SoVote

May/4/23 3:31:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, on the same point of order.

15 words

May/4/23 3:31:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is only my second term and I have not even been here four years yet, so I would like to ask you a question. Throughout question period, the Conservative Party rightly asked members who had just spoken to apologize. Question period is now over and those members, who did not stand up once during question period, are suddenly apologizing now that everyone else has left. I want to know how this works. Should the members have answered those questions during question period rather than waiting for all the reporters to leave before answering them?

98 words

The Speaker

May/4/23 3:31:45 p.m.
Watch

That is getting into debate. I would like to remind the member that the House is always full of people who are working. The hon. opposition whip is rising on the same point of order.

35 words

Whip

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

May/4/23 3:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, I have the quotation from earlier today by the member for Winnipeg North, and he said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years.” Then he went on to accuse the member of doing nothing about these threats. We are not talking about the briefing this week, the one the Prime Minister and the member had. We are talking about not just a suggestion but an assertion that the member has had information about the threats to his family for two years, which is false, and has done nothing about them. He was blaming the victim. There should be a proper apology, and that was not it.

117 words

The Speaker

May/4/23 3:32:51 p.m.
Watch

I was not here; there was another person in the chair. We will take a look and see what the scripts are, because this is turning into a “he said, she said”. I want to make sure we have everything down and that Hansard is in place, and I will come back to the chamber should I see fit.

61 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/4/23 3:33:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday afternoon after question period, and as part of the routine aspects of things, the Conservatives are looking forward to the rest of the week, which is actually just this afternoon as the House is adjourned tomorrow. We are anxious to know what legislation and what details will be brought forward by the government so we can be ready to hold it to account.

68 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/4/23 3:33:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-42 Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the other side for the question and the opportunity to illuminate the government's agenda for the coming week. On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. On Tuesday morning, we will call Bill C-42 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act and then return to debate on Bill S-5 in the afternoon. On Wednesday and Friday, we will call Bill C-13, an act for substantive equity of Canada's official languages. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, May 11, shall be an allotted day.

111 words

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

May/4/23 3:34:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to speak to this motion. I want to say from the outset that I have the utmost respect for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. As a matter of fact, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is the only Conservative member of the House, over the last eight years, whom I have had the pleasure of going out to dinner with alone to talk about issues that we are both passionate about. I have always regarded the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as one of the most progressive voices on the other side of the House. In fairness, the bar has been set pretty low, but nonetheless, I have always had the utmost respect for him. I sincerely apologize for the manner in which this debate got kicked off this morning. I should have perhaps chosen my words a little more closely. I have since apologized for that, but I think it is very important to reflect on what we are actually experiencing here. We see the Conservatives, routinely, day after day, get up and directly and indirectly accuse the Prime Minister of Canada of lying. They have said so many times in this debate alone that the Prime Minister of Canada and the government have known about this particular incident with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for two years. They are saying it now. They are heckling about it now. Why I find this to be so incredibly amazing is that, on the one hand, we all believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when he says he was not briefed on this specific matter, yet we will not afford that same luxury of belief to the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister of Canada, when he says the same thing. I cannot help but wonder where all the outrage is in the House when the Prime Minister of Canada says he did not know until Monday and, time after time, the Conservatives will get up and say, well, yes, he did know and he is lying to us. That is the double standard around here that I am having such an incredible time wrapping my head around. I believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I will get to my previous comments, but I also believe the member for Papineau, because they are both honourable members who come before the House. I think anybody who comes in here and cries bloody foul over the idea that we have to trust every member at their word, as they are honourable, but then chooses who exactly they are going to accept that from is disingenuous at best. I think it is important to go back and reflect. What I said earlier in this debate is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, along with 47 other members of Parliament, in 2022 alone, although for him it may have been in 2021, received defensive briefings from CSIS. Of course, we do not know what the content of those briefings was. We do not know exactly what was said, but we do know generally speaking what a defensive briefing is. A defensive briefing is basically CSIS coming to a member of Parliament and saying that it wants to give the heads-up that they are person of interest who should be watching out for certain things. They are given some tips on how to handle this and on the things they should be looking out for, and are asked to inform CSIS when things happen. We know the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and 48 other members in 2022 alone received that particular briefing. When the member for Wellington—Halton Hills says that he did not learn about these specific threats, I believe that. All I am trying to say is that we have to understand that these particular briefings occur on an ongoing basis. To come to the conclusion that they are one-offs is not the reality, because the CSIS report indicated that in the 2022 report. The other thing that I am having a very hard time with is the general assertion from the other side of the House that the government has done nothing as it relates to foreign interference. That is completely and utterly untrue. I will read the second half of what I read earlier in a question, because I think it is the most important part. It is from a 2013 CSIS report, the same one as the 2022 version from CSIS, the public report. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, who at the time was the minister of democratic reform, received that briefing, which said: As boundaries between foreign state and non-state actors become increasingly blurred, it is particularly challenging for intelligence services to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate activities. Foreign interference in Canadian society—as a residual aspect of global or regional political and social conflicts, or divergent strategic and economic objectives—will continue in the coming years. The member for Carleton, when he was minister of democratic reform, received this briefing in 2013 and did absolutely nothing about it. For the two more years the Conservatives remained in government, they did not act on this. As a matter of fact, shortly after we came along in 2015, we brought in a bill to tighten up the rules around funding with respect to foreign interference. Do members know who voted against it? It was the Conservatives. The Conservatives voted against Bill C-76, a bill that would specifically strengthen our ability to control foreign interference. We have done a whole host of things in addition to that. We established NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. There are Liberal, Bloc and NDP members, as well as Conservative members when they choose to show up and not boycott the committee, who sit on this committee. They are sworn to secrecy and receive the most sensitive information, not only for this country but indeed for our allies around the world. They have the political oversight and accountability to assess information and make recommendations to CSIS and the government on how to act on it. By the way, it is a credible tool that the United Kingdom and other Westminster parliamentary systems have, and we adopted it. What else did we do? We brought in a special advisory panel that is activated during the writ process of an election, while everybody in this House and other candidates are running around the country trying to sell themselves and their political parties as the best choice. We do not have the time or capacity in those circumstances to act as a caretaker to watch over our democracy at that most important time, the time when an election is happening. That committee is made up of experts who are charged with reacting in real time to what is happening. It is something the Conservatives have criticized as being an almost useless tool. These people are watching our elections in real time to make sure they are not being interfered with by foreign state or non-state actors. The Conservatives have come here and said we have done nothing, when the record clearly shows they knew about this from CSIS in 2013 and did nothing about it for two years. We came along in 2015 and have implemented policies and legislation time after time since then to strengthen our ability to control foreign interference as it relates to our democracy. It is completely unfair for the Conservatives to be making their assertions and they should know better. I will now get to the motion we are talking about today. I will be honest with members. Of the four asks in this motion, there are three I do not see a problem with. One is to create a foreign agent registry, similar to those in Australia and the United States. We announced months ago that this is already in process; it is already happening. I will get to the public inquiry in a second. Another one is to close down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China and operating in Canada. Of course, the RCMP is going to be seized with that and will do everything it can there. There is only one respected police authority in each jurisdiction in this country: the RCMP federally; the provincial police, where applicable, or the RCMP as charged by the provincial governments; and the local police. Those are the only police authorities the government or any member of Parliament, regardless of the rhetoric, will ever accept, and we of course will do whatever necessary to ensure that illegal police stations and operations like these are shut down immediately. Of course, the motion would expel all of the People's Republic of China's diplomats responsible for and involved in the affronts to Canadian democracy. As indicated today by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, she is absolutely willing to do that where it is deemed necessary. There is obviously a process in place to do that. She has already summoned the ambassador of China regarding this issue, so I do not have an issue with that either. I think, as appropriate, that absolutely has to happen. The part I have a problem with, which I feel is the most political, is the call for the public inquiry. I will be honest. I am on the PROC committee, and when this first came before the committee, I thought to myself that it made sense. A public inquiry would shine sunlight on this issue. Why would we not do that? Unfortunately, this is not what we heard from the experts who came before the committee, whether it was those from CSIS, the national security experts, or the head of the RCMP. Everybody told us that we were dealing with extremely classified information. There was no way we could release that information to the public, and not just because of the effect it would have domestically. Can members imagine how our Five Eyes partners would feel if they realized we were sharing this sensitive information? We would be the laughing stock of the international community. They could never trust us with that information. We would be ostracized from the international community if we were to try to release that information. It became very clear to those who were sitting on the committee, and those who were interested in hearing the expert advice, that a public inquiry is not the place for this sensitive information to be discussed. Rather, we were told it should be discussed in NSICOP, which is the parliamentarian committee that is established for this. What I found to be the most interesting out of all of that, when this discussion was happening, was that the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, was told by the media that the government offered to give him a briefing, but he would have to be sworn into secrecy. He was asked if he would be willing to take that briefing. He said he did not want to know the information if he could not go talk about it. All that matters to the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, is to grandstand and get out there to politicize every single issue he can get his hands on. As such, the member for Carleton is not interested in receiving highly classified information, even if it is for the betterment of the country. He is not interested in that because it would serve absolutely zero political gain for him. That, I think, is what Canadians should be reflecting on. As I come to the conclusion of my speech, I want to say that there is great opportunity here for the House to work together. I understand there is a difference of opinion, when it comes to the public inquiry. I am going to respect whatever David Johnston, the former governor general, recommends to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister already said that we would accept his advice. If David Johnston says a public inquiry is the best way to go, we will do that. However, I find it very troubling that members, primarily Conservatives, are railing against a former governor general who is so highly respected throughout this country. They talk about him as though he is a Liberal insider or something. He was a governor general who was appointed by Stephen Harper. The Conservatives should think about that. They will stop at nothing. They are on a crusade to take down absolutely everybody, as long as it gives them a tiny bit of political gain. They would take an ounce of political gain at the expense of ruining somebody's reputation, if the opportunity presents itself to them, and they do it time after time after time. We have an opportunity to work together to do something about foreign interference. I respect the debate between a public inquiry versus an inquiry that is not public. It is a debate that I respect. It is an issue I have found myself on both sides of, at times, and I hope we can have meaningful debates about how we can genuinely affect the security of our democracy. It is absolutely imperative. It is not something we should be playing politics with. I will take responsibility for the way this debate started off today. I feel as though I contributed to that manner, and I apologize for that, but I really hope that, when this settles down, we can all focus on what is really important, and that is protecting the democracy we all hold so dearly.

2298 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/4/23 3:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the apology from my colleague across the way. Blaming the member on this side for the harassment he received at the hands of a diplomat was wrong, and I appreciate that very much. I listened to the member's speech intently, and there is something we agree on, as I want to find some common ground, which is that the foreign, Chinese-run police stations should be shut down. There are still two in operation, as we heard from the public safety minister, and the member said they should be shut down immediately. My definition of “immediately” is as soon as— An hon. member: Right now. Mr. Warren Steinley: Yes, it is right now. Madam Speaker, will the member stand with me to ask the minister to shut these down before the weekend? They should be shut down before the weekend. Will he stand with me, talk to his minister and put his name on the line to say that they should be shut down this weekend?

174 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 3:50:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the details of the operations that are apparently still ongoing, but I have great confidence in the RCMP to do its job. The RCMP has been charged by the government and, indeed, all Canadians. The RCMP walks the hall of Parliament. That is a pretty big deal. Only about five years ago, it did not. The RCMP was not even allowed in this building, if we remember correctly. We have great faith in the RCMP and its ability to protect Canadians, and I have no doubt that the RCMP is doing and will do whatever is necessary to combat not just this, but all illegal activity, in particular, as it comes from foreign actors.

121 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/4/23 3:51:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was really pleased to hear our colleague indicate that he supports three of the four points dealing with foreign interference, particularly the idea of expelling diplomats involved in interference. Kudos to him. After the crazy week we have had, considering all the revelations and information we have heard, does he really believe that there was no interference by a Chinese diplomat?

64 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 3:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not say that I do not believe that. I did not say that, but I respect the rule of law and the manner in which we take information, assess it and then determine how to act on it. I respect the agencies that are charged with the ability and the requirement to exercise that. It is interesting how the Speaker, at the end of question period, said this was turning into a “nuthouse”. Politicians are not the police. Politicians do not investigate issues. We charge our agencies with the responsibility to do that. and if necessary, they will act on that, but it is certainly not going to come, in my opinion, from one or two reports put out by the Globe and Mail. This is all information. There is a difference between an accusation and evidence, and it is very important for members of the House to wrap their heads around the difference between the two because they are not the same.

169 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/4/23 3:53:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record that both my colleague from Kitchener Centre and I will be voting for the motion before the House today, and we would wish for Liberal members do so too. I want to make it very clear that, in voting for the motion before us, I am not saying in any way, shape or form that I do not believe the Prime Minister. Without evidence to the contrary, I absolutely take the Prime Minister at his word that CSIS did not brief him. When I am asked if I trust the RCMP or CSIS, I say that I would be a fool to do so. The RCMP, we know, is the only agency proven to have interfered in a Canadian election and changed the result from a Liberal win to a Conservative win in 2005. We also know that CSIS is not exactly reliable. It allowed trumped-up charges against Maher Arar and continued to defend them past the point that it knew the charges were a lie and that they were covering up for the false arrest, imprisonment and torture of a Canadian citizen. I will never blindly trust any agency. I want civilian oversight all the time, and that is why I support an inquiry into this matter. We need to make sure that we know that we do not have vulnerability as Canadians to any form of interference, whether the state police, CSIS or China.

246 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 3:54:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we do have that oversight. It is through NSIRA and NSICOP. We have a committee of parliamentarians that has been specifically given the responsibility to have that oversight. However, when it comes to executing the laws that we have, parliamentarians do not execute laws. We make the laws. We create the laws that we then charge our agencies to deliver. Do we need to have oversight on that? We absolutely do, and that is what we do. We have oversight on what goes on, and we do that through the two organizations I just mentioned: NSIRA and NSICOP.

100 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/4/23 3:55:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not want to preach to anyone, but when I look at question period over the past two weeks, when I hear my colleague say that he agrees with expelling diplomats, and considering that we have reached the point where we are talking about CSIS leaking information, I think the Chinese must be laughing at us. It seems to me that this whole mess could have been avoided if the government had done its due diligence. This whole scenario that has been going on for the past two weeks in the House of Commons and which I do not find particularly edifying could have been avoided. Why did the government not make a decision faster, and why do we need a motion to make it happen?

129 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 3:56:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is what we did right after we were elected. We established NSICOP to have that oversight. The member is suggesting, just based on question period alone over the last two weeks, that we should start expelling people. We are not going to expel people based on the questions asked and answers given in the House.

58 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/4/23 3:56:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke in his speech about the partisan nature of the leader of the official opposition. He talked about when the leader of the official opposition was the democratic reform minister, and when he received briefings about foreign interference, he did nothing. The member spoke about how the leader of the official opposition is refusing to have a national security briefing now. In addition to that, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs also raised the point that the Leader of the Opposition, as minister, did nothing to deal with foreign interference, saying that it was not in their partisan interest to do so. Does the member think that brings confidence to the non-partisan nature that we need to have when it involves foreign interference?

127 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 3:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it does not. It is not about one individual or one political party. It is about the fundamental idea and the fundamental role of democracy in our country. We will all be gone from here one day, but we have a responsibility to make sure that we protect democracy while we are here so that it can benefit generations of politicians and Canadians to come in the future. When we start making comments, just like the Leader of the Opposition did when he said that he was not interested because it had nothing to do with the Conservatives' political party, it is just completely offside. It is a complete misunderstanding of why democracy is so important to uphold and protect. It is not for any one individual but for the collective of all of us.

137 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/4/23 3:58:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I do not understand about this member's speech and the actions of the government is that we do have this information now. This information should have gone to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills sooner, certainly, but we have this information now. Why on earth would the government not expel the diplomat responsible for this? It is so easy to do. It does not even require the government to provide a reason. It can just do it, so why will it not do it?

89 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 3:59:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we have are accusations and information. CSIS gathers that information, and its officials determine at what point it reaches a certain threshold to involve and advise different levels of government. They advise what to do in certain circumstances based on meeting or not meeting various thresholds. If we have a problem with that, then our job as lawmakers is to change the law to make modifications, just as the Prime Minister did when he learned about this. The Prime Minister was shocked about it. He said that, from now on, he wants to know about anything that has to do with any MP.

106 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 191