SoVote

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

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

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but this is difficult for me, so I will speak in English tonight. My struggle tonight is that I am trying to figure out that balance between holding the government accountable and finding a solution so that our democracy is protected going forward. One of the things I am very concerned about is that the Conservatives are very partisan on this issue, and I do not see a way forward when they keep this very partisan. I understand why that is the case. Like the member who just spoke, I have high regard for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I think everyone in this place should, but I look at the Conservative Party, and I recognize that in 2014, under Stephen Harper, they put some very secretive trade deals in place with the Government of China, trade deals that implicated Canada for 31 years. I am wondering what pieces were in place when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were in power that actually protected our democracy, because I know of some examples where the Conservatives, in fact, gave away our sovereignty and our rights to the Chinese government. Granted, I understand it is a different Chinese government than what we are seeing now, but they locked us in for 31 years. I am wondering how the member can stand there, and perhaps he can tell me exactly what pieces were in play so that our democracy was protected under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

251 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/8/23 10:11:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague for the fact that she spoke a few sentences in French. It is very appreciated. Maybe my colleague has not had a chance to listen to our leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition. He said clearly a few hours ago here in the House that in 2013, while he was a cabinet minister, he tabled and had adopted two pieces of legislation to make sure that if there was any foreign interference in our electoral system, we would have some safeguards. We would be able to intervene if necessary. We had laws, introduced as early as 2013, to deal with foreign interference. Unfortunately, things have gotten worse over the years. As the member was saying, and as I was saying just a little while ago, the current regime in Beijing is not at all the same as it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Everyone recognizes that. However, as early as 2013, when the member for Carleton was the minister responsible for this file, Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed two laws precisely in case, heaven forbid, foreign interference was detected in our electoral process. It was a matter of giving ourselves the tools to deal with this situation.

216 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/8/23 10:13:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question from my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, because it is a key issue. This government and the Liberals are not the only one who have made decisions that go against Canada's interests and are in China's interest. As my colleague said, Stephen Harper signed a legally binding agreement with the People's Republic of China. This was the result of a vote in Parliament, not at all. It was a decision made by Mr. Harper's cabinet. It gave the People's Republic of China the right to secretly sue the federal and provincial levels of government in Canada and the governments of indigenous peoples, and there is no way out of that agreement until 34 years after Mr. Harper's decision. I am so concerned about the decisions of the Liberal and Conservative governments. We must have a non-partisan approach to this threat.

161 words

Harper

Mr. Gérard Deltell

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the key to a non-partisan approach is the veracity of the facts and the acknowledgement of those facts. We have here a government that has known for two years that one of the members of the House of Commons was attacked by the Communist regime in Beijing. The Prime Minister is still in denial, but two of his former ministers have said that everyone in Ottawa knew about it. Are we to believe that absolutely everyone in Ottawa knew about this except the Prime Minister? Come on. How can we work together on anything meaningful as long as the Prime Minister is going to take that approach? I would like to remind the House that this is the same approach the Prime Minister took when it came to WE Charity, SNC‑Lavalin, the Aga Khan and Jody Wilson‑Raybould. He said that it was not true, that it was false. Then, the government attacked the journalists' sources and lectured everyone about journalism. When something comes out in the media, the government says that we need to go after whoever said it and that what is happening does not make sense, but then later, the government acknowledges that it was, in fact, true, but that the Prime Minister knew nothing about it and that he was not properly apprised. Let us not forget that these people managed to get rid of the first indigenous female justice minister because she wanted to administer justice while others wanted to get re-elected. That is shameful.

260 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/8/23 10:16:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start tonight by saying that I hope my colleagues will indulge me in taking a moment to send all of my best wishes to Alberta right now. There are 30,000 Albertans who have been displaced by the wildfires affecting our communities. We know that there are a number of indigenous and Métis communities that are particularly hard hit. We also know that the firefighters have stepped up to do some of the most dangerous work possible to protect Albertans. I just want to make sure that I express my deep, heartfelt thanks to them and send my prayers that the communities stay safe. My husband was kind enough to let me know that it has started to rain in Alberta, so fingers crossed that the rain continues and that communities stay safe. I missed part of today's debate because I had to step away. It was not because I do not think this debate is very important. It is probably one of the most important debates that we can have in this place. It is rather that I am a member and vice-chair of the Canada-China committee and we had a committee meeting this evening, so I am coming from a committee meeting where we looked at Chinese investment funds and how they are investing in China, how they are investing in Chinese companies. We have some deep concerns about some of those companies: whether they are implicated in forced labour, environmental degradation or, perhaps, harms to indigenous peoples and human rights abuses. I am coming to the debate tonight with that lens, with the idea that this is all part of a bigger conversation that as parliamentarians I think we need to have, but also as parliamentarians, perhaps, that we have left too long. The world is changing. How the world works is changing. We saw that on February 24, when Russia invaded Ukraine. We saw that there is a change in the way our world works. I feel that this place has not kept up as well as it should. That brings me to one of my important points on tonight's debate, which is that what we are talking about tonight is Chinese interference in our elections, the Chinese government interfering in our democratic institutions and interfering with members of our House of Commons. However, for me it is vitally important, and I will probably repeat this a number of times tonight, to remember that this is not just about the Chinese government interfering in our electoral system, in our democratic institutions and in our country. It is about many different countries interfering. It is about foreign interference from many bad actors. I think we can all agree, with what we are seeing out of Russia with Putin and the Russian Federation, that there is a very clear attempt to use disinformation, to use social media channels and to use the convoy in order to change the conversation, to change the way Canadians see our democratic institutions. We can see some of the things that have come even from the Russian social media. There are official channels that are very disruptive, which I think we need to be aware of and keep in mind as politicians. We are seeing the influence of Iran. We do have a terrorist regime in Iran that is influencing Iranian Canadians and putting them in terrible situations. We do have that situation, and we have examples of foreign interference from the Government of India. I know that the United States is one of our closest allies, an ally that every Canadian cherishes. However, I have to say that to ignore the fact that there is interference in our democratic institutions from the United States is a mistake. Honestly, I was looking at some of the numbers related to the funding for the convoy, which was so disruptive for our democracy and so disruptive for our country in the winter of 2022. There was a funder who was in charge of cryptocurrency. He was another cryptocurrency king. He gave $17,760 to the convoy. He was an American. His goal was to impact our electoral system, to impact our democracy. I want everybody here to be very clear that what we are talking about tonight is not just the impact that China and the Chinese government have had on our democratic institutions. It is very important that we keep in mind that we need to up our game. We need to be much stronger and much better on foreign interference from a number of different places. That said, I also want to say how sorry I am that this has happened to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It is a testament to what an incredible member of Parliament he is that members from every party have stood in this place and spoken about his integrity, his knowledge and his skills as a parliamentarian. It is in fact that skill, that integrity and that voice he has a parliamentarian that put a target on his back. It is his raising issues on the protection of our democratic institutions that has put a target on him. It is because he is such a strong parliamentarian that he is now the target of the PRC. For us, that is particularly damaging and dangerous, because it basically says that if a member is really good at their job, they are more at risk of being a target. That is not what Canadians want from their parliamentarians. We do not want weak parliamentarians so that they do not become a target of the PRC. That is a terrible thing to institute. I was a member of the international human rights subcommittee that was, two years ago, banned from China. We were told we would be sanctioned and that if we had any assets in China, they would be seized. This is because the subcommittee had done a study on the genocide of the Uyghur people. We brought people in, heard testimony and produced a report making it very clear that what was happening to the Uyghur people in Xinjiang constituted a genocide. That report came to the House of Commons, where there was a unanimous vote and the Parliament of Canada agreed that this constituted a genocide. I look at that and think what we have now is the use of threats, the use of misinformation and the use of intimidation to stop our democratic processes. I do not want to go to a meeting on a Friday of the international human rights subcommittee and worry that we cannot make decisions we need to make because some government may interfere with our democratic processes. I do not want that to happen. We need to do everything we can as parliamentarians to protect that. When I sit on the Canada-China committee, I do not want to think that I have to be careful with what I say about how our pension plans are invested around the world. I want to be able to ask the questions I need to ask so I can get the information I need in order to make the decisions that I need to make as a parliamentarian. That is at risk if we are not cautious with how we move forward on this. As horrendous as this must be for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and for many other members, it is also important to note that the House leader for the New Democratic Party today stood up in question period and asked if all members who had been the target of foreign interference by the Chinese government had been notified. We did not receive an answer from the government. The government did not provide us with an answer. I do not know about the rest of members, but when I do not get an answer, I assume the worst. I assume the reason we are not getting a clear answer is that the answer is not something we would want to hear or the government would want to tell us. We already have a situation where we do not even know how many other members of Parliament may be impacted, and that is terrible, because we are the legislators. We are the people who have been entrusted to hold the government to account. What else is terrible is that this is not just happening to members of Parliament. This is not just happening to those of us in this place who make laws. This is happening to Chinese Canadians across this country. It is happening to Iranian Canadians. It is happening to Ukrainian Canadians. It is happening to members of other levels of government. That, for me, is the piece that says we really have to do something to protect the safety of Canadians. This is not new. We are in this place and are seized with this issue right now. Those are the vagaries of how this place works. Things come and go and whatnot. However, we have heard from witnesses who have testified at committee about being intimidated and suffering at the hands of the Chinese government for decades. We have been told that this has been happening for over 30 years in this country. It is really important that we consider that and think about the fact that, yes, absolutely this is coming to a head right now and is something we need to deal with. However, if there were ever a time to recognize that we have let this go too long, that we have not taken this threat seriously and that we have not looked around the world and recognized how vulnerable and precious our democracy is and how important it is that we fight to maintain the safety of Canadians and our institutions, it is now. The fact is that they have been calling for us to pay attention for 30 years. That is a lot of Liberal governments and a lot of Conservative governments, and we have not seen a lot of solutions. There is another thing that I want to raise for members' attention. We have been talking about foreign interference, and today I think we were all pleased to know that the diplomat who was responsible was listed as a persona non grata, albeit it was very slow. However, I looked into something that a colleague of mine mentioned earlier in the debate, that is, how many diplomats from China are here in Canada right now. We have 176, from what I can count. I could be wrong, because of course when we start counting sometimes we make mistakes, but we have 176 in Canada right now. I do not know that we have a good sense of what those diplomats and those staff people are doing in this country. However, one thing I found was even more shocking: We have 81 Russian people in this country right now. We only have 25 people from Ukraine. We are the country that has the most Ukrainians in it outside of Ukraine and Russia, yet we only have 25 people from Ukraine who are part of the diplomatic staff and diplomatic corps, and have 81 people from Russia. I am concerned about how we justify this. What is the rationale for it? What is the thought process behind it? I struggle when I stand in here because I know that national security is not something we can take lightly; it is not something we can underestimate. It is also not something that necessarily can always be brought up in public in the House of Commons. In our committees, we have in camera meetings. We understand that some things are not for public consumption. I have never been a member of the government, but I can assume that there are certain things we need to keep secret and that we need to keep private. We have NSICOP for that purpose, and this is how we manage the balance between making sure we are keeping Canadians, members of Parliament and our democratic institutions safe while ensuring that we are protecting things that cannot be made public. I think most Canadians understand that. However, I think most Canadians will say that the balance is very skewed at the moment, when we have a member of Parliament who has been at risk for two years and was not told and when we have a member of Parliament whose family was threatened. I think most Canadians will recognize that the scale is now very skewed. I also think we can all agree that the government has mishandled this particular situation. It has dragged its feet. It has acted only when forced to do so. However, I asked a question earlier of a member from the Conservative Party, and I am not certain that I got an answer that explains what the Conservative Party would have done differently, how the Conservatives acted differently before they were elected and how they were ensuring that our democratic institutions were protected any better. Absolutely the government needs to do more, but I am looking at a 2014 agreement that set Canada up for 31 or 34 years of secret, backroom deals and of things that we do not even have the ability to get information about. Yes, I am concerned about what the Liberals are doing, but I am not 100% sure I believe the Conservatives would have fixed the problem. Knowing I will run out of time at some point, I do have some suggestions, because that is what we should be talking about tonight as well. What is the solution? What do we do now that we know our fragile democratic institutions are at risk? We all want to protect them, and I have to believe all of us want that. We have a situation where things have not been done properly. How do we make sure going forward that things are done properly? There are some very clear things we can do. We need the government to put in place stronger measures to identify foreign influence by introducing new reporting and transparency mechanisms. There has to be a better system so those mechanisms do not fail again. We need to make sure those are updated. We need a public inquiry. There needs to be a public inquiry into foreign interference. We have called for this. That is because at this point, that level of trust is broken. Believe me, I do not think our elections do not have the right results or anything like that. The results that came from our elections are fair and Canadians can be confident of that. However, what I want is for Canadians to be confident going forward. I want Canadians to be confident in the next election, and a public inquiry is the only way that is possible. Obviously, the government must shut down the police stations targeting Canadians. I think every Canadian recognizes that they are not something we want on our soil. It is not something that should be happening. I am disappointed to hear things like we are “seized” with it, we are “concerned” about it or there are “thoughts” about stopping it. This is not strong enough. Those need to be shut down, and any of the diplomats who are illegally acting within these police stations need to be expelled. That brings me to the next thing. When we know that diplomats are spying on Canadians, intimidating Canadians or misusing their position, a position in which they have more rights than the Speaker and I have, they need to be expelled. To me, it makes sense that we expel anyone who is threatening Canadians. That is another thing we can do. As New Democrats, our focus going forward is going to be on how we make sure we are protecting our institutions. What mechanisms do we need to put in place to make sure that what is happening and what has happened do not happen again? Let us make sure Canadians can feel confident that their government is protecting their safety and protecting the democratic institutions that all Canadians should be very proud of.

2724 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

May/8/23 10:35:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up the fundamental debate. We are looking at intimidation campaigns against members of Parliament, and one of my Conservative colleagues said that it is like Canada is holding up a sign. The Prime Minister said years ago that he admires the basic dictatorship of China because that allows it to get things done. Then there was the cash-for-access fundraisers, where thousands of dollars went to the Liberal Party. There was the $140,000, and I could go through the list of police stations. It seems the government is not taking this seriously. There is a fundamental choice we have over the next few days, and all of us have to come together and say that these things are unacceptable. Could the member elaborate on the importance of the government taking this seriously right now? It is not just about members of Parliament. Chinese Canadians and Canadians of other countries who come here are being intimidated by foreign governments. When do we actually say stop and that enough is enough?

176 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

May/8/23 10:36:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, listen, if I had my way, there would be no dinners that are pay to play. There should be no $1,000-a-plate dinners. However, come on. Let us not pretend that the Conservatives do not do the same thing. Let us not pretend there is not fundraising being done on the backs of bills like Bill C-11, and that there is no politicization of them. That is not accurate. In terms of making sure the government acts seriously, I have to say that I agree with the member on that. It feels to me like the government has had to be dragged to do the right thing, kicking and screaming. We brought the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the foreign affairs committee, and basically she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the things that are so easy to do, like expel this diplomat. Frankly, this diplomat is not expelled, of course. He has just been listed as persona non grata and is no longer protected. However, for these things the government should be taking action on, it is not. It is not acting fast enough. It is not participating in building a stronger democracy in ways I would like to see.

209 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192