SoVote

May/4/23 1:33:20 p.m.
Watch

We are going to descend into another major debate. How about we give the member a whole 59 seconds to respond?

21 words

May/4/23 1:33:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to say that I agree with the comments the member across the way made.

26 words

Rise

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:33:43 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor for one more minute and then I will move on to the next speaker.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/4/23 1:33:50 p.m.
Watch

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

105 words

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

May/4/23 1:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is also always a pleasure and an honour to speak in the House, although today I feel dismayed that I am having to give this speech. Obviously, people on this side of the House are quite angry. We are angry with what we have learned about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and what he has been through. As many others have said, I stand in solidarity with him. We stand in solidarity with him. I will commit to stand in solidarity with all members of the House, regardless of their party, if they suffer the same fate, even if it is the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg or the parliamentary secretary from Kingston and Islands, who have, in my view, with all due respect, belittled what that member has gone through with their comments today. I want to pick up where the member for Winnipeg North just left off. He said that the Prime Minister took this seriously. Let us delve into that just a little. I was not going to go down this path, but since he opened the door, let us step right through it. The Prime Minister does take this seriously, he says. I know that we, as Conservatives, take it seriously. I take it so seriously that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who I am sure takes it seriously as well. However, as the member just said, the Prime Minister took this seriously. Why then did nothing happen until a Globe and Mail story with various leaks occurred? Is that the action of a prime minister who takes this seriously, waiting for a leak, waiting for Bob Fife to report? That is what caused the government to act, and that is a government that takes it seriously. Forgive me if I am incredulous and question what I would characterize as a dubious assertion based on the fact that the government only took it seriously when it came to light that it was occurring. That is a government that was supposed to be transparent by default. It knew and did nothing until a newspaper leak came out, which is unacceptable, and then waited for weeks and weeks. The government put it off for weeks. The Liberals might ask why I am yelling. I am yelling because we should all be angry. We should all be angry by what the member for Vancouver East spoke about in her speech. We should all be angry about what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is going through. We should all be angry that this came to light simply because of a leak. It is not proactive, not transparency by default, but self-serving politics, the precise thing that we were promised would not occur. The member for Kingston and the Islands in his comments read from a 2013 memorandum or publication of some sort to point out what the Conservatives had not done. If it were such a big issue to the Liberals, why did they wait until 2023 to act? If they are going to trumpet what we did not do in 2013, and I do not recall a member of the House being threatened in the same way, if it was such a big deal then, why did they not act in the years between 2015 and 2023? Kenny Chiu lost his seat. All of us have worked so hard to be here. All of us give up time with our families. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has served this country in public service for 23 years in the House. I cannot imagine the sacrifices he has made. We have all made sacrifices to be here, because we believe in this, yet it is not honoured. Kenny Chiu, somebody who made sacrifices to sit in the House with the green carpet likely lost his seat, as did others, due to electoral interference, and it was not on the government's radar until a leak. The Liberals were prepared to look the other way until a leak happened, yet we are supposed to believe the government takes electoral interference seriously. As my colleague from the Green Party just said, “When is enough enough? When do we get an inquiry? When and at what threshold? Does another member of the House have to be targeted with intimidation, or three members? Does it have to be a Liberal member? Do there have to be actual consequences? I say this as somebody who, in a prior job and in this job, has seen criminal charges laid in respect of the work I do and the way people have dealt with me. When is enough enough? If we want to talk about past Liberals, I believe it was Jean Chrétien who said that only 10 or 15 ridings were affected, that it was no big deal. Yes, it is a big deal because people have put their lives on the line to sit in the House. They have given up and sacrificed so much to be here. If it is one person who does not sit in the House because somebody prevented it, that is unacceptable, and I will stand with my Liberal colleagues, my Green Party colleagues, my Bloc colleagues, my NDP colleagues and my Conservative colleagues in saying that. I touched on this very briefly, but I want to again recognize the member for Vancouver East for a very touching speech, speaking about racism. I have spoken about solidarity here. That is something on which we also have to stand in solidarity. I am a first-generation Canadian from a family that lived through fascism in Italy. We must all stand in solidarity. I was told when I arrived here that there was partisanship and that we all would go back and forth in the House. As a lawyer, I understand that because it happens in court as well. However, at the end of the day, when somebody needs something, we are all going to be there. This is the time for all of us to be there. What have we seen? We have seen a lack of action. The Conservative motion speaks for itself. What consequences have occurred as a result of something the government is not even denying happened? It is not even denying that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills went through this. Where are the consequences? I understand the foreign affairs minister appeared at committee this morning. I have not had a full briefing on what she said or reviewed her comments, but I really look forward to hearing from her, our highest diplomat, as to why nothing has occurred. I want to deal with some of the fallacious and ridiculous arguments that have been made, one of which was by the member for Winnipeg North, who said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years. The question is whether that member has brought it up with the member for Calgary Midnapore or any member of the Conservative caucus. Has he brought it up inside the chamber? Has he done anything on the issue?” With all due respect, it is not for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to do something. It is for the government to do something. It is for this chamber to do something. In fact, I will give the member my last 30 seconds if he is prepared to apologize for those comments. It does not look like he is prepared to apologize. They are shameful. It is absolutely shameful to say that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills should have done something. Another argument was that 49 people were briefed. What a terrible argument. The fact that 49 people were briefed means that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills should have been aware, or whatever that means. It is a terrible argument. Another argument was to blame Stephen Harper. That is one of my favourites. If we are to do that, we could go back to every prime minister, Liberal and Conservative, and ask why they did not do what we are doing in the House today. Things evolve. I do not recall this type of issue coming up with Prime Minister Harper. The last argument is that there is no need for an inquiry. Again, I go back to the hon. member when he said, “When is enough enough?”

1439 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/4/23 1:45:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his clear, accurate and glowing speech. What is happening right now with the Chinese interference is outrageous. The government is not telling us what is going on. The government is not being proactive. What is the government waiting for? When will it protect our democracy? We also need to protect our citizens, our people, our elected officials and ourselves. I would like my colleague to further explain the situation, which is unclear to the government.

88 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

May/4/23 1:45:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is not clear for the government. It seems to me that it is abundantly clear that there is a problem. There is such a problem and this government has governed by obfuscation. That is part of the problem. It would rather that we not know, and I bring this up again, that it said it will govern by transparency. The parliamentary secretary said that they have been clear with Canadians. No, they were clear with Canadians when they had a leak. For weeks, for instance, we also asked who stayed in that $6,000-a-night hotel room and did not get an answer. Nothing is clear with the government. To my hon. colleague, I do not know what it is waiting for. It certainly is not for transparency to knock on the door.

141 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/4/23 1:46:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. The Prime Minister found out on Monday. Maybe the member can share with us: do we have any sense in terms of—

32 words

Prime
Sense

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:46:53 p.m.
Watch

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/4/23 1:46:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when the member gave a speech, he asked the member to apologize. He made the point a few times. The member said some extremely egregious things about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has impugned the integrity of the House and of that member. What has he done? He has—

55 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:47:14 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

19 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/4/23 1:47:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question, in addressing the point of order, and ask the member this. Am I not accurate in saying that the member in question actually did get, I am told, not only one but multiple briefings? I suspect, like me, the member himself has no idea of what was actually the content of—

59 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:47:46 p.m.
Watch

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

14 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/4/23 1:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he is referencing the point of order. The fact of the matter is that if we are looking at that particular point, and there is something else that you should apologize for but, on a technicality, said it was not on the record, on that particular point, you said the Prime Minister had a briefing on Monday and then you said that the member got the same briefing two years ago. The member did not get the same briefing that the Prime Minister got, and then you put it on the member and asked—

97 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:48:18 p.m.
Watch

I need to remind folks to run it through the Chair and to not speak directly to the members. There is a reason why we have the Chair here. That is not a point of order but I know the member for Winnipeg North does want to respond to it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

56 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/4/23 1:48:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing. The question that I posed to the member was: Can he please correct me if I am wrong? They are accusing me of saying misinformation. Did I misquote, in any way, that the member did get a briefing?

77 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

May/4/23 1:49:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the member did misstate. I will invite him, with my last 15 seconds, to apologize. Here is what he said: “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years”. Let us see what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said this morning. I am holding up a press conference here. The briefing was general in nature and did not contain any specific threats concerning a person in Canada. I am paraphrasing next about the targeting of the hon. member and his family. He welcomed these briefings. I am paraphrasing again. The government knew about this two years ago and it did nothing. It did not tell him about this particular individual and it did not expel this particular individual. When the member says that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years, that is inaccurate. He received a general briefing. It is wrong that he knew what was actually occurring for two years, that he and his family were targeted. I invite the hon. member to apologize.

183 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/4/23 1:50:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with respect to what is happening, it is clear there is an ongoing tit-for-tat situation of she-said-he-said-they-said without getting into the central issue, which is to take partisanship out of this debate and for the Canadian government to make a course correction regarding the action that needs to be taken by putting in place an independent, public inquiry. Aside from the points in the motion, the other piece I am wondering about is this. Does the member agree that what is also important is for Canada to work with its allied countries to come up with a common strategy to deal with the threat of foreign interference by any country?

119 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

May/4/23 1:52:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%, yes.

6 words

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

May/4/23 1:52:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, some of the points I was going to make in my speech were just covered by the member from Kamloops. With respect to the debate we just had, the point is that during the debate this morning the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for Winnipeg North all alluded to the fact that it was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills who knew and did nothing. That is a form of victim abuse. That is not acceptable for this House and it pains me to see members of the government, parliamentary secretaries, building a narrative to discredit an hon. member of this chamber. It has to stop and they need to apologize today. The government is defensive. It is defensive for a very good reason. It goes back to the 2020 report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians covering their actions in 2019. Of particular interest is chapter 2 of this report, the government's response to foreign interference, which notes, I will add, that Canada's allies have identified interference as a significant threat and initiated various countermeasures. It reads,“foreign interference in Canada has received minimal media and academic coverage, and is not part of wider public discourse.” Things have changed since 2020. In their review of foreign interference activities, this non-partisan committee, which only issues reports if every member of the said committee agrees to them, had a number of findings. They read: F8. Some foreign states conduct sophisticated and pervasive foreign interference activities against Canada. Those activities pose a significant risk to national security, principally by undermining Canada's fundamental institutions and eroding the rights and freedoms of Canadians. (Paragraphs 136-175) F9. CSIS has consistently conducted investigations and provided advice to government on foreign interference. (Paragraphs 195-201) F10. Throughout the period under review, the interdepartmental coordination and collaboration on foreign interference was case-specific and ad hoc. Canada's ability to address foreign interference is limited by the absence of a holistic approach to consider relevant risks, appropriate tools and possible implications of responses to state behaviours. (Paragraphs 219-227 and 280-285) F11. Foreign interference has received historically less attention in Canada than other national security threats. This is beginning to change with the government's nascent focus on "hostile state activities." Nonetheless, the security and intelligence community's approach to addressing the threat is still marked by a number of conditions: There are significant differences in how individual security and intelligence organizations interpret the gravity and prevalence of the threat, and prioritize their resources. (Paragraphs 276-279) In determining the measures the government may use to address instances of foreign interference, responses address specific activities and not patterns of behaviour. F12. Government engagement on foreign interference has been limited. With the exception of CSIS outreach activities, the government's interaction with subnational levels of government and civil society on foreign interference is minimal. (Paragraphs 256-267) Engagement is limited in part by the lack of security-cleared individuals at the subnational level. (Paragraph 261) There is no public foreign interference strategy or public report similar to those developed for terrorism or cyber security. (Paragraphs 289-291) I could go on but my time is limited today. The committee made a number of recommendations on actions that the government could take to combat foreign interference, and yet none of those have been taken today. We have still not seen a foreign registry tabled in this Parliament and we have still not seen real action by the government. The only reason we are seeing any action today is because of Robert Fife in The Globe and Mail. Recommendation five in the committee's report reads: R5. The Government of Canada develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign interference and build institutional and public resiliency. Drawing from the Committee's review and findings, such a strategy should: a. identify the short- and long-term risks and harms to Canadian institutions and rights and freedoms posed by the threat of foreign interference; b. examine and address the full range of institutional vulnerabilities targeted by hostile foreign states, including areas expressly omitted in the Committee's review; c. assess the adequacy of existing legislation that deals with foreign interference, such as the Security of Information Act or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and make proposals for changes if required; d. develop practical, whole-of-government operational and policy mechanisms to identify and respond to the activities of hostile states; e. establish regular mechanisms to work with sub-national levels of government... f. include an approach for ministers and senior officials to engage with fundamental institutions and the public; and g. guide cooperation with allies on foreign interference. The next point is that the Government of Canada “support this comprehensive strategy through sustained central leadership” and review of legislation. To conclude, the government has done nothing outlined in the 2020 report. The only reason we are here today and the only reason the Conservative Party has brought this motion forward is to establish a foreign agent registry, to establish a national public inquiry, and to close down the People's Republic of China's police offices in Canada. What is happening to our sovereignty? I will state this emotional appeal.

892 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 191