SoVote

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

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

May/8/23 5:13:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Winnipeg North stood up and did not apologize for some of the comments he made the other day. However, he did acknowledge that when he came into the House on Thursday morning, he did not have his facts straight and that is a start. If the government does not have its facts straight, it is hard for Canadians to make sense of what is going on. Today, we are debating a question of privilege that has an impact on a member, and in fact all members of this House, as we act in the interests of our constituents. It is also important to remember that there are Canadians from coast to coast, and some members have touched on this, who are Chinese Canadians and they face this same type of intimidation from Beijing from the Communist government on a regular basis. I think they are watching the debate we are having right now, the debate we have been having for the last several weeks, really closely. The motion we passed today was very clear. For those Chinese Canadians across the country who may be faced with similar types of intimidation, how important is it for them to see real action moving forward on the substance of the motion passed in the House today?

219 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/8/23 5:14:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think people expect the elected members of this Parliament to take action to protect them, to act in their interest as Canadians. The elected members of this place are here to protect Canadians, no matter where they come from and regardless of whether they have families elsewhere in any other country. We are here to protect them and ensure they have a place where they can flourish, express themselves freely, live their lives and fulfill their dreams. That is the government's responsibility. It is on the government's shoulders to protect them. It is on the government's shoulders to give them hope, freedom, liberty, value principles and make sure they can access that.

118 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/8/23 5:15:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 25, at the next sitting of the House, a Minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.

40 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 5:16:02 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. minister for that notice. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

17 words

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

May/8/23 5:16:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the debate, wondering what I could contribute that would be useful. I do want to express my profound sympathy to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This should not happen to any of us and I identify completely with the difficulties in which he finds himself. I hope that is true of all 338 of us, that we can readily realize how any one of us could be in this situation. I want to make that point abundantly clear, that I was not sitting here because I did not want to participate in the debate, by virtue of not being interested in the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but that I wanted to contribute something useful. I had the opportunity to read the Speaker's ruling, while other members were debating, which is what is before us this afternoon. May I say that it is a thoughtful ruling. I agree with his analysis and I agree with his conclusion. He has made a prima facie conclusion that there is something here. That is what prima facie means. It means “on the face of it”. On the face of it, there is something to be addressed here and he made the proper ruling that it be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is the debate. He made it on three points. The first point was whether there was intimidation or the appearance of intimidation. He does make the argument, which I think is critical, that he is not making a conclusion of fact, as a judge would. He is simply saying that on the face of it, there appears to be intimidation. He is not, however, concluding that there was intimidation. On the material that was in front of him, it is clear that there is a case to be made for intimidation and he made the correct ruling on that. He then went on to talk about the timeliness of the report by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The events did occur two years ago or appear to have occurred two years ago but only came to the attention of the member recently, by virtue of newspaper reports. It is a well-settled principle in criminal law and elsewhere that the clock only starts ticking when one becomes aware of the alleged offence. I think the member rightly brought it to the House's attention in as timely a fashion as it could have been brought and the Speaker therefore ruled that it was timely. The third ruling was whether it was corroborated or uncorroborated, which is an interesting argument. When the PRC and its many minions here in this country carry on what nasty, dastardly things they do here, the nature of the beast is that it is very difficult to corroborate it. It is not as if they write it out, saying that they are now intimidating member of Parliament X, Y or Z. They operate in the shadows. They operate these police stations where they try to intimidate diaspora members. They operate in universities with Confucius Institutes, where they are try to influence or intimidate students from China, primarily, who are studying here in Canada. Of course, they run these operations, by definition, in a way in which the evidence, such as it is, or even the information cannot be corroborated. Again, I think the Speaker made the correct ruling, that, yes, it is a newspaper report and, yes, there is a lot of back and forth between what the government knew or should have known or did know or did not know. However, on the face of it there is a case to be made that should be properly made in front of PROC, which I hope will weigh in on this. I think there is also a larger issue to be addressed here, which is that we are in a new environment. As members know, I have been around here for a few years and like to think I have seen a few things, but I cannot say that I have ever seen anything quite like this before. I know some of us receive briefings about threats, not so much intimidation, but that there might be activities that would affect us. That is becoming abundantly clear. I am not sure that we have really figured out how to react. We operate in an open society that runs on the basis that we trust each other, that we have a shared understanding of the facts and information in the public discourse, and that we respect each other even if we profoundly disagree with each other. That is anathema to the PRC and other dictatorial regimes. However, when we are attacked on those core issues, we have difficulty reacting. I think for many years we have not had to worry about the threat we are facing with the rise of misinformation and disinformation, and it is a threat to our very way of life and doing things. I have shared with the House before the fact that we were in Taiwan a few weeks ago. We visited quite a number of individuals, but clearly one of the most impressive was its minister of cybersecurity. It has a million attacks a day and does not leave anything to chance, so there are generally triple levels of protection in order to be able to keep the core infrastructure of the nation safe. It does not matter whether it is with respect to the military, security, finances or economics, that is expected. The other person who was very impressive is with an NGO that is expected to respond to misinformation and disinformation. In Taiwan, the standard response time is expected to be two hours. In fact, it is one hour. It is really quite impressive as to how it responds to that level of misinformation and disinformation. That includes bots and all of the ways in which these massive numbers of attacks produce information that appear to be true, may be true, could be true, but is not true. These NGOs respond in a very timely way to I think keep the level of discourse on the matter of truth as opposed to misinformation and disinformation, which is just generally sidebar truth. While in my opinion this motion is to be supported, I hope that PROC gets to it quickly. It was a well-founded and reasoned approach by the Speaker. It does occur in the larger context that there is not a person in this chamber who knows what we are facing. We are somewhat in the dark on all kinds of issues. I think we should bring to this larger conversation a huge dose of humility, because it is a profound and existential threat we are facing and we need to be united in how we face it. I will conclude by saying that I am pleased with the Speaker's ruling. It is an appropriate ruling. There is a prima facie case to be made, and I look forward to the report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

1200 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/8/23 5:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his role as chair of the national defence committee. I appreciate his support for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and for the ruling that was made earlier today. This situation was originally brought to the attention of the government two years ago, and the government failed to act. We know that the national security adviser at the time in the Prime Minister's Office received this report. We know that the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was targeted by a diplomat in the PRC consulate in Toronto. However, I would like to get the member's opinion on why the intelligence was not acted upon by the government side of the House, where he sits, to address this very scary situation for the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and, more importantly, the attack on democracy. How was Zhao Wei allowed to continue to operate here for the last 48 months unimpeded with his diplomatic immunity? How many other Canadians was he able to intimidate over that time?

184 words

Hon. John McKay

May/8/23 5:28:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I do not know the answer to the hon. member's question. I am working on the assumption that the facts underlying his question are correct: that the information was available to the appropriate government authorities in a timely sort of way and the information was not communicated to the member in question. I have no basis for disputing those facts. I also was not there. I was not there to make that judgment. I do know some of the people who would be involved in making that judgment, and I have nothing but respect for their decision. However, it seems me that on the floor of the House of Commons, it is inappropriate for me to speculate on why the inaction taken was not moved on, in hindsight, a lot more quickly. I would widen the conversation a bit to ask a question that I think members should be asking: Why does China have so many diplomats in this country? I know we have an important trading relationship and important relationship with China, but there does seem to be an extraordinary number of diplomats who have no obvious reason for being here. I think members should be asking that question.

208 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/8/23 5:30:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Expelling this person who has been declared persona non grata is good news today. It is too little, too late, but at least it is a step in the right direction to avoid Chinese oppression. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills received threats and we had to vote on a motion today because of the government's inertia. What about our democratic freedom?

73 words

Hon. John McKay

May/8/23 5:30:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we did not actually vote on the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker made his own ruling on a motion presented by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. There is a conflation of issues here. What we did vote on was a motion put forward by the Conservative Party, and that was successfully passed. I want to clarify that particular point.

63 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/8/23 5:31:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I joined my colleague on the trip he mentioned to Taiwan. I believe it was the Doublethink Lab he was referring to when he was speaking about civil society and the role it played in dealing with misinformation and cyber-attacks in Taiwan. When we were in Taiwan, we could see that there was a very all-of-government and all-of-society approach to dealing with misinformation and interference. Could the member comment on how that could happen here? It feels to me, perhaps because of the inaction of the government, like we are now in a position where this has become politically fraught. How do we do something that is good for our democracy? How do we work together across all parties to strengthen our democracy and strengthen protections for our vital institutions in an environment that has become so divided, so partisan and so political in scope?

152 words

Hon. John McKay

May/8/23 5:32:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is nothing like an existential threat to focus the mind. In Taiwan that is very true. It is under constant intimidation, with a million cyber-attacks a day. When we arrived, the PRC brought its greeting party with warplanes and warships, so they live in a different threat environment than we do. Having gone to Taiwan for a number of times over the last 20 years, I know that the nature of the threat of the PRC to Taiwan was not entirely unanimous. A number of years ago, President Ma was much more friendly with the Chinese government and had even gone to China just before we arrived. As for us, I think we do not realize the threat. We have not quite figured this thing out, and we have the luxury of partisanship, which I do not think we will always have.

146 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/8/23 5:34:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in particular, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentioned the need for a dose of humility in looking at the wider context of this situation. On that note, I wonder if he could comment about having a national public inquiry on foreign interference. Does he have a perspective to share on that? How much more information does he feel is required to support that?

66 words

Hon. John McKay

May/8/23 5:34:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the report of the Hon. David Johnston sooner rather than later, frankly. I hope that he will at least put a report in the public domain that we can debate. I am going to work on the assumption that it will be a fulsome report. The government has committed itself to responding fully to the recommendation or recommendations. Whatever they are, they will be adopted, but whether that in turn will mean something like a full-blown public inquiry, I do not know. I do think there is utility in moving the debate off the floor of the House into the wider public so that Canadians can come to grips with the existential threat that is the People's Republic of China.

128 words

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

May/8/23 5:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech that we are in unfamiliar territory with this particular issue. In Newfoundland, we would probably refer to it as uncharted waters. How do we get more familiar with it so that we know exactly what we are doing or what we should be doing?

52 words

Hon. John McKay

May/8/23 5:36:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member from Newfoundland would know, if someone is in uncharted waters and hits a rock, there are pretty serious consequences. I think this is an opportunity for Canadians to weigh in on debate. I think it should be part of a larger discourse on what our response should be. The ministers are right to point out that every action will have an equal and opposite reaction, with consequences to whatever decision is made. As long as we know what the consequences are and are prepared to deal with those consequences, we can move forward as a nation.

102 words

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

May/8/23 5:36:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, on the Speaker's ruling and prima facie determination that the member's privileges were breached as a result of tactics of intimidation employed by a diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate. This motion arises from a May 1 report in the Globe and Mail in which it was revealed that a July 20, 2021, CSIS intelligence assessment identified that a Beijing diplomat had sought to sanction and intimidate the family in Hong Kong of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as retribution for the member bringing forward a motion in this House to call out the Beijing regime for its gross human rights violations in East Turkestan and to call those gross human rights violations out for what they are, and that is genocide. It was an attempt by the Beijing regime to have a chill effect on a sitting member and to interfere in that member's ability to do his job and fulfill his duties as a member of Parliament to speak in this House, to put forward a motion, to stand in his place and to vote on that motion on the basis of principle on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of Canadians. This is about as serious as it gets. For two years, the Liberals sat on that information. They sat on the fact that a Beijing diplomat was seeking to undermine our democracy by interfering with the ability of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to perform his duties as a member of Parliament. Not only that, they sat on the fact that Beijing's Toronto consulate was also involved in other intimidation and interference activities affecting members of Parliament. The Prime Minister claimed that he knew nothing about it and that he learned about it in the Globe and Mail. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister tried to change the channel by blaming CSIS. He said, “CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed to be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern.” Then, on Thursday, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was informed by the Prime Minister's national security adviser, Jody Thomas, that the Prime Minister's assertion was not true and that, in fact, the July CSIS intelligence assessment had been sent to the national security adviser of the PCO as well as to all of the relevant departments. The Prime Minister's claim that he did not know anything about it just does not add up. It does not add up based upon what the Prime Minister's chief of staff told committee, namely that he is briefed regularly about national security matters, that he reads everything and that nothing is held back. The Prime Minister's denial does not add up based on what CSIS told the committee, which is that CSIS definitely briefs the government when hostile foreign governments target politicians, and the Prime Minister's denial that he knew anything does not add up based upon what the Prime Minister's own national security adviser told the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. No one believes the Prime Minister when he says that he did not know. No one believes him, so he should just stop the charade and come clean that he covered it up for the Beijing regime. Even though no one believes him, if I were to, for a minute, try to believe him, I would say that it is an equal indictment on the Prime Minister's complete lack of fitness to lead this country. This is a Prime Minister who is the leader of our country. He is responsible for the machinery of government. He is responsible for the broad organization and structure of government, and he has special responsibilities when it comes to national security. For the Prime Minister to say he did not know is no excuse at all. It is an admission on the part of the Prime Minister that he does not care, is asleep at the switch and is not doing his job protecting the safety and security of Canadians, including sitting members of Parliament, from being intimidated from doing their jobs seriously in the face of an unprecedented campaign of interference by the Beijing regime. This is all taking place under the Prime Minister's watch. Then the Prime Minister decided to change the channel instead of taking responsibility. In the last eight years, I cannot remember a time he has ever taken responsibility. He is never responsible. What did the Prime Minister do instead of acknowledging that, as the Prime Minister, he is responsible for the machinery of government and has special responsibilities for government? He then blamed the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The Prime Minister sent two of his parliamentary secretaries into the chamber on Thursday to falsely assert that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been briefed, knew his family was in harm's way, and knew so for two years, but did not tell his family or his colleagues. He essentially asserted that he was misleading Canadians now to make a big deal about what is certainly is a big deal. It was while I was speaking to my motion, to kick off the debate calling for, among other things, a public inquiry into foreign interference and expelling the Beijing diplomat involved in this intimidation campaign, which the Liberals voted against today, that it happened. In the course of that debate, the member for Kingston and the Islands asserted that. I have to admit that I was floored by what I was hearing. I could not believe what he was saying. Then the member for Winnipeg North doubled down on that misinformation to blame the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. In fairness, the member for Winnipeg North has stated that he did not have his facts straight, which is a start. He should apologize, but it is a start that he did not do the right thing that day. As well, the member for Kingston and the Islands has apologized, but not the Prime Minister. He has not shown some level of class, which the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kingston and the Islands have demonstrated. No, he has not. The Prime Minister has doubled down on his misinformation campaign. He directed those members to come into the House to spread misinformation. Then, the very next day, he continued to spread the misinformation and continued his attack on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Here is what the Prime Minister said on Friday: “I was reassured to see that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] had received multiple briefings following the information collected by CSIS to ensure that he and his family were kept safe or would at least know what was going on in the extent that they needed to and they could be briefed.” The Prime Minister knew on Friday that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been briefed once, but he had not been briefed about the particulars concerning Zhao Wei and the efforts to intimidate him by sanctioning his family because of how he had voted in the House. The Prime Minister was aware on Friday that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had received a briefing of a general nature that had nothing to do with the matter. However, in the face of that, we have a Prime Minister who was spreading this misinformation on Friday. Why would the Prime Minister do that? Is that a Prime Minister who is genuinely concerned about the well-being of the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in Hong Kong? Is that a Prime Minister who has the integrity to admit that his government did not get it right and that the member should have been briefed? No, it is not a Prime Minister with integrity. It is a Prime Minister who is using every tactic in the book to change the channel to avoid accountability, and in the most disgusting of ways, engage in victim blaming by trying to disgracefully impugn the integrity of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, a member who I have gotten to know over the last eight years and who many members, in all corners of the House, have gotten to know. If there is one thing that can be said of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it is that he is a member of principle and integrity. He does not deserve this. If the Prime Minister had any integrity, he would apologize and he would apologize now to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for spreading this kind of misinformation. This is part of a pattern that we have seen. The Prime Minister covers up issues of interference in our elections by Beijing and intimidation attempts by Beijing diplomats accredited in Canada. It gets reported on in the media, and then the Prime Minister tries to offer up excuses, blame others and say that there is nothing to see here at all. Nothing that we know about Beijing's interference in our elections or by Beijing diplomats is a result of anything that this Prime Minister has said. CSIS has advised the Prime Minister that the best approach to dealing with matters of foreign interference is sunshine and transparency, but there has been no sunshine. There has been no transparency. There has just been one cover-up after another. Only now, because the Prime Minister got caught covering up for this Beijing diplomat one week after The Globe and Mail first reported this, did the government, this afternoon, after voting against the official opposition motion, finally send Zhao Wei packing. It took the government and the Prime Minister two years. I can remember when the Minister of Foreign Affairs came before the procedure and House affairs committee a little over a month ago. This report in The Globe and Mail had not yet come to light, but there was plenty of evidence that Beijing diplomats, particularly at the Toronto consulate, as well as the Vancouver consulate, had been engaged in election interference activities. In the face of that, I asked the minister why it was that not a single Beijing diplomat had been expelled. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, incredibly, talked about a lack of evidence. Obviously, the minister and the government did have evidence. They had evidence with respect to Zhao Wei because they knew about it two years ago, but there she was, saying there was no evidence. Now, a week later, after it has been reported in The Globe and Mail, there was finally the evidence to send him packing. Why did it take two years? By the way, what is the minister talking about with respect to the need for evidence? What is the parliamentary secretary talking about with the need for due process with respect to these Beijing diplomats? There does not need to be due process. When there are findings of interference, article 9 gives the government the unfettered discretion to expel any diplomat, at any time, for any reason. Yes, it is true that making a decision to expel a diplomat could result in retaliatory measures being taken by the Beijing regime. I acknowledge that is something the Liberal government, and any government, would have to weigh. However, let me also say there is a cost of inaction. I would submit that that cost, in these circumstances, is far greater. It is simply intolerable that we have Beijing diplomats involved in facilitating the clandestine transfer of funding to candidates, targeting Conservative candidates in the 2021 election, and then bragging about the role they played in seeing that certain incumbent members of Parliament, whom they did not like, were defeated. It is intolerable that we have Beijing diplomats responsible for organizing illegal police stations to harass and intimate Chinese Canadians at what are effectively black sites. It is intolerable that we have Beijing diplomats intimidating members of Parliament and their families. It should not have taken two years. It should not have taken the Globe and Mail report, and it should not have taken a week of pressure from the official opposition for the government to finally send this Beijing diplomat home. When it comes to protecting our national security from Beijing, the Prime Minister is completely incompetent and unfit for office.

2104 words

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

May/8/23 5:56:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could reflect on the questions he posed during question period. The Conservative Party knows that last week the Prime Minister made very clear indications—

33 words

Wondering

Mr. Bob Zimmer

May/8/23 5:57:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is really difficult to listen to the comments from the member across the way when he still has not apologized to the member. I wish he would today.

36 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192