SoVote

May/4/23 12:00:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, the double standard is so frustrating. As members of Parliament, we are being told to stop being partisan and that we are hyperpartisan. What is happening on the other side? They are accusing the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for knowing about this for two years when that is not true. Can we all put the partisanship aside, actually work together and stand for this democracy?

74 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/4/23 12:01:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the Conservative Party needs to review what has taken place in the last number of question periods and then look in the mirror. There has been a politicization of the issue. If we were to stand up now and elaborate on those things, I think it is very disruptive to the member who just gave a speech. I would like to be able to start over and—

76 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:01:53 p.m.
Watch

All right. We are still on the point of order. I had said this would be the last point of order, but I will allow another. We could do this all day and not debate the bill. That is what we are falling into, by the looks of it. The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

56 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

May/4/23 12:02:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was referring to. If we rewind the tapes to earlier today, that specific member said that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had known for two years and he has done nothing about the issue. That is not true. That is misleading Canadians, and it is misleading this House. It is unconscionable that he is doing that. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

70 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:02:53 p.m.
Watch

Order. That’s enough. We are going to have one more round of this, and then we will move on to the questions and comments that we originally planned to do. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

40 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 12:03:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, the member from the NDP who spoke gave a very passionate speech about dialing back the partisanship on this. I would completely agree with her. I think that what we are trying to convey is that accusations that the Prime Minister has known about this for two years are completely false as well. If we listen to what is being said on both sides, in the interest of genuinely dialing back the partisanship on this, perhaps we can all start from a point of not making those assumptions.

91 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:03:58 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Oshawa.

5 words

Oshawa

Mr. Colin Carrie

May/4/23 12:04:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I need to bring my point of order forward. The member for Vancouver East just gave probably one of the most important speeches we will hear today. She spoke from her heart. I have to say that, in this House, I have known the member for Wellington—Halton Hills since 2004. He is honourable. Today, we are debating a government that has ignored this entire issue for two years. Chinese Canadians are being victimized and bullied by a government, and this member is blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Victim-blaming is totally unacceptable. We need to support our members, who are speaking from the heart. This is affecting them each and every day. They need to apologize for that outrageous behaviour.

127 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:05:32 p.m.
Watch

With the debate we are having today, I understand the passion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North was making a comment and was going to be asking a question. I do not know if the hon. member had finished. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

43 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/4/23 12:06:15 p.m.
Watch

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

97 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

May/4/23 12:06:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government should have initiated a completely independent public inquiry. It should have engaged all party leaders in the House to agree to a process and a commissioner, so there would be no question about who would be leading this work and the mandate related to it. There would need to be interim reporting of this work so we would put an end to it. All this bickering about who knew what, when, where, how, etc., could be investigated under a national inquiry so there would be no blaming this way, that way and the other way. In the meantime, what is absolutely essential as well, is for other work to be under way, which is why New Democrats support this motion. As an example, we support a foreign agent registry. We support fully that the police stations operated by the Communist Chinese government should be shut down. Equally important, there should be absolute accountability by those countries that are interfering with our democracy. There has to be accountability and measures taken to send a clear message that, no matter what country is attempting to do this, Canada will not tolerate it.

194 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/4/23 12:07:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by paying tribute to the speech that we all just heard in the House. These are words that we need to live by, not only through the debate during the course of today, but also in the coming weeks as we work through these issues. I want to pay tribute to the member for Vancouver East for what she has told us on the floor of the House today. I hope that we all listened. As members are well aware, last night I rose in the House on behalf of the NDP to reinforce the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. To my mind and New Democrats' minds, there is absolutely no doubt that what he raised as a question of privilege is a question of privilege, which should be moved in the House as quickly as possible. That, of course, is the Speaker's decision and prerogative. The NDP brought extensive additional material to the very eloquent question of privilege that was raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I certainly hope the speakership will make a decision in a timely way in this regard. There is no doubt that this debate needs to be heard on the floor of the House. As I mentioned last night, there is no doubt that it meets the criteria for a question of privilege. That, of course, is in the Speaker's purview and the Speaker's decision. I hope the decision will be made soon. As has already been said many times, the NDP supports today's motion. We support the four measures. The NDP has been pushing for such measures to be taken for a long time. As the member for Vancouver East just told us, this is not about Chinese interference alone. We believe it is absolutely fundamental to implement measures to address all foreign interference, whether it is from China, Russia, India or Iran. It is important to implement those measures. With respect to an independent public inquiry, the NDP moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that was debated. I will ask some questions about that a little later. The motion was debated and moved in the House. Members will recall that the NDP motion calling for an independent public inquiry to be launched immediately was adopted almost unanimously in the House. Only one party, the Liberal Party, did not vote in favour of the motion. I do not know why. The other opposition parties and the independent members all voted in favour of this important motion. As the member for Vancouver East just said so eloquently, it is important that this be put in place with the agreement of all the recognized parties in the House. It is one thing we could do together to strengthen our democracy and prevent this foreign interference from having any impact. If we stand together, if all members work together, if the government works with the opposition, if all the opposition parties work with the government, then we could come up with the answers that Canadians from all backgrounds are demanding. As the member for Vancouver East said very clearly, it is also important that these answers ensure that we can stand together as a country. It is important that we launch this inquiry. Now, I have no doubt that the special rapporteur will come to same conclusion in a few weeks because we cannot ignore the will of the vast majority of members of the House. Democracy counts. The decisions we make together count. The fact that the independent members and the members from the Green Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all voted the same way adds weight to the decision that should be made by the special rapporteur, as well as to the recommendations he will make in the next three weeks. There is no doubt that, with these recommendations, the government will have to jump into action and quickly launch this public inquiry. That is extremely important. I cannot add to the eloquence that the member for Vancouver East provided us with to reflect on in the House of Commons moving forward. We cannot be partisan about this. We cannot be pointing fingers. That is why the leader for the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, wrote to the Prime Minister this week asking the Prime Minister to bring together the four recognized party leaders to ensure we can put in place a strong foundation. The NDP has pushed for a national public inquiry. We believe it is vital at this point. We believe that all members of Parliament are operating with good faith on this issue. We understand that, if we start to snipe at each other, we are undermining our democratic systems and the values that are so dear to Canadians. We have to work together. That is the essence of the letter from the member for Burnaby South to the Prime Minister. We hope that will be promptly followed up on in the coming days. This is something that should concern all of us. It does concern all Canadians. By putting these measures in place, including a national public inquiry, we would end up providing the answers that Canadians need. As I mentioned, the question of privilege from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is a part of the debate that we need to have in the House. We have raised and supported the concerns about foreign interference from China. I do want to raise similar concerns, as CSIS has, about foreign interference coming from Russia. CSIS, in its latest report, states very clearly that Russian cyber-actors continue to pose a significant threat to Canada. We remember that, just a little over a year ago the convoy took over downtown Ottawa. It deprived the freedoms of so many residents of this area. Families were deprived of being able to sleep at night. Seniors were deprived of the freedom to get groceries delivered. People with disabilities were deprived of their freedom to get essential medication. As we know now, from the series of articles published in the National Observer, as well as many other analysis that were done, there was substantial foreign interference in providing supports to that convoy with all the results we have seen. It is clear that, when we talk about foreign interference, we need to be concerned about that too. We need to be concerned about the evidence of interference from the government of China. We need to be concerned about the evidence that points to interference from state actors with the Russian regime as well. There have been disturbing reports from the diaspora from India and Iran that those governments may be participating in foreign interference and putting pressure on Canadians with origins in those countries. They are trying to have an impact in our democratic system as well. These are profoundly disturbing allegations. We need to work together co-operatively with all members of the House of Commons and all parties. That starts with the meeting the member for Burnaby South has requested. It also starts with the government needing the recommendation to put in place a national, independent public inquiry into the issue of foreign interference. It also starts with us having a debate in the House today that is in keeping with the words from the member for Vancouver East indicating that we work together, that we work in solidarity, that we work to enhance our democratic system and that we work in a way that makes Canadians proud of the debate we are having in the House of Commons.

1296 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/4/23 12:17:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member's speech, I hope he will support this motion going forward. The member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kingston and the Islands, in the House this morning, said that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew about the harassment toward his family and himself through a briefing two years ago. I am a father of three kids. Do you think that anyone in the House who knew there were harassment allegations and foreign interference from a foreign country would not bring those allegations forward if they thought their family was in trouble or in danger? Do you agree that a member in the House would know about that and not bring it forward to the government after the CSIS briefing? Do you agree with the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kingston and the Islands that the member did not take his family's security seriously? Do you believe they should be victim blaming our member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

173 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:18:53 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the question but please make sure it is directed through the Chair. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

22 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/4/23 12:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are supporting the motion, in response to his first question. In response to his second question, I was not in the House for this exchange. I am not going to impugn any members for anything they might have said, particularly if I have not been there to witness it. I will say, as I stated at the outset, that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is an honourable member who has served his country in a remarkably effective way. His question of privilege, I believe, should be upheld by the speakership, although that is not in my hands. Any question of him being dishonourable I would strongly react to and say simply that this is not something that any member should be questioning in the House.

131 words

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

May/4/23 12:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to correct the record, what I have been saying is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills received a defensive briefing from CSIS. I do not know the content of what was said and I have not said that—

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:20:17 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/4/23 12:20:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member used the phrase “to correct the record”, to correct the record myself, the hon. member used the phrase “supposedly affected” in regard to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills today. He now has a chance to stand up and apologize.

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 12:20:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 12:20:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the context in which he is suggesting that I said that was different. I certainly would ask that the record reflect that I did not intend to suggest that it was “supposed”. If the member says it, I take the member's word for it. I do apologize if that is what the Conservatives have been hung up on. I have been saying all along that he received a defensive briefing. I do not know the content of it. We do not know the content of it, but we will take his word when he says that he knew nothing about this. My question is, if we should take his word that he knew nothing about it, and I do agree with that, should we not also take the word of the member for Papineau, who said that he was not briefed on this until last Monday?

151 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 191