SoVote

May/8/23 10:56:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, specifically on the NSICOP measure, although the report has been able to reach some necessary conclusions, this parliamentary committee does not report to Parliament. It reports to the Prime Minister's Office. What the Conservatives called for from day one was an independent committee that reported to this institution; at the end of the day, it is this institution that Canadians vote for and are worried about. It is this institution that foreign governments are trying to undermine. They do this by threatening members of Parliament based on the members voting as they see fit on behalf of the communities they represent.

104 words

Nsicop

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/8/23 10:57:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As a fellow British Columbian, I always appreciate working with him on the protection of wild salmon. In terms of the topic tonight, we know the problem of foreign interference is not just about China. Canada needs to do way more when it comes to combatting foreign interference from all countries, from illegal police stations to election fraud, attempts to spy on our airspace and threatening members of Parliament here in this House. Canadians are rightly concerned about foreign interference by the Chinese government, as well as other governments. It is up to the government to defend Canadians from threats to our democracy. Right now, the government is letting Canadians down. We need a foreign registry, a public inquiry into foreign interference, better contact points for Canadians being threatened and intimidated, and better protection from foreign spies. Does he agree the government needs to take swift action in dealing with foreign interference and spying, extending beyond China?

168 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 10:58:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that it is not simply China that is trying to interfere in the affairs of Canada. The report specifically mentions Russia as well. Indeed, Canada needs a foreign registry similar to what Australia and the United States of America have. Canada needs to establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference. Canada must close down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China in Canada. Thankfully, the government finally had some courage today to expel a diplomat who was threatening Canadian members of Parliament.

100 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/8/23 10:59:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question, and I would really like to hear his personal opinion. The foreign agent registry he referred to a short time ago has been implemented in Australia. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we heard testimony that this registry was not working, that there were flaws in it and that the objectives in question had not been achieved. I wonder if my colleague could comment on what he might suggest to ensure that such a registry achieves the objectives that are set.

96 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 11:00:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, respecting the design of a registry in Canada, I am glad the committee the member serves on is looking closely at what is taking place in the United States. I would defer any design of such a registry to officials at CSIS and the RCMP. I am not an expert on the design of a foreign agent registry. We do know, in Canada, that the best medicine is often sunshine and transparency. When we design any reporting requirements on behalf of the Government of Canada, be it for Canadian citizens or foreign actors, the best method is always to make sure that information is outlined in a clear and tangible way. Thus, law enforcement agencies across Canada would be able to use the registry effectively and, ultimately, Canadians would be protected from foreign actors seeking to interfere in the business of this House.

145 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/8/23 11:01:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate tonight, although it is somewhat sad to have to talk about this topic. I find that the Liberals' reaction to the situation with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is quite disturbing. First, a couple of days ago, the Liberals had two of their members attack the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, saying that he should have acted more quickly because he had been briefed two years ago. Second, at the Liberal convention this weekend, the public safety minister was attacking CSIS, saying that CSIS should have directly reported to the Prime Minister, briefing him on the situation. It is not the job of CSIS to read the report to the Prime Minister. Even his top security adviser said that the report went to Privy Council, but they did not read it. My question to my hon. colleague is as follows: When are the Liberals going to run out of people to blame? What does the member think happened?

172 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 11:02:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since elected, I have really gotten to appreciate the hon. member's advocacy for the agricultural sector and his amazing hockey skills. To the question specifically, it is one I have actually been pondering for a number of nights. A report lands on the desk of a CSIS agent, stating very clearly that a member of Parliament has been targeted by a foreign government. What is that CSIS agent going to do? My understanding is that a security and intelligence officer would probably want to move that up the chain of command very quickly. A threat to a parliamentarian is a serious matter. The excuses given by the government so far, in the last week of discussing this matter, do not seem to add up. The fact of the matter is that this was likely brought forward to the Prime Minister. That is exactly why I asked the Prime Minister, today in question period, when he would stop misleading Canadians about what actually happened. We need some transparency on this matter. I hope the debate we are having over this question of privilege continues to expose the lack of concrete action by the government. In fact, in some cases, it may be that negligence was shown to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills by not taking the appropriate action to move forward and provide the protection required to him and his relatives in such circumstances.

238 words

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

May/8/23 11:04:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's willingness to talk about the other countries we need to look into. I remember the first time I heard in the media, and others around the room may recall this as well, that Hillary Clinton's people were making the claim that Russian interference had something to do with the leaks that damaged her campaign. I thought they were really reaching there, and I wondered if it was at all plausible. Now we know that not only was it plausible, but it happened. We have seen interference from a number of actors in particular. I voted for the motion for a full inquiry, for shutting down the police stations and for moving forward. I just want to share that I did not want us to restrict ourselves only to the question of the moment of Chinese interference in our elections but, instead, make sure that we looked at the broader question. This question is how we ensure that we are on top of everything we could do to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference. Does the hon. member have any comments on that?

191 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 11:05:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question is very important, and it points to the overall capacity of the Government of Canada to respond to foreign interference in whatever format it threatens our country. That is why I outlined, again, the NSICOP annual report for 2019, which calls for such a strategy to provide a whole-of-government approach, so that Canadians can be confident in our institutions.

65 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

May/8/23 11:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate tonight. I will start, as I did on Thursday, with an expression of solidarity with and admiration for our colleague in the House. I say “our colleague” and not “our Conservative colleague”. Our colleague is a member of Parliament, the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, who has done great work representing his constituents and standing up for our country in the House for almost 20 years, so it is important to start there. Right now, and it might be lost on folks tuning in and wondering what we are talking about at this late hour, we are debating a motion that states, “That the prima facie contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” The Speaker ruled today, in his ruling on parliamentary privilege, that there was a contempt of Parliament. Now we are debating whether the House committee that studies these things would take this up. That is what we are debating today. I find it really interesting that almost no Liberals have actually spoken in the debate today, and when they have spoken, we have not known what their position is. No one has signalled what their individual position is or what the party position is. For the most part, when Liberals have gotten up and spoken, it has been to sow chaos, quite frankly, to raise random points of order and to weigh in in that way, not to contribute to the conversation in any way or to stand up for the privileges of a member, and therefore for the privileges of all members of the House of Commons. Today, as has been referenced several times in the House, we voted on a Conservative motion that we debated last Thursday. Interestingly, in a rare show of agreement, Conservative, Bloc, NDP and Green members voted together on what seemed like a very straightforward motion; it was very much common sense if people have been following what is going on. There is some preamble that lays out the situation. It is not overly political, and there are four main points. The motion is calling on the government to “(a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America”. That seems pretty reasonable right now. It continues with “(b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference”. We have been talking about foreign election interference for some time, for months now, in the House. Next, it states, “(c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada”. For most Canadians, hearing me say that will be alarming, because they would wonder how in the world any government would allow that to happen. The motion ends with “d) expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy”. That is something that most Canadians would think would be common sense, and most Canadians, again, would be surprised to understand that the first such diplomat was expelled only today. That is what has led us to this point in the House. Thursday was interesting, because, as I mentioned, it would be surprising to most people that those were the four points that we passionately debated in the House. The government, like all members, was given notice that there was going to be a debate, so parties and individual members could get prepared for that debate and understand what their individual and party positions might be. I certainly came to the House expecting to have a passionate debate about something really important, but I expected that all members would rally together to understand the gravity of what we were talking about. Then we got to the House, and it was very clear that most of the members from most of the parties of the House came expecting to have that reasonable debate in the interest of Canadians, understanding the gravity of the situation. However, Liberal members came to the House with what seemed to be a coordinated strategy. There is no other explanation, because it seemed like a deliberate strategy to just cause chaos in the House. The Liberals have two parliamentary secretaries to the House leader. They are both very well known to members of the House, and both of them undertook a strategy, and it was a very clear strategy, to actually call into question the credibility of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

790 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 11:11:26 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/8/23 11:11:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point of order at least three times now for the same member who has been raising the same points. He knows full well that I have since explained what I was intending to say and that I have apologized unreservedly to that member, to all Conservatives, to the Speaker and to this House for that comment. I think it has already been ruled to that effect, and I think you should reinforce that ruling, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member: It's not a point of order.

92 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 11:12:12 p.m.
Watch

I am in the chair. This is the same debate we have been having for three days, and I have ruled the member out every time he has stood there and tried to bring it forward. That is not a point of order. It is a good point of debate, but I just want to make sure we have heard it and gotten it in Hansard. We have been over it a number of times, and I am hoping that, when the debate continues, we can maybe stop accusing each other of things and just proceed with the information we have before us. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

110 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/8/23 11:12:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, multiple times, probably a dozen times now, Speakers have ruled that the member's point is not a point of order. I have the two words he did say and withdrew. I have them. I was not referring to those, the ones he apologized for. I think he apologized twice on the day, but— Mr. Mark Gerretsen: What two words? Hon. Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, he is asking me to say the two words. The words he apologized for saying were said when he referred to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as being “supposedly affected”. He apologized for those words. I was not going to read those words, but he is heckling me, asking me to read them. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That is not true. I apologized for—

136 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 11:13:31 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

8 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/8/23 11:13:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he is still heckling me right now. Anyone can watch the tape now. We have another member coming in. I cannot reference that. I withdraw—

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 11:13:59 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/8/23 11:14:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about a member entering the chamber, which he should know he should not be doing.

21 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 11:14:17 p.m.
Watch

That is close to a point of order, but the member did not specify which member was coming in or out. I think it was a general thing. I saw two members coming in at the same time, so I do not know which one he was referring to. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

56 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/8/23 11:14:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot reference who is in the chamber and who is not in the chamber. All I know is that as I am speaking tonight I am getting a lot of echoing coming back from the other side. I will say this. The approach on Thursday was to sow chaos, and not just Thursday, by the way. We have seen this in question period from ministers who were answering as well. The approach on Thursday was to blame the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. There is no question. The approach today seems to be to throw accusations of politicization. That seems to be the theme of the day. After the approach on Thursday of sowing chaos and blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the approach today, as we heard the member for Winnipeg North reference multiple times today, was to use the phrase “throwing stones at glass houses”. He over and over again used that phrase of “throwing stones at glass houses”. At one point he actually, when asked about it, attributed the phrase to the legislature in Manitoba. He said that phrase originated in the legislature in Manitoba. That is the approach that was taken there and then we got into a debate. These are almost all of the times that Liberal members have stood up to take part in the debate today. That was the entirety of their argument, to then talk about unparliamentary language. As we have been having conversation, I think it is fair to say that members, not only in this party but maybe in other parties in the House, have a luck of trust in the Prime Minister and in the government. That is fair to say, right? We can say that. I mean this is something that we hear from our constituents. This is something that more and more Canadians are talking about, a lack of trust in what is said, a lack of trust in the competence of the government to lead during tumultuous times like this. I think that is fair to say. We have talked about chaos, politicization and trust. There are the accusations thrown out by the government. There are questions about loyalty. Answers are not given to legitimate questions from all parties in the House about what is happening. We asked about holding a public inquiry so that Canadians can get to the bottom of what is actually happening in our democracy with some very important questions. Ministers during question period stand up and ask how any opposition party could possibly question the loyalty of the Prime Minister. Let me be very clear. No one is questioning the loyalty of the Prime Minister. There are significant questions, very relevant questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister, the competence of the Prime Minister. I think there are very relevant questions about the competence of the entire leadership organization of the party in power right now, based on what we have seen in the last two days of debate on this really important issue. It is not political to reference facts. It is not political when we take a look at judgment. It is not political in the context of the conversation to quote the Prime Minister himself, so I will do that. A lot of reference has been made, over the course of the debate in the House of Commons, to the 2013 interview that the Prime Minister did. It was an event that he was speaking at. The question he was actually asked at the event was which nation's administration did he most admire. Remember, this is at a time when President Obama was leading the U.S., so the answer to that question could have been “Well, of course, it's the U.S. I have a lot of admiration for President Obama” and then he could have explained why. In answer to the question, without hesitation, he answered, “there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.”

695 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192