SoVote

May/9/23 10:27:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, honestly, as a fellow Manitoban, I know that the member is better than that. I know he does not really believe what he just said, so it is hard for me to dignify that with an answer. What he is saying is that, having all this information, knowing that the report was in the Prime Minister's Office two years ago, he would just have us sit here quietly, like Beijing has its opposition sit quietly and like Mr. Putin puts his opposition in its place. He would have the loyal opposition sit here and do nothing, and that is not something we can do. There is too much at stake.

113 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/9/23 10:28:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about this issue for hours, for weeks already. If quick action had been taken at the outset, we would not be held up by this issue today. We could be talking about health, seniors, the fight against climate change and biodiversity. Does my colleague agree with me that we have really become stuck on this issue, and that we could be accomplishing a lot more for the people of this country?

77 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

May/9/23 10:29:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleagues know that I am a numbers guy. I love the finance committee, and I agree 100%. I would like nothing better than to be debating the budget, but the Liberals cut off debate on the budget. Therefore, we cannot talk in the House about, for example, the fact that they have doubled the national debt in the last six years, from $600 billion to $1.2 trillion, because the government and the costly coalition NDP partners actually quashed debate in the House about that. I agree wholeheartedly, but the fact of the matter is that action should have been taken early on, two years ago, to let the member for Wellington—Halton Hills know this was going on and to call a public inquiry.

129 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/9/23 10:29:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really appreciated his reminding us that the opposition is important to democracy and to Parliament, although I do not remember him saying anything like that when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. Things were different then. What is going on right now is very troubling. Every day brings new revelations. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family are being directly threatened. The Liberal government is dragging its feet despite having had this information for two years. Does my colleague agree with me and with many other members of the House that the only way to fully understand what is going on and fix it is to have an independent public inquiry into foreign political interference in general in this country?

132 words

Harper

Mr. Marty Morantz

May/9/23 10:30:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, in terms of being the opposition party, I just want to say to that NDP member and his entire party that we could use a little help over here. They are not the opposition any more; they are a part of the government. They vote with the government on pretty much everything. I appreciate the question, but, of course, the member knows very well that our position is that we should have a public inquiry. If it had been called right off the bat instead of having an appointment of the Trudeau Foundation as special rapporteur, maybe we would not be in this place right now.

109 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/9/23 10:31:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech, and I think he laid out the facts quite clearly and perfectly. One of the things that struck me was his comment about an opposition, because we have seen, over the last eight years, that this government, in effect, does not want an opposition; it actually wants an audience. It wants us to sit here and listen to its members ram pieces of legislation through, as they have been doing, that have profound impacts on Canadians. This issue has a profound impact not just on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills but also on the Chinese Canadians who are facing that fear, intimidation and harassment by the Chinese regime in Beijing. On the issue of an independent inquiry, do all roads not lead to that? Do we need a rapporteur to tell us what the majority of parliamentarians and the majority of Canadians are saying, which is that we need an independent inquiry?

165 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

May/9/23 10:32:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the words that come to mind when I think about the Prime Minister are “deny”, “deflect” and “delay”. If he rags the puck, maybe this will not be a big issue by the time the special rapporteur gets around to making his ruling. The member for Winnipeg North says that we are playing politics. They are playing politics with the future of our democracy, and they should be ashamed of themselves for standing up in this House saying they are not.

89 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/9/23 10:33:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Repentigny rightly pointed out, we have been discussing the issue of foreign interference, particularly Chinese interference, for several weeks now. We know that the government has blundered on several fronts when it comes to dealing with interference. We saw it with the elections and with the $125-million endowment it gave to a foundation several years ago out of the public purse—our money. I am talking about the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, of course. The foundation is having major problems, especially on the tax front. For many years, the foundation has failed to meet the criteria for a charitable organization, and things are only going to get worse, because the criteria are increasing and the foundation is not doing anything to improve. What does my colleague have to say to members about the threat that Chinese interference poses to charitable organizations in Canada?

152 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

May/9/23 10:34:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it just stretches credulity to think that, when a so-called Chinese philanthropist showed up at the Trudeau Foundation to give it $140,000, they did not have their own agenda. They did have an agenda, which was to influence the Prime Minister to be soft on China. That is why I said in my speech that this is Neville Chamberlain-level appeasement, weakness and incompetence.

68 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/23 10:35:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect about the number of years that foreign interference has been an issue, even while Steven Harper was the prime minister and today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democracy. Those individuals did absolutely nothing; they did zero in terms of dealing with this particular issue. The Prime Minister has done numerous things. When he actually found out about this specific case, just a week ago, he took immediate action. The Conservatives may disagree, but based on the speeches that I have been hearing over the last number of hours, this debate is more about character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about defending rights. What hits one affects us all, and the Conservatives are doing a disservice to the issue by ramping it up politically. Does the member not believe that the Conservatives need to turn the page, dial it down and ensure that we deal with the issue?

165 words

Harper

Mr. Marty Morantz

May/9/23 10:36:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, members opposite like to say that prior governments should have created a law that would have protected the Liberals from getting into yet another scandal. I find it quite ironic. I want to mention one thing. I noted yesterday that the member for Winnipeg North was waxing philosophical about his time in the Manitoba legislature and the many years he spent there. He made a point of saying that he was in opposition. I think members on this side want to do him a favour and make sure that he is returned to the role he cherished so much as soon as the next election comes along.

109 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

May/9/23 10:37:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. member for Bay of Quinte. It is usually a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of the constituents of Thornhill, but I am afraid that is not the case today. I want to start by speaking about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, somebody who has been in this House a lot longer than I have. He looks at this place as upholding democracy. He knows more about this than I will ever know. I seek advice from him as a member who works with opposition colleagues and who treats this place as it should be treated. To know his privilege was breached is, unfortunately, something that nobody ever wants to speak to. I know the member probably does not want me speaking about him, but I hold him up when it comes to members of Parliament who teach me something about being here. On that note, the member had to deal with getting a call, probably sometime in the afternoon, from a journalist who told him that he and that his family living abroad in Hong Kong might be the subjects of intimidation. The journalist told him that this was done by a diplomat who, until yesterday, was given immunity, powers and rights by the government that Canadians do not even have. Moreover, the government knew about that diplomat's behaviour or what that diplomat did over the course of two years. The government will say that it has acted quickly and as soon as it found out, it did something. However, there is more to this. It made a conscious decision to disparage the character of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Members of the Liberal Party suggested that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was in fact briefed two years ago on what the diplomat did, not a week ago after it became known in the newspapers. They said that he was briefed on the intimidation or the behaviour of this diplomat two years ago. It was a conscious decision by Liberal members opposite to say that, and we know that is not true. In fact, last Wednesday, after The Globe and Mail printed what the member learned in that call from a journalist about the intimidation of the member and his family, the Prime Minister went as far as to say that the CSIS report that we are talking about of July 2021 never left the intelligence agency and that it was not shared. Of course, this claim was debunked a day later, when his own national security adviser told the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that this was not true at all, that it was shared with multiple ministries and the Privy Council Office, which is directly attached to the Prime Minister's Office. This weekend at the Liberal convention, where Liberals were clinking glasses, the public safety minister blamed CSIS for not informing the government. However, we know that is not true. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills went to committee to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs directly why she has not expelled this diplomat, and that is before they waited seven days to act after knowing for two years. He asked why this person still enjoys diplomatic immunity, rights that Canadians do not have, life in Toronto and taking his kids to the Ex, while they go to school with their compatriots in Toronto. After two years of knowing the behaviour of this diplomat, why is that even okay? The member for Wellington—Halton Hills asked her, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was confronted at committee last week about the expulsion, gave a stream-of-consciousness response. She gave a live-action response, a cost-benefit analysis of why they would, why they would not, why they should, why they could not and why it took so long. This was for the whole world to watch. On something a minister should use their inside voice for, she gave this response in front of committee while the cameras were on. She did it in front of a member of Parliament whose family was being threatened over a vote in the House of Commons, which the government knew about for two years. We know that. That is what happened back then. Members on the Liberals' side have suggested that this member knew. The member opposite just talked about this being a debate about character assassination, but that is the character assassination. They actively tried to assassinate Wellington—Halton Hills' character by suggesting to the Canadian people that he was briefed on this two years ago. That is a shame. It stops members of Parliament from doing the work in this chamber. We know why we are talking about this. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills cosponsored a motion. By the way, much of the front bench of the Liberal Party was absent for the vote on that motion. They did not vote on it. There is probably a reason for that. To have the member's family attacked because he sponsored that motion is a complete breach of privilege, and it is hard for anybody to look at this as anything else. It is hard for Canadians to have confidence in a government that puts its political fortunes ahead of the work that is done in this House, as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills never does. It is hard to believe that is the case. It is harder to believe that Liberals take this seriously and that they have done so many things, as they get up and claim every day. Even yesterday, in question period, they were asked about it a number of times. The Minister of Public Safety has said, on at least one occasion, that the Chinese police stations that have been widely reported on in the media are closed. This is just not true. That is not the case. We know of at least two that are open. For the duration of most of the question periods leading up to this, day after day, we find out new information trickled out by The Globe and Mail. The Liberals say the reporting is not true, and the Minister of Public Safety continues to lead Canadians to believe the police stations are closed when they are not. In fact, an opposition motion that was voted on in the House just yesterday called for closing those police stations. Who voted against this? It was 150 members of this House who all ran under the Liberal banner. These members voted against a national inquiry on the matter of foreign interference in elections because they already appointed a friend, a former member of the Trudeau Foundation, to tell Canadians whether an inquiry is needed. Yesterday, they voted against that inquiry, as well as a foreign agent registry. A foreign agent registry is something the U.S. and Australia have. We have a lobbyist registry for just about anybody on just about any charity. Just about any business that talks to government needs to register, but there is no existence of a foreign agent registry for people who come here from another country who are registered, who are given diplomatic immunity by the government, who engage with the government and who engage in their own affairs here. We do not have a foreign agent registry. When asked about it, we are told it is just continued consultations and some gaslighting view that a foreign agent registry would in some way be racist. Do we know who would not think it is racist? The Chinese Canadians who are intimidated in their own homes would not think it is racist, nor would the Iranian Canadians who have called our offices with a blurred-out background in a car far away from their homes because they are terrified of the intimidation they feel from dictatorial regimes on the other side of the world. That is a shame. We want to see a foreign agent registry, and we want to see it now.

1359 words

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

May/9/23 10:47:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the spreading of misinformation. Last Thursday, I was heckled by a member who said that I had said the Prime Minister and the member in question had the same briefing. I stood up and I said, and I quote from Hansard: Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing. No matter what we tell the Conservatives, they have their certain spin. It is about character assassination. As we continue with the debate, as they continue to want to ramp up the politicization, it is more about the character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about the issue. When will the Conservative Party depoliticize this and allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to deal with the issue?

160 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/9/23 10:48:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we will depoliticize it when the government acts. This motion of privilege is not about that member. It is not about the member in question. That member has gaslit Canadians into believing the member got a briefing two years ago. We can look into the parliamentary record to see it. He has disparaged the character of a member of the House. He has said himself that an attack on any member of the House is an attack on all members, so he should think about that.

88 words

Privilege

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/23 10:48:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What I was reflecting on in my question was the issue that the member did get a general briefing, as other members—

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/23 10:49:01 a.m.
Watch

That has been dealt with by the Speaker and I hope we can move on from it. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

24 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/9/23 10:49:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand why the government is failing to act on this matter, but I cannot. The House has repeatedly voted in favour of standing up to any form of intimidation and harassment against communities and even against an MP who became an independent so as not to compromise his core values. The government party also voted in favour of that. In short, I get the impression that the government is not always walking the talk. That is the case here. It seems as though the government is never short on fine words when it is time to talk but turns into a pillar of salt when it comes time to take meaningful action. What should the government have done if it had put its fine words into action?

133 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/9/23 10:49:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The government has not acted on this. We had a motion in the House, which the government voted against, that called for a public inquiry, that called for a foreign agent registry. That is least the government can do to show Chinese Canadians, and, frankly, Canadians right across the country from many diaspora communities who are intimidated by the regimes at home, who are fearful for their lives, their livelihoods and their families, just like what was done to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, that it actually takes this seriously and that it takes national security seriously. It can vote in favour of the many motions in front of the House that have called for sanction on that.

128 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/9/23 10:50:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have intervened on this topic several times to implore members of the House to lower the temperature. I applaud the member who just spoke, because she did attempt to lower the temperature in the House and focus on real solutions. How does the member see a way out of this impasse in the House, where everything is being held up? Would she agree with me that the things that were in the Conservative motion were quite reasonable, including the necessity of calling a public inquiry, so we are not constantly saying ”he said, she said” about what has happened here and we can get an independent authority to judge the facts about foreign interference?

119 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/9/23 10:51:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a public inquiry would be one of the ways. A foreign registry would be another way. Canada does not have a legal definition for political interference. What we have to do is find other things that happen, where diplomats are potentially breaking other laws, in order for us to investigate them. A foreign registry would allow us a legal definition, perhaps, of what interference is. The Australians have that. This would be a good model to look at. If the government were actually serious about this, it would at least engage in conversation and not just disparage members of the House.

103 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193