SoVote

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

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:58:39 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. deputy House leader.

12 words

Deputy

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/4/23 1:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member opposite is passionate. However, for the sake of the interpreters, I would ask that he not scream.

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/4/23 1:58:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

10 words

Mr. Brad Vis

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

Mr. Speaker, I will lower my voice, but the passion with which I speak today is because I am scared that our sovereignty is at stake, that the government has been negligent in its responsibilities to Canada and that the country I knew as a young man is not the country of today. I can remember that in the early 2000s it was big national news when members of the American government, the FBI, came to Canada. Canada was upset, yet we stand negligent today when a foreign dictatorship that does not have the interests of Canada at heart establishes a police office in our country. The government has been defensive. We need to vote with the official opposition and take immediate actions to rectify the grave and serious problems the government has caused in our country.

137 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

May/4/23 2:00:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Dutch Heritage Day is celebrated annually in Canada on May 5 to recognize and honour the contributions made by the Dutch community to Canadian society. It coincides with the anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands by Canada during World War II, a day my own mother remembers well, as she and her family were there. They came to Canada on the first ship after the war: my grandmother and her six children, with the seventh on the way. They moved to Owen Sound, where they re-established the dairy farm they had left behind in Holland, maintaining the connection to agriculture that informs my own role on the agriculture committee today. I was delighted to meet with the Dutch ambassador to Canada, Her Excellency Ines Coppoolse, on Tuesday at an event hosted by the Speaker of the House. She spoke passionately about the many areas of shared values and co-operation, from security and agriculture innovation to respect for freedom of the press and technological advancements. I was also able to meet with members of the Liberal Party of Holland during the meetings of Liberal International in Ottawa over the last two days. It was a great opportunity to see so many of my colleagues celebrating Holland. The Dutch community in Canada is one of the largest and most well-established immigrant communities in the country. I am proud to be of Dutch descent. I thank all Canadians of Dutch descent, especially my mother and her family and those of Dutch descent living in my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, for all they have done and for the Dutch treats like stroopwafel, pannenkoek and oliebollen.

282 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 191