SoVote

May/9/23 11:18:49 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, since the member mentioned the foreign agent registries in Australia and the U.S., I wonder how he would consider those registries to be effective in protecting our national security and to make sure these registries are effective in informing Canadians about lobbying efforts by foreign agents.

48 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

May/9/23 11:19:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is so important. If someone who works for a small community organization wants to lobby the government, the person has to register. To think that someone might be on our soil from another country and could have come without any type of scrutiny is just unreasonable. We see a model. We see what Australia has. We understand that the United States also has this. Australia is very close to China, and it sees a lot of the problems and issues that are associated with that. The U.S. has constantly been back and forth, especially on some of the things I have mentioned as far as patents are concerned, and it takes this rather seriously. I think that is the least we can do.

127 words

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

May/9/23 11:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time. This is a critically important debate. We are debating a question of privilege, which means that we are debating an instance in which the rights and privileges, and the ability of a member or members of this Parliament to do their job, were threatened. In particular, we are dealing with a situation where, incredibly, a member of Canada's Parliament and his family were threatened by a foreign government. We have to contend with the reality that a member of Parliament was threatened by a foreign government, the People's Republic of China, Beijing's Communist Party. Why was he threatened? He was threatened because he stood with victims of the Uyghur genocide. As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, this is deeply personal for me. I grew up hearing stories from my grandmother not only about the persecution she and her family faced, but also about the stories of politicians, everyday leaders, church leaders and everyday people in Germany and throughout the world who were willing to stand with her and stand with other victims of that genocide. Their courageous witness for justice, for universal human dignity, is part of what contributed to my grandmother surviving the war, and to me being alive today and able to give this speech. I honour and recognize the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for, just like courageous those heroes of the past, being willing to stand with victims of genocide in our own day and bearing the costs of that. He has faced threats. He has faced intimidation from the government of China, a loss that I think is challenging for all of us to understand. There is now an inability, for instance, to safely visit his ancestral homeland and show it to his family. These are real sacrifices, and the member has shown significant courage in taking this stand. The fact that the government of a foreign state would presume to threaten a member of Parliament here in Canada should underline the new reality we are facing in the world today. It is the reality, sadly, of a new kind of cold war where we have fierce ideological, economic and other forms of strategic competition between a free democratic bloc, on the one hand, and a group of autocratic revisionist powers that seek to reverse and undermine the international rules-based order on the other. In particular, it seeks to overturn the idea that borders should be set through agreement and through the sovereign will of the people, not by force. These revisionist powers seek to overturn that long-standing consensus. They do not have any respect for national sovereignty, which is why they presume to not only dictate other countries, such as in the case of Russia's actions to invade Ukraine and the cases of the PRC's action to threaten Taiwan and the sovereignty of various other countries in the area, but also intervene and try to stealthily control and direct our institutions here. This is the reality of the world today. It is one of intense strategic competition that I think could be appropriately and honestly described as a new kind of cold war. The outcome of this competition between free democratic values and this emerging authoritarian revisionist bloc is not certain. We cannot presume the triumph of the values of democracy and liberty. We must struggle, work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our way of life and spread the cause of freedom to expand the space of freedom to more people around the world. This is something we can hope for, but we cannot presume will happen unless we fully commit ourselves individually and collectively to the pursuit of this end. I believe the system of free democracy is superior. It harnesses the energies and the creativity of more people and it will prevail under the right circumstances. A critical part of that circumstance is that we summon the courage required to meet the challenge. I want to speak specifically tonight to the virtue of courage. Courage, quite simply, is the virtue of being willing to risk important and valuable things in pursuit of greater things, in pursuit of things that are good, true and beautiful. It is a willingness to risk our own safety, security, comfort or economic well-being to pursue greater and more important goods. That is the preservation of democracy and of liberty, and a system that recognizes universal human rights and the rule of law. It requires courage and a willingness to sacrifice, if we are going to prevail in the midst of this. This story of what happened with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with the threats he faced and the stance he has taken, is about courage. It is about a contrast in courage, sadly, between the stand he took and the positions the government has taken. The member, in working with other parties, especially other opposition parties, put forward a motion to recognize the Uyghur genocide. It was telling the simple truth that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are victims of an ongoing genocide. That motion passed because the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all members of the opposition and some members of the government were prepared to stand up and say it was true and that Canada has obligations under the genocide convention to act for and stand with victims of this genocide. Cabinet did not show the necessary courage. It showed cowardice. Its members remained in their seats and abstained on that all-important vote. That took courage, because it involved sacrifice. It led directly to threats made against the member and his family, but it also led to legislatures around the world following Canada's example and recognizing this genocide. It was a crucial step in helping people everywhere understand what the CCP is really all about and what its agenda is: The CCP is using the latest technology to inflict a campaign of genocide against an ethnic and religious minority. That vote was a crucial moment. It took courage and it had consequences: challenging consequences for the member and his family, but positive consequences in terms of advancing awareness and action in response to the still ongoing Uyghur genocide. I think the response by the government to the threat also tells an important story about courage and cowardice. Because the government did not act, the member was not informed, and when he was informed this past week, when the information was out on the news, the response from the government was to say that it cannot take certain actions, or that it at least has to be very careful to take certain actions because there might be retaliation. It is the old logic of appeasement, the logic of Neville Chamberlain, to say we do not want to annoy our adversaries in this global reality of competition because they might do things back to us. We will therefore tolerate such outrages as threats to members of Parliament, and we will not take action in response. The Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee said that we have to consider this very carefully because China might retaliate. We should have the courage to say it is a fundamental point for us here in Canada that we will not tolerate threats made against our citizens, whether or not they are members of Parliament, and we will expel diplomats who engage in that behaviour, period, full stop. That takes courage. That takes a willingness of the government to draw a line. If this was a government of courage, we would not have gotten this far in terms of the vulnerability to these threats. If the government had courage, we would have had our government recognize the Uyghur genocide. We would have taken strong measures to combat foreign interference, including bringing in a foreign agent registry. We would have taken those measures years ago. However, the government, in a pretense of sophistication, says it cannot do that because we have to think about it carefully and they might retaliate and so forth. This is fundamentally the logic of weakness, and I think it is so important for us to reflect on this issue of courage and what strength or weakness looks like in the challenge in front of us. I think we will face in the years ahead an ongoing competition between free democracies and revisionist authoritarian powers. We can win this struggle if we collectively have the kind of courage that has been shown by my colleague on this side, and if we have the kind of courage to say we will make the sacrifices required, we will stand up for what is right, we will tell the truth about genocide, we will protect our country and we will protect our citizens. If we have, collectively, the courage to take that stand and to make the sacrifices associated with it, we will preserve freedom and democracy for generations to come. If we do not, if we buy into the logic of appeasement that refuses to act and that is calcified in faux sophistication, then we will not prevail.

1536 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/9/23 11:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to talk about how he sees the attack on our democracy. It is something that I keep coming back to but that is essential for me. Does my colleague see a threat? What can we do? Has he been pressured? Since it is dangerous to remain silent, how can we talk about this to ensure that precedents are not set? We are talking about China right now, but it could be any other country. Russia is allegedly responsible for interfering in elections in the United States. Pretty much all of us have been banned from visiting Russia. If we were the ones being threatened, how would we react? How would the member react?

126 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/9/23 11:31:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in terms of ensuring that these things do not happen again, we have to recognize the reality that we are going to see attempts at this kind of interference. We are going to see interference in the lives of members of Parliament, but also in the lives of other figures in our society, such as elite figures, university officials, people at other levels of government and everyday citizens. We are going to continue to see these kinds of events, because this is the new reality. It is a reality in which there is intensified competition, but also a much higher degree of mutual penetration, between the different blocs than existed in the last Cold War. We are going to see these challenges intensify, so what do we do in response to that? We need to undertake many of the measures that have been proposed, and many more, to make our societies stronger and more resilient against these kinds of threats. It is not just a matter of policy. There are policy changes that are required, the foreign influence registry and others, but we need to build a kind of social mentality that is resilient to these kinds of threats. On the issue of misinformation, for example, government regulation is not the solution to misinformation. The solution is an informed, engaged and aware citizenry where the government is being frank and honest about those kinds of interference. It is something we all need to collectively respond to together. We are going to continue to see these threats. We are going to have the struggle. This is a critical challenge that Parliament must meet in the days ahead, and we can meet it together, but the government has to step up and lead. The other thing that is frustrating is that we hear members of the government complain about partisanship, yet they are doing nothing. It is our job to challenge them to take action, and when they take action, we will celebrate that action, absolutely. It was far too late, but it was a small step in the right direction to declare the diplomat in question persona non grata, but there are so many more steps that are required.

370 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

May/9/23 11:33:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's very thorough speech causes all of us to take time to reflect and think about the seriousness of the matter we are facing right now, and also about the absolute critical importance of Canada to do everything it can to restore its place on the international stage. What I mean by that is so that our allies have confidence in dealing with us as it relates to security matters, and so that we will be invited back to those key tables of influence. I wonder if the hon. member would like to share some thoughts on the importance of re-establishing our credibility as it relates to protecting our sovereignty and our security.

119 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/9/23 11:34:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there have been many failures from the government in defending our security, as this debate demonstrates. The evidence is there in terms of how our stature in the world has not been helped by the government; however, we should not be looking at our stature in the world as an end in and of itself. We should be recognizing how strengthening our real contribution to the advancement of freedom of democracy is going to both build our stature but also advance and protect our security. What jumps out at me most in this context is the signing of the AUKUS agreement. The United States, the U.K. and Australia are coming together and saying that they are going to have an intelligence-sharing agreement, where they are going to work together and collaborate. It is great for them to be collaborating, but that intelligence sharing is supposed to be happening at the Five Eyes. We have three of the Five Eyes coming together, apart from the other two. This should raise important questions for Canada. Why is Canada not at that table? Why is Canada not engaged in these important discussions? Why is Canada not more engaged with the Quad? Again, it is not engagement as an end in and of itself, but as a means to effectively standing up for our democratic values. The government's focus in the world has been trying to send signals and look good, but not to actually achieve concrete results, and it shows.

252 words

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

May/9/23 11:36:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight in the House once again to represent the people of the North Okanagan—Shuswap. I will also state that it is even more of an honour to rise on this occasion to speak on the important ruling of the matter of privilege raised by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. In this ruling, the Speaker found a prima facie case of breach of privilege. It is an honour to stand here tonight and speak to defending our democracy in Canada, for Canada and for freedom and democracy everywhere. I do not know if anyone in the House ever takes for granted the significance of our roles here to carry out the business of one of the freest countries in the world. I know that I never take it for granted; what an honour it is to defend our freedoms. They are the very reason we are here as elected representatives of the common people, freely elected through a democratic process and not appointed by a dictatorship. We are here as elected representatives because the voters in our communities have entrusted us to carry out the democratic process without undue influence of money, undue influence of power and, especially, inappropriate influence or threats to our families. However, that is why we are here tonight, late at night, debating a point of privilege raised by one of us. A fellow parliamentarian was fairly elected through our democratic process, and this member has learned of alleged attempted influence on him through his family. There was a report in The Globe and Mail on May 1. It claimed that there were CSIS documents from 2021 stating that the Communist government of China sees Canada as a prime target for interference. That report also stated that the family of the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills was targeted by a Chinese diplomat, Zhao Wei, because of how the hon. member had voted on a motion in the House. The Prime Minister claimed that the note did not leave the CSIS office; top security officials have confirmed that this claim is false. The note was widely dispersed among government departments and the Prime Minister's national security adviser. In addition, The Canadian Press published a story earlier this week saying that, despite what the Minister of Public Safety claims, Chinese police stations are still operating in Quebec. What is most troubling about this situation is that we, as elected members, continued to come to the House to work in our democratic process for almost two years after CSIS raised the alert about this foreign attack on our democracy. We believed that, in a democratic country, we were safe from intimidation as elected members. From this report and subsequent releases, we learned that the threats and intimidation occurred almost two years ago, and yet the member directly affected was not informed until he learned of it in the news, nor were the remainder of parliamentarians alerted to the threat. These alleged threats to the family of a member do more than just influencing one member of the House. Any attack on one member is an attack on all members of the House, as well as an attack on the rule of law and on Canada's democracy overall. I cannot imagine the stress that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills must be going through knowing what has happened. Family is our sanctity. It should always be the reason for doing what is right. It should never be the reason for feeling threatened or pressured into doing something we know is wrong. It has been two years since the government became aware that the MP and his family were being targeted by the regime in Beijing, and a full week after the information became public. We have learned now that the government has finally made the decision that should have been made on the day it found out about this attack on a member of the House of Commons. It is unacceptable that the government has known that an MP and his family had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for two years and it did not inform the member or the members in this House about the threats posed to that member's family. It is even further unacceptable that the government continued to provide diplomatic immunity for an agent of Beijing for two years after learning he was using his position to harass Canadians and their families. Chinese Canadians and all Canadians across the country deserve to know that the government takes their safety and security seriously. While the government has finally taken action against the diplomat who threatened the member of Parliament, it has failed to shut down Beijing's police stations operating in Canada and failed to protect members of the community from harassment and intimidation. We know the government is slow to respond to threats to our security, and this must change. It took it years to respond to concern over Huawei's influence on the 5G network, something our allies had acted upon much earlier. The government lagged behind and, no doubt, caused concerns for our allies' joint security because of Canada's failure to act. The fact that this interference ever occurred and it took this long to take action is proof of the government's incompetence in fulfilling its basic responsibility to protect Canadians. The government must take the other steps that the House voted on this week, including a public inquiry that will lay out what the government knew about Beijing's interference in our democratic process. This is the bare minimum it must do in order to restore any amount of trust from Canadians of any and all races, ethnic backgrounds, religions and spiritual beliefs so they will be free from undue foreign government interference. I fear for what could happen to us as Canadians and freedom across the world should the government fail to act. It is very late and there may not be many people in this country watching at home right now, but my hope is that Canadians across the country will be watching and listening and will hold the government accountable, especially its leadership, for its actions and especially its inaction on issues like this that threaten Canada's security and the freedoms that people from around the world migrate to and aspire to. My hope is that Canadians and people around the world will be watching and will hold the government accountable.

1097 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/9/23 11:44:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, it is late, but it is never too late to talk about issues as serious as this. What I have wanted to know since the start of this whole thing is how seriously is the Liberal government in power taking this issue. If we look at the measures this government has taken from the start, they coincided with the release of new information in the media every time. The Liberals have known things for years, but, as long it does not end up in the papers, they do nothing. To me, that is not taking things seriously. It may even be an attempt to cover things up. My question is simple. Does my colleague not believe that an independent public inquiry would shed light on all of this and that this issue will finally be taken seriously?

140 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

May/9/23 11:45:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question is whether the government should take this issue seriously. Very much so, it should take this seriously. It concerns me, as a member of Parliament, that as this debate continues, we see members on the government side smirking and chuckling about the debate that is happening here. It is shameful that Canadians and parliamentarians have to find out the truth through media stories and not be informed by the government. Information was provided to the government about members who have had their families threatened, and yet the government withheld that information for almost two years, until it came out publicly and, finally, the government was caught once again trying to hide its corruption.

117 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

May/9/23 11:46:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I note the seriousness of the subject we are tackling here this evening. Having this happen to one of our colleagues, a member of this House, has sent shockwaves throughout the country and among fellow parliamentarians. The fact is that there was a delay in the response, and I believe others around the world are looking at Canada's response to this and saying they do not know how seriously the government is taking it. They are asking why it took so long to make things right and deal with things properly. I wonder if my hon. colleague has some comments related to the response and how long it took once we knew these things and they came to light?

122 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

May/9/23 11:47:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question about why it took so long for the government to respond. We can only speculate about that. If I was to speculate, I would say the government was hoping that it could be hidden and covered up and that nobody would expose it. It took two years for it to come out in the media, and it was finally exposed. That is why we are only just hearing about it and debating it now. That is speculation, but I believe that the hope on the other side that it would never come to light is why it has taken this long for any action to be taken.

116 words

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

May/9/23 11:48:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one point I want to add as more of a comment is that with critical G7 meetings coming up in Japan, I think it is very important for free democracies to work together on a coordinated response to transnational repression. That includes us learning from our allies by implementing measures such as the foreign influence registry. It also includes having a coordinated approach among allies on combatting forced labour in our supply chains. However, especially on this issue of protecting free democracies from foreign infiltration, I think we have a lot to learn from like-minded partners. It is very important that this is a priority on the agenda in those upcoming meetings.

115 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

May/9/23 11:49:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly we can learn from other countries, but hopefully we are not learning from dictatorships. Hopefully we can learn from democracies around the world, from other countries that are putting a spotlight and close eye on the wrongdoings of dictatorships like that of the Communist Party of China. Let us keep Canada free and keep Canadians feeling safe and secure in their own country.

66 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 11:49:53 p.m.
Watch

Order. There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion in relation to the breach of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

112 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/9/23 11:51:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 11:51:07 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. We have a point of order from the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

42 words

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

May/9/23 11:51:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I move: That the House do now adjourn.

10 words

Adjourn

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 11:51:35 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). Good night, everybody. (The House adjourned at 11:51 p.m.)

42 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193