SoVote

May/9/23 11:33:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to respectfully disagree. This is a matter of national importance and of the safety and security of a sitting member of Parliament. I will go back to what I said during my intervention. CSIS does these reports and investigations only at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of National Defence. I just cannot see it happening that it produced these reports and they somehow sat under a stack of selfies in our Prime Minister's Office without him seeing them. I just cannot see a situation where our Prime Minister does not know about the matter of a national security threat. Beyond that, CSIS built these reports about potential threats within his party to nominations or whatever. I cannot see any scenario where the Prime Minister, in his leadership, had no knowledge of it. He can say he did not know and plead ignorance all he likes, but I just cannot see it. I have sat in security briefings at the highest level, and I cannot believe that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of it. Our first job is to tell our commander-in-chief when there are threats. We cannot insulate them and allow them to be willfully ignorant of these threats.

219 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

May/9/23 12:00:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. If I ever have the opportunity to be prime minister, regardless of where the threat came from and against whom, that diplomat and that country would know, exactly, that the government would not tolerate that. It is NHL hockey playoffs right now. Evander Kane, from the Edmonton Oilers, said something that is a saying in my riding as well, which we say to bullies. I will paraphrase because some of the language is unparliamentary: If someone messes around, they will find out what will happen to them. That is the message I would send to China regarding this: Mess around and find out. In my intervention, I said that there are two choices we have here: malicious intent or willful negligence. I want to ask what my hon. colleague believes as to why the Prime Minister sat on this information and did not inform the sitting member of Parliament.

157 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

May/9/23 2:27:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, foreign interference is a serious threat to our democracy. A member of Parliament and his family were targeted by a foreign government for his vote in the House. Imagine what it is like for thousands of families across our country that fled governments that were oppressive only to come to Canada and have those threats follow them. The Prime Minister will not even call a public inquiry. How can he keep the rest of Canadians facing serious threats safe?

81 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

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