SoVote

May/9/23 9:08:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think what the member was trying to convey is that Liberals are like atoms: They make up everything.

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 9:09:07 p.m.
Watch

That was not appropriate. Let us just say that was not a point of order and neither was the other one. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

26 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:09:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this, and I want to do it unambiguously so there is no mistake about what I intend to say here. The Prime Minister knew over two years ago that our colleague in the House was being targeted by a hostile foreign regime, and the Prime Minister did nothing to inform our colleague in the House about that threat and intimidation. It was only recently that we learned about it, and not through the Prime Minister or any minister of his government. We found that out through the media, The Globe and Mail. That should never happen in this country on something as critical to our democracy as the right of each member in the House to vote freely without intimidation. That should be unchallengeable, yet the government and the Prime Minister failed to advise our colleague of this threat to his family. I find it incomprehensible that we as MP colleagues in the House would do that to each other. That should never happen. Yesterday, we found out that the diplomat involved in promoting this threat and intimidation against our colleague was expelled by the Prime Minister. All I will say to that is it is too little, too late. The damage is already done with the threats and intimidation. This should not have happened. The least that the government and the Prime Minister owed to our colleague was transparency and the right for him to be informed the moment that CSIS became aware of this and the communication went to the Prime Minister's Office. I have already mentioned that what is at stake here is not only our right to vote in the House freely, to express ourselves freely, to take positions that are consistent with human values and to do so without the threat of intimidation. It goes far beyond that. Every single Canadian who is watching these proceedings will be asking themselves, “Well, hold it. Am I at risk? Could a hostile regime from around the world, from elsewhere, say Russia or Iran, interfere in my life and threaten me in that way to try to achieve some nefarious outcome that is in their interest and against my interest?” They could say that, yes, and Canadians across this country should be concerned. However, do members know who should be really concerned? It is Canadians of Chinese background who are concerned that agents of the Communist government would seek to influence them here in Canada to promote the interests of Beijing rather than the interests of Canada. That is what is at stake here. I fear for our country if we as members of Parliament cannot even ask or expect our government to notify us as these threats emerge. I have no doubt that CSIS would have communicated this to the Prime Minister's Office. I have no doubt at all. We know from the Prime Minister's chief of staff that the Prime Minister reads everything. Yes, that is what she said. She said he reads everything, as if she looks over his shoulder every waking moment of the day. However, that is what she said. That was her testimony at committee, and I take her at her word. The Prime Minister reads everything, and no doubt this would have come before him because of the serious nature of this threat to the members of this body, this august chamber. Let me talk about why we have focused on the Communist regime in China. It is this regime that actually perpetrated this violation of our colleague's privileges in this House. I did mention the publicly acknowledged genocide of the Uyghur minority population in China, but this regime is also responsible for many other threats to our country. We know that there have been at least eight different foreign police stations established by the regime in our country, and to date, no one has confirmed that all of them have been shut down. We have been pleading with the Prime Minister for months to shut down these foreign police stations that Beijing has established here in our country in violation of our sovereignty. The latest report has it that at least two of these foreign police stations are still operating in Canada. That should not be happening in our country, but it is happening under the Liberal government. What about the two Michaels? It took forever to repatriate those two Canadian citizens because of bogus charges levied against them in China. We know there has been election interference. By the way, that is another case the Prime Minister has said he was never advised about. There was election interference during the 2019 election and the 2021 election, but he said that nobody ever told him. Really? There were two elections and there was foreign interference in each one. CSIS knew about it and never brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister's Office. We know he reads everything. It is implausible. It is unbelievable that he would not have known, yet to this day he denies actually knowing about that. We know that with that election interference, at least 11 candidates were targeted in order to be defeated. The conclusion has been drawn that the overall election results were fair and represented the right outcome. I am not challenging that conclusion at all. What I am saying, however, is that for those 11 candidates, like my friends Kenny Chiu in Richmond and Alice Wong in Richmond, it made all the difference because they are not in this House today. It is election interference that the Prime Minister and his government did not take seriously. Bob Saroya is another one of our colleagues who is not in this place. The overall election might have been fair, but for those three individuals and the other eight, it made all the difference. We have to take foreign interference in our elections seriously. To close, I am going to talk again about what is at stake for our country. Our national security is at stake. Our economic security and prosperity are at stake because these hostile foreign regimes have been active in intellectual property theft, stealing our research, breaking contracts and violating the international rules-based order. That is serious stuff. That is something this House has to take up and take seriously. With respect to the personal security and safety of Canadians, I have already mentioned my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. His family was threatened by a hostile foreign regime. It is critical that we take this seriously. Other things at stake are human rights, freedom, the rule of law and democracy. That is what is at stake here in this debate. I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion and vote in favour of it.

1139 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/9/23 9:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredibly rich that, on the one hand, when I made a comment that was interpreted to mean the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was not telling the truth, all hell broke loose on the Conservative side of—

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 9:20:27 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

19 words

Mr. Clifford Small

May/9/23 9:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was unparliamentary language by the member across the way.

12 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 9:20:37 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. I did not hear any language that was unparliamentary. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

20 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/9/23 9:20:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase it. When I did that, the Conservatives lost their marbles, but when the member says—

21 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 9:20:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame has a point of order.

17 words

Mr. Clifford Small

May/9/23 9:20:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he is being derogatory to people who suffer from mental illness.

13 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/9/23 9:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I attempt to challenge the member after he accuses the member for Papineau of lying in this House, suddenly it is completely okay to suggest that somebody is lying. The only problem with his comments about the Prime Minister lying is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills himself said in an interview two days ago that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff did not know about this. Not only is he contradicting the words of the Prime Minister, but he is contradicting the words of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who sat down with the national security adviser and was told all of this. I am curious as to how he is able to square away that comment given the fact that it does not reflect reality and the vast majority of people in this House do not believe it.

149 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:22:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that members on this side of the House who believe in the truth do believe it. Having said that, I believe it is Canadians who will judge for themselves. They have seen this movie before time and time again, with the Prime Minister prevaricating, exaggerating, denying and then being found out. Then it is oh well; too bad, so sad. This is the Prime Minister who twice has been found in breach of Canada's ethics laws. He just swats them to the side as if he can get away with that. We can do better than that as a country. The member should take this debate seriously, because it is our national security, our sovereignty as a country and our democracy at stake. These are not trifling arguments that I have been making. I have been very serious about them. I hope that he and the rest of Canadians actually take this seriously.

161 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/9/23 9:23:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to my turn to speak. I want to congratulate the member for Abbotsford on his speech. The current chair of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation appeared today before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Here is another example of someone willing to testify about this foundation who either has no conscience or has done very little self-reflection. Perhaps it would help him to have a conscience if he took a look, hard look in the mirror. That said, Mr. Johnson appeared before the committee and said that everything was fine. There was never a threat of interference. CSIS had never sounded the alarm or warned of any risk of Chinese interference through the foundation. He found a way to throw former CEO Pascale Fournier under the bus. He denied just about everything she said. He also lambasted the media. Edward Johnson was a member of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's team in the early 1980s. He was also a senior executive at Power Corporation. Obviously, he is not the kind of person who likes to pull strings and stay close to the circles of power. I found it interesting that he was lambasting the media for their work on this. I would like to ask my Conservative colleague if the Conservative Party sees that as a good opportunity to ensure that Canada's news media is well protected by robust laws so that we have quality journalism and support journalists in this investigative work.

255 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:24:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that we should be ensuring that journalists and journalism have a good future in our country. What I will not agree to is anything that smacks of censorship. That would be the government using the strong arm of the law to try to coerce the media to act in any particular way. The freedom of the press needs to remain sacrosanct. Having said that, I do want to address the other issue the member raised, which is the national inquiry that the member's party and mine have been calling for, a national inquiry into foreign interference in the affairs of our country. We note that the Prime Minister has, time and time again, refused to call such a national inquiry. Finally, he was under so much pressure, that he asked his friend, Mr. Johnston, who is a former member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, to investigate and determine what further steps should be taken to address foreign interference. I think we could have saved ourselves all of that effort by simply doing what Canadians have asked for and Conservatives have asked for, and that is to immediately call a national inquiry into foreign interference.

201 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/9/23 9:26:39 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, in my short political life, I have experienced two events where I felt that our democracy was under threat. The first time was the “freedom convoy” last winter and the second time was when there was a breach of privilege found. Both times, it has been frustrating to see such a lack of seriousness that the government has taken in responding to both of these events. I wonder if the member could share with the House what signals that sends to the international community and how that puts Canada's democracy at risk.

96 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:27:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member may have had a short political life in this chamber, but she has already distinguished herself as an excellent member of Parliament. The Liberal government has actually distinguished itself in a very different way, and that is its unserious nature. Everything it does is about virtue signalling rather than the substance of the policies that Canadians need to drive prosperity, to drive our national security, to protect Canadians against crime and to re-establish our reputation on the international stage. Our reputation on the international stage, which is what I think the member was getting to, has been badly tarnished and besmirched, quite often by the actions of the Prime Minister. I wish it were different. I wish I could stand here in this House and say Canada is doing well, Canada is so well respected all around the world, but that is not the case. Bridges that used to be available for us to cross have been burned by the government time and time again. What a tragedy. Yes, we can do better.

178 words

Virtue

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

May/9/23 9:29:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate in the House over the last few days over misleading comments, as to whether someone was telling the truth or not telling the truth, a lot of heated heckling back and forth as to what was being said, whether it was parliamentary or not, and what we should and should not believe. I will quote the words of the Prime Minister from 2013 when he stated, “There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship...” Is that something that we should discount in this House or is it something we should continue to believe from what we have seen over the past months, especially over the past couple of weeks with the revelations that have been coming out in the news stories? I would like the member to comment on that.

147 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:30:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the comment that our Prime Minister has been quoted as saying is somewhat telling. I think it is instructive as to why he takes the positions he does toward some of the hostile regimes around the world. The fact that our Prime Minister would have this abiding admiration for the basic dictatorship that is China because of its ability to get things done is not what we should be aspiring to promote when we are promoting Canada's interests.

84 words

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this evening by thanking our Speaker for yesterday's ruling on the question of privilege from the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This was an important moment and important decision because it brought into sharp focus the intimidation by foreign agents operating in Canada. Even tonight, the House, a day later, is still gripped by this decision. That is relevant to members who are participating here tonight and who have participated up until now on this question. As a past member of the Canada-China special committee, I know from the evidence submitted to Parliament that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is not the only Canadian to be targeted. At committee, we heard from Canadians, particularly from Canadians of Chinese ancestry, about tactics used by the Chinese Communist Party to intimidate and silence our democracy. We have witnessed, over the past two decades, how Beijing's Communist Party revealed itself not only to be at odds with international laws and norms, but also be opposed to accountability, openness and even the basic rights of people, including mainland China's own citizens. Like a few other members of Parliament, and many hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I have had the pleasure and privilege of living in Hong Kong. That territory is an amazing place. I was fortunate enough to be on hand for the handover from Britain's rule to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997. It was a heavy moment with feelings of both apprehension and opportunity. Afterward, I visited Asia frequently once I returned to Canada a year later, and I have fond memories of both rural and urban mainland China, energetic Hong Kong and even remote Tibet. Today, sadly, I would not travel to any part of mainland China. This saddens me because I have deep affection for the Chinese people. One cannot travel for days, weeks or months at a time and leave untouched by their hospitality, fondness for family, tradition and remarkable cuisine. I also deeply admire China's culture and long history of struggle, perseverance and many great accomplishments. However, I know that travelling to mainland China is something I cannot do anymore because of my committee work in Parliament. Today, I am prohibited by Beijing from entering the country. I called for a free and democratic China, and because of that, I am in violation of Beijing's draconian national security law. I uttered the words that I believe China would be better served by being democratic and by directly electing its leaders. I said these words on Canadian soil and in Parliament, yet the national security law, according to the regime in Beijing, applies anywhere around the world. By uttering those words, a call for democracy in China, I have broken that law. I view it as an immoral law, but as we saw with the two Michaels who were arrested and detained, that means nothing when faced with the dictators in Beijing. I know that many members on this side of the chamber, and probably many who have served with the government since 2015, would have never believed that it could take the Government of Canada two years to expel a foreign diplomat sent here by Beijing's Communist Party who planned and executed an intimidation and harassment campaign against the family and loved ones of a fellow parliamentarian, our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. It happened. This is a Liberal disgrace and it must be investigated. I want to take a moment to repeat some remarks from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when he addressed the House last week and provided the basis for our ongoing debate. The member noted that on March 6, 2012, our then Speaker rightly said: Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate. In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters. However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously. It is right for this to be debated, it is important that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs investigate and it is necessary that Parliament gets to the bottom of this and discovers the truth. CSIS discovered, as reported by The Globe and Mail, that multiple members of Parliament have been targeted by Beijing's Communist Party. Indeed, this privilege motion we are debating is, as we see on our screens, “Intimidation campaign against members of Parliament.” Who would have thought such a debate would be necessary in Canada or that we would be tasked with discovering what happened? Members of all parties in the House of Commons should be questioning why the government was so keen to permit a foreign diplomat sent here by Beijing to remain here and continue intimidating and threatening the family and loved ones of not only a parliamentarian but several parliamentarians it seems, as well as Canadians across this country. Either the government takes prompt measures to uphold our rights and protect Canadians from harassment or foreign nations that wish to undermine us and do us harm will double down and threaten more and more Canadians, yet whenever it comes to issues relating to Beijing's Communist Party, the Prime Minister does not feel any urgency to act. He deflects, denies, blames and does nothing unless absolutely forced to by opposition parties and ultimately Canadian voters. We see this with the Uyghur genocide recognition motion that the Prime Minister and his cabinet abstained from when the vote was held in this Parliament. We see this with the Winnipeg lab document leak motion the Prime Minister and his cabinet voted against and to this day is still buried. It is an issue meant to be resolved by a special working group of parliamentarians working with an oversight committee to release documents, but that has disappeared. It is one more issue the government prefers to sweep under the rug. We see this with the Prime Minister and his decisions not to apologize for the comments made by several Liberals in this chamber that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew about the threats against his family and loved ones and did nothing. It is a disgraceful misrepresentation meant to obscure what had happened. The government's response to these allegations in The Globe and Mail has been evasive and inconsistent, with simple questions about its knowledge of the situation going unanswered. This all raises additional concerns about transparency and accountability. At first the government announced that anyone violating the Vienna convention would be expelled, so we waited. Days passed without new information or an expulsion. Later the Prime Minister claimed to be unaware of the allegations until they actually appeared in the newspaper, asserting the same applied to other executive branch members in his cabinet. He also mentioned that CSIS determined the issue was not significant enough to warrant escalation and still no expulsions took place. The narrative shifted again when it was revealed that the security briefings did not even leave CSIS; they did not reach the national security adviser and other government departments, the government maintained, yet of course we discovered they had reached the highest echelons of the public service, and the government was somehow in the dark. Despite no expulsions occurring, the government raised concerns about the possible consequences of expelling a People's Republic of China diplomat, leading to questions about its intentions and resolve. More false accusations were made against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with the Prime Minister participating in the attempts to undermine his credibility and the seriousness of the CSIS reports. It was all, and remains, a bloody mess. For these reasons and others, it is imperative that Parliament explore the violation of our privileges and the threat of election interference through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Leaving this to the government bench alone is, without question, the wrong move. The government simply cannot be trusted. It is why Conservatives also continue to call for an independent, public inquiry into Beijing's foreign interference in our elections. There are so many inconsistencies that have surrounded the Liberal government's handling of the situation that it is right to question its judgment. For example, it is just not credible to believe that CSIS would brief the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on a serious issue of interference and intimidation without informing the national security apparatus and the political level of the current government. Of course, this was recently corroborated by Cherie Henderson, the assistant director for requirements at CSIS, who said, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, “I can say that we definitely have seen specific cases of hostile activities of states against politicians. In those specific cases, we definitely brief our government on the challenges that are being faced.” To be clear, the government's pattern of obfuscating information from parliamentarians has been evident in previous scandals, such as the SNC-Lavalin debacle, the WE Charity scandal, and, just last week, with the Trudeau Foundation. Why would anyone think this situation is any different? The debate's significance lies in the need for the procedure and House affairs committee to address the issue, as well as the ethics committee's focus on foreign interference. Despite multiple committees investigating foreign interference, the government has not initiated an independent inquiry, and it should do so immediately. An independent public inquiry would help assess the impact of the Beijing Communist regime's interference in Canada. Our former colleague Kenny Chiu has discussed the fear and intimidation tactics employed by Chinese mainland officials in Beijing, including misinformation and disinformation campaigns against members of the House during recent elections. Mehmet Tohti, a leading advocate for the human rights of Uyghur Muslims in Canada, shared his experience of Beijing Communist officials monitoring his calls to relatives in China in an attempt to intimidate him. There are still an unknown number of Chinese Communist Party police stations operating in Canada. These serve one purpose, and that is to intimidate citizens and landed immigrants who live here, in what should be a free and democratic Canada. There is a pattern of pandering to Beijing, which appears to have begun when the Prime Minister won the Liberal Party leadership. A large donation was soon made to the Trudeau Foundation, and questions have arisen about the receipt issued for the donation. Parliamentary committees are studying that as well, urging the CRA to investigate that to get to the bottom of any undue influence on our democracy and the Prime Minister. This pattern of influence must be investigated further, because it undermines democratic institutions, the electoral process, and, of course, faith in our democracy. At the same time, it is important to recognize that many Chinese Canadians live in our country in fear, and may not participate fully in the electoral process due to potential retribution. That is where we are today. Our government and Prime Minister took two years to act and to expel a diplomat for meddling in Canada's democracy. Because the Liberals finally declared one diplomat from Communist China not welcome in this country, they think they should be congratulated, after waiting two years. The Liberals had ample evidence of Beijing's diplomats interfering in elections, particularly from its Toronto and Vancouver offices, yet, when questioned about this at the procedure and House affairs committee, the foreign affairs minister claimed there was no evidence. However, they did possess evidence about a foreign diplomat sent here by Beijing's Communist party, which had been known for two years. The Liberals might claim that the information never made it to the Prime Minister's desk, and that is why we need an investigation to find out what happened. If that is true, that is still the government's responsibility. If the Liberal government is not capable of overseeing the security of this country, it should be held in contempt for its inability to govern well and responsibly. It took a report from The Globe and Mail, and pressure from the opposition and Canadians at large, for the government to finally act. Why was there this long delay? It is unacceptable for Beijing diplomats to facilitate funding for political candidates, to target Conservative candidates, or any candidates for that matter, in this country, and then to boast about defeating disliked incumbent MPs. It is equally intolerable for them to organize illegal police stations to harass and intimidate Chinese Canadians, and to threaten MPs and their families. Canada has a long-standing commitment to accountable government. We must uphold and preserve that. Canadians should be informed of the recent security lapses. Instead, the Prime Minister continues to put electoral decisions ahead of national security. This is the most serious failing of anyone who occupies the government benches under the Liberal government.

2235 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/9/23 9:48:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, not later than 11:59 p.m. or when no member rises to speak to the motion under consideration, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

95 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193