SoVote

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/8/23 6:35:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I share the Leader of the Opposition's concerns. In fact, that is why, earlier this year, I went to meet with professors and researchers at the Université de Sherbrooke who specialize in cybercrime issues. They were eager to talk to me and share their concerns. They shared the results of their research with me. They clearly demonstrated and explained how far behind we are here in Canada. The member mentioned Australia. The researchers told me about the European Union and certain countries in Europe. We are really behind. By not acting on this issue, what message does that send about the weakness of our foreign policy? How is it that there are some, Liberal and Conservative alike, who have known this has been going on for 40 years and have done nothing about it?

139 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/8/23 6:36:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Beijing sees the government's inaction as a major vulnerability. According to the intelligence service, Beijing sees Canada as a country that is very vulnerable to its interference because the government does not want to do anything to prevent such interference. For example, a foreign agent registry is a tool that exists in the United States and Australia but that does not exist here in Canada. The intelligence service pointed out that, in Beijing's eyes, we are uniquely vulnerable to interference because we do not have that tool to protect us. That is why the Conservative Party called for such a registry during the last election. We will continue to call for one and to exert pressure to make that happen.

124 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/8/23 6:37:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier today in question period, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby asked the government if there are any other MPs that it was aware of who may have had threats made against thems or their families and who had not been briefed. My impression was that we did not get a straight answer to what I thought was a very straightforward question. I wonder what the leader of the Conservative Party thinks about that, and whether he heard an answer where I could not. I am also curious about his thoughts about the Liberals' saying that this should not be a partisan circus. I totally agree with that, but I think the answer to that problem is to have a full public inquiry, to convene that quickly and to ensure that members across party lines are comfortable with the person heading that public inquiry. I invite him to reflect on that as well.

156 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/8/23 6:38:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree. In fact, had the government already launched an independent commission of inquiry, we could depoliticize this issue. We need to do that. It would make it possible to have a judge who is respected by all parties in the House rather than simply having another member of the Liberal club. We need someone who has the respect of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the Liberals. That way, we could have an open process where people would be compelled to testify truthfully. That way, we could get to the truth. That is why we will continue to call for that. It was in our motion, and that is why we will continue to exert pressure to make that happen.

129 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/8/23 6:39:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the 2019 annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians recommended that the government develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign interference and build institutional and public resilience. Why has the government been so negligent in its responsibilities, in its fundamental duties, to protect Canadians?

50 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/8/23 6:39:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that could be because the Prime Minister admires the basic Chinese Communist dictatorship. He has also said words of praise about former dictator Fidel Castro. It could be because Beijing donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. It could be that Beijing helped in two consecutive elections and he is just fine with it interfering once again. What is most disgraceful is the fact that he has made our Chinese population, the people in this country, vulnerable to this foreign threat. The data shows that, in the 2021 election, it was not that Canadians of Chinese origin went en masse to vote for the Liberal Party; it is that, in communities with large Chinese populations, there was a massive drop in the number of people who actually voted. That is because they were intimidated and threatened about what would happen if they went out and cast their ballot. Can members imagine that, in Canada, where we have the constitutional right to vote, some people thought that they or their family would be in danger if that vote went ahead, and that their Prime Minister found out about that in briefing after briefing and sat there and did nothing, perhaps because he was the beneficiary of it? It is disgraceful, and it demonstrates why we need a new government that will stand up for our home and native land.

230 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/8/23 6:41:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is disgraceful is the Leader of the Opposition— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

17 words

Disgraceful

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/23 6:41:29 p.m.
Watch

Order. I asked the hon. parliamentary secretary for his question. I would ask members to listen to what the question is. Before he started to speak, there were individuals who started yelling. Therefore, I would ask that they listen to the question. I know the official opposition leader is able to answer. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

56 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/8/23 6:41:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is disgraceful is that the Leader of the Opposition would actually suggest, as he did a moment ago, that the Prime Minister of Canada would willingly and openly allow foreign interference within the democratic process in Canada. In 2013, when the member was the minister of democratic reform, he received a public document from CSIS stating that foreign interference was here and was something that would continue into the future. For two years, the former Conservative government did absolutely nothing about it. My question for the member is this: Can he let this House know what he did as the minister of democratic institutions in 2013?

109 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/8/23 6:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we passed two laws that held it illegal for foreign bodies to provide any material support in elections. That is what we did. I find it incredible that whenever the current government gets into a scandal, it asks why the previous government did not pass tougher laws to prevent the Liberal Party from getting into its more recent scandal. It is like it is saying that it is so clever that it is better at scandal than we are at legislating against it. We are going to get better still. We are going to have a strong platform in the next election that fights all sorts of Liberal scandal, but more importantly, protects our democracy and brings home the control of our government back to the Canadian people.

130 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

May/8/23 6:43:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Mark Twain is rumoured to have said this: “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” With this Liberal government, it is no surprise that what we are hearing today is much more of the repetition that we have seen from a tired, out-of-touch Liberal government. However, talking of history, in 1970, former prime minister John Diefenbaker made some very prescient comments in this very place. He said in debates, at page 208 of Hansard, that: All over the world, Canada has a black eye. And now what is the government doing? It has recognized a communist China. Well, I can just imagine the deluge of communist spies who will come in here attached to the Chinese embassy, when it opens. They will all masquerade as diplomatic representatives. Frankly, I wish that Diefenbaker had not been so forward-looking in his comments, because that is what we saw here today. Earlier today, after far too long of a delay, the government finally declared Zhao Wei persona non grata. However, it should not have taken this long. It should have been done as soon as these allegations came to light. I do not mean last week when it was reported in The Globe and Mail; I mean two years ago when the government was informed of these allegations by CSIS. The moment the government knew from CSIS that a diplomatic representative was using influence and intimidation tactics against a member of the House and his family, two years ago, that diplomat should have been expelled and made persona non grata on the spot. What we have heard in the last week and a half is this: First, the government denied ever having received the report; then it came to light that, in fact, the government did receive the report. The national security adviser to the Prime Minister received the report; the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, received the report and then sat on it for two years while a member of the House and his family were being intimidated. It is, quite frankly, shameful and disgusting. The debate at hand today is on a motion of privilege. Now, many Canadians out there may not know the history or the background of what privilege means in today's context, but at its core, the constitutional principle of privilege goes to the heart of our role as parliamentarians and the voice of the people we represent. I want to talk a little bit about the history of parliamentary privilege. More importantly, I want to talk about why that history is important, why that dusty old history matters today, why that concept of privilege that came about in the era of wig-wearing was more common and why that is important today. Most parliamentarians have their favourite books, and mine is Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition. I want to quote the definition of “privilege” at page 11, paragraph 24. It reads: Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.” They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. That is from Sir Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, as quoted in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. The history that got us to this place is not linear. For centuries, Parliament and parliamentarians have used their authority in this place to assert their ability to do the work on behalf of the people they are called here to represent. Indeed, we can reflect back to 1621, when King James I refused to recognize Parliament's authority; in retaliation, the House of Commons said this: [E]very Member of the House of Commons hath and of right ought to have freedom of speech…and…like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment and molestation (other than by censure of the House itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or parliament business. That is quoted from the third edition of Bosc and Gagnon. Instead of recognizing Parliament's privileges, James I retaliated, ordering that the journals of the House of Commons be sent to him. Out of protest, he tore out the offending pages and dissolved Parliament. Therefore, when we talk about parliamentary privilege, we are talking about a history that has long been fraught with challenges from the executive branch of government. Why does this stodgy old history matter? It matters because parliamentarians need to be able to do their job. We need to speak in this place without fear for our families, without fear of retribution, without fear of foreign entities coming after us. In fact, let us reflect on the retribution that was targeted at the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Why was he being targeted? It was because he was standing up for human rights around the world. He was standing up against the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. He was standing up against forced labour camps and the persecution, forced sterilization and forced migration of the Uyghur population in China. That was what he was standing up for. He was standing up to protect the members of the diaspora community here in Canada as well. For this strong, straightforward talk from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, he and his family were targeted. What is worse, the government knew about it. The government knew about it for two years. It goes against everything that we as parliamentarians ought to stand for. It goes against the principles that we ought to stand for, to see intimidation from a foreign dictatorship. What is the next step that we need to take as parliamentarians? First, we need a full public inquiry that is independent and has access to all the information that it needs, with a commissioner who is fully independent and is acceptable to all parties in the House of Commons. That is what is needed next. We need to take this and send it to an authority who can get to the bottom of it. Second, we need new legislation in this place that would create a foreign influence transparency registry. Despite such a proposal having been floated for several years, the government has not done this. In fact, its most recent announcement on this was that it is going to hold consultations. It is going to talk about this and maybe, sometime, perhaps get to the point where it could get a foreign influence registry. This has been talked about already in this House, so I do not need to repeat it, but it makes sense. If domestic entities are required to register in order to lobby government officials, does it not also make sense that a foreign dictatorship ought to do the same? A foreign dictatorship should register to ensure that the people in this place have the opportunity to know who was there, rather than, as we have seen in the past with an entity attached to the Beijing consulate, waiting more than two years before action is taken. We have known that democracy can only do its work if the people in this place are free and secure to pursue policies and direct the government to take actions that are in the interests of the Canadian people. Erskine May, at chapter 4, reads: Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature. It is so necessary for the making of laws, that if it had never been expressly confirmed, it must still have been acknowledged as inseparable from Parliament, and inherent in its constitution. This is about the freedom of speech of members and the freedom of speech employed by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in condemning and calling to task the dictatorship in Beijing regarding its persecution of the Uyghur population. I draw the House's attention to July 12, 1976, when the Speaker presented the first report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members. In that report, he stated, “The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to allow Members of the House of Commons to carry out their duties as representatives of the electorate without undue interference.” The next year, on October 29, 1977, the committee presented another report, which stated: The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. As the member for Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned earlier today, we need this motion because of the failure of the executive branch of government. The executive branch of government failed to protect members of the House of Commons from foreign influence. By extension, the government has failed to protect all Canadians from the threat of foreign influence. Indeed, as both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned, within this place, we have a platform that we can raise these issues from. However, who does not have that platform? It is the thousands upon thousands of Canadians of Chinese descent who are being intimidated on a daily basis and facing repercussions from a dictatorship, Beijing, that is intimidating them here on Canadian soil. They are being intimidated by the presence of police stations of a foreign entity that have been allowed to pop up in at least two separate cities and that, in fact, continue to exist after the Minister of Public Safety claimed they had been shut down. The government has failed to ensure that members of this House were actively and effectively briefed on the intimidation efforts against them. We know that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was one such person, but the reports indicate that more than one member and more than one member's family may have been subject to these negative repercussions. One is too many, but more than one is an absolute indictment of the failure of the government to take seriously the threat of foreign influence in Canada. This should go without saying, but I am going to say it anyway: The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is an individual of the absolute highest integrity. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has more integrity in his little finger than the entire Liberal cabinet. I do not say that lightly. The fact that members on the side opposite, that government bureaucrats and that entities at the very highest level of government knew and sat on information of such an explosive nature for two years and did nothing is an indictment of the government and of the systems and apparatuses it has set up. They have failed to protect Canadians. This morning, I was able to bring my children to Parliament Hill. As we did a quick tour, we ran into the Sergeant-at-Arms and the mace. The mace sits at this table in the middle of the House of Commons to show the ability of Parliament to pass laws and conduct its business. Parliament and this House, as one of three constituent parts of Parliament, must be free to undertake their work. It is that freedom, that privilege guaranteed to us by section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that allows us to undertake our work, with the mace being a symbolic representation of that authority. Individual members must be, as is stated, “free from obstruction, interference, and intimidation”. That has not happened. The executive branch of government has not fulfilled its obligation to ensure that parliamentarians, but more important all Canadians, are protected from the foreign influence we have seen in recent years. As I begin to wind down my comments, I want to talk about what happens next. I have the great honour and privilege to serve as the vice-chair of the procedure and House affairs committee. Should this motion pass, it would be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What I want to see at that committee is a full accounting of the government's actions to date. What is more, in addition to a full accounting of what has happened, I want to know what action it has taken to ensure that this will never happen again. What changes have been made, both in the Privy Council Office and with the national security and intelligence adviser, to ensure that nothing like this happens again? I also want to see a full accounting of all information related to any individual member of this House who may have been targeted, and want individual members to receive a full briefing from CSIS on what threats were made against them and who was involved. Each and every diplomat who has been involved in nefarious intimidation tactics on Canadian soil must be held to account and, like Zhao Wei, must be declared persona non grata immediately upon that information coming to light. Let me be very clear. This motion today is of the utmost importance. It is about the ability of parliamentarians to do our job, to speak out on human rights abuses internationally and to speak out on behalf of Canadian citizens who are being threatened and targeted by a foreign power. We are here today to stand on behalf of each and every one of those Canadians and each every one of those people of Chinese descent being targeted here in Canada by operatives of the Beijing consulate.

2422 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/8/23 7:03:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his intervention, the member said that the executive branch failed to disclose information and sat on it for two years. Saying that is indirectly saying that the Prime Minister has lied, because when he was in this House, the Prime Minister said that he found out about this last Monday. We are supposed to treat all members as honourable and take their word. When the member for Wellington—Halton Hills says that he did not know for two years, we believe him. Why do we afford that luxury to some members, but when the member for Papineau gets up and says the exact same thing, that he did not know about it for two years, somehow we are not supposed to believe him?

127 words

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:04:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, despite not wanting to revert to my old days as a professor and lecturer in political science, I will explain to the member for Kingston and the Islands that the executive branch of government includes the bureaucratic arm of the government. It includes the national security adviser to— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

56 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/23 7:04:43 p.m.
Watch

Order. When I stand and the light is on, members should be quiet. The hon. parliamentary secretary had a chance to ask his question, and if he has another one, he should stand to see if he can be recognized again when it is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

56 words

Stand
Quiet

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:05:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I look forward to a follow-up question from the member for Kingston and the Islands. The fact remains that the Privy Council Office, which is the most senior department in government, a central agency and the Prime Minister's own department, was provided this information. The national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister was provided this information. Katie Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, testified at committee that nothing is kept from the Prime Minister on security matters. All this taken together means that there has been a clear and, quite frankly, disgusting failure of the government to hold to account those who are trying to influence Canadians.

125 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/8/23 7:05:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Why does he think the Prime Minister is refusing to call an independent public inquiry?

24 words

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know. I do not know why the Prime Minister is not choosing to do the right thing and launch a public inquiry. That is what he needs to do, but he is not doing it. We need a public inquiry to check the information and to ensure that Canadians and parliamentarians will not be targeted. This is where we need to go. We need to ensure there is a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of the challenges we see today.

88 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/8/23 7:06:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we need a public inquiry. We need a foreign influence registry. I agree with him that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has the highest level of integrity. Unfortunately, I cannot say that for the leader of the Conservative Party, who I have known for 19 years. He has proven that he will say anything, do anything and burn any house down to score a quick point. For him to claim that the Prime Minister of the country is working with dictators to intimidate Chinese Canadians to suppress the vote in Canada is over the top and juvenile. It would be funny if it were not such a disturbing case of dog-whistle politics. I have known the Prime Minister for a while and I do not have much time for him, but these are serious issues we are dealing with and we deserve better than the leader of the Conservative Party, who will grandstand and use something as serious as a threat to democracy at this time in order to make outrageous, silly, juvenile comments. Does the member agree that while the Liberals have failed to get us a public inquiry, his leader continues to play really concerning games with the future of our democracy and the credibility of Parliament?

220 words

Public

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:08:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will never apologize for the Conservative Party standing up for all Canadians. We will not apologize for the Conservatives standing up against the threats to our democracy from a foreign regime. Our leader and our party are standing up on behalf of thousands upon thousands of members of the diaspora community in Canada who are feeling threatened. We are standing up on behalf of former colleagues, former members and candidates who felt intimidation from China, like Kenny Chiu and Bob Saroya. They felt intimidated by foreign influence from Beijing in Toronto and from the dictatorship in Beijing. We will always stand up for the people being threatened in Canada to make their lives better here in Canada.

120 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/8/23 7:09:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that have come up frequently in the course of this debate is the need for an independent public inquiry. We have heard of the connection between the special rapporteur and Mr. Rosenberg as it relates to the Trudeau Foundation. The Trudeau Foundation is actually implicated in this foreign interference campaign by the Beijing regime. I want the hon. member to speak to the need for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of foreign interference in this country.

85 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192