SoVote

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

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:09:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we have an independent, non-partisan inquiry into foreign influence in Canadian elections. The member raised the Trudeau Foundation. The fact is that the Trudeau Foundation accepted a $140,000 gift from the Communist Party in Beijing. It accepted $140,000 in a contribution agreement signed by the Prime Minister's brother. We found out from testimony that the only contribution agreement he signed during his time there was the one linked to the Communist Party in China. It is high time for a public inquiry. It needs to happen now and the Prime Minister needs to make it happen.

107 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/8/23 7:10:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would hate for a former political science student to school another former political science student who is trying to school him, but the executive branch is the monarch, the Governor General and cabinet. That is the executive branch. Nonetheless, I was very glad to hear the member say that he does not believe that the Prime Minister was lying and that the Prime Minister in fact did not know until Monday. Can he confirm that indeed he does believe the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister says that?

91 words

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:11:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would never use unparliamentary language. I would say that, on so many occasions, the Prime Minister has been a stranger to the truth.

26 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/8/23 7:11:10 p.m.
Watch

You cannot say indirectly what you cannot say directly. I would just ask the hon. member to withdraw that.

19 words

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:11:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I withdraw that.

5 words

Withdraw

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/8/23 7:11:31 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I think it is unfortunate that the Conservative motion begins by talking only about foreign interference from China. We know that there is foreign interference from many other countries, especially from our neighbours, the United States. Specifically, I do recall that Travis Moore, a cryptocurrency businessman, gave $17,760. I wonder if the member agrees that when we are talking about foreign interference, we should not be talking only about China, but about other countries as well that have an influence on the protection of Canadians.

87 words

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:12:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, not to put too fine a point on it, but the member's privileges were violated by the Communist dictatorship in China. This is a privilege motion that is focused on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his rights and privileges as a parliamentarian being impacted by the Communist regime in Beijing. That is why we are debating this today. That is why we are here today and that is why this matter takes precedence over all other business of the House. A question of privilege rises to a level where all parliamentarians focus their minds on the issue. In this case, it is the privileges of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who was targeted by the Communist Party in Beijing.

127 words

Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC)

May/8/23 7:13:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is not about being one with the government. The Liberals have been in power for many years now. To me, it seems unacceptable that the Minister of Public Safety, who has been in cabinet for many years, would not be able to have a proper relationship with all the people to get all the information, the hundreds of people who could have provided him with good information. Time and time again he said he did not know as no one told him. We need the truth. I wonder what the member for Perth—Wellington has to say about that.

103 words

Mr. John Nater

May/8/23 7:13:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it goes back to the fact that this has been a breakdown of the entire executive branch of government. The Minister of Public Safety is just one aspect of the Liberal government, after eight years, not putting measures in place to keep Canadians safe, not being able to get the information to where it needs to go and sitting on information for up to two years when members of this House and Canadians are being threatened.

78 words

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

May/8/23 7:14:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, allow me to start off by indicating very clearly that an attack of foreign interference in any fashion on one member is an attack on all members of the House. I said this last week too. Maybe not in those exact same words, but I said it last week, and I have reinforced it. As a parliamentarian, I do very much understand the issue we are debating today. I understand the importance of dealing with the issue at hand. I want to cover a few different areas that I have been listening to and highlight some of the things I also said last week. The issue of foreign interference is something that is not new in Canada. This is something that has been going on for many years. There are a couple of things people should recognize. Number one, when we talk about foreign interference, influence and intimidation in any fashion, it is important to recognize that it is not just one country causing the problems. There are a number of countries that have been causing the issues we should all be concerned about. It is not one country causing the problem, and it is not one country receiving the intimidation. I would like to think that countries within the Commonwealth, allied countries, countries that have the same sort of values we have here in Canada, would be equally upset and would want to deal with the issue in a very significant and tangible way. On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to highlight a report that came out for 2022 from CSIS. The report highlighted some very interesting issues. One page talks about the intimidation of members of Parliament, and I have made reference to the numbers. What we are talking about is CSIS briefings to elected officials in 2022. In that year alone, CSIS made the determination that it would give what I believe to be general briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I was not one of those members of Parliament, but what I do know is that there were 49 in 2022. The content and the degree to which information is released to those individual members of Parliament are determined by CSIS. CSIS is the authority that ultimately makes the decision as to the seriousness of the potential threat and the circumstances around why there is a need to meet with the member of Parliament. It is not just members of Parliament. The same report states that there were 26 provincial briefings. I assume “provincial” means members of a provincial legislature. Not only did it hit provincial, but it also went municipal. That could be anyone from a councillor to a mayor or a reeve. There were 17 of those, and again, that was in 2022 alone. The report from CSIS states: In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security. In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference— I underline “foreign interference”. —terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The next part is what I would like members to appreciate: In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports. In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence products. There are 2,500 reports. We know there were 49 members of Parliament, 26 members of provincial legislatures and 17 mayors, councillors or reeves, based on the report. What we do not know is the context of what was conveyed to those individuals. To that end, we have to respect what we are being told. We often say that all members are honourable members. There does seem to be a double standard that comes from the opposition. They feel that they can say anything they want and they can mislead all they want and there is no consequence because, after all, they are in opposition. How many times have I used the words “character assassination”, coming from Conservatives toward government members? We never ever hear apologies from the other side when they make these bogus claims of misinformation, even when they know there is no merit to what has been said. They do not have qualms about doing that. We have been very clear that the official opposition has chosen to make this a political issue. All one needs to do is look at the questions the official opposition has been asking and some of the statements that have been made today. There is no problem at all in terms of attacking the integrity of members on this side of the House, but when practical issues are raised about members on the other side, how defensive they get. Talk about a double standard. As I said to one member, sometimes it is not advisable to throw a stone in glass houses, and that really needs to be applied. Mr. John Brassard: You made that up. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, I did not make it up. It came from the Manitoba legislature, and I thought it was a very good point. I was in opposition at the time. I can say that, at the end of the day, there are a lot of Conservatives throwing rocks in glass houses. I suggest that they need to dial it down, that there are alternative ways. We were the only country out of the Five Eyes countries that did not have a parliamentary review standing committee. One of the first things we did was establish that committee. There are parliamentarians on each side, all political parties, who get to participate in that group. This is a group of MPs who can listen and hold accountable organizations like CSIS. We do not know what is being said at that committee, but every party has representation on that committee and I suggest that they too, as a committee, are looking at this issue. One member stood and said that PROC is a wonderful committee. Yes, it is a wonderful committee. I sat on it for a number of years. Nothing prevents the opposition parties and the government from saying that, at the procedure and House affairs committee, they would like to look at foreign interference and study x, y and z. Today we saw that there is a great deal of support to have studies of that nature occur at standing committees. In particular, PROC has all sorts of mechanisms with which it can ensure a study takes place. We could be looking at the broader picture there because an attack on one is an attack on all, and it even goes beyond this chamber. I understand the dynamics of the large communities and the foreign interference that takes place within them. Not that long ago, I was at a local restaurant where some members from one community were so fearful of being caught meeting with me that they did not want to see anyone taking pictures because they were scared for their family members at home. We are not only talking about this country with respect to this issue. We need to realize that it is more than one country. We need to understand and appreciate that there is not one member in the House who would, in any fashion whatsoever, tolerate international interference, whether it were the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the NDP or any other member. I believe that to try to imply that is not the case would be dishonest. The Prime Minister found out about this for the very first time last week. Conservatives would know that if they listened to the questions and answers. Imagine the misinformation some are putting out there trying to give the false impression that he knew about it. Then they say that, if he did not know about it, he should have. It is as though they are somehow trying to justify it that way. They will say that it is a failure of the government to protect us. There were 49 cases just last year. Are they that naive to believe that 2021 and 2022 were the only years this happened? My colleagues raised the issue of what took place while the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservatives were told about it. They knew about it. Could any members on the Conservative side stand up today, with their integrity intact, to tell the House that, under no circumstances whatsoever, was there any intimidation or interference respecting a member of Parliament during the Stephen Harper era? I suspect not. Does that mean that Harper was an absolute failure? Does it mean that he was dishonest? I am attributing some of the incredible comments that have been coming from the official opposition toward the Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. As the prime minister at the time, he decided to not do anything. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to heckle or raise those types of comments toward the Prime Minister, especially given the actions we have taken to date. As a government, we have moved on a number of files to recognize this issue, so the Conservatives should not try to give the impression that there is a member inside this chamber who is not sympathetic to the impact that foreign influence has had on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are all concerned about it, each and every one of us. I would like to see this as a possible agenda item so we can think about it and talk about it. Members can think about what the purpose of foreign interference is, at least in part. It is to cast a shadow of doubt to make it look as though we have lost control of the issue. We can take a look at the Conservative Party's contribution to making a lot of those foreign actors happy when they see what is taking place in the chamber and in the media. There is a phenomenal amount of false information and misinformation being espoused by members of the House on such an important issue. We have recognized that. I will point out a few of the things the government has done. I made reference to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. As I indicated, members of all political stripes sit on that committee. They get to hear everything, and I understand foreign interference is one of those things they are hearing about. Are members saying that those members of Parliament do not know how to do their jobs? Are they going to reflect on that? Maybe they want to reflect on CSIS as an organization that has the decision authority. The Conservatives say that they do not know what it is doing when it has those general briefings by not explaining more. We do not know what they are saying because we have confidence in those general briefings. They are giving a general briefing because there is a need. Something has happened to cause them to provide that general briefing. We are all afforded the ability to ask questions, I suspect. I do not know for sure because I have not had one, and I am grateful that I have not. Reinforcing confidence in CSIS is also important. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, made up of the top independent experts, strengthens independent scrutiny and accountability of the national security agencies in Canada. These are incredible individuals who are there to ensure that the best interests of not only members of Parliament, but also all Canadians, are being taken into consideration and, in fact, acted upon. This government established the critical election incident public protocol, a protocol that is administered by a panel of the most senior federal public servants. They work with national security agencies and are responsible for communicating with Canadians in the event of an incident, or a series of incidents, that threatens the integrity of a federal election. We created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, which is composed of officials from the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada. The SITE task force works to identify and prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities from influencing or interfering with the electoral process in Canada. Because of a lot of the work we have done in the last number of years on this issue of foreign interference, we established a rapid response mechanism, the RRM, at the G7 summit to help G7 countries identify and respond to diverse and evolving foreign threats to democracy. In his speech, the leader of the Conservative Party was critical, saying that we do not care about a foreign influence transparency register. On March 12 of this year we announced the launch of a consultation to guide the creation of a foreign influence transparency registry in Canada to ensure transparency and accountability from people who advocate on behalf of a foreign government. At the end of the day, this is a government that has acted on the issue. We are suggesting that it impacts each and every one of us, and it is time to dial it down to make it less political in its partisanship. Let us wait until we get the report from the former governor general, and then we can follow the recommendations, even if it means having that public inquiry.

2349 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/8/23 7:34:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite keeps on invoking article 5 of the Washington treaty, but refuses to pay the dues. How is it that 49 people supposedly getting a CSIS briefing in 2022 absolves the Prime Minister of refusing to have CSIS act on a report, which he knew of, that a member of the House had been intimidated and the family back home had been threatened? How is that family in a restaurant the member talked about afraid of talking because of what might happen in the old country? The Prime Minister is using willful ignorance to justify his executive deniability. We did try to pass a bill, the foreign lobbyist registration act, that would have taken care of this, but the member voted against it.

127 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192