SoVote

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

May/4/23 11:10:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing my support for my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Like him, I am a proud Canadian of Chinese heritage, and it is leaders like him who made it easier for people like me to serve today. My Liberal colleague talked about transparency and accountability. The fact has been that it is now confirmed, not only by CSIS but also by the Prime Minister, that a Chinese diplomat targeted my Conservative colleague. Would my colleague not agree that this action is clearly in contravention of the Vienna Convention? Why does the government not exercise article 9 to declare this diplomat persona non grata and kick him out of the country?

120 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

May/4/23 11:11:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that every Canadian knows that we take very seriously the activity of foreign diplomats in this country. Concerning the Vienna Convention, any time the Vienna Convention is invoked and diplomats are expelled, it is important that countries do the work required to understand, number one, the implications, and number two, what implications might be felt by Canadians at home and abroad. As that assessment is done, in the context of whatever malfeasance may or may not have occurred, action is then taken. We know that our department of foreign affairs, Global Affairs Canada, takes this very seriously. Those recommendations are developed by security professionals, by the officials. Those recommendations are then made and decisions are taken.

122 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/4/23 11:12:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, based on the public report that was tabled today from CSIS, a staggering 49 federal members of Parliament have received briefings from CSIS. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is just one of 49. As a matter of fact, I recall a discussion in the PROC committee when the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said that he had also received a briefing. I am going to assume that that was a defensive briefing from CSIS as well. The reality is that CSIS provides these defensive briefings a lot. I am wondering if the member could inform the House as to whether or not he has received a defensive briefing from CSIS?

117 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

May/4/23 11:13:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not received a briefing of any kind from CSIS. I would say, as somebody who has worked in the public service, and who had the privilege of working with the folks at CSIS and the RCMP, briefings, when given, are taken seriously. When people are called by CSIS, those briefings should be taken seriously. What CSIS shares with one individual, when they are being briefed, is not necessarily the purview of others. Those briefings are, hopefully, supposedly held in confidence. It is important for us to recognize the way our security intelligence apparatus works in this country. It works in a way that seeks to not only keep Canadians safe but also ensure that the methods and sources they work with are also preserved and protected, so that the work they do can continue. It is important for all of us in the House to respect that work.

152 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/4/23 11:14:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I will not keep the members on tenterhooks any longer: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting today's motion from the Conservatives. As we know, when things drag, they tend to pick up dirt, and right now everything is turning into a crisis. The longer this drags on, the more likely it is that we will have to face two risks that are coming our way. First, as the public hears different information about allegations of foreign interference, there is a growing risk that the public will lose confidence in democracy, in its institutions and in the work of members of Parliament. Second, the more time that goes by without meaningful action being taken, the greater the risk that an election will be called and that, for the third time running, there will be foreign interference in an election because the right legislative measures have not been put in place to fight it. The motion before the House today has four main points calling on the government to create a foreign agent registry, establish a national public inquiry, close down the People's Republic of China run police stations, and expel all of the diplomats responsible for these affronts to Canadian democracy. I will address all of these points, but not necessarily in that order. I will begin with the point that the Bloc Québécois sees as the most important. We were actually the first to recommend it. I am talking about establishing an independent public inquiry. We want to make one main point or one key request. The person in charge of this inquiry must be appointed by all parties represented in the House. We have been calling for an independent public inquiry since February 28. That was two months ago. I cannot believe that, in two months' time, the four parties, representing the entire Canadian population, have not been able to agree on the right person to appoint to lead a public inquiry, someone who is not part of the Prime Minister's inner circle, family or friends. We have been asking for this inquiry for a long time, and, above all, we want to ensure that the person leading this inquiry is non-partisan and impartial so that the public will have confidence in the recommendations resulting from this inquiry. We hope that this inquiry will be launched. If information is handled behind closed doors during this inquiry, the public must have confidence that this is being done for valid national security reasons, not for the benefit of a party that wants to hide certain information. That is why it is important to have a commissioner, judge, or commission chair who is impartial. If the information is not disclosed and must be handled behind closed doors, the public will have confidence that it is for non-partisan reasons. It has been argued on a number of occasions that holding an independent public inquiry in an open and transparent manner could compromise the work of national security institutions by revealing sources or investigative techniques. We could trust this future commissioner to determine what needs to be done behind closed doors. We in the Bloc Québécois are not alone in calling for an independent public inquiry. Jean‑Pierre Kingsley, a former chief electoral officer for Elections Canada, said in March on Radio‑Canada, “Canadians need to know what happened. Until there is a public inquiry, information will come out in dribs and drabs and people are going to pay the price for that”. The fact that this is dragging on and no meaningful action is being taken is another problem. The information is being reported haphazardly, which could jeopardize some investigations and certain sources. In addition to recommending an independent public inquiry and the appointment of an impartial chair to lead the inquiry, the Bloc Québécois recommended overhauling the Inquiries Act to ensure that future chairs of public inquiries are appointed by consensus in the House. The motion also calls for the creation of a foreign agent registry. In our opinion, we need to go much further than the simple creation of a foreign agent registry. We need to bring in legislative measures to help address interference. That is something people have long been calling for. In November 2020, the House adopted a motion to implement mechanisms with a lot more teeth to tackle foreign interference. Once again, unfortunately, it took a crisis and media attention for the government to start moving. About a month ago, the government finally announced that consultations would be held about creating a registry. In addition to creating a registry, we need much broader legislation to tackle interference. One of the things we learned in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is that there are legislative gaps. Often, information comes in and it is clear there has been interference, but it cannot be addressed because there is no legislative leverage to do so. Information is also coming in dribs and drabs. National campaign managers have said that information passed between intelligence agencies is a one-way street. Parties give information to the intelligence agencies but get little or nothing in return. Even if someone is given information, there is no avenue for a party to take action and address this interference. As for a registry, both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP have been calling for one. Will it solve everything? No. However, it is one of the tools that would, in conjunction with other tools, help us move in the right direction. Some people are saying that this kind of registry could inadvertently target members of Canada's Chinese community, but I think such a claim is purely hypothetical. There is no definite indication that members of the Chinese Canadian community would be targeted. Besides, when it comes to foreign agents, members of the Chinese Canadian diaspora are the ones paying the price. They are the ones enduring threats and harassment from foreign agents. All things considered, setting up a registry is the best option, precisely to protect members of the Chinese Canadian diaspora. The Conservatives also propose that we close down these police stations. The problem is that there seem to be some discrepancies concerning what is really going on. The Minister of Public Safety told us on April 27 that all the Chinese police stations operating in Canada had been shut down. However, the media reports that calls made to these offices and agencies, like the Service à la famille chinoise du Grand Montréal, suggest they are still operating. All the elements presented today are interrelated. Any single recommendation in the Conservatives' motion would not have an impact in and of itself. It would only reach its full potential in conjunction with the other recommendations. If the police stations have not been closed, it is because the law does not allow it. That is why it is important to also create a foreign agent registry, which will allow us to have some control over these police stations. I would also like to mention that the issue of police stations is somewhat limited. We must tackle other issues and appropriate legislation would make that possible. For example, there are all the issues with economic threats, threats to Chinese Canadians' families who are still in China or, for example, everything connected to honeytraps, an influence tactic whereby a woman seduces a member of the community and then threatens to inform the person's family. With regard to the expulsion of diplomats, once again, something could have been done but was not. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that it is difficult to expel foreign diplomats in the absence of sufficient evidence and that doing so would not be in keeping with the Vienna Convention. However, we know that the Vienna Convention allows for the expulsion of diplomats without any justification from the government, so this story about respecting or not respecting the Vienna Convention does not hold water. Former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint‑Jacques, and the former counsellor at the embassy, Charles Burton, both agree with the request and acknowledge that Canada does not have to provide an explanation for expelling diplomats, as the United States and Great Britain did when similar situations occurred there. The fact that the government is saying that it will not expel diplomats sends the wrong message. It is as though the government is saying that they can continue with their threatening activities in Canada and that we will tolerate their intimidation. Above all that, I would also like to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, which could have perhaps been included in today's motion, and that is the creation of an independent office on interference. That office would not answer to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Safety. It would answer to the House, a bit like the Auditor General does. That office would also have the advantage of being able to work outside election periods because interference does not just happen during elections. An office with the power to investigate, search and arrest and the ability to work with CSIS and the RCMP would cut down on foreign interference and restore public confidence. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports today's Conservative Party recommendation in addition to the recommendations we have already made.

1618 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/4/23 11:24:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, so far this morning the members for Kingston and the Islands, Winnipeg North and Vancouver Granville all alleged that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew about the foreign interference and the threats to his family. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has stated that the briefing he received from CSIS was general in nature and did not contain any specific threats concerning a person in Canada, Mr. Wei Zhao, who was targeting the member and his family. Why is it that the government continues to push the narrative that somehow the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is guilty regarding what took place?

108 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/4/23 11:25:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not claim to be inside the government's head, nor do I wish to be. That said, I—

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/4/23 11:25:11 a.m.
Watch

I am hearing conversations on both sides of the House. I do not remember any questions being asked on the right side of the House, and I do not recall recognizing other members on the left side of the House to pose questions, aside from the member who has already spoken. Therefore, I would ask members to be respectful while somebody else has the floor. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

71 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/4/23 11:25:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said, I do not claim to be inside the government's head, nor do I wish to be. That said, I will reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech: The longer this drags on, the dirtier it gets and the more it becomes a partisan issue, when that is not what democracy should be. The longer the House continues to refuse to hold an independent public inquiry, the longer we will be embroiled in he-said-she-said debates, instead of putting measures in place to prevent foreign interference in the future. Unfortunately, we are mired in secrecy and innuendo, and the longer we delay creating an independent public commission, the more likely we are to descend into partisan squabbling, which, unfortunately, will not get anyone anywhere.

134 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/4/23 11:26:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House saying anybody is guilty of anything. What we are saying is that the only person who had actually been briefed on this matter, with a defensive briefing received from CSIS, was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. What I also know is that the member who posed the last question also received a briefing from CSIS, as he indicated in a PROC committee once. I am just left to wonder who the other 47 MPs are who have received briefings, because a CSIS report that was tabled this morning said 49 MPs have been briefed. I am wondering if the member for Saint-Jean could tell us if she is one of those 47 remaining MPs who received briefings.

135 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/4/23 11:27:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is no but, in any case, I do not think the question is that relevant given the debate today. The questions I am hearing from all sides concerning specific members just lead me to reiterate that this debate is becoming far too partisan, which serves no one, and certainly not democracy. That is why I urge all members to vote for the motion, because the main thing it is calling for is a transparent and independent public inquiry. That will allows us to move forward rather than get stuck in partisan politics and to address pressing problems that, if this continues, may not be resolved by the time the next election comes around.

117 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/4/23 11:28:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's reasoned voice in this House where the hyperpartisanship has reached through the roof. The matter here is too important to get into that sort of back-and-forth hyperpartisanship. The issue around the significance and importance of an independent inquiry, along with measures that would send a clear message to any country that tries to interfere with our democracy and intimidate Canadians, needs to be taken seriously. Aside from the public inquiry, which we absolutely agree with, as the NDP was the first to call on the government to put an independent inquiry in place, what is the measure that needs to be in place to send a clear message to all countries that try to undermine out democratic system? What does the member think we need to do to ensure that is put in place?

143 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/4/23 11:29:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague’s premise, except perhaps that I believe the Bloc Québécois was the first to point out the importance of an independent public inquiry. There are several things that can be done and put in place, including the creation of a foreign agent registry, which has been called for since November 2020. We have been told that consultations to set up such a registry are about to begin, when this registry is a tool that would make it possible to make certain arrests and lay charges for the interference that is currently occurring. We do not have the legislative tools we need. All actions must be taken together, in a concerted manner. Individually, they are not enough. The independent public inquiry is the main one, but there are many other things we can do right now.

147 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/4/23 11:29:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, welcome to “Chinada”. As Canada is perfectly fine with being a post-national laggard, as it settles into the comfortable position of “everyone gets along, everything is fine and dandy”, the People's Republic of China is taking advantage of western naivety to become a conquering empire. The Beijing regime is applying the principles of revolutionary war, a war of influence, a war of subversion, developed by its founder, Mao Zedong. We all need to recognize that China has become a worrisome power in times of peace. While China is one of the greatest civilizations, that of Confucianism, that of Buddhism, that of Taoism, the conduct of its regime in stifling the truth, as was seen with the COVID‑19 pandemic, leads at best to mistrust. In 2013, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, who was not yet Prime Minister, said, “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.” It would probably be easier for him. Whether he likes it or not, we are in a Parliament. Ottawa should answer to the Chinese interference that has been revealed. The facts are overwhelming. When it became clear, known and documented that there had been Chinese interference in the Canadian electoral process, and not just in one way on one occasion, only one outcome was possible: a public, independent commission of inquiry. That idea was supported by the former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and by the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, Richard Fadden. What did Ottawa do? First, they dismissed the idea of an inquiry, saying that that posed a public safety risk because secret information could be revealed and sources compromised. However, the many meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning Chinese interference in elections have shown the need for a public and independent inquiry. The format is simply not the same. The committee format is not as suited as that of a public and independent inquiry. Witnesses are not questioned in the same way. Since at some point the pressure became too great, following that initial refusal, Ottawa appointed Morris Rosenberg and David Johnston, two former members of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, itself directly at the heart of the scandal due to its ties to Beijing, to shed light on the matter. That is promising. Who are they? Morris Rosenberg was appointed to investigate and produce a report on the assessment of the critical election incident public protocol for the 2021 election. This is the same Mr. Rosenberg who was president of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation when it accepted a $200,000 donation, $140,000 of which was paid out. It was a donation from Beijing, which CSIS believes was intended to influence the Prime Minister. The Chinese donor, Zhang Bin, a political adviser to the Chinese government, cut a cheque on behalf of a Chinese company. According to the foundation's former CEO, Pascale Fournier, China was issuing directives regarding that donation. That is huge. Unsurprisingly, Morris Rosenberg found that Ottawa did nothing wrong in the 2021 election. According to an expression we have in Quebec, just because something is laughable it does not mean it is funny. Even more surprising is something Mr. Rosenberg said in committee. He said he accepted the Chinese donation to try to influence China. I find that quite rich. David Johnston is a former governor general, member of the Trudeau Foundation, personal friend of the Prime Minister, with close ties to Beijing. Johnston was appointed special rapporteur by the Prime Minister to determine whether there should be an inquiry and what should be done. The Prime Minister himself has already publicly said that he was a close friend; his father and Johnston were friends and had neighbouring cottages. The Prime Minister grew up playing with Johnston's children, and Johnston has also called him a friend of the family. This same Johnston also has close ties to China. His three daughters studied in China and he himself was received by Xi Jinping in person. For his part, Johnston has said that he feels at home in China. Did the Prime Minister do his due diligence before appointing Mr. Johnston? Did he put as much effort into it as he did for the interferences? Are the appointment and the interferences appropriate? Only a real public, independent inquiry could shed light on these questions and answer them. In November 2020, the House adopted a motion demanding that the government table legislation similar to the Australian act, particularly with respect to the issue of a public registry of foreign agents. A country, a real country, might I say, normally takes the issue of national security seriously. The United States has had a foreign agent registry since 1930, nearly 100 years before us. We still do not have one, in fact. This kind of tool can have a real impact by making it easier to lay criminal charges against those who break the law. It was due to that registry that the United States was recently able to arrest two Chinese nationals who were operating illegal Chinese police stations on U.S. soil. In Canada, despite the mandate passed by the House, little has been done. Two Chinese police stations are still open in Quebec and in the Montreal area as we speak. To top it all off, The Globe and Mail recently revealed a CSIS report from 2021 stating that threats had been made against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family in Hong Kong by a Chinese diplomat who is still in Canada. What terrible crime had the member committed? He had simply sponsored a motion condemning the Uyghur genocide perpetrated by the Communist regime in China. The Prime Minister is boasting that he called him to reassure him. Well, that changes everything. The member can sleep soundly now. Does the fact that the Prime Minister called the member not show that he is taking it seriously? I think the member can rest easy now. I want to make one thing clear. We would be opposed to expelling the Chinese ambassador. An act that extreme is valid in times of war. Of course, we must maintain international relations, and that requires dialogue and diplomacy. However, when it comes to diplomats implicated in interference attempts, in interference operations that include trying to intimidate and punish certain democratically debated opinions, that is another story. Ottawa is ducking the issue by saying that it is respecting international conventions by not expelling the diplomat involved, yet the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations allows for the expulsion of diplomats. Of course, this should only be done when necessary, but it is necessary here. The official opposition motion before us today comprises four points, namely, creating a registry of foreign agents, similar to those in Australia and the United States, establishing a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference, closing down police stations run by the People's Republic of China here in Canada, and expelling all of the People's Republic of China diplomats involved in these affronts to democracy. The Bloc Québécois supports these four ideas. We will therefore vote in favour of the motion. To conclude, in 1961, the Prime Minister's father published a book entitled Two Innocents in Red China. As a friend once said, an innocent is someone who is not smart enough to be guilty. That said, someone here is guilty, and feigning innocence as official policy is not going to help us figure out who it is.

1298 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

May/4/23 11:39:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. There are really two tones that I have heard in my time in the House. One tone seeks to get to the bottom of this and have a legitimate inquiry. The other is what I would call a quarrelsome, pugnacious and victim-blaming tone coming from the other side with respect to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who is of the utmost integrity in my view. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to comment on where he stands on all of this. Does he stand with being quarrelsome or with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

120 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/4/23 11:39:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that always depends on whom one wants to be quarrelsome with. I tend to be diplomatically inclined myself, but I do believe we need to seek the truth. I do not doubt the member's integrity in the least, but we need to seek the truth. We need to get to the bottom of this. Based on what we know, on what came out in The Globe and Mail, the member knew nothing about it. Is that so? I do not know. I am not in his head, and I did not have a camera at the scene, but one thing I know for sure is that we need answers from the government. We cannot just grasp at diversionary tactics and pass the buck back to the member in question. It is not appropriate for the very parties implicated to react with righteous indignation. As we say, enough already.

151 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

May/4/23 11:40:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. I would like to take this opportunity to express solidarity with my neighbour from Wellington—Halton Hills. He is my friend and a good member who embodies all that is best about the House. My colleague raised the issue of blame. He wonders who, in the circumstances, is to blame. I would like to say that the conversation we are having today relates to the safety and security of all Canadians. Our goal is not to find someone to blame, but to come up with a good way to reassure all Canadians moving forward about the safety and security of our country.

113 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/4/23 11:42:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that question from my colleague. His tone is much more appropriate for today's debate than some of the language we heard earlier from that side of the House. I welcome that. This matter relates to national security, and if interference has occurred, there must be human beings somewhere behind it. Someone is guilty of this. Yes, something happened, which is why this commission of inquiry is needed. I would be very surprised to learn that there is no one, anywhere, who has done anything. That is simply what I meant. I am not suggesting for a second that I could identify them myself today. I am not the investigator. However, we need a real investigation, and friends of the government must not be appointed to key positions.

135 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

May/4/23 11:42:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising in support of the hon. member in his search for truth. I would like to have the hon. member reflect on what he believes would be a reasonable approach should his family have been the target of the same type of intimidation and harassment. As a member of Parliament, what would be his expectation with respect to having protection and information from the government, so as not to have his privileges breached in the House?

80 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/4/23 11:43:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in this kind of situation, the bare minimum would have been to inform the member. Based on the information we have today, the member was not informed, despite some speculation. The minimum would have been to inform the member and offer him all the supports needed in this kind of situation. I must say, I would not sleep well knowing that the diplomat behind this is still safely ensconced in his position.

74 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 191