SoVote

May/8/23 4:17:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we stand together. Solidarity is an interesting word. It comes from the word “solid”, so it has to be strong. Solidarity means standing united to achieve a common goal. I think that we need to determine what this common goal is, what protecting democracy means. When one person is targeted, everyone is targeted. Last week, a shiver went down my spine when I read the word “MPs” in The Globe and Mail. That cannot be tolerated. I think that the initial reaction reported here, that of not believing the victim, at the time the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, is not only hurtful, but an assassination of his character.

120 words

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

May/8/23 4:18:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have heard through a CSIS report that this is about not only one but a number of MPs. In fact, in 2022, there were 49 members of Parliament, many members of provincial legislatures and even city council members. We also understand that it is not only one country; it is a number of different countries. Would my colleague across the way agree that it is the broader picture of foreign interference that we need to look at, that it is not just one isolated case and that this is indeed what the priority should be?

98 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/8/23 4:18:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly seeing a fundamental shift when it comes to foreign interference. China, Russia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates are involved. A number of countries today have new tools that they are using for nefarious purposes. However, today's debate is about China. We have reason to believe that it has a slightly different strategy. Russia tends to carry out brutal attacks, but China thinks in terms of generations. China has had a presence in Canada for some time. The Chinese police stations have been operating for some time. They did not just materialize overnight. I think we need to start trying to understand. Experts on China tell us that it is a bit like erosion. Say I see a river when I am young. Fifteen years later, it will have eroded, yet I walked by it every day and did not see the erosion happening. Erosion is a silent transformation. Right now we are seeing the result of the silent transformation that we failed to see, failed to monitor or did not want to see, as the case may be. There has been a transformation, and we need to acknowledge it. The global landscape has changed.

201 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/8/23 4:20:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. He is inspiring. He has a lot to teach us, and he is an excellent teacher. I hope that the government will be inspired by his constructive comments. China's interference is in the spotlight. Last week, we found out that a member was threatened almost three years ago. It took three years for the government to make a decision. I would like to hear the opinion of my colleague from Trois-Rivières. What should the government do to secure public trust in our institutions and in a healthy democracy in our society?

113 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/8/23 4:21:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and congratulate him for his work on French-language science. Raphaël Glucksmann, chair of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics the other day and told us that the special committee held 300 meetings on foreign interference, that it put forward numerous options, and that it did nothing. He warned us not to make the same mistake. I think that it is important to take note of this, to start working in the House and in committee and to do something, because doing nothing is not an option.

128 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

May/8/23 4:21:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, we had a debate on this important issue. Of course, we had a vote today and the vote passed. However, what was most striking was not the vote. It was actually the first 15 minutes of the debate on Thursday, when it was very clear that Liberal members were going to mock and condescend their way through that debate to discredit the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Specifically, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the member for Winnipeg North, made a comment when heckling. He said the member is not credible when talking about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We heard the member for Kingston and the Islands reference—

119 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:22:36 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

13 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/23 4:22:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the Speaker in the chair at the time indicated that she would look into this and report back to the House. To continue with misinformation on such a sensitive issue does a disservice. The member should be waiting until the Speaker comes back with his ruling on the very issue the member raises.

61 words

Ruling
Issue

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:23:04 p.m.
Watch

On the same point of order, we have the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

15 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/8/23 4:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way has been asked numerous times to apologize for slagging the integrity of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has not done it yet. I will give him the opportunity one more time to apologize. He should do it.

47 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:23:22 p.m.
Watch

This is descending into debate once again. It seems like it is the same thing. We keep falling into debate. I know that the Speaker was thinking of coming back with something on this. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

41 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/8/23 4:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member sitting in that spot, with three other members from the Liberal Party, was laughing and mocking our Speaker at the time. I was sitting close enough to hear him very easily—

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:23:49 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/23 4:23:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is now imputing my motives, as if I was mocking the Speaker of the House on Thursday. That is false and wrong, and the member is doing a disservice to, and showing a lack of respect for, the Speaker's chair. On Thursday, the Speaker was very clear and indicated that he would return to the House if there was anything worthwhile to report back to the House. He is reflecting on a Speaker's ruling from Thursday, and I would ask him to withhold his side comments or, at the very least, get on with his question.

102 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:24:23 p.m.
Watch

A number of points of order came out on Thursday and Friday, and I know the Speaker is seized with trying to come back with an answer. He wants to read the transcripts and listen to the audio to make sure that what we heard is what we heard. I would rather wait for the Speaker to come back with that decision than continue. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising on a point of order.

79 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/8/23 4:24:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the member to apologize. We already had a Speaker's ruling. He needs to apologize.

22 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:24:53 p.m.
Watch

I said that we are done with that. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

15 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/8/23 4:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the other parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the member for Kingston and the Islands, at the time, said the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was “supposedly affected”. He used those words. That member of Parliament did uncategorically apologize for his comments, but I want to ask the member from the Bloc this: To what extent does a combative, bullying approach from the government on an issue as important as this one impact our ability to have real democratic conversations in the House?

94 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/8/23 4:25:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House when the altercation occurred, and it is difficult for me to comment on something that I did not witness. However, we voted on the motion today and it was a favourable vote. This has not been a great day for democracy. It is terrible that we had to vote on that and that the vote was not unanimous. I think this situation is deplorable, whatever the arguments were.

76 words

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

May/8/23 4:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out the importance of the motion that was just moved by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in response to the question on which you ruled just a few moments ago. The NDP participated in the debate on this question of privilege and gave a number of examples, including one dating back to 1733. Of course, at that time, it was a British Parliament. The reality is that it was not a real democracy. Only rich, white men were members of Parliament at that time. A difficult battle was then waged to expand this democracy. All of the groups that were excluded in 1733 were eventually added. Today, this Parliament is made up of women, men, racialized people and indigenous people. All groups of society now have a place in the House. It took centuries of fighting to get to where we are today with a democracy that is open to everyone. That is extremely important. What are we talking about today? Of course, we are talking about our expanded democracy. I said this in French earlier, and I want to say it in English now. I want to pay tribute to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Throughout this entire debate he has conducted himself with dignity and has brought forward an important motion that we are now debating on the floor of the House of Commons. I want to raise three points. This undoubtedly needs to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. There is no doubt this is an issue that this important committee needs to be seized with. I certainly hope that this will pass unanimously and be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, which really is the appropriate place for this issue of foreign interference and intimidation of a member of Parliament. This is where that needs to be discussed. I want to point out a number of things. First, we have seen the information that has trickled out over the course of the last few weeks and how slow the government has been to act. Indeed, today it took steps to declare the diplomat in question persona non grata, and that is an important step, but one that was taken slowly. I think the fact that it took so long for that to happen sends a message that perhaps the government is not as prepared to act as it could be. The fact is that we have not yet had a public inquiry called. I reserve hope. I hope that by the end of this month, when the special rapporteur makes his recommendations, that will be included, given the overwhelming support in this House for the NDP's motion calling for an independent public inquiry. All members of this House, including members from all the opposition parties and independent members of Parliament, with the exception of Liberal members of Parliament, voted for that, so we are hoping to see that happen as well, that a public inquiry will be put into place. The government needs to act in a number of other areas as well. The motion that was passed earlier today indicates a path to take, including having the foreign agent registry, which is so important and has been useful in other countries. These are all actions the government can take. By trying to sweep it under the carpet, which, whether true or not, is the perception in the minds of so many people, the government has not done justice to the concerns Canadians are feeling about foreign interference. The government has not acted, but rather seems to be stonewalling on a number of these questions. That is unfortunate, because it is time for the government to act. Certainly, in this corner of the House, the NDP has been very clear about some of the measures that need to be taken. The member for Edmonton Strathcona and our leader, the member for Burnaby South, put forward very important and valuable suggestions. It is important that the government hear the suggestions from opposition parties and implement them, because it is important to act. Second is the issue of unity. I was profoundly disappointed by some of the comments we heard last week in this House that targeted the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. They insinuated that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was aware these things were happening and did not come forward or was not prepared to go public. I know the character of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and I can say very clearly that this is false. Those allegations are simply not true, and yet they were raised on the floor of the House of Commons. This is the kind of debate where we have to be, all of us, in solidarity. We all have to be acting together. We have to speak clearly with one voice to say that foreign interference in our democracy, in our democratic institutions, is wrong and that regardless of the source of that foreign interference, we will speak with one voice against it. That message was muddied by some of the comments heard in this House last week, which were unfortunate and should be completely, unequivocally withdrawn, because we have to act in concert and in solidarity. Finally, I want all of us to heed the words of the member for Vancouver East, who spoke so passionately in this House last week about the impacts on her and her family. We know of the impacts on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family. We know there are Canadians of Chinese origin who are feeling that impact every day. This is something we have to be mindful of in the words we use in this House and in the actions we take. All of us have to reflect on what that means for families and Canadians of Chinese origin, who are such incredible contributors to our democratic life and to our country. We need to proceed methodically. We need to proceed with intent. The government needs to act. All parties need to work together. We need to stand in solidarity. To end, I would just make a suggestion about things the government can do immediately. First off, earlier today I asked in question period whether all of the MPs who have been impacted by this intimidation have been notified, and we have not received an answer from the government. The government needs to be transparent about that and it needs to tell us whether there are members of Parliament who are unaware that their family overseas may have been impacted, threatened or intimidated in any way. Those members of Parliament need to know. Second, a public inquiry needs to be called. We hope that will happen in the next couple of weeks, when the special rapporteur prepares his report and his comments. If his recommendation is in the sense I feel it should be, given the overwhelming support in this House for a public inquiry that is independent, then the government needs to act quickly on that. Finally, we need to work together, all parties, all members of Parliament. This threat to our democracy and to our democratic institutions is felt by all Canadians, and the only way to counteract that is by a message of solidarity, a message of unity and a clear message that Canadians will not stand for foreign interference regardless of the source from which it comes.

1257 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192