SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 191 - May/4/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 4:42:58 p.m.
Watch

May I remind the hon. member that the Speaker addressed that issue right after question period. We will resume—

20 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/4/23 4:43:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was not aware of that. Could we reset the time and I will ask another question?

24 words

Reset
Time

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 4:43:17 p.m.
Watch

Yes, please, from the top.

5 words

Top
Yes

Mr. Brad Vis

May/4/23 4:43:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier today in my speech, I referenced the report that was tabled on March 12, 2020, from NSICOP. It said that the Government of Canada should have established a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign interference. Why, after three years, have we seen no action from the government to take these critical steps to uphold Canadian sovereignty? Why do the Liberals continue to allow an illegal police station to operate in a Canadian city?

75 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/4/23 4:43:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, in beautiful British Columbia, for the very important question and for his participation in the debate today. I am very happy that our government has launched consultations to set up a foreign agent registry. We need to be judicious and diligent on the foreign agent registry. As I have said before in this House and publicly, I am in favour of a foreign agent registry modelled after those of other countries. We should obviously undertake to adopt best practices. That is what we are doing. We are consulting with our partners and with various parties, and that is the direction we should be going in.

122 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/4/23 4:44:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after hearing about Chinese police stations, interference attempts at universities and everything else, I wonder if my colleague is prepared to understand or actually accept the fact that there are regimes in this world that are ideologically and philosophically opposed to democracy and that the current Chinese regime is one of those regimes. Does my colleague agree with me that the Chinese regime is hostile to democracy?

70 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/4/23 4:45:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very important. We must always stand for and uphold our Canadian values of human rights, minority rights and democracy. We must also always stand against any foreign actors that go against the values of democracy, human rights and minority rights. As for our relationship with countries around the world, we must co-operate with many countries, we must challenge them when they do not fit our values and we must compete against them. That is what we have said in the past with regard to the relationship with the People's Republic of China and the Chinese government. We must compete with them and co-operate with them, but we must also challenge them when their values do not align with Canadian values.

135 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/4/23 4:45:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to paraphrase an expression to avoid using unparliamentary language. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. There is something here that looks a lot like foreign interference, and the facts are piling up. After everything we have learned in the last few weeks, should there not be an independent, transparent inquiry to shed light on foreign interference? We need to restore the public's confidence in democracy, our institutions, the Prime Minister's Office and our security services.

98 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/4/23 4:46:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very important. As to whether there should be a public inquiry or not, an individual who is held in very high esteem will be making that determination and the determination on a number of recommendations the government will follow. I look forward to seeing those recommendations. What we need to ensure is that all Canadians, the almost 40 million of us, have confidence in our electoral system, that there is no election interference and that we understand that in the world we live in, we must deal with foreign actors who do not have the best intentions here in Canada and in other parts of the world.

118 words

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

May/4/23 4:47:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to read article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations into the record. It states: The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. I would ask my colleague who sits on the government benches this: If setting up illegal police stations on Canadian soil or attacking or targeting a member of this House does not meet the threshold, what does meet the threshold to be able to kick someone out of our country?

122 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/4/23 4:48:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issues and matters in front of the government and all members of this House are of very important, even critically important consideration. Obviously, whatever decisions are made will meet the proper threshold. I am not privy to all the information regarding what has transpired, so for me to opine on that would be—

57 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 4:48:35 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

9 words

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

May/4/23 4:48:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for setting me up. I can hardly wait to hear what I have to say. I was literally sitting here wondering what I could contribute to this debate. One of the hon. members talked about the chaos in this chamber. It is true. Question period was chaotic, and I have never seen the Speaker quite so animated or so angry. We have all contributed to the chaos that is here. I actually wonder what Beijing thinks. In some respects, Beijing is having a good day, because we are fighting among ourselves. However, I have some confidence in colleagues that we can actually come to some point of resolution not only on the motion but also on the way in which we face the existential threat to the nation of Canada that is the government of China. I think it is a fair observation that, as a nation, we have never faced such a threat from another nation. Another government wishes to turn us into a vassal, subservient state, a state where the belt and road literally apply to us. All roads lead to Beijing, and the belt is for our neck. That is the ultimate goal of the government of Beijing; stirring up chaos in our country is the technique. Part of me regrets participating in this debate, because in some manner, I am contributing to that chaos. As I said, I am rather hoping that by the end of the day, we may have some resolution or may at least be starting to move toward some resolution on how to deal with this existential threat. I had the privilege of travelling to Taiwan with the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills a couple of weeks ago. I regard that member as a friend. I think that may be one of the first things that we could deal with. We are a little too partisan here. There are not many on that side who can say they have friends on this side, and there are not many on this side who can say that they have friends on that side. However, I do regard the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills as a friend. As a consequence of travelling with him in a delegation of 10 to Taiwan, all senior members of four parties, we had what I regard as an exemplary way in which Canadian parliamentarians can do good diplomacy and actually move the yardsticks in a serious area of diplomacy. The hon. member and I, and other members of the delegation, I am sure, discussed the last election. Obviously, we did not get as far as some of the material that has come out in the last little while, but he was aware at the time that there were people who, strangely, were part of public events for him. We all live in a political environment. There are times when I do not know who is supporting me. I do not even know who is not supporting me. Sometimes, there are a lot of people who are not supporting me. That does not happen to anybody else, of course. The point I want to make about the unanimity that is required in order to face this existential threat and to move our diplomatic interests forward is that we based part of our time in Taiwan on a unanimous report generated by the Canada-China committee. There are times when reports of committees hit the floor of the House and that is it. We never hear about them again. Interestingly, we took this report to Taiwan, and it was literally presented to the president by the chair of the committee. I will not say that she clutched it, but it was not too far from that. It was a show of unanimity by this Parliament and these parliamentarians, as well as a friendship to a government that is literally under an existential threat. When we arrived, there were warplanes overhead, and there were warships surrounding the island. We all concluded that, frankly, one could learn a lot from the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese people in terms of how to respond to existential threats by the People's Republic of China. That is the first point I want to make. We do, for the sake of our nation, need to come to ground on the way in which we respond to misinformation, disinformation, interference and intimidation. One of the points that comes up in the motion is the issue of police stations. There is one in my community. From all reports that we can gather in the public domain, it is an intimidation operation run from local Chinese diplomatic authorities, and it affects the diaspora community in ways that we probably cannot even imagine. In that respect, I think the motion has merit. However, I would just point out to colleagues that if we are to have integrity ourselves, then we also need to let the police move as police move, which is basically on the basis of evidence. As much as I would like to light a fire under police authorities in my community, or the RCMP, as the case may be, using the rule of law is the way we operate in this country. I do not think that we should deviate from the rule of law and the way in which we prosecute, even if we are virtually unanimous in our view that these police stations need to be shut down. The other area in which I agree is the foreign agent registry. I think we are moving forward on that. The minister is moving forward. I do not know if it is the be-all and end-all, but I think it is a useful thing to do. Other nations have adopted it. I just take note that the same Canada-China committee has adopted a motion that calls for the Government of Canada to prioritize the introduction of legislation to establish a foreign agent registry. Interestingly, that was a Liberal motion. I hope that I have contributed to the conversation here today.

1030 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/4/23 4:58:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that there is an illegal Beijing police station operating in his riding. I presume that he has brought that to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety. Last week, when the minister appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee, he repeatedly claimed that the RCMP had shut down all illegal police stations. That is not true. Either the minister does not know what is going on or he intentionally misled the committee. Does the hon. member have concerns about that, and did he alert the minister to the illegal police station in his riding?

102 words

Hon. John McKay

May/4/23 4:59:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was not in my riding; it was in my community. Having said that, I had received assurances from the minister, as it is of concern, that the one in Scarborough has been dealt with. As far as I know, that is true.

45 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/4/23 4:59:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not every day that we hear members waxing existential or philosophical. Unfortunately, that does not happen often enough in the House. All of that raises the question of why. Why are we here? Why are we taking action? Rather than reducing the question to a vague “how-to”, I want to ask the member the following. Does he not believe that today's Conservative motion is an excellent opportunity to think about the reason for our action and to turn the chaos that I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the Chinese ideogram into an opportunity to reclaim control over our destiny?

109 words

Hon. John McKay

May/4/23 5:00:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, which is a good one: Why are we here? The larger answer is that we as a nation, we as parliamentarians and even we as a government are flummoxed by how to deal with the way in which China intervenes routinely, regularly and massively in the fabric of our society. We have never, ever in the history of our nation faced such a threat. That is why we are here. I want to stress how important this motion is and it is symptomatic of our somewhat chaotic response to the threat to our democracy. Again, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have asked myself “why?” a few times myself.

123 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/4/23 5:01:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was one of the members who travelled with my colleague to Taiwan on that recent trip. My concern now as we go forward is, how we deal with this perception by Canadians, and real perception, that our democracy is at risk, that our institutions are under attack and that Canadians are being threatened. When we hear things like the member just said, that there was a police station in his riding and he does not know what happened but he has been told it has been dealt with, it does not seem like that is the way that we are going to give Canadians confidence that this has actually been accurately taken care of. From my understanding, no one has been charged, there have been no arrests and nothing has been done. I wonder what the member would suggest we do in order to rebuild confidence in our institutions, in order to rebuild confidence in our democracy and in order for Canadians of backgrounds from a variety of different countries to feel safe in our country again.

180 words

Hon. John McKay

May/4/23 5:02:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's contribution to our delegation in Taiwan. The short answer is that I do not know how to answer the question. I know that is strange in this place. Everybody answers the questions and even answers questions that are not asked. It is kind of trite, but true. We are at a bit of an inflection point on how to move forward democratically. I was asked by the press yesterday how I would conduct a future election and I now have to think about that. I now have to think about who is supporting me, who is contributing—

106 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 5:03:48 p.m.
Watch

We will leave it at those questions. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

18 words