SoVote

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

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/23 4:44:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona is a very strong and powerful voice on foreign affairs and on many other issues in this House. Her wisdom is something we should all listen to. This is the reality, and this is why, when the NDP brought forward the motion on the public inquiry, we sought to ensure that we were fighting back against all forms of foreign interference. Yes, we know from the CSIS reports that the Chinese regime, the Russian dictatorship, Iran and India all seek to influence our democracy, seek to influence our diaspora and seek to change the direction Canadians want to take together. We have to be mindful of all those things, and this is why we believe that a comprehensive public inquiry into foreign interference is warranted and needs to be put into place. We have been calling for it now since we brought it to the House five weeks ago. We are hoping to see a recommendation in the next couple of weeks and it being put rapidly into place. This is vitally important, and we cannot dissect one type of foreign interference from the Chinese regime or the Russian dictatorship and say that we are just going to examine one type. All of them have an impact on our democracy, and hopefully, all of us as members of Parliament will want to push back against any form of foreign interference in solidarity. Regardless of which country it comes from, it is unacceptable, and Canadians speak with one voice in standing up for our democracy.

261 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 4:46:06 p.m.
Watch

Before proceeding, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Transportation.

49 words

Adjournment

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

May/8/23 4:46:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it took two years for this government to finally do the right thing to protect Canada's values of freedom and democracy, or in other words, to expel a foreign agent for threatening a Canadian member of Parliament. This is not the first time we have heard about foreign agents threatening Canadians in this way. A Canadian MP and his family had to be threatened for this government to finally decide to do something, not everything it could have done, but something, namely, to declare this diplomat, this agent of the regime in Beijing, persona non grata in Canada. Not only did it take the agent going after a Canadian MP, but the MP also had to raise a question of privilege in the House so that Parliament could clearly indicate to the government that enough was enough and that we would no longer tolerate this sort of thing. I want to look back at what led us here today. I will explain to people the entire process that led to the diplomat being expelled from Canada and, most importantly, I will talk about the fact that, today, the Speaker recognized a question of privilege regarding the unacceptable and disgraceful behaviour of the regime in Beijing and this diplomat, who was declared persona non grata. This all began in February 2021 when my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills moved a motion in the House to recognize that the Communist regime in Beijing is perpetrating a genocide against the Uyghur people. The result of the vote demonstrates what happened at the time. The motion was moved, there was a vote in the House, and nearly all members voted in favour of recognizing the genocide of the Uyghur people. All members voted for the motion except for the members who are in cabinet. What this means is that all Liberal ministers refused to vote on this important issue, which had caught the attention of parliamentarians from all parties. The Prime Minister and his government were already sending a strong signal to Canadians that the government did not want to upset the Communist regime in Beijing. The story could have ended there, but it did not. Apparently, that vote and our colleague's actions did upset in the Communist regime in Beijing. Last week, the media reported on the whole process that has taken place since our colleague's motion, and what the Beijing regime has done to stop him from taking any action that might conflict with Beijing's priorities. We read in the newspapers that a CSIS assessment revealed back in July 2021 that the Chinese ministry of state security, known as MSS, had taken specific actions to target Canadian MPs who were linked to the February 2021 parliamentary motion condemning Beijing's oppression of Uyghurs and other minorities. The article referred to MPs, plural. According to CSIS, an agent tried to obtain information about the family members of a Canadian MP who were living under the Beijing regime. The agent in question, Zhao Wei, is listed in the Department of Global Affairs' record of foreign diplomats as working in China's Toronto consulate. This same person has been declared persona non grata. I am speaking of information passed on by CSIS two years ago. CSIS notified the government about this diplomat's activities two years ago. On May 2, the director of CSIS told our colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, that he was the Canadian MP who was targeted, along with his family, by the Beijing government, after he sponsored the motion condemning Beijing's conduct in Xinjiang as genocide, and that Zhao Wei was indeed the diplomat involved. On May 4, the Prime Minister's national security adviser, Jody Thomas, confirmed to Mr. Chong that the CSIS information about him and his family had been received by the Privy Council Office in 2021. The information revealed by the press had been sent to the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office in 2021, two years ago. Last week, we witnessed something absolutely appalling in the House. Certain MPs tried to claim that my colleague, the victim of intimidation by China, had known for several years about the actions of this Toronto-based agent of Beijing. My colleague rose several times in the House to state that this claim was false. He had not been notified that he specifically was being targeted by the actions of this Chinese agent. How can those members side with an agent who is trying to intimidate a Canadian MP instead of standing up for that MP and his family, who were targeted by Beijing? On Friday, the Prime Minister echoed these statements, also claiming that the member had been made aware of this information. Again, this was denied by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Here we have a situation where the government did not take action and where the member for Wellington—Halton Hills felt threatened, and rightly so. He was probably also very worried about the fact that the government had waited so long before warning him, because it took almost two years. He raised this question of privilege that was received by the Chair, so that we could finally debate this very important question. It happened the same day that a majority of Parliamentarians adopted a motion that, among other things, called for the expulsion of not only this diplomat, but any foreign diplomat who threatens or intimidates a member of Parliament or a Canadian citizen who is the victim of the actions of such authoritarian regimes around the world. That was one aspect of the motion. We expected all members to rise together to condemn that sort of behaviour. The motion did not just talk about expulsion. It also called for the government to immediately do what all security intelligence agencies around the world are recommending, and that is to create a foreign agent registry similar to those in Australia and the United States, as well as to establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference and to close down the police stations in Canada run by the Communist regime in Beijing. The Minister of Public Safety claimed that these police stations had been shut down, but in the end we realized that not one of them actually had been. The police said that they had disrupted the activities of these police stations but that none of them had been officially shut down and that no one had been arrested for having engaged in such activities. The motion also called on the government to expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in this intimidation campaign. We expected all parties to vote in favour of it. The Conservative Party voted for it. The Bloc Québécois voted for it. Even the government's coalition partner voted in favour of the motion calling for action at long last. Unfortunately, one party chose to vote against the motion. It was the Prime Minister's party, the government. Why? I think the question Canadians need to start asking themselves is, why did the Liberals vote against this motion calling for a national foreign agent registry? Why did they stall for 24 hours in committee to avoid having the Prime Minister's chief of staff come to speak about foreign interference in our elections? What is the reason, if not their lack of courage to stand up for our values of democracy and freedom, the principles that all Canadians hold so dear? I listened to the speech by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills following the question of privilege. His words were very clear, and I hope to hear them repeated. I remember the gist of what he said, which was that we cannot let ourselves be intimidated, we have to stand up. As difficult as it may be to stand up in the face of these threats, we have to do it for our institutions and for our values. Generations past stood up to protect them. Now, our turn has come to do the same. The government had a chance to do so today. Unfortunately, it voted against the other tools that we could have used. However, Parliament decided otherwise, and voted in favour of the motion. Now we expect the government to act. The government expelled a diplomat today because the media forced its hand, because it was caught in a firestorm. That is the only reason the government took any action. If it had not been for the article in The Globe and Mail last week, we probably would not be here talking about a diplomat who was expelled this afternoon. He simply would not have been expelled, because the Liberals decided to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable and disgusting actions committed against a Canadian MP and his family over the past two years. What particularly concerns me is that the measures we proposed today were not intended to protect only MPs. They were meant to protect all the ethnocultural communities living in Canada that come from these authoritarian countries. We have heard many accounts from individuals whose family members back in their home country have been pressured, intimidated and threatened. It was not until this happened to a Canadian member of Parliament that the government finally decided to act. There is one thing that strikes me about the report that the government has had since 2021. CSIS did not refer to one MP in particular, but to MPs, plural. In English, the report referred to “MPs” with an “s”. Who are the other MPs who were allegedly victims of intimidation by the Beijing government? We have asked the question many times, but we did not get an answer. Were those members informed of this threat? We did not get an answer. Had it been a Conservative MP and had they been informed, I can guarantee that we would know about it. The MP would have told a friend or colleague. The MP would have told the caucus. Had it been a Bloc Québécois member, I am convinced we would know about it. Since the Bloc Québécois clearly cannot form the next government, there is less interest, but all right. That being said, had it been one of our colleagues in the NDP, which has also been calling for a public inquiry for a long time, we would know it. They would have said so. It would have been one more argument in favour of a public inquiry, but no. Is it a member of the government? We do not know. We do not know because we have not heard any talk about it, either. Someone somewhere in the government, in the Prime Minister's Office, in Minister of Public Safety's office, knows. We know that the document, the report in question, was submitted. Unfortunately, the people who are affected do not know it. It is totally unacceptable. We have to ensure that parliamentarians are protected because they are the voice of those who cannot have a say. Here, in the House, parliamentary privilege allows us to say things on behalf of our taxpayers, the people back home, Canadian citizens, and that is what we are doing. We have been doing that ever since we found out about all these allegations of foreign influence. We are doing this because we know that we benefit from a certain type of protection that allows us to say things that the majority of Canadians cannot say. Unfortunately, if the regime in Beijing is going after parliamentarians who have this kind of protection, imagine what must be happening to members of the diaspora. Imagine how much power authoritarian regimes have over citizens who come from these ethnocultural communities, who have family in these countries who are still living under the rule of very authoritarian governments. Imagine the impact. That is why we need a national inquiry into interference in our elections. That is why we need to shut down these police stations. We must not tolerate threats from any country, whether we are talking about the Communist regime in Beijing, Iran or any other country, and I do not just mean threats against MPs, but against all Canadian citizens. One thing is very telling. Normally, I should not have been able to speak right away. Usually, after a question of privilege, all the parties speak, so my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills would have spoken, followed by a Bloc Québécois colleague, an NDP colleague, and finally a Liberal Party colleague. However, it did not happen that way. When it came time for the Liberals to have their say, they remained seated. When faced with such an important question that the Speaker of the House chose to interrupt all other business, the government's entire agenda, to deal with this very specific question about the violation of my colleague's rights and privileges, not one Liberal member from across the way rose to defend him. Not one member opposite rose to say that what happened was an outrage. Despite all the nice words about dealing with this issue in a non-partisan manner, not one government member rose to defend my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. That says a lot right there. There is a reason the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and the entire cabinet said that they did not know anything. The reason is that they know full well that they did absolutely nothing to counter foreign interference, particularly from the regime in Beijing. I commend my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for having the courage to stand up and continue standing up to wage this battle to protect our rights, our freedom and our democracy.

2340 words

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

May/8/23 5:06:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member were to take the time to read the speech I gave on Thursday, he would find that I stood up for every individual member of Parliament. My question is more looking at it from the perspective of foreign interference, which has been taking place for many years now. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact, if we looked at the 2022 report, we would find 49 members of Parliament, a couple dozen MLAs and even local councillors or reeves. What might the Conservative Party's policy be in regard to CSIS? We know there were some general briefings provided. Does the member believe that all 49 members of Parliament and those who were in the report should have been better informed? Does he believe that CSIS did not do a proper job of ensuring that each of those members were more aware of why they were being given the general briefing?

158 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/8/23 5:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we just got a clear, simple, frank and transparent demonstration of the Liberal government's incompetence. The member for Winnipeg North just told us that 49 MPs were briefed because they were allegedly victims of intimidation or interference by foreign regimes, in particular the regime in Beijing. What steps were taken, what diplomat was expelled and what individuals were arrested in light of the information that the government has in hand? The member just proved that the government was informed but that it did nothing. The sad fact of the matter is that the regime in Beijing already influences the government. It is time for the government to realize it, to put an end to it and to implement the measures required, including launching a national public inquiry. That is how Canadians can be apprised of this matter, and not just the part that the government feels like presenting to Canadians.

153 words

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

May/8/23 5:08:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Megantic—L'Érable on his speech. I have a short preamble before I ask my question. The Bloc Québécois's objective is not to form the government. That would be like inviting a vegetarian friend to a pig roast; it makes no sense. That said, I want to address the subject at hand today, namely, Chinese interference. This is very important. Today, the government took action because of pressure from the media and pressure from the public. Thanks to CSIS, it has known for almost two years now that there has been Chinese interference and even threats from China against a member of Parliament. The government did not take any action for two years. Now the government is waking up, seeing that this is dangerous, that its image is being tarnished, and wondering what it is going to do. Today, the government is trying to make us believe that everything is under control. As a good Quebec Liberal used to say, everything is fine with both hands on the wheel. Two years have gone by and nothing. How do we restore confidence? The people I meet every day ask me how this government can build back confidence in our democratic institutions. What does my colleague suggest the government do to restore once and for all public confidence in democracy, which is fundamental, and in our institutions?

242 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/8/23 5:10:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. The best way is for us to beat the Liberals in the next election and form a Conservative government so we can take control of the situation.

33 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/8/23 5:10:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country. Over 100 languages are spoken in my riding. About 35% of my riding is ethnically Chinese; 15%, Filipino; 15%, South Asian; 6%, Vietnamese; and it carries on. History has shown us that the actions of a foreign government, whether Japan or Italy in World War II or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, can lead to impacts on the diaspora population in our country. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that and what suggestions does he have for us to be careful and cautious as we explore the malevolent behaviour of foreign governments? How can we make sure that this does not translate into discrimination or oppression against people who may be from those countries by origin, but who are Canadian citizens in our country and communities?

141 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/8/23 5:11:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer my colleague in English. Transparency is what works all around the world. We can identify the foreign agents in our country and make sure the diaspora knows who they are. Transparency is the best cleaner or sunlight. I do not know how to say that in English, but I think the member understands what I mean. We need a government that will be transparent and that will really act, answer real questions and give real answers to those people who came here to benefit from our freedom, our principles and our values. We should give them the opportunity to say what they know and to protect themselves, and we should help to protect them. With respect to police officers and CSIS, we should make them work for these people and not for the government.

141 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192