SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 9:49:08 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay. Agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

36 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/9/23 9:49:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the debate on foreign interference is a strange one. It feels as though we are floating. It is as if we are all wearing rose-coloured glasses when it comes to Chinese interference, especially the government. This has been going on for months. An elected official in the House and his family were harassed by the Chinese state, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Over the past few months, Chinese balloons have been seen flying over North America. It was never clear what became of that. TikTok, which was installed on the phones of every member of the House, was banned. There was a case of spying in Quebec, at Hydro-Québec, which is a major corporation. We learned that a Chinese spy was working there. We also learned that there were Chinese police stations. How can we tolerate community centres where the Chinese state can put pressure on Canadians who have family there? The situation is really very serious, but it seems that the government on the other side of the House does not realize it. Does my colleague agree that we are all wearing rose-coloured glasses with respect to the possibility of a state as powerful as China intervening here in Canada?

213 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/9/23 9:50:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member. I think this is a very serious issue, but the government is not taking it seriously. This is something that I think the government has known about for far too long and has preferred to turn the other way, to ignore it, because it was either not capable of dealing with this or was not willing to make some of the tough decisions that are required to ensure that Canadians remain safe. However, there is no doubt it is a mess, and it is one that has unfolded slowly. This did not just appear one day, but it is story upon story. We must get to the bottom of it.

118 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/9/23 9:51:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member talked about the incredible beauty, hospitality and kindness of the people of China when he visited there. Then he spoke, of course, about the need for the public inquiry. I certainly hear this from people in my area who are of Chinese descent and background, Chinese Canadians. They have been standing up against the racism and discrimination that they have experienced because of a lot of this uncertainty. Could the member talk about the point that, in a public inquiry, we could get to the bottom of a lot of this and help fight against anti-Asian racism?

108 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/9/23 9:52:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's point is spot-on. That is one of the benefits of having a proper public consultation. We would hear from the public, and more and more Canadians would come to realize that the primary target of mainland China, the Communist regime, has been Canadians of Chinese heritage. Those are the people who are not able to fulfill their democratic rights because of intimidation from police stations that operate here illegally, because of intimidation tactics from Beijing's diplomats. I appreciate the question. It is a great point. We want to make sure this is about the regime in Beijing, and we will hear from Canadians of Chinese descent, who will reinforce the message that they, too, support democracy and freedoms that are the bedrock of this country.

132 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/9/23 9:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to work with the member on the special committee on Canada-China relations in the last Parliament. We got a lot of important work done. In particular, we began a study, which was interrupted by the election, highlighting the national security threats that were associated with Canada's relationship with the PRC. What struck me about some of the work we did at the time was how many everyday Canadians are impacted by these threats, these instances of foreign interference. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has recognized as well that, as he faces these threats, he has a position that allows him to bring attention to them, but many people have suffered in silence. There are many stories we have heard, but there are many stories we will never hear, of people who have been victims of foreign interference and have not been able to bring the attention to the situation that should have been brought to it. I wonder if the member has thoughts and reflections, as we address this privilege issue involving members of Parliament, on how we can stand with everyday Canadians who face worse threats and do not have the same opportunities.

204 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/9/23 9:54:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a brief answer to that excellent question, which is to give them a platform to speak, to give Canadians who have faced intimidation and threats from Beijing a platform through Parliament and the Canadian government, and give them the opportunity to stand up and be heard. That would do more to help rectify the situation and correct the many errors that the government made. We must not forget, and I will remind my colleagues, that the Liberal government actually sued the Speaker prior to the last election, to prevent information that the Canada-China committee had discovered, an outrageous move to protect itself and not ensure that Canadians had the truth.

115 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/9/23 9:55:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert was saying. He talked about getting the sense that people are wearing rose-coloured glasses, but I am getting the sense that people are worried. I am concerned about how the government is handling issues that are more serious than pretty much anything we have ever seen. I remember the WE scandal from a few years ago. The government did all it could to cover everything up, to sweep things under the rug over and over until hard-working reporters and opposition members managed to uncover the details. It was appalling. It was even worse than everyone thought initially. Now we have these allegations of Chinese interference. The more we dig, the more outrageous things we find, yet the Liberals and their Trudeau Foundation friends keep burying their heads in the sand. They act like nothing happened and they never do anything wrong, but actually, something very serious happened. The government needs to be transparent and collaborate to get this all out in the open and reassure people. The whole situation is extremely worrisome. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

199 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/9/23 9:56:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I could not agree more. Our strength as a country and a democracy rests on our openness. The weakness of the Communist regime is its insistence on lies and keeping things hidden. We must, as a democracy, ensure that what has happened is known by Canadians so they can hold those who failed in their duty accountable and ensure we have a government here that will stand up for the interests of this country and voters right across the country.

83 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/9/23 9:57:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in this debate, I would like to say that as an MP, I am very worried about the state of democracy. Can my colleague say whether he feels any pressure? Does he feel threatened? If so, how does that affect him and his ability to perform his role as an MP? As we know, several ridings were targeted. If he were one of those targeted, how would he be able to play his role independently? Fundamentally, it is our democracy and the integrity of the House that are being attacked.

92 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/9/23 9:57:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to date that has not been the case. I have no problems doing my work in my riding. That said, we can think of Kenny Chiu, a former member of the House of Commons who was targeted by Beijing's attacks. There are some very serious examples. Some members are no longer in this place because of the Communist Party's efforts to ensure that they lost their election and could no longer return to the House to defend their political ideas. That is very serious. The government says that this did not influence the election, that it did not really change anything. However, some members are not here because of the Communists.

115 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

May/9/23 9:59:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start off with an excerpt from a Globe and Mail article from February 2019. It reads, “The allegations reported in the story are false. At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney-general to make any particular decision in this matter”. This is, I think, what starts our debate here and takes us into a concern for many Canadians, which I am hearing from across all party lines, about where we are with China and the information that is slowly coming out from the PMO. If we are trying to compare this to something like SNC-Lavalin, we truly cannot. It is one of those pinnacles, one of those things that is so high. This is about democracy, integrity and the work we can do as parliamentarians without fear for our families. I started reading these stories once I heard about the allegation about the foreign interference with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I came to this very simple point: How can we do our jobs when we do not feel safe or when our families are threatened, whether here in Canada or in China? This is something that the government must take seriously. I am looking at all the members who are here tonight, and there things that are important, but when it comes to our families, for many of us, that is the bottom line, and it changes everything. It is the fear and the love for our loved ones. How do we ensure that they are safe? I look at what the Prime Minister said back in 2019, just sloughing it off, and months later, we find out that everything he had said was inaccurate. This is what concerns me today as we are having this debate. I fear that these same issues of “I didn't know” and “everything is false” may be the same situation here today. I think that is the big concern here. I will go back to some information on this, but I would like to start with the fact that our Conservative critic for foreign affairs has done such an exemplary job. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is extraordinarily respected in the House by not only members of his own caucus but also the individuals he comes across, whether stakeholders meeting with him on key issues, somebody chairing a committee or a minister being asked hard questions by the member. There is a respect because of the way he proceeds, holds himself and shows the value of what democracy really is. The member shared with us the reason his family came to Canada, why they wanted to come and why his father chose to have a better life here in Canada. It is like so many other fathers and mothers who are descendants, and why so many people came to Canada to find a better life. Unfortunately, some of these bad actors and some of these things follow people. When we look at what happened to this member, we have to understand that it did not just happen to this member, but to the rest of the 337 of us as well. I spoke to one of my colleagues who happened to be one of the 49 members who were also briefed on this defence and what was happening. He shared with me that, if he were to rate it, it was a one out of 10 when it came to security and safety and making him feel that it was a great threat. I think if someone had maybe provided more information to let people know who was being targeted, they would understand that this really was not a one out of 10. Perhaps for that member who had a similar briefing it was a one out of 10, but for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I do not think that is the case. We have to look at the fact that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills stood up against Chinese influence on Canadian institutions. He has criticized the Prime Minister for cash-for-access fundraisers, which had been done with Chinese-Canadian businessmen. He has fought against the ties of the government, and the Prime Minister specifically, to the Chinese Communist Party. He has called for a stronger stance on human rights, trade violations and cybersecurity concerns, which are all related to China. When we start looking at this, it seems pretty clear why the member was targeted. It is because he is a man of principle, and he is a man who will stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. This leads me to a concern, because one of the things he was bringing forward was genocide and things that are happening in China. From just a few months ago, I remember a member from the Liberal Party who was clearly so cheerful because his private member's bill had also gone through, and it targeted that. I do not know if that member of Parliament has been or is being targeted, but when we know this is happening to good people who are working for vulnerable people, we should assume it may be. This is where I am hoping the Prime Minister, the national security advisers and the cabinet will not just worry about politics, but about the people within their own caucus. I do not know the situation there, but I really do fear what is going to happen to that member. Knowing that our own member was targeted, what is happening to the Liberal members in their own benches? Let us go back to the questions and this timeline. Every day there are new questions about the federal government and how it handled the Chinese government's plot to target MPs. All of this came out, and we talk about the security briefing received by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the information that was provided by the Prime Minister just two days apart. It is very concerning. We have a Prime Minister who is saying he knew nothing, that CSIS did not release the document and that they did not see it as a big issue. Of course, I am not quoting right now, but that is the overall essence of it. However, we then have somebody, who came to give our member an intelligence report, who is saying the exact opposite the next day. I am not indicating necessarily that the Prime Minister had read it. Although, as everybody has said in here, and as we have heard his chief of staff, Katie Telford, say, the Prime Minister reads everything. We have heard her say that. We must understand that, if there had been a briefing, he must have read it, because that is his job. This is not just because Katie Telford said so, but because his job as the Prime Minister is to read security briefings, not only because this is a democracy and he should be sure everybody is safe, but also because it is his job to ensure Canada is safe. If there is a security briefing that is coming in, he needs to take the time to read it. All that was said last week continues to be contradicted, and I think we have to look at where this conversation started. Last Monday, I was watching everybody debate this, and we saw members of Parliament get up and not answer the questions. The minister for the government was not answering specific questions, and we could see that intensity. We know the government had to make a choice on what it was going to do, but two days later we actually saw its members double down. I saw the compassion from some of those members on Monday, who recognized that one of their own colleagues in the House was targeted, but we watched the government members, two days later, double down, and all of its members and parliamentary secretaries were providing the same answer. That means they are working together to try to redirect this conversation, and the good work promised by some of the members over there had to be halted because it was against their political agenda. Those are things that concern me. When we know that a person has been here and has targeted members of Parliament, why have they not been immediately removed? It took the government over a week, and as we have heard, it was not just a week, but two years and a week, because the government knew beforehand. However, we have to look at things that were also said in here, and if we are talking about democracy and coverups, we had the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House of Commons, Senate, state: The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had a defence briefing on this two years ago, so he knew about this when it actually happened. My question for the member is this. When did he find out about it? Did the member for Wellington—Halton Hills bring it to his attention at any time prior to the media doing so? I am going back to a simple comment that was made by my colleague, who said that they were briefed, and it was like a one out of 10. If people are giving general information, that is a problem, and I think, when I hear from one member that it was just such an overlay, I understand. However, I know this person did not go forward and ask, but if the government was worried, why did it not do something about it? If it knew there was more, why did it not press go to try to start on foreign interference by looking into this? I think it comes down to the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is so entangled with the Chinese government because of his admiration for that country that sometimes he cannot see right from wrong, because it is more about popularity and polling than it is about leading this great country. I feel sorry for some of the members I see over there who are having to applaud a Prime Minister who will not stand up for members of Parliament and will continue to wipe things away. However, we have a Prime Minister who was part of cash-for-access fundraisers back in 2016. That all ties into the Trudeau Foundation and the money that was given from members of the Communist Chinese government via conduits so that the money could get in there and a statue of the Prime Minister's father. Those are all wonderful things. They are everything that is great to make an ego shine. That is what we are selling off. We are selling things off such as Canadian democracy for egos. That is why I have a problem with this. I feel that we have not taken the Chinese government seriously for the last eight years. Throughout these question periods the government members have asked repeatedly, multiple times what our government did about it, and they have said that it did nothing about it. They and I know that, like Facebook since I joined in 2007, things have changed and things progress with IT and all of the things that are available to us in this world. Of course we have to narrow and change the ways that we are doing things. Canada had a different relationship with China prior to the current government. Prior to the government's coming in, we always tried to work, but we were trying to build strong relationships where we both were separate and we had a sovereign democratic country for Canada. However, we do not see that with the Chinese government anymore. With respect to the Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, when somebody had said something bad, the Canadian ambassador to China made an inappropriate comment, and he was accused of being too cozy with the country's authoritarian government. We saw the firing of the ambassador to China happen because the Chinese government spoke up. When the Chinese government is not happy with what Canada does, it calls the Prime Minister and fires the Canadian ambassador. However, when this is happening with our own Canadian member of Parliament, we do not see the same thing occurring. These have to be discussed. I want to continue, as we are discussing this, looking at the connection between this Prime Minister and the judgment that he is using throughout these cases. We have talked about the seriousness of these allegations and we have already talked about how people are not taking this seriously. That is so concerning. We saw fewer voters from the Chinese community come out in the last election because their democracy was stolen from them by foreign agents coming to their doors, knocking on their doors and advising them on whom they had to vote for. We know that people were targeted through group chats. It is not just our members of Parliament who are targeted, but it is Canadians who were being targeted in the last election. We have people who were fearful of voting. That should never happen here in Canada. We understand that some countries tell people what to do. Here in Canada, we are supposed to be a country that has freedom of expression, freedom of speech and a democratic process. We know that in the last election that was not the case. I appreciate this time. I will continue to fight for democracy. I will continue to fight for transparency and accountability from the current government, specifically on the case of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but I will fight for every Canadian who should be free of any interference from abroad.

2328 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193