SoVote

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/9/23 12:07:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in English, because I do not have much time. I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, the history and the truth. In my interactions as former House leader, I found that this member speaks the truth. He is honourable, and his word is his worth. I cannot actually say that about the Liberal or NDP House leaders. Is there no other option at this point but to have a public inquiry, with Mr. Johnston, to get to the bottom of what is happening with foreign interference and all of the stuff that is happening with the Trudeau Foundation? Is an independent public inquiry the only way to get to the bottom of what is happening here?

126 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 12:07:48 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for La Prairie has 40 seconds to respond.

12 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

May/9/23 12:07:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would take me longer than 40 seconds to say how much I appreciate my colleague. He is amazing. To answer his question, yes, an independent public inquiry is essential. One thing we know for sure about the Prime Minister is that he is in no way competent enough to find out what happened and disclose it publicly. He has to hand over the reins to someone else, and an independent, public inquiry is what it will take.

80 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/9/23 12:08:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I too want to add my voice to the conversation we are having here today in this debate on privilege. The issue of a member's vote in this place is really what we are after today. Our ability to vote without influence from other countries is very important. I would note that the vote in question had to do with the recognition of the genocide of the Uyghur people in China. The Beijing government has been focused on repressing the Uyghurs through things such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, re-education camps and concentration camps. Members may have seen the photos of Uyghur folks lined up at the bus terminals and being loaded onto the trains. We have stated often in this place “never again”, and here we are watching “never again” happen again. That vote that took place in the House of Commons was historic. The Canadian Parliament was one of the first parliaments around the world that voted to recognize that. It was something many members had worked fairly hard on, and we had also felt pressure from various corners to ensure that we got that right. What is fascinating is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills voted for that motion while the entire Canadian cabinet did not. That is telling, perhaps, as to the weight of that vote. However, it also raises the question of foreign influence happening here in Canada. What kind of influence is that having on the Canadian cabinet, given the fact that we have discovered now that the government knew for over two years that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' family was being harassed because of this particular vote? What was happening to members of the cabinet in their personal lives and how was that being influenced? That is what this whole debate is about. It is about the privilege of members of Parliament to be able to do their job. Probably one of the most important things we do as members of Parliament is to vote from our seats in this place. That is what we are elected to do. We are elected to take our seats in this place to vote on things. Votes are a moment in time. Votes are a very binary thing. We vote for something; we vote against something. In many cases, when we have a vote, those are weighty moments. Members must consider all the ramifications and impacts of the position they take on that. There is nothing that brings more clarity into a situation than having a binary vote on a particular piece of legislation because that is when we get to find out about who is affected, what the ramifications are and all of these kinds of things. Particularly if people are upset about that vote, we get to hear about it after we cast that vote. Our ability to vote in this place is incredibly important. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been a stalwart defender of democracy. This may be due in part to his roots, as he comes from Hong Kong, so he has a firm understanding of the relationship with the Beijing government and the world. Just due to the nature of his heritage, the member has some fortitude when it comes to understanding how democracy works, and he has worked very hard in this place to ensure that democracy works better. He has a very good grasp of the history of this place and the history of our mother Parliament over in England. He worked on the Reform Act, which is an act that has empowered individual members of Parliament. That is something that the member has been passionate about. He has argued for increased members' budgets. He has argued for more members of Parliament, so we have more representation for individual Canadians. His allegiance to democracy, parliamentary democracy and the House of Commons is unquestioned. I want to thank him for that. I know his passion and diligence on these democracy issues are so important. That is perhaps the great irony of this particular situation. Of all members of Parliament for this to fall upon, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has impeccable credentials in the defence of democracy. That is why it is so frustrating to see that the government sat on this information for over two years, only for us, as individual members of Parliament, to find out about this through the press. That goes to show why the freedom of the press is so important. This is something the Liberal government has been undermining over the last number of years, just as we have seen with Bill C-11. We see how voices that may disagree with the government may be repressed online. We see that with the funding of journalism across the country. We see this with the subsidization of CBC, how that money influences the reporting that we get. This particular instance shows that the freedom of the press, the ability for the press to be unencumbered by owing the government a favour of any sort, is necessary. We see, with The Globe and Mail and Global News, that if it were not for the work they had done, we would never know about this. We would never know that, for over two years, the government and the Prime Minister sat on the information that a member of the House and his family were being threatened because of a vote that had taken place here. We have heard, over the last couple of days as we have been having this debate, over and over again how the Liberals are trying to spin this, and it is classic gaslighting. My working definition of “gaslighting” is that whatever someone is doing, they accuse their opponents of doing the same. I would like to address a couple of those things. One of the things they say is that the Conservatives did nothing when they were in power. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have done nothing to stop this. They have allowed it. They have watched it grow. They have watched the foreign influence grow in Canada and have done nothing to prevent it over the last number of years. The other thing that is interesting is that, under Stephen Harper, there was a different leader in China. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there was a different leader. China had a different outlook on the world under the other leader. There has been a significant shift. If someone wants to look it up, they can google “wolf warrior”. The current leader of China, Xi Jinping, has openly stated that China is moving into a wolf warrior pose in the world. Instead of biding its time, which was the previous leader's line, it is looking at being a wolf warrior. They are looking to be dominant in the world. There is no doubt about that. They are much more aggressive. That is a completely different context. I know the member for Winnipeg North will probably stand up to talk about Stephen Harper and the great job Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. The point is that, when Stephen Harper was the leader, Canada was seen as a strong player on the international stage. We were convening meetings to take on ISIL. We were a valued partner of the Five Eyes. Australia, the United States and the U.K. looked to Canada to provide a leadership role in many of these discussions. Now we are ignored, sidelined and not trusted by the international community when it comes to dealing with things like China. The Beijing government worked much more carefully. It was much more concerned about what Canada had to say about what it was up to. Today, we have a completely different context. Today, we see the Chinese run roughshod over Canadian values and institutions. They have set up police stations on Canadian sovereign soil. We have seen this over and over again. We just know that a lot of this is about posture. We know that, under Stephen Harper, Canada had a proud posture on the international stage. We had a posture that said we were open for business but that we had rules that everybody had to follow. Canadian sovereignty was something we were very concerned about. In fact, we spent a lot of time mapping the north. The entire search for the Franklin expedition was a mapping exercise to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north. This was a nation-building exercise. It was something that we told the Canadian people about. It was a source of pride for Canadians. However, we also said we needed to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north because of threats from China. Threats from China were something that the Harper government took very seriously. It was something that we went into with both eyes open. We dealt with China, but we said that we knew it was a Communist country and that Communism is not something that is equivocal. We cannot make equivalencies between Communism and democracy, and therefore, the rules of engagement that we deal with when dealing with France, Germany, Holland or the United States are going to be different from those we have when we are dealing with China. Because it operates on a different system, we need to ensure that we deal with China appropriately. To some degree, this comes back to ideas around humanity and whether people are basically good. Maybe it is postmodernism that the government really espouses, with ideas around equivalency, and we just have to basically trust that everybody is good. There are evil actors in the world. There are nefarious actors, and China is one of them. China has not been a force for good in the world over the last number of decades. That is a major difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals have a naive view. They want to equivocate. They want to say that it is a different system, but it is just as good. I would argue that this is not the case and that there are threats and nefarious actors in the world. These are threats and actors that we must take seriously and challenge. We must stand up for democracy and make the arguments for why democracy is better and why the Western systems are better. Those are important things to do, and I do not think it is good enough to say, “You do it your way, and we will do it ours.” I think we should say, “This is the way we do it because it is better, because it is moral and because it is the right way to do things.” I see this postmodern idea that there is no truth, or that the truth is relative, as a failure of the current government. All of these kinds of things have really been worked into it. The other area of gaslighting I see happen through this debate, particularly in questions from the Liberals, is how this is the member's fault and how the member should have known about this. Of course—

1883 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 12:22:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

May/9/23 12:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my hon. colleague for interrupting his riveting speech, but we have no French interpretation. We have to select the English channel to hear anything. The French channel is completely silent.

35 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 12:22:53 p.m.
Watch

We will look into it right away. Is it working now? Yes. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

20 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the other area where we are seeing some significant gaslighting is where the government says that it is the member's fault and the member should have known about this. This is an interesting thing about victim blaming. We see the government accuse others of doing this all the time, and here we are seeing that once again. The government's newest line is that it did not know; it only found out on Monday, just the other day. However, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it knew about this over two years ago. That does not include all the other troubles we have with foreign interference in this country. The Trudeau Foundation is embroiled in a whole host of scandals now around taking Chinese money. When the government was kind of embarrassed about its coziness with the Beijing government and Chinese influence in Canada, it appointed a special rapporteur. This position does not have any legal standing in Canada; nonetheless, it has appointed this person. One would think that if one were trying to allay Canadians' fears around this foreign interference issue, one would find somebody with no connections to the Beijing government and no relationship to the people who are being accused of not doing anything about it. However, here we are with the director of the Trudeau Foundation being appointed as the special rapporteur. That organization has taken money from the Beijing government or their emissaries. We have seen all kinds of confusion around who took the money and how it was organized. The Prime Minister's brother was the one who facilitated a donation. Then we see that this organization's annual report names the Prime Minister as a member. Now, he says he is unaffiliated and has not had contact with it for over 10 years, but his name is still in the annual report. He is still part of the Trudeau Foundation. That is the reality, whether the Prime Minister wants to admit it or not. He can say that he is currently uninvolved in the operations of the organization, but when he leaves this place, he will be able to be a part of its directorship. If he says that funds donated to that organization today could not be disbursed in the future, what does he take Canadians for? Today, donations are being made to the Trudeau Foundation; despite saying he is unaffiliated to it at the moment, the Prime Minister has connections to this organization. It is obvious that even if it were true that he is unaffiliated, which it is not, he will be reaffiliated in the future. He will be back on the governance board doing the same things, and he will have whatever kind of money has been donated to the Trudeau Foundation at his disposal once again. We have also seen over and over that the Liberals' claim to success is about how much money they spend. The Liberals accuse the past Conservative government of not doing anything and then go on to state how much they have increased funding for whatever the situation is. The Liberals accuse Conservatives of not having done something compared with how much more money they are spending on a particular thing. Again, this is another place where the Liberals will say that they have spent more money on this, which is an interesting way of ranking things. If we can get something and not have to spend money on it, that would seem to be a good win. We will not have to spend money on it if we can have national security because of our posture in the world and because we speak softly and carry a big stick. We will not have to spend money if we have no foreign interference because, rhetorically and by our posture, we signal to the world that Canada is not open to foreign interference. These are things that will happen naturally and organically. We will prevent foreign interference by our posture and by our rhetoric, and we will not have to spend money. However, the Liberals will come and tell us how much money they are spending on initiative X, Y or Z as a point of proof that they are doing more. I just want to reject that whole premise outright. The amount of money that is spent dealing with a particular thing does not necessarily correlate to taking action on that thing. I just want to restate once again that Canada is not for sale. Canada is a sovereign nation. The Canadian government should do all that it can to prevent foreign influence in our democracy and ensure that Canadian democracy is upheld wherever it is under threat.

791 words

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

May/9/23 12:29:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to pick up on the member's last points, people who are following the debate should be very much aware of the facts. The fact is that, whether the Conservatives want to agree or disagree, the Prime Minister first found out about this just last week. He took immediate action. Within a week, we now have a diplomat being expelled from Canada. Back on March 12, we talked about establishing a foreign influence transparency registry. On March 15, we put in a special rapporteur, who could well come back suggesting that we have a public inquiry. The Prime Minister says that if that is the recommendation, that is what we will accept. Would the member not acknowledge that the Prime Minister found out for the very first time last week, as he has indicated?

137 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:30:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member will have to forgive me for not believing a lot of what comes across from that side of the floor. There was the WE Charity scandal, the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the question of who stayed in a $6,000-a-night hotel room. We have seen over and over again that the government has not been forthcoming. It has been a distract-and-deflect kind of government. Therefore, we are not going to take the Prime Minister at his word. We are going to continue to investigate this and call for an independent inquiry. We are going to hold the government to account so that we can show Canadians that there is an ethical government-in-waiting ready to take a seat on that side of the House.

133 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

May/9/23 12:31:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion is important because it enables us to express our indignation and shine a light on what happened to my Conservative colleague and his family. Since day one, this government has been reacting instead of taking action. This has been going on for weeks. It is hard for us to believe that the Prime Minister just happened to find out last week that a member and his family were being threatened for the past two years. That is pretty hard to believe. There is only one way to shine a light on the situation as a whole, which is not pretty: an independent public inquiry. We have been calling for this for weeks, as my colleague just said. Instead of waiting for the special rapporteur, who is not independent in the least, will the Prime Minister stand up right now and launch an independent public inquiry?

149 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:32:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is probably the crux of the situation. Canadians are looking to the government to provide stability, to provide clarity and to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen anymore. A public inquiry that is truly independent and has the ability to follow its nose and to look in the dark corners, if set up correctly, would actually have the opportunity to bring trust back to our Canadian institutions. The member is totally right in that this is bigger than just the individual member. I mentioned this off the top. For me, it is an interesting thing that the entire cabinet did not vote on that particular item, on the same vote that the member's family was threatened over. Therefore, was their vote being influenced? Were their families being threatened, or was there some other part of their personal life that was being used to extort a non-vote on that particular item? This is the one that we know about. What other actions have been happening in this place to—

177 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 12:34:07 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

11 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/9/23 12:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have a responsibility in the House to protect democracy, and that means we have to be the adults in the room. When the allegations of electoral interference came up, the Prime Minister reasonably should have said that there would be a public investigation so that people would know that it was not so much just about China, but that there could be all manner of foreign interference. We know about Russian bot interference during the convoy. Let us do that and reassure people. We found out the shocking news about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I do not know that there is any evidence that the Prime Minister knew two years ago, but when he was made aware, he did not expel the diplomat, and that sent a very disturbing signal. In the midst of this debate, and I mean no offence to my Liberal colleagues, the fact that they put forward the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kingston and the Islands is turning this into a gong show, and that is not helpful. However, I would ask my hon. colleague about his own leader, who is getting up and making outrageously juvenile claims that thousands of Chinese Canadians were intimidated into not voting, in order to benefit the Prime Minister. That kind of exploitation and falsehood is also dangerous to democracy. We need to take this thing in a focused manner. We need to be able to reassure people. However, to exploit it like the Conservative leader is doing is, to me, as concerning for democracy as the failure of the Liberals to take responsibility for their ship and what they should be doing right now to protect democracy.

288 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:35:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, building on the comments from my hon. colleague around the gaslighting that happens in this place, one of the other things that the Liberals bring up all the time is the perceived partisanship of this. Again, it is interesting that they accuse their opponents of doing what they are actually doing. One of the things that is fairly obvious is that the Liberals benefited from the Beijing influence in the previous election, and, therefore, were not interested in dealing with this. It is becoming increasingly obvious that one of the reasons the Prime Minister did not deal with the perceived foreign influence of Beijing is that the Liberals stood to benefit from the influence. Therefore, when they say it is partisan interest that is driving this, that is precisely why they did not do anything.

137 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/9/23 12:36:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it cannot be emphasized enough how important this debate is for the proper functioning of Canadian democracy. I know that the Liberals seem to be making light of the fact of what happens in this place. My question for the member for Peace River—Westlock is this: Is he concerned about what seems to be the increasing disconnect between the legislative and executive branches of government with respect to how Canadian democracy is supposed to function?

79 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:37:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 100% that is a concern for me. This is part of the Liberals' increased Americanization of this place. We get a lot of American politics that comes across the border in our media, so many people would not necessarily know, but, in the United States, the executive branch does not sit in the legislature like it does here in Canada. In Canada, the executive branch is just the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who sit right in our legislature. We have the opportunity to interact with them. We see, increasingly, that the government is less and less interested in participating in the chamber and ensuring that they can be held accountable to everyday Canadians and this place.

119 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/9/23 12:38:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, foreign interference in nothing new. Let me provide a quick run-down. First there was the contract for embassy equipment awarded to Nuctech, a Chinese company. Next we have the telecommunications contract for border services and protections for the Prime Minister awarded to a company using products from Hytera, a Chinese company. Then we have the Trudeau Foundation, the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and the illegal police stations. Let us not forget the delayed release of the two Michaels and the threats to an MP and his family. How many so-called coincidences will it take for this government to understand that Chinese interference is real, and that an independent public commission of inquiry is absolutely critical? When will this government finally take action to send a clear message to the Chinese government that Quebec and Canada are not for sale?

144 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:39:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the coincidences are piling up, as the member points out, and that is probably not a coincidence. I remember that, way back before 2015, the Prime Minister, at an event, said that he admired the basic dictatorship of China. Little did we know how prophetic that would be.

50 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/9/23 12:39:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand to debate the things that are so important to Canadians in this place. Since it is the first opportunity I have had to speak since last Wednesday, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that May 3 was Constitution Day in Poland. This takes on a special relevance in the midst of the debate taking place today, because it is a celebration in the midst of significant adversity that the Republic of Poland experienced throughout its history. In 1791, it brought about the first modern constitution on the European continent. For many years, though, while Poland was under Soviet control, people were not allowed to celebrate that milestone. It is certainly an honour for me, as someone of Polish heritage, and for many of the Polish diaspora across our country and so many around the world who look at that example of peace, freedom and democracy and acknowledge the importance of that. I wish the Polish diaspora here in Canada and around the world who celebrated on May 3 a happy Constitution Day. We have before us what is a very unique debate. It has been very troubling over the last couple of weeks and number of months, when we have seen highlighted in this place, and specifically in media across the country, how there have been attacks on Canadian democracy. It cannot be emphasized enough how important it is to ensure that the first priority of any prime minister, any member who sits in the chamber, and, I suggest, every Canadian should be to be aware of how important the preservation of our democracy is. When I was first elected, in 2019, and, more than that, as I have been engaged in politics in various capacities, from a volunteer to a political staffer and a number of other different ways throughout my life, I have seen that we need to emphasize how important the preservation of our democratic infrastructure is. However, over the last number of weeks, we have seen that it is under threat. It is one thing to see something under threat; what is worse is that we have seen that the current Prime Minister and what seems like a small group within the Liberal government that is apparently calling the shots have refused to take meaningful action to protect Canada's democratic infrastructure. We see that hitting a boiling point. We have before us a privilege motion, concerning the privileges of a member of Parliament that were seen to be violated, according to the Speaker's ruling that was made yesterday. We have what is, in its very nature, something that takes priority. For the many Canadians watching this debate, let me unpack a bit of the history as to why this debate is even taking place, because the word “privilege” is something that does not necessarily enter the lexicon of most people when they think about democracy. When we look back at the very origins of this place, the reason why there is green carpet in this place speaks back to the more than 800-year history of why we have the democratic institution called the House of Commons. We have what are called privileges as members of Parliament in this place, and they date back to when there was a tension with the executive government, which was the Crown in the United Kingdom about 800 years ago, that led to a large group of English noblemen who were not in agreement with the Crown at the time. It led to disagreements, and they came to a resolution, which resulted largely in, although not limited to, the Magna Carta, which created the ability for discourse to take place without fear of repercussions from the Crown. Many of the symbols that exist in this place today are in direct reference to that strong democratic history that we have. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is even to just have the honour and privilege of being able to stand here to represent the 110,000 or so people I represent in east central Alberta, in the constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot. That came from eight centuries of figuring out how that works. When it comes to a privilege motion or a privilege debate, as we have before us, what that means, for all those watching, is that somebody's ability to do their job in this place was hindered. My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills is someone I have come to know over the last couple of years and have followed significantly throughout his career in politics as I volunteered for the Conservative Party and monitored all things Canadian politics, including his run for leadership and his efforts to protect and build Canadian democratic infrastructure. What we see here is that, because of the actions of a hostile foreign regime, the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, the People's Republic of China, his ability to do his job in this place was put at risk. That is egregious, and I do not think there is any disagreement in this place that it is egregious, and it is good we are able to have debate and discussion about it here today. The context in which that has happened is astounding. Like I said to start, it is one thing for a threat to take place against our democratic infrastructure, but it is very much another thing for it to have taken place and not been responded to. Over the last number of months, we have had significant debate in this place about the idea of foreign interference. It is certainly not new. This is something that has been debated at length over different points in history over the last number of years, and certainly going back much further than that. However, we have seen that the Liberals did not seem to take it seriously. I would suggest today that this is the real crux of why what we are doing here today is so important and why their actions have been so disappointing. Again, I will come back to the idea of privilege. A member of Parliament has the right to speak and be unhindered in their ability to do their job in this place. That is very important. It is absolutely essential. We cannot have a hostile foreign regime, or anybody, keeping us from being able to represent our constituents. That is the idea of privilege. The lack of action on the part of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government is very concerning, and I will get into some of the timelines and specifics as to why, when we look at the facts, that certainly is the conclusion that I and so many have come to. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has spoken very eloquently throughout the course of the debate over the last couple of weeks, even when members from the Liberal Party were accusing him of maybe being the one perpetrating falsehoods. There were a whole host of other peripheral discussions taking place. What the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has emphasized is that he, as a member of Parliament, has the opportunity to rise on a point of privilege to be able to make his case heard in Canada's democratic institution, the House of Commons, the people's House of Commons, yet many Canadians do not have that ability. How many Canadians are facing pressure from the Communist dictatorship in Beijing or other hostile foreign regimes, yet do not have the voice or ability to make their stand in a place like this? It is not simply about whether an MP was able to perform his duties. That is certainly part of it, but so significant is the fact that there are so many Canadians, whether of the Chinese diaspora, from other groups who may face pressure from different governments around the world, or any Canadian who would face that kind of pressure, who do not necessarily have the same voice that we do in this place. As we stand and debate our right to be able to protect Canadian democracy, we need to not only think about the 338 of us in this place, but also to think so seriously about every single Canadian who could face similar struggles. As we look at that, let us make sure we look at the regular, common person. Let us make sure we look at every single person, whether they escaped a hostile foreign regime to come to Canada for a free and better life, or whether they are a multi-generational Canadian. We need to take this seriously, because it is not only about MPs. This is often what the Liberals forget. They talk about what happens in Ottawa as if it were the pinnacle of all things that matter. Everything that happens in this place needs to be focused on the Canadian people, because they are who matter. Let me unpack the timeline before us. Approximately two years ago, it was revealed that intelligence was sent up the chain, and we know for a fact it reached the Prime Minister's national security adviser, that there was an effort to influence the decisions of a member of this place by a hostile foreign regime, being the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. It is not simply media reports that have highlighted it. It has been corroborated through testimony and evidence. Let us look back two years ago at the context for which that pressure was placed on the member's family, which still lives in Hong Kong. It is important to know what the debate was that led to that. There were two motions, and this happened around the time of the second of two motions. One was a committee motion and the other an opposition day motion. Parliament was tasked with discussing and debating the idea that the Communist dictatorship in Beijing was perpetrating a genocide against a minority group, specifically the Uyghurs, in China. If we want to look at the context for that, we can look at the public record to see what those votes and debates were. For both of those motions, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois, I believe the NDP and in fact many Liberals were part of the group of MPs who voted to say that what the dictatorship in Beijing was doing was bad news, it was constituted genocide, from forced abortions to slave labour camps to other very serious things. I cannot help but recall one specific instance that left me deeply troubled about the state of our Canadian democracy and specifically about how flippantly the Liberals treated it. When faced with one of those votes, a member of the Liberal cabinet stood while the vote was taking place and said that he was abstaining from the vote on behalf of the Canadian government. As somebody who knows parliamentary procedure, and I know the table has followed closely all things that have happened in this place in its 800 or so years of tradition, that is not how things work in this place. MPs vote. Therefore, it was not only unprecedented for a member of the Liberal cabinet to stand and make that declaration, but it certainly left a bad taste in my mouth. For many observers who follow Canadian democracy closely, it was incredibly concerning that an effort was made by the government, the cabinet, ministers of the Crown led by the Prime Minister, to make a declaration like that. In fact, it was the chair occupant at the time who basically highlighted that it was not okay, that this was not how things worked around here. We saw two motions over a period of a number of months when the Liberal government, the cabinet, the ministers of the Crown, refused to take a stand on the issue. Two years later, because Conservatives took a stand, pressure was applied to a member. This is not just any member, although constitutionally all MPs are equal in this place, which is one of the cornerstones of what our Westminster system of democratic government means. This member is the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the person responsible for providing that critical oppositional perspective to the minister of the Crown. It is incredibly poignant that it was not the family of some random member of the House, but specifically the opposition critic, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, whose family had this pressure exerted upon it. That is the context for what happened two years ago. We now fast-forward to about two weeks ago. On a Monday morning, I happened to be on Twitter while I was on my way to a meeting when all of a sudden I started to see these articles referencing that the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been pressured. This was a developing story. It was one of those days, as the Speaker and others in this place would know well when something like that develops, things changed rapidly. We started asking questions. We learned over the course of the last two weeks a very concerning trend of events. The Prime Minister's national security adviser was advised of this two years ago. I have before me the 2022 CSIS public report in which it talks about a lot of the efforts it undertakes. It talks about accountability, about people being first, outreach, briefings to elected officials and whatnot. This is all well and good, and important, but the fact is that the Prime Minister's national security adviser was advised two years ago, yet the Prime Minister was not informed. I am going to talk about the disconnect between the legislative branch and the executive branch of government in a moment. I want to highlight some testimony that we heard at committee. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, who acts as the gatekeeper, so to speak, talked at length about all the information and the process in which the Prime Minister received security information. When Ms. Telford testified before committee, she may not have realized the implication of the testimony when she referenced, and I am paraphrasing, that the Prime Minister read everything that was put before him. Quite frankly, I have my doubts as to whether that is the case, but that is my personal opinion. We have a great disconnect between what has been said and what seems to have happened. We have a great disconnect between the security apparatus in our country and the information that it is obviously trying to get to the decision-makers and the ability for the Crown, the government, being able to make decisions. That is deeply concerning. I have talked a lot about how it is so essential to safeguard our democratic infrastructure, to stand up for the abilities of Canadians to be involved and engaged in their democracy. One of the issues I would suggest should be highlighted as of primary importance is one of a technical matter, and it is somewhat unique to the Westminster system of Parliament and how it operates in Canada, and that is the growing disconnect between the legislative and the executive branch of government. It is inconvenient to the Liberal agenda to have a minority Parliament. We know that. The Prime Minister has referenced that on many occasions. Democracy is the reason why this place exists, the reason why a government operates on the idea of confidence from the people's House, notwithstanding the coalition agreement and some of those intricacies of the current circumstances, whether it is committees or actions of this place. In fact, it seems to be no accident that the government sued the Speaker when it did not want to follow through on actions of the House, and that puts Canadian democracy at risk. I would be remiss if I did not mention this. Everyone in this place has a mom, and as we come to the conclusion of this debate, I hope I will be given the latitude to simply say this. As Mother's Day is soon upon us, I wish Danielle, my beautiful wife, my mom, my two grandmas and my great-grandma, who is 100 years old, a happy Mother's Day. On behalf of myself and all my constituents, happy Mother's Day to every mom in Canada.

2750 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193