Thank you for listening to Pictures Media Radio. Welcome to Policy and Rights, the show about the government, policy and human rights five four three two one. Welcome back to Policy and Rights here in Depictionspad Radio. I am your host, Michael Cloggs. I have a BBC report in my inbox and police and protesters have clashed in Buenos Ari's as controversial economic reform cleared a hurdle in
the Argentine state. We take and look at the President Javier Mullane's measures and records so far as world leaders arrive in Italy for the G seven uh mark. There's an article from from the BBC and Mark Loewen as he reports on how the country is prepared for the gathering and what's on the agenda. So let's read some highlights from from that report. And here there have been violent clashes in brenezz AI's outside of the Congress building where senators are narrowly approved President
Javier Malayian's controversial economic reform package. Footage captured and we will put this BBC report linked for this BBC report up on h Depictions dot media, so you can see the police footage that that that they captured of police using tear gas on protesters and mister Malay is actually described as a self styled libertarian, was elected with close to fifty six percent of the vote last year, promising drastic
change measures to the country's spiraling inflation and poverty rates. So he has been making massive changes and we will put that report on our news blog. We don't have any updates on today on what's happening in Gaza, so we're still at the same point where we don't know if all sides are going to agree to the ceasefire agreement that was approved on at the beginning of the of the week, and we'll still be keeping an eye on that to see how that
actually pans out. We're going to go to the US and of course you heard a couple of days ago about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, being found guilty on all charges, and of course we're waiting to hear about sentencing on that. And according to CNN report, the President Biden, as well as Justin Trudeau is for those in Canada are on their way to the G
seven summit, where it's expected they're going to talk about crucial policies. And here's the CNN report on that the leaders of the the most powerful economies are converting to stay in Italy for the crucial policy discussions. A major focus on Russia and its war in Ukraine, with the G seven set to announce a series of joint initiatives as they look to rebuild alliances that stand up to Russia's
aggression. President Joe Biden arrived with over three hundred news sanctions armed further isolating the country and limiting the Kremlin's revenues. He also is set to sign a long term security pack with Ukraine, sources tell the and then the agreement is expected to commit the United States to attend year continued training of European armed forces. So it looks like the the United States is looking to get further involved
with the war in Ukraine. And this is also coming as warships from Russia also arrived in Cuban waters, which, if you know anything at all about the geography of North America, Cuba is about thirty to forty miles off the coast of Florida. Matter of fact, if you have a good pair of binoculars or I have decent telescope, actually view the coastline of Cuba from the coastline of Florida, and it's not like there's a lot of obstruction because you're
just going across the Atlantic waters there. So we had to see how that all develops because mister Putin is showing that he can flex muscle. Also, so in Donald Trump is in d C. Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with Republicans on Capitol Hill today for the first time since becoming the
presumptive Republican nominee, as well as as a convicted felon. His appearance will also mark some of the meetings first key with GOP lawmakers since January sixth, twenty twenty one, the insurrection there, including Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, and an effort to shore up the party's support for mister Trump. So we're going to hear from Elizabeth may As. She is going to be giving a review of the report that she read from the NSI COP on foreign interference.
So we're going to hear remarks from her about that, and she's speaking with reporters on Parliament Hill. This is actually recorded June eleventh, and what she learned from reading the full unredacted report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee on Parliament Hill. The report alleged parliamentarians wit lily or willfully aided foreign interferes and in Canada's domestic political affairs. So why don't we move on to that particular
segment and here what Elizabeth May actually has to say about that. And okay, before we get to Elizabeth May, though, we have government plans to extend pension eligibility for frontline workers, and we're going this is going to be hearing from Anita Anon as she is the in Ottawa with the bond Treasury President Anita Non announces the federal plans to expand early pension eligibility for certain frontline workers,
including firefighters, paramedics, border service officers, and the government will introduce legislation changes in fall of twenty twenty twenty four to implement the expansion. So why don't we hear from Elizabeth May and then we will hear from Anita A. Non anjou toulement. Good morning everyone, Happy Public Service Awareness Week.
Bon semen nacionale de la funcient public notreuven e de tereminer a puill l function charges de portegi, la surquiriti la curiti des Canadian from firefighters confronting wildfires, to paramedics helping keep communities safe, to border services officers maintaining this safe flow of people and products across the borders. These frontline workers play crucial roles and they deserve a pension plan that reflects the demanding nature of their safety and security
responsibilities. On December twenty first, twenty twenty three, I received a recommendation from the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee on expanding the eligibility for early retirement to occupational groups who promote the safe and the security of Canadians. Ce diisposition per
matred de prantreeetret vas sencan de Servis Saint Fredric. Today, following careful consideration over many minutess, I am announcing that in the fall of twenty twenty four, we will introduce legislative changes to expand the eligibility for early pensions, specifically to frontline employees in the following groups firefighters, paramedics, correctional service employees,
border services officers, parliamentary protection officers, and search and rescue technicians. These proposed changes will provide consistency to how the pension plan recognizes the demanding nature of day to day duties for these occupational groups who have an absolutely critical role in promoting and protecting the safety and security of the population of our country. Antin leplu Grand Employer up knows some reconnaissance de la conte division continued disease employer,
the Premier len the lsemble do service public knows some ampacion. The travaillier are vectot les partis poor, adoptee list amand legislative necesse leplu rapidment possible merci reservoir one question Jeanne more confirmed me for the concessi ess gestion. The Tavai police Jean Marcia Banjo c a vu, Premier Majder, Trellte Travai sit in Mattiac,
new branderrier and new Continuan. The travailla vec les Sandca poor sass kills lesapri necess a poor travailler, she's a ultra plas, don't sit in Ange deter Ronald travy don les bureau a combos set nepa in Mattia, downtownt a less Sandia for me, ain't you done avel convention collective poor seta sets on sas set in a contrldtai the set onto von at republic cale sandeka de fersar
your pansc snapper and matter POMOI the debu gu ledetai matn. Come on tell you if he's a set complete, Come on tell you if he's a less Conusa van pre lt Sir poor r v are in ontongsable poor le don't lidetai vont etrepublic meca le sendeca vad de fersa. And the question of the three days a week back in the office, where's that standing and have you been
getting grievances? We have heard from public servants for sure, but I want to reiterate that that was a decision that was taken by the public service for the public service. It was a decision taken by Deputy ministers as well as the Clerk of the Privy Council. It was not a political decision. And so what I am here today to announce is something that is within my purview, which is support for public servants in the area of their pension benefits.
These are issues that have been in front of me since I became Minister, and in fact in front of Minister Fortier when she was Minister, we are pleased to be able to accept the recommendations of the ps PAC Committee so that we can provide pension supports to public servants who are on the front lines for our country, especially in the time of forest fires and floods, where we
rely on these individuals. I want to thank them for their incredible work and we are so pleased to be able to put forward legislative amendments in the fall of ord their pension benefits in early retirement. So you're in charge of the Treasury Board, which means you're in charge of the public service, then why leave it up to the bureaucrats instead of you giving the direction? So the direction came from the Minister prior to me and our government that return to office
was not going to be part of the collective agreement. That was the decision that was taken and that was accepted by the Union, and we continue to walk down that path, will continue to support our public servants wherever and however possible, within the bounds of collective agreements, of course, and within the bounds of what we can do as in a government. But I want to stress today that the announcement is about early retirement and pension benefits for public servants.
And I really don't want to underpestimate the magnitude of what I am announcing today in terms of these are issues and requests and concerns that frontline workers and the union heads themselves have brought forward to us repeatedly. One of my first meetings as Minister as President of the Treasury Board was actually with firefighters from D and D where I heard from them how important it was for them to have
early retirement benefits. I want to thank them for sharing their stories with me, and I want to thank Chris Alword for bringing that meeting together so that we could have a meaningful and fruitful converceation when I first started as President of the Treasury Board. And I will just say those conversations are very important to me and I have not forgotten them. Thank you. Yeah, anis listen. I'm wondering if you can share how much expanding these benefits will cost.
Most definitely I would love to provide you with that information. The cost of expanding early retirement eligibility is estimated to include a one time cost of approximately one hundred and seventy five million dollars and ongoing annual costs of approximately twenty one million dollars. That is the precise answer to your question. And also in the future, do you expect to expand benefits to other public servants as well or
we are definitely open to receiving recommendations from the ps PAC committee. Again, I want to reiterate that the rationale for the the announcement today and the groups who are covered, which is a sizeable list of function function as of public service services, sizable group here firefighters, paramedics, correctional service employees, border
services officers, parliamentary protection officers, search and rescue technicians. The rationale for that particular group is as follows, the demanding and risky nature of the duty, the demanding training and certification requirements, and the lack of opportunity for public service mobility. And so I will say that there's a rationale there. But the conversation with the ps PAC committee continues, and I look forward to having
that committee. And you can see how seriously I have taken their recommendations and how seriously I take the conversation with them. Thank you letters for the interest of time, just because those speakers cred is going sort uh cofering may have policy options. If you've you still have how many more sort of safety security
law enforcement workers that are not covered? And if you've gone this far for these who are seeking, particularly the border guards parody with the RCMP, is are you have you accept Has Treasure Board accepted that principle of parody with the RCaMP UH Treasury Board is very much engaged with the ps PAC committee and the
rationales that they put forward, and I just listed those three rationales. That is the reasoning behind h the announcement that I am making right nowison We are not We are taking each group in and of itself in terms of the work that they do for our country that does not seek to minimize the work of other groups. And as I said, I look forward to making sure that
we have that conversation with the PSPAC committee. But it would be fairly superficial to say that the reasoning behind all of this is parity with another group. There's actually been months and months of thinking about the rationale for extended pension benefits
and once again we are approaching a very hot summer. We are going to see public servants put their lives on the line, which they do without hesitation and the announcement today is about recognizing that work, recognizing the harm that confronts these public servants every single day, or the potential harm. And while we do not wish harm obviously on anyone, we want to be there as a government to support the work that they do each and every day. So it's
my follow up if you if not forgotten that allow up. So do you think you could have got this deal that we're going to hear about today if there wasn't this separate agreement on pensions, which seem to be a big land. By law, the decisions still could have if you could just let me finish. By law, we are required to ensure that pensions do not court the collective bargaining process, and that's exactly what we made sure to do.
There are two separate processes here. One was the bargaining on the collective agreement. The other has been going on long before the last ten days, which is a consideration of the recommendations that came to me in December twenty twenty three about how we can better support public servants in terms of their pension, in terms of our work going forward. Again in a few weeks, i'll be announcing new members of the committee, the PSPAC Committee, and I look forward
to working with those members and taking further recommendations from the committee. This is about collaboration and cooperation in terms of supports for public servants. That's the approach I take to negotiation, and that's the approach I will take in this position every day of the week. NA great question on behalf of all the local Did you need to do this for the tension of border guard deal the timing As you can see, the number of people who are covered by this announcement
extend far beyond the border workers. So what we needed to do is respond to the recommendations that came to me in December twenty twenty three and the work that Minister Fortier had undertaken. And that's exactly what I'm ensuring I do.
As you know, I'm a minister that likes to ensure I am acting and in fact, you and I have had numerous conversations on different files over the last two weeks, and so you can see that I take my work extremely seriously and wanted to make sure that before the end of session I signaled that we will be introducing legislation in the fall, and on the point about why the fall is that we have a very very charged legislative agenda right now with
less than a week left to go. But I wanted to make sure that the department at the Treasury Board worked across government over the summer to make sure that we were ready first thing in the fall to table that recommended recommended legislation, recommend may own examine, recommend sot avanca, laminist Refortier, don reque la sieu pard vont continue that we le mayor service public donot Thank you, Melcy c c montcleg Deputy to Kitchener as Sault Mike Morris, I want to
share with Canadians what I learned from reading the top secret version of this, the Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions. This is the redacted, available to the public version, which I'm keeping near me for reference now and then. But this is the work of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and they have done incredible work. I learned a lot
from reading this. I'm going to read a prepared statement, which is not my normal way way of going, but I as someone who has obtained top secret security clearance, which is what allowed me to read the complete, unredacted report. I want to choose my words carefully, so I prepared some and then I won't be prepared to take questions in English and French. Forgive me, I'll say right now. I usually answered quickly and off the top of
my head. You'll find today that I'm going to stop and think. Depending on your questions, I'll have to consider am I trespassing or coming near the line where I might inadvertently hit a tripwire to a national security issue? So I'll stop and be careful. There are in this report names of MPs and the MPs whose names should be known. Members of the committee across party lines have don stellar work on a very difficult set of ISSU issues. They should
be better known and they should be thanked. This is a very innovative thing. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It's chaired by David McGuinty, includes Stefan Bacheron Liberal, Don Davies NDP, Praticia Latinizou, Rob Morrison Conservative, Alex russ Rough Conservative and several Senators Patricia Duncan, Francis Lancin and Marty Klein. I am in awe of their work. Frankly, having read the complete unreducted report, this is not easy stuff and the work that they
did. I do think all Canadians should be aware of their work and thanking them, because they really have to work in the shadows and they have to honor their top secret security Clarence. Being a member of this committee has hardly
gotten them the limelight or a lot of thanks. This report focuses on a critical issue about which Canadians should know more the extent to which foreign governments seek to influence Canadian political life, hoping to impact domestic policies while advancing their own countries reputations se repose de conseil consints so in questi essenciel sur laquel les Canadien de v revoi la messieur don la guel les gouveniment a t schesch affluencee la
ville politique. Canadian foreign governments also attempt to interfere. I'm just going to underscore first sentence is about influencing. Second interfering, foreign governments also at to interfere with our democratic processes across national and sub national electoral politics. Influence and interference are related but different. We need to know more about the tactics and strategies used by foreign actors in both categories, especially when actual interference is involved.
The threat of foreign governments working against Canada's interests attempting to impact Canada must be a specific and more deeply understood threat, especially for people seeking elected offices. Mala rosmons a travaill a pulton a ete eclipse pa lutmpet mediatique two da fe comprehensible, qui amonavi eh exaggerate. Unfortunately, that important work has been eclipsed by a totally understandable media firestorm, which in my view is overblown.
I have been asked many times, in slightly different ways, how it feels to sit in a parliament knowing that there are potential traitors among us. Shouldn't the public have a right to know which MPs have sold out their country for benefit or favor from a foreign government. Having read the full unredacted National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarian's report for myself, I can say I have no worries about anyone in the House of Commons. There is no list of MPs who
have shown disloyalty to Canada. There is no list of MPs who have shown disloyalty to Canada, so I am very glad I read the full report. I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues. We will disagree on policy and on many issues, but I am vastly relieved. The most worrying case, found at page twenty six of the publicly available report, is one referenced instance of a member of Parliament proactively and that's in quotes in the public document proactively
sharing privileged infrared information with a foreign operative. That person should be fully investigated and prosecuted. That person is a former MP. The few named people may be compromised. They have been beneficiaries of foreign governments interfering in nomination contassists. Saying as I do that I'm relieved does not mean that there is nothing to see here, folks, So let's forget the whole thing. There are clearly
threats to Canadian democracy from foreign governments. I would like to suggest to all colleagues in Parliament, particularly leaders of the other parties, that we refocus our public statements and parliamentary debates on what steps need to be taken to better protect our democracy. It is clear some foreign governments see Canada as a pretty vulnerable soft target. All recommendations of the hard working National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
should be implemented. They have worked harder and have more deep background than any other MP. For myself, I suggest we fortify the binding nature of our oath when we are sworn in as members of Parliament. The Ethics Commissioner should be mandated to work with our intelligence community and specifically be prepared to issue reports or on investigation. It is clear the MP has failed to put their loyalty to Canada above any other interest, particularly above personal benefit. This must be
extended to the influence of foreign transnational corporations. Those are my conclusions. I'm happy to answer any questions that this statement has given rise to from the journalists here present. Should the person you made reference to on page twenty six be named absolutely? That is again, the person on page twenty six to whom I referred proactively shared privileged information with a foreign operative. There. As you remember from all the coverage so far, in ter the language of the report,
there's been these categories of witting and unwitting. This individual was entirely aware of the circumstances and was wait, that person former MP whose name is not included in the report should be fully investigated and prosecuted. Their name is not in the report, that they're they're not named in the they are not named in the unredacted faull version Commune come up with the expecus term signs not try
that way? Would tea Eli I am lounge rapport antierre me lunge de lance, me lange de rapport and me lange de situa diferrent the person el the on le de ferrant governor to Canada. The person and chef chefrie cos Le cheffrie Reale's example to te fe deferrent may lamprescient e trier canoue es avant actual mont On parliament avete deputy qui en feles en fevre de Canada. We have seen the creation of the impression and I don't think it was. It's inevitable
given the kind of accusations that I found shocking. I found myself looking around a colleagues wondering who could it be who would sell out this country? Right, it's it's it's it's discribeting. It was a relief to see in the report that this specific narrow category, and I want to be very specific about it. Are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell out Canada for personal benefit? If there are, there's
no evidence of that in the full report. What about the Senate? This Senate is there were no references specifically to the Senate in the report that I read In terms of no, I'm speaking specifically to the House of Commons and elected people, so other than my person on page twenty six. Do you know the names of the other parliamentarian flagged in the report? There are very There are not many names in the report. To be very clear, I've
been cautioned every word I reviewed with you just now. I carefully vetted with security experts parts and got advice from the Privy Council Office. One of the areas in which they have warned me I could betray some degree of confidentiality and even potentially expose current intelligence assets of the Government of Canada, and even risk the personal safety and physical security of such assets would be by using specific numbers.
But I feel comfortable telling you that of other names of people MPs be very careful and say members of Parliament. Is there other names in the report of different categories of personages, but of members of Parliament named in the full unredacted report, And I will not give a specific number, And I think I'm safe to say very low number, fewer than a handful, and no one in that fewer than a handful would could be described as setting out to
knowingly betray Canada in favor of a foreign government. And having seen this, then do you think that these names that there's any reason for these names to be publicly released? Not at this stage. No, I do think we need better tools. This is why I'm going to vote against the block Quebec WA motion that I have to tell you before reading this report yesterday, I was going to vote in fair of it. I think it's a hot potato. So throw it to Madam Justice Hoak. That's not good enough. We're
members of parliament. We should be able to look at that. We end, especially those of us who have the clearance to read the report, should be able to read it, consider it and start fortifying our own defenses against foreign interference. But no, what's known publicly right now is what can be known publicly and I really think that we've gone up that, I mean, we barking up the wrong tree to insist that the list of names of MPs who there isn't a list of names of MPs. To frustrated that none of
go ahead you want us through? How you got to this moment of relief though? Is it because of the intelligence isn't corroborated? Is it because there's just not enough detail? I think it's like paragraph one sixty four clearly lays out a list of concerns that nty cop had about MPs who are semulating or help me and say, there's there's a list there. So what makes you
believe that that that list perhaps is overblown? Well, having read thement, just go back to paragraph one sixty four and make sure again what is contained in the full unredacted report does not suggest, I mean again that this is the unredactive The Committee has seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of intelligence services, semi witting or witting participants in the efforts of foreign
states to interfere in our politics. Again, those words are carefully chosen as well. The efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics that's concerning.
But when I had previously said to media, if someone has sold out our country for money or for benefit, they're traders, participants, and efforts of efforts of foreign states to interfere is far short of a prosecuting offensive traders of treachery, or performing acts that could be considered traitorous, disloyal, witting semi witting participants in efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics, and then
again communicating frequently with foreign missions or during a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses. Now, there are a lot of different actors, and this is another thing that comes out when we read the whole report. For those who would get a chance to do so. Foreign governments are targeting not only elected member's apartment, but people seeking election at many different levels of
government. Provincial governments are also mentioned in this report. There's also and I say in the unadapted version or I wouldn't trustpass on saying it out loud. Now, community that was a surprise to me, the extent to which particularly identified cultural community groups are recruited, and then those groups also seek to create relationships with people who might someday being a physician to exercise some influence over an elected person or a member of cabinet or so on. So again, a
lot of this isn't new. I refreshed my memory. We've ignored some warning signs in the past. I'll take you down. I was gonna say memory Lane, but many of you would not remember this. The nineteen eighty three leadership convention at which Brian mulroney defeated Joe Clark. It was only some years later that we discovered it was foreign money produced by Karl Heintz Schreiber to pay for people to show up in generally the anti Clark camp. That became public
knowledge when exposed by the CBC in the Fifth Estate some years later. I was shocked the idea that some right wing Germans had decided to change who was leading the Conservative Party. There are a number of references in this report to leadership races in different parties. I think we need to be quite alert to
the threats. What I'm trying to say is that we don't want to be distracted in our efforts to better understand foreign interference, better protect our democracy by the thought that there's a list of MPs somewhere and their traders and should be exposed. That does not exist. So, having concluded from reading the full report that there is no list there to be released, the next question is
could the whole report be released? No, there's protected top secret security information in that report, intelligence reports and so on that could sposed Canadian assets and undermine our security intelligence services. I'm very concerned, by the way, by the extent to which we don't know who's still within ceases sent privileged, top secret information to members of the media. There's a mixed bag of a story there, but we I need to be very careful. I'm one of the
few members of Parliament with top secret security clearance. I'm going to do my best to answer every question as fully as honestly as I can for you. The whole report can't be released, But if the whole report were released, it would not reveal a list of names of currently sitting INPs. Fact Age twenty six extended. You see which country this person was helping? And can you say I did see? And I can't say it's good. It'scuse s
lo someding some the deputy. Yeah no, the deputy. We party on shows, come la Deputy dejah Mon page advances shows avec connaissance fake shows or favor don government a contrave maybe like Los Deputy report here the norm mentions liberty, the h donate the norm des deputy par deja monsigne don't le media a
report publique ecomquisson affl a mon avi. That's why, in reading the full report, the few other members of Parliament mentioned are in the category where even the intelligence reports suggest, I mean, we can go from witting and unwitting to wilful blindness. Should they have known? Should they have figured it out? Who was paying for the buses to get people to show up to vote in different contests. That's been going on for years in Canada. As we
know, bus loads of people can show up at nomination contests. Not green nomination contests have loads of people showing up, and we'd sure noticed if they showed up and we didn't know them. But you know, electric vehicles, smart cars trying to storm a nomination meeting, we'd noticed right off the bat. I'm sorry, but bus loads of people that you don't know showing up a nomination contest is I'm afraid not on typical in Canadian politics. If those
busloads of people were paid by Carl Heine Schreiber. We know that happened in nineteen eighty three with real consequence. So how much more do we learn from this? Do? I think we need to do a lot more as Canadians to pay attention to malign influences of foreign governments. You bet, And I think to focus on that will be more productive than to keep wondering. It reminds you Joseph McCarthy days and they found the microfilm in the pumpkin, I
mean, the whole thing. Well, it couldn't remind anybody of that because you're all too young. I was born during the Arma McCarthy hearings. It's not like I remember. But there's a fascination with political intrigue. We can't help ourselves. Let's I'm just begging my colleagues, particularly the leaders of the other parties, not to let this descend into a witch hunt, imagining that there's a list of MP's in the report that someone should disclose. There is
no list of MPs. May or may not want to take your advice, but would you advise mister and mister Blanche to do as you have done, get the security clearance and read the unredactive before absolutely. I think a commitment to not knowing something isn't wise, whether you're a member of parliament or parent driver, whatever whatever you're doing. I think it's always better to have as much knowledge as you possibly can get of the three hundred and sixty degrees of
your circumstances. More knowledge is better being determined not to know. They'll have to answer your questions as to why they're determined not to know. I am so grateful that David Johnson but for this, I would not have top secret security clearance former special rapperteur and ill fated admission for a fine man. But if David Johnson had not reported as he did that leaders of federal political parties should have access to top secret security clearance, I wouldn't have had access to
ask for it. To meet saying in my equivalent comes to the langue you don't exist, uh je dejah louis the report sacre a miss your sing rest uh a vexin suppose this young I there report may actual man in napa laxe j comprin last situation and your sing in one man j DeMont de le dois de le report je recu laid the the monro do not govern the la concai preve a year soir, I thank her, don't I champ to sacre j
comesee de lepa. So in contrast to mister Singh who has said he's demanding to read it, he has top secret security clearance, he's asked for access, I've take him at his word he's asked for access. I followed the procedure in a letter that I had received in May from the Privy Council Office explaining how someone in my position with top secret security access might be able to access the report. Understanding that, and the circumstances aren't aren't the easiest.
You just you have to go to a secure room, leave all your electronic devices in a locked drawer. You don't take in a pen and paper, you don't take notes. So I was. I brought this because it helps me remember what was redacted. So when I start a page like like this, that will it will always have something like a few This paragraph was deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. The paragraph described how Pakistan has engaged in
foreign interference in provincial or federal politics. That's just an example throughout the unredacted throughout the redacted document. You see sentences like that. Help me remember what I read when I couldn't be taking notes at all, no pen, no paper, no electronic devices. But that's as it is. I don't know why, mister I'm sure mister Singh will get a chance to read this.
But I mean I was. I mean, he said he'd throw anyone in his caucus out if they had experienced foreign interference or been I think it's important. I mean, I will have to and would you. I don't. Look, the answer is because I have just said, I don't think there's anything currently sitting in the House of Commons was who's another acts foreign interference or shown favoritism to a foreign government over the interests of Canada. I think we're
talking about smoke and mirrors and political posturing. In the report the MP's where there are names. You're suggesting there are names. There are also instances where there are no names but stories being told. Should these members of Parliament know that this information exists about them? Should? I would be surprised. There's a sec there's a reference throughout to what Cesius does in terms of risk management.
One of the things Caesis does to minimize to know better, and that's done pretty regularly, so i'd be speculating to say whether they already know or not. I don't know they know based on what you've read that they should be aware that I again, due to the specific circumstances of intelligence assets that
can't be compromised, I can't answer that exactly as you phrased it. But there are so few additional names that beyond what is already in the public domain, and none of those things things would I put in our category of twitting operatives favoring a foreign government. I do worry about transnational corporations. I do think it's wrong to take money from a foreign corporation against the interests of Canada. And when a former MP did so, I took that complaint to the
Ethics Commissioner and she said there was nothing wrong with that. So I think that's some place where we need to beef up are ethics rules and so that the Ethics Commissioner and Intelligence services could work more closely together to make sure that our oath of allegiance to Canada, which is expressed as because we're a constitutional monarchise, expressed as an oath too. The one I took was to her Majesty, Queen Is With the second, new MPs will take an oath to
King Charles. The third that should be understood as an oath to Canada, and that's a sacred oath. And when people don't understand that's an oath to be loyal to Canada and think they can fool around and play foot set with foreign operatives in hopes of favors down the road, I think they should be booted out of parliament. Now, by the way, there's only one way to remove a sitting member of Parliament under our current laws. I'm not going
to give you, but here's how. Members of Parliament are the only authority with the right to remove a sitting member of Parliament. Any member of Parliament can move a motion to remove a member of Parliament, and on a vote of all members of parliament majority rules and a seated elected member of Parliament can be removed. It's only happened five times in the history of Canada. Two of those times applied to Louis Reelle. It's not a great instrument. It's
a blunt instrument. One could say it lacks due process, even natural justice. It's not clear at all, how a sitting member of Parliament would defend themselves. A motion comes forward and then there's a vote, but that is the only current tool to remove a sitting member of Parliament. You mentioned in the report there's references to different types of people. You said, no,
I'm just imps different types of people. I'm wondering if you were referring to staffers who work for politicians or nomination race executives, and if you could also kind of characterize how many parties were looking at here, is that everyone was seating in the Commons? Is there an dykey person reference to walk person? The report is very clear that all parties have been targeted by foreign governments. I would say all parties except Greens, but was I thought about it.
The fact that we're omitted doesn't mean that we might not be targets in the future, so I'm just leaving that aside. The report in the redacted public version says all parties. So we can take that to your first question when I said, not just members of parliament, elected people at different levels and orders of government, so we shouldn't take our eye off the ball there.
I think there is much more work that needs to be done. In looking at this report, there are other examples of people currently in elected positions from Canada who are not members of parliament. Okay, and I just also wanted to know briefly what you think of beut a Psychoed's approach here. You know you talked about this as all tato. I'm just wondering, when people are losing faith and institutions, do you feel like they struck the right tone in
the amount of information they've released and how they characterized it. This is very difficult stuff, right, They're trying to thread a needle, which includes protecting top secret information, and it gets kind of like John McCarey stuff. Sometimes you think, okay, you've got an actual intelligence asset, do you smuggle into the safe house. We don't have a lot of John le carrey going on in Canada. I was saying to my husband because I couldn't tell him
anything about before, saying, you know, it's somewhere between. Report makes me think of JOHNA. Carey. But it's not as bad as Joan mcaurrey novel. But it's a bit more worrying than Miss Marple. He said, I know what's going to know who Miss Marple was you can't say that. So anyway, Ah, there are people. In terms of what this committee has done, I think it's extraordinary. I think think they did more than
a good job. They did a great job. Bearing in mind that what they could put out in the redacted version, just as I have self censored myself from what I know and what I can tell you, constantly in my head thinking I must not violate the trust placed in me that allows me to have top secret security clearance. So and I think about all those members. It's a rare thing for these parliamentarians, members of Parliament and senators to have
to self censor as they write. And then the public redacted version obviously involved very close coordination with intelligence services of various kinds CESIS, PCO, the CSE, probably RCMP. There's a lot of delegate balancing that goes on here, and that's why I have nothing but respect and gratitude to my colleagues who serve on this committee and to the Chair David McGuinty. It is not easy.
What I do worry about is clear, I'm sure from our remarks here is that we both take it seriously as a threat foreign interference, as a threat within the world of domestic politics. But if we're going to address that threat, and I think we must, let's focus our efforts on tools, updated laws, improved resources Elections Canada. For instance, one of the points made in this report is how few resources Elections Canada has to check out untoward on
untoward donations and money intended for that's all. The public report already of money that came from India and was directly to certain candidates in certain parties in certain areas, But then again they couldn't conclude the people ever actually got that money, to the extent that it's possible for my voice to make it through the noise here now, I mean here in this room, I mean in Canadian
politics. Right now, let's focus on the constructive, positive steps that we need to take to modernize and reinforce the various bulwarks that protect democracy in Canada. Primary, in my mind, is the one that's hardest to reinforce and protect, and that's public trust in our institutions. So I want to focus on the steps we must take to ensure that more people seeking elected office have
paused. If someone says I got a free trip for you, by the way, I think all sponsored trips from any government to any MP should be banned. It's not enough. I don't think to report to the Ethics Commissioner. I got a free trip. I don't see any reason that a member of Parliament should accept a free trip anywhere from a foreign government. Do you agree with redactions? As someone who's who's seen both, my opinion doesn't matter.
I'm not a security expert. I might not have changed some of the words the way they were changed, or the nuances of how they were changed. But again, everybody who did that work knows a lot more about it
than I do. Should they have known that even referencing MPs was going to cause a problem without a plan to figure out how they were going to solve for that, like Nsikopp and also the Prime Minister who also would have seen the unredacted version of this report, knowing full well what was about to be
made public. The extent to which they're buried in top secret documents and reports, the review of whether again looking at random sentences, and the ceaesus's assessment that candidates were unaware of the source of the funds, and again the different kinds of cases that they're often they're very they're not that many of them, but specifically references case studies. They all have different nuances and they all have different contexts. So I'm, as you can tell, I'm loath to criticize
colleagues who've done this much work. It's easy to be in hindsight more of attention on communications, but the pressures that this committee was under to produce a report an attempt to assist our institutions protect themselves. I mean, there's a lot that got through in the unredacted version, and rather yeah, there's a lot that got through into the redacted version, the public version that gives us plenty to work on. And I mean, I'm concerned that PMO didn't immediately
take the recommendations from the committee and implement them. As an example, there's a lot here to chew on. Whether the focus on a non existent list of MPs who've portrayed their country is lurking in a document that people won't reveal, and that's really unfortunate because I don't think anyone intended to create that impression. I can't see why they would want to create that impression. And there is no list of names of MPs who have consciously deliberately sought to sell out
Canada to preference another government. Can you tell us about the page twenty six allegations. Did that MP, the foreign MP receive any benefit? Should think that you know prosecuted? Did they receive any benefit from that foreign government? Was it? It's enough that they wanted to deliberately. Let me just make sure I'm sticking with what is in the public version. A then member of
Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. The Member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state where a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence. And I'll just write, you know, read in what's intended here? Provided in confidence to the MP then MP, As I said, this is a singular example, unlike
any other in the report. There is no other example of an elected person at any level of office deliberately seeking out a foreign government's intelligence officer and proactively providing information. Did they receive a benefit? That's not something I can speak to, but on the face of it, it's outrageous and that should be prosecuted. Is it acceptable to you that this is only coming out now if it's a former MP, well, I don't know when they mean, it's
who knows when they knew? Right, it takes intelligence gathering is not my forte, so you might. But I think that now we know, we don't know the name, we don't know the person. We do know, But that's an outrageous example, and I think prosecution is appropriate on the limited knowledge of facts I have from reading the whole report. Sponsored travel, you just mentioned that that should be banned. Yes, this are you specifically talking to a reference in the report? Or why did you say what you said
that about sponsored travel? It's always I've never accepted a sponsored trip from a foreign government. I see a lot of people taking sponsored trips, and I'm not at all this way. I don't want to judge or condemn my colleagues. Almost every MP I know and that I respect, has taken sponsored trips.
We know which governments offer them most often, and I don't think they offer free trips to visit their country without expecting that they've at least influenced the mp A bit that their country is one to be concerned A friend A friendly country. Don't mention anywhere in these documents by the way some countries aren't reference that have In this released report, Russia's involvement has been downgraded and India's involvement
upgraded. That's publicly accessible. In this report, we don't talk about the United States and how it's influenced canating politics over many many years. We don't talk about other governments trips to other countries that are offered for free. Is there really a free lunch in politics? Do we just think this is what politicians get as a perk, free trips to other countries. I just think it's bad practice. And while we're tightening up the rules and looking at foreign
influence and foreign interference, I think they should not be allowed. What is most problematic about a Member of Parliament going on a trip that is sponsored by the Under susan It's now required, it wasn't always required under our Code of Ethics to report such trips. It's a publicly accessible registry and people will know if they're MP took a trip sponsored by the People's Republic of China or sponsored by India. To mention the governments that are already in the mix here,
why do governments offer foreign governments offer free trips to Canadian and ps. We now know for sure that foreign governments use many tactics and strategies and many approaches, including towards political staffers, towards people they see as maybe up and coming rising stars and politics that someday might be able to do them a favor.
They're building relationships, and while going to an open house or celebrating a national holiday at an embassy here in Ottawa and having a lovely time at a party offered by the diplomatic service of whether it's the United States or Norway, is building a relationship. And I think a lot of those are healthy relationships. It's good to have a sense of the world, but a free trip is to me crossing a line. And I'm just speaking as myself. I don't
take a free trip. I've gone on a sponsored trip and paid back the sponsor because I don't want to feel, at any level beholden to any foreign interests. Ever, I do think seeing the world is great, But foreign governments offering free trips, I think they do it to curry favor and support within Canada from a select group of MPs. And I think it's I think
it's a practice. It's just me. It isn't a recommendation coming out of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, but I think we should look at it. It's certainly I think it should be discouraged. For me, I think it should be banned. What was the trip that you took that you paid back? It was a trip in March of twenty eighteen, and I'm really proud of the work we did. The Canadian Palestinian Parliamentary Friendship Group managed
to have MPs from five parties. Eighteen MPs traveled to the occupied territories. I learned a lot. The trip was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority, and I wasn't the only MP to pay back all of my costs, but I did. And I would not want to say who else went and who else didn't pay or whatever. I don't want to accuse any of my colleagues, but I just felt strongly about it. So what do you say a sponsored travel for any government? Are you including ISRAELI? You didn't, yesly mention
that country. Yes, I didn't want to specifically I mentioned Israel because well there are But I'm looking at whose sponsors travel a lot. Yes, Israel sponsors a lot of trips for Canadians and I would certainly take one. I've been trying to organize it for some time, but I would pay them back. So I'm going to support this block motion. What do you think the next steps are? Well, I tell you what. I'm sorry, but I should back up. Why I'm not supporting the block motion is that I
think it's throwing a hot potato in the wrong soup putt. Madame Justice Hoague has a lot on her plate and short timelines. Her inquiry is not ideally suited to what the Canadian public needs to know now, which is to investigate that, for instance, the former MP mentioned on page twenty six, somebody needs to do that. I don't think it's going to be matter Justice Hoague.
So we could go through the process of throwing it to the Whogue Inquiry, knowing how overburdened they are to meet the deadlines they've got, and where
would we be at the end of the day when she reports back. Probably where we are now, which is why I think it's better for parliamentarians to take responsibility for the hot potato, spend the time it takes, and for more of our colleagues, particularly leaders of other federal political parties who have access to the documents if they so choose to pursue it, and for us to
try to work in a non partisan spirit. That's the worst part of the debate that's happened in the last oh since this report came out is, of course, everything that happens in Parliament is increasingly hyper partisan. It doesn't help us come to solutions. So I think that throwing it to Madame Justice Hoague. We now have the Liberals supporting the block motion, the Conservatives apport the block motion. Everyone's going to support the block motion. I don't know what
Mike's going to do, but I'm going to vote against it. I think it's it's performative without being substantive. It moves the issue along. It says we're going to give this to Madam Justice Hoak. And I did see and I'm aware that the chair of the Committee, David McGuinty, said, well, that's progress. That moves it somewhere. But I think we should take
responsibility for this ourselves as promontarians. And I think it would be really ideal if all party leaders could sit down together and say, Okay, what's the best thing to do now we have a collective duty and loyalty to Canada and the Canadian electorate to restore their confidence in what goes on in this place. And how do we do that. The more non partisan we can be,
the better, And I do think that's possible. I every now and then I see it emerge when we speak as one because we care about an issue, we care about Canada. This is a very disturbing report, but I think if all the other party leaders had read the unredacted version as I have, I think we might be able to have a reasonable grown up conversation about where do our obligations lie, where it is our duty lie. What could we do together for Canadians to sort this out? Could we go back to
ceaess, Could we go back to sources? Could we push harder to say and could we work with a committee to say? Can we get these names out so Canadians know as much as we know about individuals and they can breathe a cyber relief as Isa hit in recognizing lesson to take a big, long list or even a tiny list in the list and there's there's no one named as an MP who has deliberately sought to undermine Canada in favor of a different country. I can't say that more clearly, or I suppose I should be
careful again about my notes. But it really is important to know that while a few named people may have been compromised by foreign influence, it falls far short of what could be considered disloyalty to Canada demonstrated disloyalty to Canada. Just in the interest in not having any unnecessary secrets, I will voting with Elizabeth on the block motion. Thanks. This is about no report. I've not read the report. I've read the redacted version, and I just strongly agree
with it with Elizabeth. This is actually about restoring trust in our democracy. I want to take the actions that best move us towards that, and I trust a person who has read the unredacted version. And if anything, I wish we had more time before the vote so that more of this information could be sure with other colleagues that might encourage them to do the same. Yeah. Thanks Mike. No, that wasn't a joke or a bit of put up sketch. It is against the Green Party policies and bylaws for the leader
to whip votes. So no matter how much I might want Mike to vote with me. I don't push it. We try to talk ahead of votes to know because we think sometimes it's cool to vote the same way. But it doesn't happen all the time, and we don't worry about it because his job is to represent the voters of Kitchener Center and my job is to represent
the voters of Sanichgulf Violence, and it keeps the lines pretty clear. Do you think it's to be done about non parliamentarians who are elected officials that you mentioned in the report? I mean we have a federal motion for a federal inquiry, we have n psychop about parliamentarians like I'm surprised they're talking about provincial or municipal. I don't know what tools we even have. What do you think we should do about that? I'd like to talk to my other parliamentary
colleagues about it. I'd like to talk to the committee about it. I am distressed by foreign interference at any part of Canadian democracy, in any aspects of our democracy, whether nomination raises, leadership contests, or actual elections to office at different levels. I do think, knowing what I know now from reading the report, I'll be continually pushing myself within the limits of this the Official Secrets Act, and the fact that I can't speak of things without permission.
To figure that out, because I am very disturbed and I want to make sure the Canadians can have faith that anyone elected to office in this country at any one of the various parliaments or orders of government that are our democracy and our healthy body politic are one hundred percent loyal to Canada. Nice your concern about, you know, not breaking that out time. I'm just curious if you could give us any more information about like provinces. How many provinces
are we talking in a handful? Is this WI describe? I would just say that that was something that I didn't clear with PCO before speaking to it, so I'm going to have to decline to answer, but perhaps with further efforts I can get answers to that, and i'd certainly take note of it and see if I can get an answer to you. But it's the report in its public version speaks of provinces, so I haven't let anything out of
the bag that wasn't there before. It sounds like you're more concerned about what you read about provincial musable other levels of goent and what you read about what's happening here in Ottawa is that fair. I'm concerned about any influence and that it does include governments that may have compromised and I use the word compromised in my statement that there are some MPs who may have been compromised by foreign influence. And I am very concerned about what I've seen in other jurisdictions. And
I wouldn't want to say one bothers me more than another. They're both unacceptable the media for influence of the media. That was a shocker to me too, and that is referred to in the public version, where foreign governments have given special access to documentary films and want a very favorable of you and it's
not disclosed. It's the surreptitious nature of it that's the problem. And I I don't think I have such respect for journalists that the idea that somebody would be as a filmmaker or a documentary filmmaker or a journalist willing to do I mean, when you get your Saturday paper and there's extra pages, when this
is this is how old I am. I'm still talking about newspapers. Their actual paper sponsored content is usually somewhere on the page when you start reading about a new face, crame, it's usual somewhere there so you can see, ah ah, this isn't news. And I was really shocked to the extent to which the National Security Intelligence Committee of parliamentarians have seen enough intelligence to think it's an issue that sponsored content is undisclosed. So that is another area to
be investigated. When we're talking about sponsored travel and Israel, I'm a bit confused. Were you saying that Israel is named in this report? I did not say that. I specifically said it wasn't. And in terms of sponsored content, is it like across all media or I'm just wondering if this is specifically in like ethnic media, is it like Chinese language media? Is it that is not specified at any level in either the redacted or unredacted versions.
It's a question of where does I mean? I think we have to if we refocus a bit, which I think will help, focusing on what tools and tax dicks do foreign government's use, what's at their disposal, what are they looking for infiltrating, co opting community organizations, infiltrating, co opting journalists, infiltrating, co opting elected people or people seeking to maybe be elected or
nominated or become a party leader. So it's a question not so much of who don't we trust in Canada. I think that's the wrong lens if we can shift it to we need to protect our democracy by better understanding what hostile foreign governments see as their targets. And it's basically a lot more aspects of our society than I would have imagined, including journalists. Sure, ms bye, you've been on Proman Hill a long time. Not really, not nearly
long enough, glad, I'm only seventy. Sorry, lists sing as a natiation can recarding here today? Are you trying to splash cold water on the call for names? Like? What are you trying to achieve here? I've been hearing from so many of my own constituents who are good and freaked out. I would describe myself before reading the report as good and freaked out. My main goal and I don't want to sound too lofty, but I am a passionate lover of democracy. I am terrified that the gong show that is
Parliament will result in fewer Canadians voting when they have the chance. I am worried for the health of our country if people decide politics is so disgusting in kind of a consumer response, I don't like that store, I'm not going to go in there and buy anything, because that store is practicing voter democracy isn't shopping. Democracy is a right of Canadians and voting is a duty. We don't talk about duty very much anymore. It's not a hobby, it's
a duty. If Canadians end up feeling so unsure of the health of their democracy that they're either by being disgusted or hostile too. If we fall to such a level of disrespect that people don't vote, then democracy is at risk. And if you look around the world, and I do look around the world, right wing populism slash fascism is on the rise. Protecting democracy is my main motivation. I think to protect to protect the global climate, we
need healthy democracy. You'll notice I'm probably the only person so far that I've noticed who's mentioned the role of foreign corporations. I do think we need to make sure that people aren't susceptible to too much money in politics. I really think we should bring back the per vote subsidy, just to throw that out there. There are tools things we used to do that could address the threats that have been identified in the public version of this report. My main motivation
though today is let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is what are foreign governments seeking to do in Canada? Not is there a secret list of MPs somewhere that someone should release, because there isn't one. So do you think Bill C seventy is at to addressing it in new r issues that you raised? I think I wish, and I said this empowerment yesterday on
the Floorthhouse. I wish that in getting C seventy passed, we had not been so short of time, and I was so encouraged to see collaboration between the Conservatives and the ENDP in coming up with a unanimous consent motion with block and Liberals all supporting it. I wish we had not adopted an approach that went so fast that we're not hearing the voices of people who were saying, wait a minute. This could have a chilling effect, This could hurt civil
liberties. C seventy and the way we've structured this bill could be improved with amendments. We don't have that. It's going to be gone. It's gone through clause by clause, my opportunity to provide amendments was limited. I have a very time limited opportunity. I get a notice from committees and Mike does, and we have less than twenty four hours to produce amendments, and that
generally happens before the witnesses have been finished. That's because of our status as a party with less than twelve members, particularly, and that particular bill went very very fast. Just saying I think C seventy is an improvement. We should have had a foreign influence read a long time ago, and taking a deep breath, I wish we'd had it in a more timely fashion so that we could have had a normal process in this place, with study and hearing
witnesses and entertaining amendments. I wish we had not rushed through that process so quickly. But on balance, what I'd rather have C seventy as is with that amendment than no C seventy at all. I'd rather have C seventy as it is, But I regret very much that we didn't have time to study it and improve it. Yeah. Sure, just a brief example on that. If the decision was made differently not to carve out the capital gains tax
as separate legislation for political gain. There would have been more House time to spend more time improving C seventy. I think that's what Elizabeth is getting at, that it's good legislation. But we heard just in the last few days from groups like NCCM about improvements they'd like to see, and as a result of that UC motion, it's moved so quickly that it's made it more difficult for parliamentarians to improve that legislation, despite the fact that there could have been
more house times, more difficult, impossible. I never hackled in the House and now I'm hackling like it was impossible to improve C seventy because the timeline, and honestly, obviously it was unanimous consent. I could have said no one stopped it. And I do apologize to the many groups that are raising solid good points on civil liberties grounds that C seventy probably should have, would
have not should have. C seventy should have gone to committee force after second reading for proper study and entertaining of amendments, as opposed to the truncated process we have because we're running out of time, because it's almost the end of the session and because we're pushing things through fast. But as Mike says, if we weren't taking special time for essentially the show trial of the capital gains
tax vote, we'd have more time for C seventy. When I asked you about your motivation, you described the Gong Show, your quote Gong Show, Yes on Parliament herld from take it you're referring to as it pretas the conversation on foreign interference? Why? No, No, sorry, I just want general to general. I wasn't specifying. No, no, no, I'm glad you clarified. It's just I yes, Okay. The question is as it relates to foreign interference, how would you describe the nature of the conversation?
Does that amount to a quote Gong Show? No? And thank you for asking the questions. Probably the last question, given that you probably all want to get cracking. I think when I speak of the Gong Show, I particularly mean the bad high school theater experience of debates in Parliament, with people giving written speeches, the hoping to get a zinger line click bait clips for YouTube instead of respectful parliamentary debate, which is why we are here.
I think it's pretty clear what we've seen and everyone starts calling it silly season earlier and earlier every year. But since I was first elected in twenty eleven and it wasn't worth then, things have become more disrespectful. The tone has become less civil, and I don't want to see our democracy slide into a
Trumpian era. And that does not refer to the policies or politics of any particular party, to be very clear, but to what I think Donald Trump has done, which was open a box on conduct language that would have been
screamingly unacceptable in polite society even twenty years ago, fifteen years ago. And Canadians, as I've said probably a zillion times, the thing I love about being Canadian more than anything, well more than anything, which more than anything, one of the things I love about being Canadian is our capacity to disagree without being disagreeable. And we've suffered a real psychic wound through pandemic coming out
the other side. For whatever reason, we're having a harder time disagreeing without being disagreeable. And I think again, for healthy democracy, for higher voter turnout, for citizen engagement, for all of the reasons that we need to protect Canadian democracy, we need to get back to respectful discourse and if if at all possible, to kindness. Yes, sir yet see I love us.
Thank you very much. Whippics gives you the power of AI to build the website you need with full business functionality and a design tailored The show has been produced by Depictions Media. Please contact us at depictions dot media for more information.