SoVote

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

May/8/23 9:11:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on several committees with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle. I would like to ask her a simple question. She said that she would have preferred to see the Prime Minister launch a public inquiry. Would she have been on board with the idea of the Prime Minister determining the parameters of that public inquiry she is calling for?

68 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

May/8/23 9:11:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are many worthwhile suggestions, but if the government wants to instill confidence, then it needs to be more neutral. If the government wants to show that what it is doing is not partisan, then it needs to be as neutral and impartial as possible for the sake of democracy and for the sake of all Quebeckers and Canadians. In order to do that, the first step is for the House to choose an individual that everyone can agree on. Then, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or another committee can look at the rules regarding state secrets, because it is only appropriate that they be respected. If the government had done it this way from the start, we would not be here tonight until midnight.

130 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/8/23 9:12:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for painting such a clear picture of the doubts that unfortunately prevail in the House. As she indicated, the government has certainly taken its sweet time on this. We were told that Ottawa could not act quickly because of the potential consequences. Obviously, every action has consequences. They are actually part of the action itself. It seems to me that any government must be prepared to accept the consequences of its action or inaction in terms of protecting democracy. I would like to know what the government will have to do when it gets to that point. It has appointed a so-called independent rapporteur, so at least it has begun to take action. What can the government do to really remove all doubt?

136 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

May/8/23 9:13:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of many leaders who have walked this earth, humility is about saying what is going on, presenting the facts and indicating what needs to be done, while respecting the wishes of the House of Commons. Each party has made proposals. As I have said several times in question period, I look forward to getting another registry because I am very concerned, as are our constituents. Frankly, an independent public inquiry would be the first step to having other recommendations, such as legislation to create a foreign agent registry. From the outset, if the government is worthy of a true leader, it will say what is going on and it will describe exactly what will happen in the coming weeks, in all humility and in the name of our democracy.

140 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/8/23 9:14:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her interventions on this, and I want to reference the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has been here for a very long time. His experience as a parliamentarian is something we all look to. His defence of democracy has been profound. Does my hon. colleague have any comments about her relationship with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

71 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

May/8/23 9:15:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given what is happening here tonight, the situation is critical. I have been here since 2019. Unfortunately, every time this government has taken real action to ensure that Canadians continue to have confidence in our institutions, it was because we made every effort to keep the issue in the spotlight and make sure that the government could not avoid it. Unfortunately, I feel like I am reliving the WE Charity events of 2020 with what is happening today. That was my first experience. They filibustered for over 40 hours until the noose tightened, and then they chose to prorogue. I had no idea what it meant to prorogue a Parliament. I came to understand that they were putting the lid on a pot that was about to boil over. We need to act now before we are forced to tell our constituents that something has happened, that the pot was about to boil over. We still have a few weeks left. We can do it before June 23. We need concrete results so that we can reassure our constituents.

184 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

May/8/23 9:16:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise, and it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. I will ask for the Chair's indulgence for a brief 30 seconds, before I start my remarks on the substance at hand, to recognize the Ramara Chamber of Commerce, which held its annual AGM tonight, and to recognize some wonderful businesses and organizations in the community. Lagoon City Pier One Resort, the Ramara Public Library, Casino Rama, Ramara Quilting, Spray-Net Northern Ontario and Orillia & Lake Country Tourism are businesses and organizations in the Ramara region that have done a lot in the community. However, we are here to talk about a very serious issue, and that is the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills about potential threats and harassment that members of the House or their loved ones have been subjected to based on some of the actions taken in the House. One of the things we have actually lost in the debate, given everything that happened last week, is that the report out of CSIS allegedly refers to multiple members of Parliament, not just one member of Parliament. There may be members in more parties, and perhaps even in the governing party, who are asking themselves whether the government is taking the necessary actions to keep them and their families safe or to keep them free from intimidation and harassment. This is why the question of privilege is important to explore. It is also why all members of the House, in many of the speeches tonight, have indicated their support for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explore in greater detail the questions raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I heard many great speeches here tonight, but the member for Scarborough—Guildwood also imparted some wisdom to us in terms of keeping some humility. There are lots of things about this situation that we do not know. There may be some things we will never be able to know because of national security, but it is the Prime Minister's job to set up the apparatus or machinery of government, to set in place a system through which the Prime Minister will be informed of the most serious matters. It is not a defence, in a Westminster parliamentary system, to put up a shield and say that one did not know about something. However, in the greater context, we have been losing this thing called “ministerial responsibility” over the last number of years. In parliamentary democracies, or in Westminster parliamentary systems, ministerial responsibility is very important. What we have seen recently from the government is that ministerial responsibility no longer exists. All one has to do is stand up in the chamber and say, “This result is unacceptable and we are working really hard to change it”, but I am not really sure we are getting the results we need or that there is accountability for actions of the government. Time and time again, unfortunately, it is the same playbook with the government. How many times have we heard, “The story in The Globe and Mail is false”, “The conversations never happened the way the Globe reported them”, or “We didn't know of that happening”? Then, when more information comes to light, the story changes to “Well, those might have occurred, but they didn't happen the way they were reported.” Then we learn a little more information and it is revealed that, actually, the issue in question did happen or the conversation did occur the way it was reported. Then, at the very end, time and time again we are told, “This has been a learning experience for all of us, and we will do better next time.” Let us just recap how we arrived here in just one week. On Monday, the government would not confirm when it had become aware of the allegations in The Globe and Mail. These are pretty simple questions. Either the government knew or it did not. It waited three days before acknowledging whether it knew and when it knew. I will note that not only is it a very simple question, but that the government confirmed, not in this chamber for Canadians, based on questions from parliamentarians, but in a scrum to the media. Why is it always that a simple question cannot get answered in the House, but government members will freely give some fact to the media when asked directly? On Monday, the government also said that any individual who contravenes the Vienna convention would be expelled. On Tuesday, there was no information given; there was no expulsion. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that he was unaware of the allegations until Monday, and that was the same for any of the other members of the executive branch. That was also the day when the Prime Minister said that the briefing note did not leave CSIS. “CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern.” There was still no expulsion. On Thursday, a really important day, the narrative began to change. The Prime Minister and senior government members appointed to senior parliamentary posts engaged in what anyone else would describe as gaslighting. In fact, they implied that it was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills who actually knew about these allegations two years ago from a briefing. We know that is categorically false. On Thursday, we also learned that in fact the alleged briefing document did, indeed, make its way out of CSIS and into the government apparatus. The national security adviser at the time received this note, as did other government departments. There was still no expulsion on Thursday, but the government summoned the ambassador to the People's Republic of China and asked what the consequences would be for expulsion. That is a little bit bizarre to me. How on one hand could the government take the position that there were actually no actions that rose to the level of expulsion but then ask what the consequences would be if an expulsion occurred? Was the government just trying to figure out the minimum that it could do to make this issue go away? Friday was a very important day as categorically false implications were made about the character and recollection of events by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The Prime Minister himself got in on the gaslighting game. “I was reassured to see that Mr. Chong received multiple briefings following the information collected by CSIS to ensure”—

1136 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/23 9:25:50 p.m.
Watch

I remind the hon. member that we do not refer to names of colleagues in the House.

17 words

Names

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/23 9:25:59 p.m.
Watch

My apology, Madam Speaker. I will paraphrase appropriately. On Friday, the Prime Minister got in on the gaslighting action. He said, “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 last part was a little jumbled, but I believe the implication and the only conclusion one can draw from listening to that quote is that the Prime Minister's comments are that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was aware of the interference. I do not know if anyone from that side of the House just parachuted in from another planet, because there is no one in the Milky Way who believes that these two things can be true. Nobody can believe that there was not serious enough action to be taken. That was one story. Then Liberals say that the member himself was made aware of the allegations. Then they also say that CSIS told the member, that he was made aware of these allegations, but we never knew. It is an impossible thing to have actually happened. They cannot, on one hand, say that because it was so serious, the member was made aware, but the government did not know. There is no possible way that CSIS would brief a member of this House on a serious issue without making people in the national security apparatus aware. Why do we need further investigation? The government's favourite game seems to be who knew what when. We always have to play that game with the government. We had to play it during SNC-Lavalin. We had to play it during the investigation of the Nova Scotia shooting. We had to play it during the WE Charity scandal. We will never know where the idea originated for the government program for the WE Charity to disburse $1 billion of government funds. We also had to play it last week with respect to the Trudeau Foundation donation that was linked to the Chinese Communist Party. There are allegations that donations to the foundation that bears the Prime Minister's name were made to influence the government. These are in reports. These allegations are very serious. Now we have evidence that the government either sat on some information, was unaware of it or was not curious enough to find out about certain interference actions. We know that there were not enough inquiries made with respect to the political donation scandal from just a few months ago that was revealed, where CSIS again produced reports, documents and evidence that suggested there was money being funnelled through a People's Republic of China official or consulate in Toronto to various political candidates from multiple parties, I would add, yet we have seen virtually no action on that front, no arrests, no expulsions with respect to that scandal and there have certainly been no fines related to or levied by Elections Canada. It should concern all members when there are accusations of improper and illegal donations for campaigns and political parties. Should all members of this House or all potential candidates not know who they should not accept funds from? That would be very important, I would think. I mentioned there are allegations that donations made to the foundation were done in a way to influence the government. I give full credit to a minister of the Crown for being transparent with the fact that Liberals summoned the Chinese ambassador to ask what the consequences would be. I cannot believe we asked what the consequences would be if we telegraphed that hostage diplomacy works, that we are worried about the repercussions of the expulsion of a diplomat because of what has happened over the last couple of years to Canadians in China. Today, we learned that the government has finally expelled the individual in question, which is interesting. Is it because the government got assurances from the Chinese Communist Party that the retaliation would be small in nature and that the government could take this action and that it does not think it rises to the level of expulsion but it is under a lot of pressure to do so? The government actually has not come out and said why the individual was expelled or that it believes the individual did anything in question. We are only left to go with what the government actually said last week, which was that it did not think that the actions that were taken rose to the level of expulsion. On my way here, I bumped into the member for York—Simcoe, who I know you like very well, Madam Speaker. He would like to speak tonight, but the spots were full. We were having a discussion about a similar question: Did the government have to give anything up? Does the government know what the retaliation is going to be already? Is it going to be transparent with Canadians? Is there some discussion about a tit-for-tat that is acceptable and that we accept as a country and so we can take this expulsion? Even the Chinese Communist Party has said that Canada is a good target for election interference because the consequences of being caught are not that serious. That is the level of respect that the Chinese Communist Party has for Canada. I submit that Canada is not viewed as a partner; we are a means through which the Chinese will accomplish their objectives. We have resources that they are interested in. We go along to get along. We are always worried about our standing in the world, so we do not want to take too aggressive foreign policy positions. However, the other thing that is very interesting is that we know the global power imbalances are shifting and we are funding them. We are using taxpayer dollars to fund the global realignment. We spent $256 million and funded the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Against the advice of basically every national security individual expert, we used $256 million of Canadian taxpayer money so that the Chinese Communist Party could grow its influence in the world. We have paid to undermine the global order that we enjoyed for a long time. That is a complete shame. The government does not like to talk about its investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It had not said much about it, but the last government refused to make that investment and the current government could not make it fast enough when it first took power. Why are we talking about all this? It is clear that we need to learn more about what happened. We also have hanging over our heads the potential for an inquiry. Let me just say this about the inquiry. Nobody says here, or at least I certainly do not say here, that former governor general David Johnston is a bad person. He is an eminent Canadian and an incredibly qualified individual. It does not make him a good choice to recommend actions to the government. It is the Prime Minister's own words that say that Mr. Johnston is a very close family friend. It is the Prime Minister's own assertions of how close the former governor general is to his family. In addition, he was so linked and such a prominent figure in the Trudeau Foundation. That does not make him a great choice to give the government advice on this matter. The test is actually quite simple. The test is whether a reasonable person would believe there is a reasonable apprehension of bias? An actual conflict does not need to exist. Just the mere perception of a conflict is enough. There was some discussion earlier about whether or not we are to just take the Prime Minister at his word that he learned of the allegations on Monday. I believe in the height of the Cold War, it was Ronald Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify.” That is what we are going to do at the committee. Canadians deserve more. Thank heavens we have a member in the member for Wellington—Halton Hills who has the honour, the integrity and the principled approach to stand up in this place to face down his critics.

1417 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/8/23 9:37:22 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I really appreciated the history and timeline the hon. member provided. Since I was elected, there have been two times when I felt our democracy was under threat. The first time was during the so-called “freedom convoy”. Those were intense times. The second time is now, with this debate, and what happened with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It seems that, when our democracy is under threat, the government does not take it seriously enough. I wonder if the member could share with us what the potential implications could be internationally, and why the Liberal government needs to be more active in ensuring that our democracy is protected?

114 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/23 9:38:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful question. I share the member's concern about the future of democracy. I would also just reiterate that the briefing note alleges there were multiple members of Parliament. We actually only know of one that has been public. It is possible that there are other members in this chamber who have actually experienced a similar thing. It should concern all members. As for the government's delayed response to some of these issues, I would say that we are hanging a sign out for the rest of the world that tells them what would happen if they meddle in our democracy, and we better be very clear about the signal that we send. We better make it clear that no amount of meddling is appropriate. Let us be honest, there have been countless times over the course of history where governments, maybe even Canadian governments, have gotten involved in the politics of other countries. We should be thinking before we do that. However, I will say that, when it happens here, we pride ourselves on transparency. Now that we know, we must dig more. We owe it to Canadians to dig into this more. We owe it future Canadians and to our democracy to take the sign out that says no meddling is welcome here.

222 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/8/23 9:40:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was enlightening, as usual. I have been watching this situation unfold for weeks, even months, and I wonder: Is this an error, a mistake or negligence on the part of the government? I will be precise here. An error comes from the verb “to err”. That is when someone loses their way. A mistake is when someone does something wrong. Negligence is when someone knowingly does something wrong. I ask my colleague, was it an error, a mistake or negligence that allowed the situation to deteriorate like this?

100 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/23 9:40:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. My hon. colleague has another thoughtful question. Is it a mistake, or is it an error? Could it be negligence? It could be all of the above. We cannot set up a system where we insulate ourselves from very important issues and then try to use that as a shield to say, “I did not know, and I cannot be held accountable for that.” Westminster parliamentary democracy has a thing called “ministerial accountability”. I actually cannot remember the last time there has been a lot of ministerial accountability in this chamber. Apparently, all they have to do is stand up to say that they think what is happening in a relevant department is unacceptable and that they are working to change it. Do we think that passports would have been issued quicker if ministers were losing their jobs? Maybe they would have. Do we think the backlog at immigration would get faster if ministers were held accountable for the performance of their departments? Maybe. Can the Prime Minister stand in the House and say that it is reasonable that he did not know of the allegations? It is entirely possible that he is being truthful and he actually did not know until Monday, but is that an acceptable way to manage the affairs of government? We are setting ourselves up for a precedent to say, “If you shield yourself from information, you cannot be held accountable.” Surely, I do not think that is the road we want to go down.

262 words

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

May/8/23 9:42:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Simcoe North, a person whom I have come to know. He is an hon. member, certainly, but I found his speech lacking because of the many examples he offered. If he were concerned about getting to the nub of the issue, he would look towards the testimony that we have had in committee when we had allegations floating around. When we get to the nub of it at committee, we discover that things that were painted a certain way were certainly not so. For example, I think of the allegations around the Trudeau Foundation and foreign interference. When we started having people come to committee and being put under question, we discovered that there was no foreign interference. There was no quid pro quo for donations. Then that leaves us with the issue that it is just a question perhaps of bad management, which I think is something that is well worth exploring. I guess the real point I am trying tell the member is this: Is it not worth, on a serious allegation such as we are facing, to take the time, with cool heads, to investigate further to see where the problem was before we just lay out a number of unproven allegations, some of which I heard, disappointingly, in the hon. member's speech?

227 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/23 9:44:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right. We need to thoughtfully think about allegations of foreign interference, and we need to examine them very closely. Do members know where we would be able to do that? It is in a public inquiry, for which the government seems very reticent to admit. Now, this hon. member, whom I respect greatly, says that we learned at committee that there was no interference. However, I did not see a report coming from PROC that said there was no interference with the Trudeau Foundation. The hon. member also says there was no quid pro quo, but let us look at the facts. Money went to the Trudeau Foundation, for which it was reported as an effort to influence the government. The government's action since taking government seems to be not very aggressive on dealing with China. I do not know. What is a quid pro quo?

156 words

Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC)

May/8/23 9:45:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech. It would be a speech I would give on the topic if I were speaking to it tonight. The member worked as a staff member years ago for Jim Flaherty. I think the excellence that Jim would have demanded from his staff, and the briefings he would have demanded, is why this member is so right in his speech. There is just something that does not add up here. There is something that does not add up with the public safety minister and the Prime Minister. They will know for sure which cabinet ministers through the years have had special security detail. They will know that. Why is that? It is because they were briefed, and they knew it. They should have known the same thing about members of Parliament who are not in cabinet. We are humans as well. We have families and extended families, and we are owed the same level of respect and security. This is what we really need to get to, which I think is what the member is getting to, and I would like him to comment on that.

196 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/23 9:46:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Huron—Bruce makes an excellent point. This is exactly why the question of privilege was raised. This also affects every other member in the House. That is why we need a further thoughtful study at committee. I look forward to the results of that study and whatever comes from it. Tomorrow is another day, and we are sure to learn new information.

70 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/8/23 9:47:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to thank the citizens of Louis-Saint-Laurent for giving me the chance to sit here in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I would prefer not to be here today. What we have to address during debate tonight is so serious, so tough and so sad. It is important for us to be very clear when we talk about it, and when we talk about the institution and the future of this institution. We are gathered here tonight for an urgent debate. Unfortunately, this has brought us to the realization that our parliamentary system and we, the members, are all in a very grim position. One of our own was the target of despicable attacks by a foreign power while carrying out his duties. Just because a sitting member of the House, irrespective of party affiliation, voted on an issue affecting China's Communist regime, that regime harassed the member and his family. When one member is attacked, all members and Canada's democracy are attacked. Therefore, we are gathered here because one of our own has been attacked. These events did not occur yesterday morning, but date back years. First, let us have some context. The Communist regime in Beijing 20 years ago was not the same one in power today. For the past seven or eight years, this dictatorship has been acting more aggressively at home and around the world, including here in Canada. During the election, we realized that this Communist regime was interfering in our elections, which resulted in CSIS intelligence officers focusing more on Chinese interference in our electoral process. That is why CSIS issued a directive on September 10, 2019, stating that, if a foreign power ever interfered politically in the electoral process, then CSIS would inform the government. Two years ago, CSIS, which was confident in its work because it is a serious and rigorous organization led and run by serious and rigorous people, discovered that the Communist regime in Beijing was directly influencing the electoral process by threatening a member of the House of Commons, his family here in Canada and his family in Hong Kong during the election campaign. In accordance with the directives, two years ago, CSIS informed the government of the situation. Who knew what when? As one of my colleagues stated so well earlier, that is exactly what we need to know. When did the government learn that the Communist regime in Beijing had interfered in the life of a member of the House of Commons and attacked his family? Two years later, this situation came to light. On Monday, The Globe and Mail, a newspaper that deserves the utmost respect because heaven knows it has uncovered some sensitive situations, no matter the party or government, published a veritable bombshell for our political system. The Globe and Mail reported that for two years, the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills was the target of threats and intimidation from the Communist regime in Beijing by means of the consulate in Toronto and a so-called serving diplomat. I want to reiterate why I say “so-called”, just as I did earlier in question period. It is because when someone carries out attacks of this magnitude, when someone orchestrates attacks on an elected official, that person is anything but a diplomat. That is why, even though it is the title bestowed on that individual, I use the phrase “so-called diplomat”. Last week, The Globe and Mail reported a story that was major news for all Canadians: A member of the House of Commons was the target of influence operations led by a so-called diplomat who works for Beijing's Communist regime at the consulate in Toronto. The Prime Minister immediately said that he had learned about it that morning from the newspaper. There are many people who do not believe that. Take this weekend, for example. There was a big Liberal Party rally, a convention that takes place every two years. There were 4,000 Liberals there, including former senior ministers, such as Ms. McKenna and Mr. McCallum. Both of them said that just about everyone in the know in Ottawa knew that the MP and his family had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing. Are we to believe the Prime Minister did not know? Come on, let us be serious. Everyone in Ottawa with any influence knew it, except the Prime Minister? As I said in question period, there is a word that comes to mind when I hear that, but I cannot say it here. I am not going to say it, but everyone can be sure that I am thinking it. I doubt I am the only one thinking it, either on this side of the House or on the other side, for that matter. We learned that, for two years, the family was being hassled by the Communist regime in Beijing. This happened to his family members in Hong Kong and his family members here. The member firmly maintains that he was unaware, and that he only found out on Sunday night when the reporter called him to ask him for a comment. That is how he found out, and I believe him. I will have an opportunity in a moment to introduce the member in question and explain how he can inspire all parliamentarians in the House. When he says something is white, I believe him and would never argue that it is anything but snow white. For a week, the Prime Minister said that he was unaware and knew nothing about it. Again over the weekend, he said he did not know, even though the member had confirmed it in the House. Unfortunately, I cannot ignore the fact that last week, two parliamentary secretaries, experienced members in this House, made some very odious insinuations about the member. Those remarks should have been withdrawn and should have been recognized as wrong. Unfortunately, their attempts at clarification did not get to the bottom of it, which is a shame. I believe that this institution is not well served when someone says one thing when the opposite is true. We should have the honour and the dignity to acknowledge that. Today we are having a debate, whereas last week, we had a motion calling on the House to vote on the possibility of having this government take meaningful action against the foreign threat to our democratic system. Unfortunately, the government did not vote in favour of that motion. That is too bad. It is very rare to see the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives speak with one voice for the good of Canada, with the Liberals the lone holdouts. We know that we are worlds apart from our friends in the Bloc and our friends in the NDP, but when it comes time to show Canadian unity in the face of a foreign power, this government shirks its responsibilities. Now we are having this urgent debate today because we believe that Canada is under attack from a foreign power that is directly attacking one of our MPs. We are also faced with the reality that the Prime Minister says one thing when many people think the opposite of his real actions. What is more, we are currently in a situation where the regime in Beijing has published very harsh statements about Canada. This is not new. I have no lessons to teach anyone. I am just a private citizen. However, in diplomacy, as soon as someone so much as bends the knee, they are bound to give way entirely. In contrast, if someone stands strong in the face of adversity, they command respect. That is not exactly what this government did. That is why, on the weekend, the regime in Beijing said that Canada needed to stop this farce, as if we were fooling around here and this was not serious. It is serious, and the facts are troubling. Today, after our motion was adopted and after the government finally realized a week later that it had to expel this so-called diplomat, China said that Canada was going to pay for this. That is what a power struggle is. As soon as we start to give way, the giant gets excited, anxious to crush its adversary even further. We need to be careful of that. I would like to remind members that, on this side of the House, we have been asking for the so-called diplomat to be expelled since The Globe and Mail article was published last Monday. That is a no-brainer. It took three or four days for the government to take the baby step of summoning the ambassador and giving him a warning. Then, a week later, while the vote on our motion calling on the government to take action on the matter of the Communist regime in Beijing was taking place, the so-called diplomat was expelled. It took a week for the government to understand something that was a no-brainer. I will choose my words very carefully now. I have a great deal of respect and esteem for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, both personally and professionally. This has absolutely nothing to do with the individual who holds the position. However, unfortunately, none of this government's ministers have much credibility with respect to international affairs, particularly in a debate about the Beijing government. Why am I saying this? First, let us remember that when the current foreign affairs minister was appointed, she was the fifth foreign affairs minister to be appointed by this government in its six years in office. We had five foreign affairs ministers in six years. How can Canada be taken seriously by other countries if the minister changes every 15 or 16 months? I am sorry to put it this way, but they were not stupid people, they were quality people. They included the Hon. Stéphane Dion, the current Deputy Prime Minister, the current Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Hon. Marc Garneau, an astronaut, senior government minister and seasoned member of Parliament. They were quality people, but the Prime Minister changed ministers every 15 or 16 months. How can anyone take us seriously? There is another thing. When the people in Beijing saw that the government seemed to be flexing its muscles and puffing up its chest against that regime, they knew very well who they were dealing with. They were dealing with this Prime Minister, who has never hidden his admiration—I am using the exact word he used at a party fundraiser—for the Communist regime in Beijing. That is not to mention the 15th prime minister's trip to Communist China in the 1950s, of which he was very proud. That is also not to mention the eulogy that the current Prime Minister gave following the death of the dictator Fidel Castro, a eulogy that was embarrassing and shameful for Canada. The PM's tribute was what I would call a bit clumsy, to put it politely, with respect to human rights. Need I remind the House that the Prime Minister's brother also wrote a book in which he expressed nothing but admiration for the Communist regime in Beijing? I will come back to that. How can officials in Beijing take us seriously when we are governed like this, and especially when they see how the government has been handling foreign affairs? It does not help matters. I touched on the issue of the Prime Minister's brother. Let us look at the issue of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. The foundation is also at the heart of the affair because the Communist regime in Beijing tried to influence it. First, I have absolutely nothing to say about the objectives of the foundation. Every foundation has a worthwhile and important mission, and the Trudeau Foundation is no exception. However, there is a slight difference between the Trudeau Foundation and other foundations. When the Trudeau Foundation was created, the Canadian government contributed significantly, to say the least. An endowment of $125 million from the public purse was given to the Trudeau Foundation. That is a lot of capital. Not every foundation gets that. In my opinion, the Trudeau Foundation has good people and an important mission. They are somewhat more accountable to the public than other foundations, however. What happened with this foundation? It also received $140,000 from the communist regime in Beijing, not to mention that the Liberal association of the Papineau riding, led by the current Prime Minister, also received some money from people in this regime. We are talking close to $70,000 in just a few days. The foundation received $140,000 from people connected to the communist regime in Beijing and, in response, nearly every board member walked out. That is a major development. In fact, the CEO told the parliamentary committee that what had happened at the foundation, especially with regard to the donation from Beijing, was an outrage. People I know well left the foundation. They walked out and want nothing to do with it anymore because they did not like what was going on there. Then, last week, the Prime Minister's brother came out and slammed the attitude of the leaders who had walked out. He explained in great detail how he thought everything was fine. I will be careful, because we always need to be careful when a politician's family is involved. I will tell members something about myself. I have a brother who is an engineer and another who is a professional musician. Members will understand that they are not involved in my job at all. Because of our last name, people obviously figure out pretty quickly that we are related, but my brothers have nothing to do with my job. In this case, Alexandre Trudeau, the son of one Prime Minister and the brother of another—and members obviously know which one is which—played a direct role in the foundation. He is not being attacked because he is the Prime Minister's brother. He is under scrutiny because of the role he played in the foundation. That is why we think it is too bad that he attacked those who spoke out about the foundation accepting and using funds with connections to the regime in Beijing. With regard to the foundation, it is really too bad to see that two great Canadians, Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Johnston were used, and I am choosing my words carefully here, as a shield by the current Prime Minister to say that everything is fine, everything is perfect. Mr. Rosenberg was used by the Prime Minister to look into whether any foreign countries, including China, interfered in the elections. That was bad timing because he was a member of a foundation that received $140,000 from the regime in Beijing. No one is questioning Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Johnston. We find it unfortunate that these people have done the Prime Minister's dirty work. Mr. Johnston, a great Canadian, was asked to take the time needed, to study what needs to be done about what happened in the last election, to determine if there was interference. That is not responsible. It is far from responsible. It is an absolute conflict of interest. This once again leads Canadians watching to have very serious reservations abut this government's credibility. Let us not forget that every time there was some controversy surrounding a trip, the Prime Minister said that everything was all well and good. In the case of the Aga Khan, the Ethics Commissioner ruled against him twice. Then there was WE Charity. The Prime Minister said that everything was fine, that there were no ties, that it was not a problem, but WE Charity gave a contract of almost half a million dollars to the Prime Minister's immediate family members. The Prime Minister gave almost half a billion dollars to WE Charity. He said it was not a problem. When the parliamentary committee was studying that case, things were going so badly for the Prime Minister that he decided to prorogue Parliament to shut down debate. Need I mention SNC-Lavalin? This is truly the worst election stunt I have ever seen in my career. “We need to get reelected” is what the Prime Minister's chief political adviser argued when Jody Wilson-Raybould was saying that things were not right and that legal action needed to be taken against the company. There is plenty I could say about that. I am sure that my colleagues' questions will give me the opportunity to do so.

2821 words

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

May/8/23 10:07:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak. We agree on some things but not others. I like to look to the past because it tells us what to expect in the future. In his speech, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent talked about many things, including credibility and flip-flopping. I would like to remind my colleague of a few things. We are talking about the government's credibility, but I would like to talk about the Conservative Party's credibility for a moment. I think the debate we are having today is important. Of course, it is essential to protect our democracy, but here are the facts. One of the candidates in the last Conservative Party leadership race, not the one from 30 or 40 years ago, was a certain Jean Charest, who my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent knows very well. That Jean Charest worked for a company called Huawei. How much credibility or confidence does my colleague think we can have today in a party that accepted someone who worked for a company that has been blacklisted by several countries? When it comes to credibility, confidence and Chinese interference, is the Conservative Party in any position to give lessons on foreign affairs matters, especially Chinese interference? The colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills who was targeted actually sponsored a motion in the House in November 2020 on the issue of Huawei. Again, I am struggling to understand, so I would like my colleague to explain how much credibility, how much confidence, we can have in the Conservative Party, given that it allowed a former Huawei consultant to run for the party leadership.

287 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/8/23 10:09:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, the former Quebec premier, a former Conservative leader and former deputy prime minister of Canada, the Hon. Jean Charest, clearly stated during the leadership race that there was no way Canada would continue to have trade agreements with Huawei. He said so himself. Furthermore, throughout his post-political career, so for the last 10 years, he always said that he had never questioned or jeopardized any ambition or situation whatsoever concerning Canada, including Quebec, quite the contrary. It is sad to see the Bloc Québécois completely deflect attention and become so sanctimonious on this subject. I think it is sad, because it is one of our members who is being attacked right now. While we remain focused on that, the member is arguing with the popcorn vendor in the back corner of the arena. I invite the member, and really all Bloc Québécois members, to draw attention to what is actually going on, as those who spoke before him did. One of our members was attacked. It took the government a week to do something about it. We are still waiting for a clear explanation from the Prime Minister who, unfortunately, refused to answer any questions again today.

214 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192