SoVote

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

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

May/8/23 4:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated in my speech that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had ultimately known about the report, which gave the impression that it was the same report the Prime Minister received. At least that was the indication. Shortly after that, I stood up and apologized, saying that was not my intent. He had received a general briefing and not the special report. Members opposite should also have the same principles applied. For example, when the Prime Minister indicates that he first found out about it last week, should the same sort of principles not apply to opposition parties? In other words, if I am to believe one member, we should believe all members and we should be acting as one on this issue, because, after all, it is more than one member of Parliament. There were 49 who received a general briefing in 2022.

150 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/23 4:36:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House in the debate last week. I did hear the comments that I thought insinuated wrongfully that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had some advance knowledge. The confusion around a general briefing and a specific briefing is one that the government should have cleared up and chose not to. I find that unfortunate. The question has been asked, a number of times now, how many members of Parliament who have been directly impacted have been advised of that. I am not talking about general briefings. I am talking about specific cases that the government may be aware of and that it then ensured the member was informed of. I would respectfully suggest that the government needs to be transparent about that and let us know if all members have been impacted directly or indirectly by this foreign interference, either targeting their families or any other thing. Will the government come forward and let us know who has been advised, and if members of Parliament have not been advised, will it move to do that immediately?

183 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to allow the NDP House leader to build upon this. I think he even asked the same question during question period today. It is about this lack of information being shared with all parliamentarians, including senators, especially considering this is something that was in the NSICOP 2019 annual report as a recommendation to the government: to regularly brief, at the appropriate level, all parliamentarians on the risk of foreign interference. I would like the member's opinion. Why does he think the current government has refused to do this? This is something it has known about and has been briefed upon twice. It actually goes back to the very first report NSICOP produced in 2018, based on the Prime Minister's trip to India and all the failures that occurred during that trip, for all parliamentarians to have a briefing about foreign interference so that we can do our job as parliamentarians. It would prevent situations like this if everybody knew the risk. What does the member think of that?

174 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/23 4:39:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very learned on national security issues and brings that wealth of knowledge to this debate today. There is no doubt that there are a number of things the government should be doing proactively, including informing and briefing members of Parliament. I have not seen the government act with the alacrity that is necessary in this case. This has been a slow-motion—

70 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/8/23 4:40:43 p.m.
Watch

Train wreck.

2 words

Wreck
Train

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/23 4:40:43 p.m.
Watch

“Train wreck” would be a good way of putting it, Mr. Speaker. The government has seemingly held off on getting in front of things, being proactive and being transparent. That has compounded the problems we are facing today. Hopefully this debate will serve to set the government back on track so that, rather than having a train wreck, we are all moving together in the same way, with the same intent of ensuring that there is no foreign interference, whether in votes that we hold in the House of Commons or in elections that we hold nationally, provincially or municipally.

102 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/8/23 4:40:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with most of what my colleague said in his speech. We had this vote today, and a majority of the House has spoken. The opposition parties joined together to pass this motion, which instructs the government to launch a public inquiry and create a registry. If the government fails to follow through, we will be forced to consider it untrustworthy and unwilling to follow instructions passed by a democratic vote in the House. Will the NDP not reconsider its commitment to support the government until 2025 over a matter as serious as national security?

98 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/23 4:41:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a motion was moved in the House of Commons for an independent public inquiry. The NDP moved it, after having moved it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It was the NDP that did that. There were procedural problems, as members will recall. The Conservatives blocked the intervention on the motion. I thought that was rather unfortunate, but that is their right. Then, we moved the motion and it was adopted almost unanimously. Except for the Liberal Party, every independent MP and all the opposition parties voted in favour of the motion. I expect the special rapporteur to take this into consideration when he makes his recommendations in the next two weeks. I expect that when the special rapporteur makes these recommendations, the government will immediately call a national public inquiry. That is extremely important. That is what the NDP is working toward. That is our role in Parliament, and we will continue to carry out this role.

163 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/8/23 4:43:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague always speaks so eloquently, and I learn so much from his interventions. One of the things he talked about was the fact that the interference in our elections and the interference in our political system are not just happening from one country or another. I think that it is very important, when we stand in this House, to be very cautious and very careful with our language. With this particular example, we are seeing a diplomat from the government of China, but we also know that we have had people from the terrorist regime in Iran. We know that Russia has tried to influence Canada. In fact, during the convoy, we knew there was foreign influence coming from the United States. Could the member speak a bit more about how Canada could do more to protect itself, not just from risks from the PRC but also from other countries around the world that we know are interfering with our political system?

165 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192