about what is a very serious issue in Canada today. While I was listening to him, I thought about how we need to recognize that the way we have to deal with the crisis before us today is multi-faceted. I thought about how important it is to work with health care professionals, first responders, communities and different levels of government to ensure that we get this right. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we work in consultation, in a co-operative fashion, in order to save lives, as well as anything else he might want to add to that?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member across the way that, in fact, Canada is not broken and that we are on the right economic track. The Conservatives are very good at spreading misinformation. That should not be a surprise to anyone who follows the debate. For example, the member said that we are scaring away investors. Last year, Canada was number one in the G7 countries for GDP, based on the population base in terms of direct foreign investment for the first three quarters. Worldwide, we were number three on a per capita basis. How can the member or the Conservative Party across the way try to mislead Canadians by saying we are scaring away investment when we see that kind of reality staring us in the face?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the intervention made by the member for the New Westminster—Burnaby on Wednesday, May 1, in relation to respect for the authority of the Chair. Page 311 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to functions performed by the Speaker with respect to enforcing the rules that guide the work of this place, states, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House.” The Speaker has the ultimate authority regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of the House and its Standing Orders. The Speaker is the final authority on these matters. Since 1965, Speakers' rulings have been closed to appeals. They are final. Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to the rulings by the Speaker, states, “Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion.” This applies not only to procedural matters, but also to questions for the maintenance of order and decorum. Our procedural authorities are definitive on this particular point. Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to addressing the maintenance of order and decorum, also states: The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually asks the Member to rephrase or withdraw the word or expression. If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member.... The most severe sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair. It is both unusual and unfortunate that the Speaker has had to invoke this sanction. We need to be mindful that these extreme situations do not become normalized in our proceedings. Finally, I would like to address the allegations of bias on the part of the Speaker that have been raised by some members in the House and outside the House. Page 323 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the impartiality of the Chair, states: Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly. On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges. In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister rose on a question of privilege calling for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further. Despite this clear precedent, we have seen many recent examples of Conservative MPs engaging in exactly this conduct, including numerous tweets that can be found on X from April 30. In one day alone, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Liberal Speaker”; the member for Edmonton Manning also referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and stated, “The speaker is doing [the Prime Minister's] bidding”, and so on; the member for Edmonton West referred to “The shamelessly partisan Liberal Speaker”; and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and repeated this in a video that she also posted on X.

Mr. Speaker, this is not necessarily something that should have clapping from across the way. Also, on April 30, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland tweeted, “The partisan Liberal Speaker”. The member for King—Vaughan also referred to the “Liberal speaker”. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to, again, the so-called Liberal Speaker in a video on X and said that the government is “being protected by a Speaker who is obviously biased to ensure that they have the protection from accountability and questions”. Finally, on the same day, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South referred to “the Liberal Chair”. Furthermore, on May 1, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry stated in a tweet how partisan the Liberal Speaker had been the day before, while the member for Lethbridge, in a May 2 post on X, referred to the “Speaker's partisan decision”. Members need to be mindful that the actions of the Speaker must not be criticized in a frivolous manner. It undermines not only the authority of the Chair but also the authority of the chamber. Page 323 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” On December 15, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition moved a substantive motion regarding the conduct of the Speaker. The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed, but despite this, Conservatives continue to ignore the rules, ignore the precedent, and openly criticize the Speaker, which is very serious. The Leader of the Opposition wants to declare himself to be above the law by vowing to take away the rights of Canadians through the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. He also wants to destroy any institution that gets in his way, which includes the House of Commons. While the official opposition wants to destroy our institutions, we will continue to stand up for them. I urge the Speaker to reflect on the behaviour of members of the official opposition. One need only reflect on the Conservatives' reactions as I was reading this important address on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but I was actually elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988 and had the opportunity to experience both a provincial Conservative government as well as a provincial NDP government. I was very much aware of the fact that this experiment had taken place in Dauphin. Many were surprised that neither administration, whether the NDP for now 20-plus years or the Conservatives for 15-plus years, had taken the initiative any further or had had that discussion or debate, at least while I was there, in any real way that led to a resolution or a recommendation to Ottawa. I wonder if the member could maybe expand upon what she believes Manitoba's actual position is with respect to that, because I was never really clear on that.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre. However, at the end of the day, I think that we need to take a broader look at how it is, as a society, we are there to support and the types of support programs that are put in place. Canada's social safety net is something that has evolved. We have jurisdictional responsibilities in different areas, and some governments have been more successful than other governments in trying to eliminate poverty, in particular with a focus on children, and I would like to give some attention to that. However, I want to emphasize that, every year, the national government hands over, in the form of a social transfer, hundreds of millions of dollars. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $15 billion a year. That is to go to provinces to provide all forms of social support, which is the reason I raise the issue. I was first elected in 1988 and, through the years, there has always been a great deal of discussion on how we ensure that the people who need the support get the type of support that is necessary. However, on having an income that we guarantee for everyone, I do not know if Canada is ready, and I know the member would be upset with that statement. I do not know and I am not convinced that Canada is in a position to do what it is that the proposed legislation is asking for. I do believe that we need to take a look at how government is able to lower the poverty rate and target funding. I have yet to be convinced, but I am open to the issue before us. When I look at what, for example, we have been able to accomplish through targeted actions, it is very significant. I have talked about, for example, the Canada child benefit program and how that program lifted thousands of children in Winnipeg North out of poverty. I can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, something the member made reference to, and again how hundreds of the poorest seniors in the country are being lifted out of poverty as a direct result. There are ways in which governments, both at the provincial level and at the national level, can target in order to support people. When we came into government, the poverty rate was just under 15%. Today, it is actually around 10%. I suspect that is because of the targeted actions we have taken as a government, and those are direct dollars. It does not take away from other types of investments that the government makes. For example, I was very proud of the fact that we came up with a $200-billion, over 10 years, commitment towards health care. That commitment is going to ensure that people, no matter what their income levels are, will be provided quality health care services into the future. In recent budgets, we have seen an expansion, for example, with the dental program. When that is completely rolled out to Canada's population of 40 million people, we are talking about over nine million people who are going to have access to that dental program. In this budget, I believe the single largest expenditure, and I stand to be corrected on this, is going towards the disability program that we are putting out. We look at it as a very important first step, and it is going to have a positive impact in our communities. Some will ask why it is only $200. However, before this amount, it did not exist. When we talk about the hundreds of thousands of applicants and use the multiplying factor, this is a very good start. There are other programs we have brought in through the budget. The pharmacare program is going to provide life-saving medications for some individuals in Canada. If we think of the numbers, they will be going to hundreds of thousands of people who are affected with diabetes. I do not know the actual numbers. Now we have a national government that is going to be there in a very real and tangible way. These programs that are specifically targeted make a difference in our communities until, at least, I feel comfortable knowing that what is being suggested through the legislation is not going to take away from the enhancement of programs that I know are having a positive impact. When I say “take away from”, we are also talking about the financial commitments. We increased the OAS for people 75 and above by 10%; we were criticized by members because we made a commitment to do just that. If we think about when people are hitting 75, some of their retirement money is starting to diminish and their medical needs increase. They also have that sense of independence as a senior. We now have a government that says that it is going to find the resources to ensure that they get that substantial 10% increase. That, in itself, helps a great number of seniors. The government is able to look at ways it can actually make a difference, such as the child care program and the billions of dollars it cost. Who here, outside the Conservative Party, would say that was a bad program? We all got behind it and supported $10-a-day day care, which is going to help every region of our country. When we think of programs, there are some that we do not necessarily get to talk about that often. With respect to the CPP program, there are approximately six million people who have retired and look to the CPP. It is something we worked on with the provinces in order to ensure people would get increases during their retirement. I may look at ending it on that, because the way I started was by saying that I was familiar with what took place in the province of Manitoba, maybe not in great detail, but I was around during the discussions that followed in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years. I did not see or hear the Province of Manitoba, which is a fairly progressive province, advance with either a Progressive Conservative or NDP government that it wanted the country to be moving in this direction. There were no Liberal provincial governments, although we tried. I suspect that it did not say this because it saw the value of having targeted ways to bring people out of poverty. The government has demonstrated that through many budgetary measures we have taken, virtually since 2015. As a direct result, the poverty rate has gone down dramatically. I think this is viable, in a healthy way, moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I guess the member could be excused, since he was the one who brought in the motion. It is truly amazing how the Conservative Party really knows no shame. Think about it; the member who moved the motion is criticizing the government because we are not getting this legislation passed because it is the fall economic statement. Well, duh. Who does one think is preventing it from passing? It is the Conservative Party of Canada. They are doing it by bringing in silly motions that the member just introduced, even though he did not even talk about it. Can the member explain to Canadians how it is that they can justify filibustering legislation and then blaming the government because we are not stopping them from filibustering fast enough?

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. We have the Conservative Party of Canada, which many would call the Reform Party, because it is, for all intents and purposes, more the Reform Party than it is the Conservative Party, and I will try to explain to those who might be attempting to follow the debate. We are talking about the fall economic statement, which is something that was introduced late last year. The Conservative member who moved this motion is criticizing the government for taking so long to get this legislation passed, which is truly amazing, because it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the legislation from passing by filibustering the legislation, and today is an excellent example. What is the member actually moving? He is moving a motion to delete the short title of the legislation. What is the short title of the legislation? It is the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. This is a relatively large piece of legislation, and this member, who I hope did not require AI assistance this time around, comes up with an amendment to delete that short title. Then he says that not doing this, not passing this legislation, has a consequence. Well, the member is somewhat right, even though he does not admit that the Conservative Party, or the Reformers in the Conservative Party, are the problem in terms of why it is not passing, and many of them are rural members of Parliament. Within this legislation is action that would double the rural top-up for the carbon rebate. This means that the Reformers across the way, the Conservative Party, are in fact keeping money away from rural communities in Canada, because they made the decision that they do not want this legislation to pass. To amplify that, they bring in a silly motion meant for one purpose, which is purely obstruction. Then the member asks who the Liberals are talking to, and he is critical of some of my caucus colleagues. Let me frame it in a different way. After all, the member himself said, “The buck stops with the one who is in charge”, implying the Prime Minister. Let me reverse this on the member opposite. He is trying to ask who we are talking to versus who the Conservatives are talking to, so let us talk about the leaders. The Prime Minister of Canada came to Winnipeg one day, and we were talking about child care. He came to Stanley Knowles School in my riding, and we talked about the importance of $10-a-day child care. What is wrong with talking to child care workers? The next time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we went to the Grace Hospital. It was the premier, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. They talked about the $200-billion transfer for a generation of providing services in health care on issues such as mental health, family doctors and so forth. We were surrounded by the real VIPs, which were the health care workers who were there. These are the people we are listening to. In fact, the last time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we met again with the premier and the provincial minister of housing. We also had the mayor of Winnipeg, and along with the Prime Minister was the Minister of Housing. We talked about the issue of housing and, again, we had stakeholders there. When we think of the budget or the fall economic statement, what we will see is that they are a reflection of what Canadians are telling us. Whether it is the member for Avalon, me or the member from Surrey, we take the ideas and the thoughts that constituents and Canadians tell us and bring them here to Ottawa. The budget and the fall economic statement are a reflection of Canadian values and what they are—

Madam Speaker, before the interruption, I was talking about how Liberal members are out connecting with Canadians and reporting back. When we think of the amendment being proposed today, it is absolutely ridiculous. I believe there are very few outside of the Reformers who would actually support such a silly amendment, because they would understand it is nothing more than a filibuster or an obstruction tactic from the Conservatives. I was reflecting on how the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus do their consulting. Who do the Conservative Party members consult with? Who gave them the idea to continue the filibustering we are seeing? I have a fairly good sense. It is the MAGA right, the far right element in the Conservative Party today, the individual who wants to demonstrate, even though it is not true, that the institutions we participate in are dysfunctional. The Conservatives bring in amendments of this nature and then say the government cannot pass legislation, when they are the ones who are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. This is a Donald Trump type of tactic from the MAGA right and that has seeped into the leader of the Conservative Party today. It is that far right element trying to take away the validity of what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. I pointed out who the Prime Minister is meeting with, but who is giving advice to the Conservative leader? Do we remember Diagolon? It is a pretty far right group of people, and we have the leader of—

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate. I know it might please the member opposite and maybe some of the Conservatives in the back room. They do not necessarily like hearing the truth, so they stand in here to try to disrupt debate, which is something I find really unfortunate. Quite frankly, I think I should be allowed to start from the beginning. Having said that, with regard to the Conservative Party and its attitude, where is it getting its mandate from? Who are the people that the Conservatives are trying to please? Let there be no doubt: The Conservative House leadership team, headed by the leader of the Conservative Party and his attitude toward the chamber, is being driven by the far right. Maybe some of the Reformers do not quite get that, but that is the reality. That is the reason why the leader of the Conservative Party was very comfortable with walking in to the trailer of a member of Diagolon. All of my colleagues know that it is a far right, scary group. If someone does a Google search on it, they will find out. That is who is giving the marching orders, in many ways, for members of the Conservative Party. We are starting to see more and more of that coming from them virtually every day.

Madam Speaker, I think that it is highly inappropriate for members to continue to stand up on a point of order on just a 10-minute speech. I do not know how many points of order there have been. It is very disruptive and does not contribute to debate. What the member is referring to is when I made reference to the fact that one has the leadership within the Conservative Party actually meeting with organizations like Diagolon. I think that most Canadians would see that as a bad thing. That is where the leadership is getting the advice to do the type of things that it is doing today.

Madam Speaker, a good way to conclude this is to say that the leader of the Conservative Party is behaving like an individual who is standing on a corner and gives a child a dollar to buy a chocolate bar, but every time the child takes a step, he sticks out his foot and trips the child. Then he wonders why the child is not getting anywhere. It is because the leader of the Conservative Party continues to prevent things from happening. It is a conscious decision by the Conservative Party to prevent legislation from passing. It then blames the government for the legislation's not passing, and therefore argues that the House is dysfunctional. What is dysfunctional is the Conservative-Reform party of Canada today. At the end of the day, the people the Conservatives are hurting are the people we all represent.

Madam Speaker, we have acknowledged the needs of Canadians day in and day out. That is the reason we bring forward budgets that are a true reflection of what Canadians' expectations are. We recognize that. I would suggest to the member opposite and to all the Reform-Conservatives over there that they need to look in a mirror and ask a question. They were also given a mandate, which was not just to filibuster and kill every piece of legislation in the House of Commons. They also have a responsibility, and there are consequences to the actions they take. I would not have a problem at all debating the member or any member of the Conservative Party in front of a public school classroom about the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservative Party and how that behaviour is hurting Canadians in every region of our country.

Madam Speaker, absolutely not. The Conservatives cannot make filibustering motions to try to adjourn debate in the afternoon, nor concurrence motion after concurrence motion in order to avoid debate on government legislation, and then criticize the government for not being able to get its legislation debated. Members cannot continuously filibuster legislation and then ask the government why it has not passed bills. We need to look at what the opposition is doing. If Conservatives continue to filibuster legislation and put up roadblocks to prevent it from passing, the government has a choice. It can either admit defeat or bring in time allocation. For the sake of providing services for Canadians and being there in a real and tangible way, we have made the decision to bring in time allocation to force legislation through in order to provide the resources that Canadians need in every region.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member, but I am sure that he could imagine how this might seem, to people following the debate, as though the Conservatives are acting like fish out of water, flipping and flopping all over the place. The member said that they want to hold up the bill and that they do not want the bill to pass. He seems prepared to admit that the Conservative Party just does not want the bill to pass, which is why they are holding it up, yet the person who moved the motion that he was actually debating said that the government cannot pass this legislation. Does he not see the inconsistency in the discussions that Conservatives, or the reformers across the way, are having with their collective Conservative mind?

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to note that we have some incredible civil servants that perform amazing work in protecting our interests. I am thinking of the Communications Security Establishment, which, from what I understand, shared the information with House of Commons officials shortly after receiving the information back in June 2022. I think it is important that we do not try to give the impression that no one knew about this, that the issue was, in fact, being addressed, at least in good part, with true and good intentions. The member was on the committee, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I do not know how often the committee meets or anything of this nature. Did the committee ever discuss the issue that the member raised as a privilege? Maybe one can just give us some background on the feedback he has had from other committee members because I believe it is a certain number of countries. I am not too sure about the association. Maybe one can tell us a little bit more about the association and what discussions they have had on this issue.

Madam Speaker, first, to be very clear, the Prime Minister and the government, from day one, have taken the issue of foreign interference very seriously. The responsibility of governing and doing whatever we can in a co-operative way is something we have been doing now for years. Let me give some very clear facts in terms of the incident that is being referenced today. With regard to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, allow me to provide some really clear lines. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, part of the Communications Security Establishment in Canada, generally does not comment on specific cyber-incidents or affected organizations. However, CSE can confirm that it shared actionable technical information on a cyber-threat with the House of Commons and Senate IT officials in 2022. This included sharing information that included the names of targeted parliamentarians. The House of Commons and the Senate are independent and its officials are responsible for determining when and how to directly engage with MPs and senators in situations like this. CSE takes its mandate and its legal obligations very seriously. Pursuant to the Communications Security Establishment Act, intelligence and information are shared with government clients, including appropriate authorities in Parliament and any appropriate partners. To support parliamentarians, the Centre for Cyber Security, part of CSE, provides a 24-7 hotline service offering direct support in the event of a cyber-incident. The cyber centre has provided cyber-threat briefings to political parties, as well as a dedicated point of contact at the centre for assistance with cybersecurity matters. The Communications Security Establishment's 2023-24 national cyber-threat assessment highlights “how online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries seeking to influence elections and impact international discourse related to current events.” CSE has published four unclassified reports on cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process, highlighting that cyber-threat activity targeting elections is on the rise worldwide, and cyber-threat activity is more likely to happen during Canada's next federal election than it was in the past; Canada remains a lower-priority target for cyber-threat activity than some of its allies, like the United States or the United Kingdom; cyber-threat actors are increasingly using AI to create, spread and amplify disinformation, and it is very likely that foreign adversaries or activists will use and generate AI to influence voters ahead of Canada's next federal election. There is a lot more I could say with respect to that, but the primary concern I have after listening to the presentation by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the issue is that I question the member's and the Conservative Party's motivation on the issue. All one needs to do is reflect on his comments and how he tried to blame.

Madam Speaker, I listened to what the member across the way actually said as he addressed this issue. That is why I started off by saying that as a government we take this issue very seriously, and our actions over the years clearly demonstrate that. On the other hand, it appears that we have a Conservative member trying to use this issue to make it look as if the government did not fulfill its responsibility. From his seat, he says that we did not. The Conservatives are trying to make it more political. That just reinforces what we just listened to in the member's presentation. He said, for example, that foreign governments around the world do not want the Conservatives in government here but want the Liberals in government, implying that this is the reason why we get foreign interference. At the end of the day, foreign interference is not new. This has been happening for a number of years already. Truth be known, Stephen Harper was the prime minister when it was first raised in an official fashion in the form of a report. The current leader of the Conservative Party was a part of that government. What did they do to deal with international foreign interference? I will tell the House: absolutely nothing. They chose to ignore the issue of foreign interference. Even though they were aware of it, they made a decision not to take any action to protect Canada's democracy from the things that were taking place. This is not just about China. The Conservative Party consistently brings up China. China is not alone. There are other countries out there that are players, in regard to foreign interference. That is one of the reasons why we have taken many actions, such as having a special individual brought to the House to investigate and report back, to ultimately having a public investigation into the matter with a report back. We have had numerous debates on this issue. We have had standing committees deal with the issue in many different ways, even with regard to the issue the member brought forward. I did not know about the existence of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China until that issue was brought up in the form of a matter of privilege. I took the member at his word when he raised that issue. I know members of the Liberal caucus also did, because we even had two of our members, from what I can recall, who also stood up to express their concerns. I would think that all members would be concerned about any form of foreign interference into Canada. I would think that it would cross all political lines that have been drawn here in the House of Commons. However, I can tell colleagues that I have not witnessed that, based on the questioning on the issue and the manner in which the Conservatives are more determined to try to portray a government that is not taking action than to try to depoliticize the issue and recognize it for what it is, and ultimately come up with ideas and thoughts about how we can actually prevent it. I listened to the Speaker's ruling. I had provided a comment before, when the member first brought forward the issue, and the Speaker came back and made reference to it. Here is what the Speaker said, in terms of what I reported representing the government: The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader mentioned that the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, was advised by the FBI on June 29, 2022, of cyber-threats targeting Canadian parliamentarians who are members of the IPAC. Citing the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government, he noted that the CSE believed it appropriate to share all relevant technical information with security officials of the House of Commons and Senate administrations for their action. This was done on June 30, 2022. That is what I had said in addressing the issue. The Speaker went on to say: The parliamentary secretary also pointed out that, given the evolution of security procedures and in consideration of the concerns of members, a ministerial directive was issued in May 2023 requiring the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, to inform parliamentarians of threats to their security where possible. He concluded by stating that, had the threat occurred following the imposition of the ministerial directive, security agencies would have proactively informed the affected members of the situation. That is very clear. The House of Commons was in fact provided notification back in June 2022. When the issue of foreign interference came to the floor, and after a great deal of discussions and thoughts, there was a very clear directive given to security agencies in terms of informing members of Parliament. We changed, in part, the process. The members know that. There is no doubt, if we continue with some of the reports in regard to the People's Republic of China interfering in the work of parliamentarians and the impact not only of China but of other countries in the world, that we have to work collectively. When we had the heated discussions and debates over the foreign interference allegations that were taking place in the last election, we had many independent agencies say that it did not affect the outcome of the election. It is important to make reference to that. At the end of the day, the Conservatives, who chose to do nothing years prior, now believe that we, as a government, should have taken more action, when in fact we had already started that shortly after being elected in 2015 in changes to the Canada Elections Act. We recognize how important it is to protect our democratic system. We have seen legislative measures and policy directives to ensure there is a higher sense of security. When I was first elected, in the eighties, the Internet, at least in the way we see it today or have witnessed it in the last 20 years, did not exist. It did not exist to the degree to which does today, and not to the degree to which we have the types of computer hacks and the malicious software that are out there. Today, sadly, with things such as AI, we do have to be on guard and look at ways we can protect the integrity of our system. Let us remember that as things change, there is a need for change in policy. I saw that in the Speaker's ruling, where, again, he stated, “In accordance with the processes in place at the time, the House Administration was advised by relevant Canadian security agencies of the risks associated with potential attacks and appropriate measures were taken to ensure they would not impact our systems, more specifically our parliamentary network.” We had a system in place. The Speaker said, “It is important to reiterate that the House of Commons cybersecurity system in place were successful in preventing a breach and negatively impacting the members' ability to conduct their day-to-day business with their parliamentary email accounts.” If the Conservative Party really wants to be able to deal with the issue at hand, I would suggest its members need to dial down the politicization of the issue and stop trying to blame the government for not taking actions that the Conservatives believe in, when in fact we have taken tangible actions to protect the interests of our democracy and the rights of individual members. That is what we have consistently seen. I do not get the opportunity to attend very many standing committee meetings, but I often hear feedback, and that feedback is not very positive, even on issues of questions of privilege. Often in committees, filibustering takes place. I suspect that what we are going to see is as it should be. Let us give the benefit of the doubt and say the Conservatives are going to change their ways and recognize this is important, this institution is important and it is important we work collectively at making a positive difference in supporting individual members and our rights to protect the institution. I suspect it will be going to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and I support its going to PROC. At the end of the day, I hope the Conservative membership on the committee will dial down on the partisanship and the rhetoric they constantly use on the issue in the name of trying to do the right thing, and look at ways in which we can improve the system. Things change. Conservatives talk about our P9 accounts. Parliamentarians also have other types of accounts. There are many different ways in which foreign interference can take place, as was pointed out. This is happening around the world, not just in Canada. It has happened in some countries a whole lot more than in Canada, as has been cited, whether in the United States or the United Kingdom. We are one of the Five Eyes countries, and I think we should be looking at ways in which democracies around the world can protect the integrity of the principles of democracy. In order for Canada to be able to step up to the plate, it would be nice if we had all political parties of the House of Commons onside, as opposed to trying to make it look as if there were some sort of institutional problem that we cannot overcome, or that our government has been negligent on—

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear: No, the government did not err. The member should read the statement from the Speaker. One has to take a look at the process in time. It is interesting. Here is the difference. I asked the member a question, and what did he do? He avoided the important part of the question when I told him to tell me something about the association. Did the member know anything about it? Were there any other parliamentarians who talked about it? He avoided that aspect of the question. He asked me a question; I gave him a direct answer. The challenge for the Conservative Party is that, at the end of the day, Conservatives see this as a political shot at the government, even if it is justified, or not. In this case, it is a “not”.

Madam Speaker, I very much can recall the debate regarding the special rapporteur who was appointed, an incredible Canadian. There are members who decided to throw that particular individual under the bus. At the end of the day, I can say that, as a government, it was great to see political parties come together to agree to a new name, someone who would ultimately provide a report. I would hope that members of all political parties will support that particular report. At the end of the day, I believe that the government, virtually from day one, has been taking proactive steps, legislative measures in particular, to ensure that our democracy is healthy. I only wish it had started when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, but he chose to do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, as you would be aware, the government has put in some new protocols and ministerial directives to ensure that members will find out when something of this nature occurs. I am going to refer all members to what you said, as the Speaker, in regard to the issue at hand: “In accordance with the processes in place at the time, the House administration was advised by relevant Canadian security agencies of the risk associated with potential attacks and appropriate measures were taken to ensure that they would not impact our system, more specifically our parliamentary network.” You went on to say, “It is important to reiterate that the House of Commons cybersecurity systems in place were successful in preventing a breach and negatively impacting the members’ ability to conduct their day-to-day business with their parliamentary email accounts.” I see that as a positive thing. We have to put it in the perspective of time, in 2022. The directives that we are talking about, where we made the changes, were after that. At the time, the process was in place and it was administered.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a court of law, and the member might want to be a criminal lawyer at some point in time. I can tell the member that at the end of the day, there was a process in place. It was followed. The integrity of the system was maintained. From my personal perspective, I believe that, as parliamentarians, we all have a role to dial down the politicization and the politics that the Conservatives want to dial up. Let us work together on how we can ensure that. Foreign interference is not going away, and there are ways it could expand.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express that the government, over the last number of years, has taken foreign interference very seriously, and that is why we have taken a number of measures to deal with it. At some point this will be going to the procedure and House affairs committee. We hope it will be a productive process and that we will come up with some tangible thoughts and ideas. After all, it is happening not just in Canada; it is happening around the world, and I think Canada can play a leading position in dealing with this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that foreign interference is nothing new. It has been happening now since 2010-11, when the first report came out. It is not just in Canada. It is happening around the world, and it is not just China that is involved in this foreign interference. We should all, collectively, look at ways to protect the interests of our democracy and the Five Eyes countries, and take a dialed-down approach. Let it go to the PROC committee and see if it can come up with something that will reinforce Canada's leadership role in the world in dealing with foreign interference. Canada can play a stronger role on that front, but it is more powerful if we work together. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the previous question, let us be very clear: The Communications Security Establishment published four unclassified reports of cyber-threats to Canada's democracy process. It highlighted this: “Cyber threat activity targeting elections has increased worldwide.” It is not just Canada, and I think it is important to recognize that. It also says that Canada remains a “lower priority target for cyber threat activity than some of its allies, such as the US and UK.” I think it is important. The government, from the get-go, has been very proactive in dealing with the issue of international foreign interference. That is the reality, and our actions show that. I am surprised the member would bring up human rights, given their position on the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, all members of the House would be very much aware that foreign interference is something that happens around the world and that there are a number of stakeholders. It is not just China. As a government, we have taken a number of proactive legislative actions to be able to address the issue and to protect the integrity of our system. All sorts of committees have met. I would suggest to the member opposite and to other members of the Conservative Party that there is a role for Canada to play. Even though we have seen more severe threats in other countries, we do need to be cognizant. The government has consistently been not only cognizant of the issues but also taking actions where we can. Does my colleague not agree that we can play a strong leadership role on this, if we can dial down some of the politics and allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to do some of the important work to demonstrate and to reinforce confidence in the system?

Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage those who might be following the debate to read what the Speaker's ruling stated. It is very clear that, over the last number of years, we have seen the Prime Minister deal with the serious issue of international foreign interference, whether it is in legislation surrounding elections in Manitoba years ago, the directive the member just referred to, the legislation with regard to the registry or something more. Let us contrast that with the previous prime minister. Foreign interference not only happens around the world and by more countries than just China, but it has been happening since 2011-12, when Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing, nada. However, the member has the tenacity to say that the Prime Minister has not done anything. That is a joke.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of Bill C-69, I think of a sense of fairness for generations X and Z, and the millennials, and how important it is that, as a government, we provide hope. We have seen this put into practice over the years in budgetary and legislative measures that provide that sense of hope for all, recognizing how critically important Canada's middle class is, and those aspiring to be a part of it. Building a stronger economy, and building and reinforcing Canada's middle class, is good for all Canadians. It would ultimately ensure, as my colleague spoke about before, that Canada would be the best place in the world to call home. The actions we have taken, to date, reinforce the opposite of what the Conservative Party has been talking about. As Conservatives travel the country, spreading misinformation, talking about Canada being broken, nothing could be further from the truth when things are put into the proper perspective of what is happening around the world. Canada is doing well in comparison to any other country in the world, I would argue. It does not mean that we do not recognize the issues that Canadians are having to face today. That is why, when we talk about issues such as affordability, interest rates and housing, we not only understand and appreciate them, but also take tangible actions to support Canadians. We do not take that lightly. Much like during the pandemic, when the government stood up in a team Canada approach, working with people and other governments, we were there in a very real and tangible way. I love the contrast between today's Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party. Canadians really do have choices, which is becoming more evident to the degree that they are opposites. We talk about measures such as a pharmacare program and the national school food funding program incorporated into this budget, and the first-ever Canada disability benefit, not to mention the Canadian dental care plan. There are many initiatives we have provided, both in this budget and in other budgets, which have led to ensuring a much higher sense of fairness. There are taxation policies, whether it is the capital gains, the extra tax on the wealthiest 1% in the first budget we introduced or the cut to Canada's middle-class tax bracket. We can talk about the grocery rebate and the enhancement of the guaranteed income supplement, not to mention the OAS being raised for those who are collecting it over the age of 75. Compare that to what we hear from the Conservatives today. They say they would to fix the budget. Fixing the budget is code. I would suggest there is in fact a hidden Conservative budget they do not want to talk about because it would put on the chopping block a lot of the work we have been able to accomplish over the last number of years, whether it is with respect to the national child care program of $10-a-day day care, which has received phenomenal support across every region of our country, or whether it is the provinces and territories having signed on to programs such as pharmacare. Yesterday, we witnessed Conservative after Conservative stand up to say that they do not support the pharmacare program. We saw Conservatives stand up to say that they do not support the investments we are making in health care because they do not believe the federal government has a role to play in health care. The contrast is immense. When the Conservatives talk about fixing the budget, they mean cuts, and let there be no doubt about that. As we continue to bring in policies, whether they are budgetary measures or legislation, let us be very clear that the objective is to recognize the values that Canadians have and the sense of fairness that they want to see put into things such as budgets. They want to see a government that truly cares about the middle class and about expanding the middle class. The healthier and stronger the middle class is, the better the economy will be. We know that. The Conservatives can spread false information, but the reality speaks volumes. Let me give two very specific examples. In 10 years, Stephen Harper, as prime minister, generated just under one million jobs. In less time, our Liberal government, working with Canadians and other jurisdictions, has generated over two million jobs. That is also taking into consideration a worldwide pandemic, where there was an economic shutdown in many areas. Our policies are working. In my mind, one of the most powerful statements from the budget released by the Deputy Prime Minister was around foreign direct investment to Canada, and I referenced that yesterday. Individuals and corporations around the world are looking at Canada and saying that they want to invest in Canada. There is a reason they want to invest in Canada, and it is about economic stability and other factors. On a per capita basis, Canada is number one of the G7 countries on foreign direct investment. The G7 includes the European Union, England, Japan, U.S.A., France and Germany. We are number one when it comes to foreign direct investment. People are putting their money where they believe the potential is the greatest for being able to expand and to have opportunities. Contrast that to the world. If we do that for the entire world, we will see that Canada places number three for foreign direct investment, based on last year's first three quarters, which is where I got those numbers. People around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest, and I think that speaks volumes and is complemented by the fact that we have created over two million jobs, all while recognizing the important programs and the expectations Canadians have that we will be there for them, first and foremost, on the issue of health care. We continue to invest historic amounts of money in health care because we understand what is important to Canadians. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are going to be there to ensure that we have a health care system that we could all be proud of, not only for today but also for future generations. Those types of commitments and contrasts are what Canadians will see between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We will continue to expand on that contrast in the coming months. In 18 months or so, when there is an election, people will see the leader of the Conservative Party for who he is, a leader who has no problem meeting with groups like Diagolon. Liberals are meeting with real people, and who is the leader of the Conservative Party meeting with? Who is he listening to, in order to come up with policy ideas that would help Canadians? Contrast who we are to who they are. In the end, we will continue to work with Canadians to build a stronger, healthier economy and society.

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that in comparison to any other country around the world, Canada is doing relatively well. That does not mean that, as a society, even if the country is doing relatively well, we should not demonstrate compassion and heart in dealing with individuals. There are individuals who are going through a great deal of hardship. That is one of the reasons why we continue to work as hard as we do. Not everyone is doing as well as we would like to see, but I think it would be a far stretch to say that because parts of society are not doing well, Canada is, therefore, broken. There always have been and, sadly, there will continue to be people who are going to have difficult times. That is why it is so important that the Conservatives get on board and support some of the social programming that we are putting in place, so that there is a higher sense of fairness and fewer people who are having difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc members are genuine about wanting to help solve the housing issue, they will do what we have witnessed in other jurisdictions. For example, recently we had the Premier of Manitoba join the Prime Minister, the respective housing ministers and the mayor of Winnipeg to talk about the housing issue and how the three levels of government, along with the different stakeholders, are going to work together in an attempt to deal with the housing situation in the province of Manitoba. The difference between the Liberals and the Bloc is that the Bloc wants to separate, at all costs. From a Liberal perspective, we want to work with the different levels of government so that we can provide the types of services that people of all communities want to see. That includes addressing the housing issue. However, that is going to take more than one level of government. We know that. Fortunately, there are many levels of government working with the federal government. The federal government, for the first time, not only has taken the initiative to be there on the housing file, but has invested historic amounts of money at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, on the theme of misinformation, we can think about this: The last Conservative prime minister did not build one inch of pipeline to coast waters in 10 years. We have TMX, in which Danielle Smith and Rachel Notley, both United Conservative and New Democrat, have supported the Government of Canada's approach. That is bringing resources to tidewater. On what grounds does the hon. member believe that Stephen Harper, in any way, did anything to support resources going from her home province to tidewater in B.C.?

Mr. Speaker, those are interesting comments coming from the member across the way, in the sense that, as a government, we do recognize there is a need to be able to spend money, as has Doug Ford. For example, we talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, in terms of landing the VW battery plant. It is going to generate thousands of jobs. It is being supported in good part by both the Ontario government and the Canadian government. It will have a long-term positive impact, as it will be one of the reasons why Canada is going to be ranked so high in the world in production of electric batteries. Let us think about it: greener jobs into the future. Why does the Conservative Party not support that particular initiative?

Madam Speaker, where does one start when one hears a speech of that nature? We can tell it is drafted by the Conservative Party of Canada as it tries to mislead Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us compare that speech to reality. One of the things I raised was the fact that Canada is number one in the world in terms of per capita direct investments. That means people around the world, corporations around the world, are looking at Canada as a place to invest. Let us compare the Liberals to Stephen Harper. In 10 years, the Conservatives created under a million jobs. In less than 10 years, we have created over two million jobs. Trust me and get outside, because it is not as bad as the member tries to portray. Canada is not broken. Why does the Conservative Party want to try to portray something that is not true? Canada is not broken.

Madam Speaker, in the last year, during the formulation of the budget, we saw the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg three times: once to talk at Stanley Knowles School about child care; then to have meetings with the premier of the province to talk about health care; and then, more recently, to talk about housing. These are really important issues. The leader of the Conservative Party, on the other hand, goes out and talks to groups such as Diagolon. When the member makes reference to the extreme right and the Reform Party seated across the way, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts as to who the Conservatives are actually listening to.

Madam Speaker, we have heard Conservative or Reform members, or however one might want to address members opposite, say that the federal government does not have a role to play in health care. We heard them say that they do not support a pharmacare program, yet a vast majority of Canadians want a Canada health system that reflects the Canada Health Act and see the value of a pharmacare program. Can the member clearly indicate why he and the Reform Party or the Conservative Party do not believe that the federal government has a role to play when it comes to a national health care system?

Madam Speaker, let us think of the improvement in the quality of life for the thousands of young people who are going to have the opportunity to gain employment through companies like the VW plant, Canada's largest manufacturing plant; 200 football fields could fit into it. That is not to mention the Honda plant. We are not alone. Not only does the Liberal government see that, but so does the Progressive Conservative Government of Ontario, because it is also supporting these two initiatives. We are supporting industries, and, yes, it does cost money. Can the member from the Reform Party tell us why it is that they oppose this type of investment, when we see Progressive Conservatives getting behind it?