SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 202 - May/30/23

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/30/23 11:10:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge indicated that eight bodies have been created since 2015 to deal with issues of national security and foreign interference. I am just wondering if she could explain to this House where the gap was within the Liberal Party that prevented the government from informing the member for Wellington—Halton Hills of the circumstances his family was facing.

66 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:10:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did explain eight examples of some of the ways we are taking national security seriously. I find it interesting to hear a question like that coming from a member whose own leader refuses to have national security briefings. The member wants to know about the national security information of one of their members, all while their leader refuses to have national security briefings on this very matter. Forgive me, but it is hard to take the Conservatives seriously when they ask questions with such hypocrisy built right in.

91 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/30/23 11:11:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's speech covered so many things that I have questions about. I would begin by saying that the Johnston report is a victory for China and a defeat for democracy. The member spoke a lot about protecting democracy and about partisanship. I have a question for her. The government was elected by about 30% of the population. Therefore, 70% of the population is represented by the opposition parties, which, about two weeks ago, voted in favour of a motion calling for a public inquiry. I would like to ask her to define the word “democracy” for me.

103 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:12:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting, because there was actually a vote at the PROC committee about a public inquiry, and the Bloc voted against it. The Bloc members continued to not be consistent in their position, and yet they want to stand here and say that they speak for Canadians with a united voice. They do not even speak with a united position in this place, but that is okay. The mere suggestion that the report by the Right Honourable David Johnston is a victory for China just goes to show how out of touch and irresponsible the Bloc is. I almost said Conservatives, because essentially there is no difference anymore. It just goes to show that they are more interested in headlines and clips than actually protecting democracy for Quebeckers and all Canadians.

135 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

May/30/23 11:13:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given all that we know about MPs being targeted, about Canadians being harassed and intimidated, and about police stations operating in our country, can my hon. colleague explain why the government continues to refuse to hold a public, independent inquiry? What does the government have to hide?

49 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:13:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our government has been open and transparent. We have been focused on the seriousness of foreign interference. I take great offence to the member raising this issue while he, himself, has raised questions and issues of foreign interference merely to try and rewrite an unfavourable past. I find that incredibly irresponsible when it comes to national security.

59 words

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

May/30/23 11:14:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting when the member told us that she was on NSICOP, she had national security clearance, yet she is still able to participate in this debate despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition suggests that he cannot. I did a little research. It turns out the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is also on NSICOP, which means that he would have the security clearance, yet he participated in the motion of privilege regarding the member for Milton and he also participated in a Conservative opposition motion on March 20 about foreign interference. How is it that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who has the national security clearance, is not silenced, but somehow the Leader of the Opposition would be silenced if he had the exact same clearance?

142 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:14:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. It goes to show that the Leader of the Opposition knows his own limitations. He is not quite capable of maintaining opposition debate, while also ensuring the responsible behaviour of keeping national security information a secret. I think he also sends a very damaging message to his own members' constituents by suggesting that if they have national security clearance, they are now muzzled and cannot do the job their constituents sent them here to do. Either he does not have confidence in himself to handle the important information or he does not have faith in his own Conservative members that they can also participate in meaningful debates, while respecting the national security information of this country. It is pretty shameful, but I am not surprised by the Leader of the Opposition. He is not able to do both things at the same time.

150 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

May/30/23 11:16:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we hear the Liberals talk a lot about Mr. Johnston's respectability. Canadians respect him. I was one of those people until he accepted the appointment to be a special rapporteur when he was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which had clearly become part of the foreign interference scandal. He was clearly in a conflict of interest. Would the member agree that there are probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of other Canadians who are respected who could have accepted that appointment and are not in a conflict of interest?

91 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

May/30/23 11:16:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was not a conflict of interest, but leave that to the Conservatives as no conspiracy theory is too grand for them to move forward with in this place. It should also be noted that the member himself just said he supported and respected the Right Honourable David Johnston up until he took the appointment. Therefore, up until he decided to serve his country, regardless of political leadership, that is what offends the Conservative Party. Its members are offended that a former Conservative Governor General is not partisan enough and puts the service to his country first. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Madam Speaker, they can heckle me all they want. It will not silence the fact that they are hypocrites who only turned on David Johnston because he was no longer just a Conservative, but he also wanted to serve his country regardless of political leadership.

153 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:17:37 a.m.
Watch

We have a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

15 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/23 11:17:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, toward the end of that answer, there was so much heckling. I know Conservatives are trying to impress their leader as he walked into the room, but we could not quite hear the full answer because of all the heckling coming from across the way.

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:17:50 a.m.
Watch

I did hear the full answer. There was some heckling and I do want to remind members to not heckle. I also want to remind all members to be judicious with the language they use. It is not parliamentary language sometimes. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

45 words

Hon. Pascale St-Onge (Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.)

May/30/23 11:18:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12:00 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:18:39 a.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made November 15, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.

20 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

May/30/23 11:18:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how did we get to this point? How is it that we are here in the House of Commons to debate a motion to hold a public inquiry on foreign interference? It started a long time ago. About 10 years, or a decade, ago, the Prime Minister expressed his admiration for the dictatorship of China. He said that the power concentrated in Beijing allowed that dictatorship to impose its will on the people of China and that he wanted to re-create that same power here in Canada. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Chinese government wanted an ideological ally in power. Thanks to information given to the media, we know that Beijing interfered in two elections to help get the Prime Minister elected. We know that Beijing donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. A telephone call from a Chinese diplomat shows that the purpose of that donation was to buy the Prime Minister's love and loyalty. We know that, since that time, Beijing has been interfering by threatening the family of at least one MP and targeting other MPs who criticized the policies of the dictatorship in Beijing. We also know that foreign police stations are operating here in Canada, even after the Minister of Public Safety promised to close them. Not only are those police stations open but, worse still, the Liberal government has subsidized them with taxpayer money. We know that there are business ties between well-placed Liberals in the business world and the Liberal Party that influence this Prime Minister. All this is known, but there is a lot we do not know. People working for the intelligence service have said that Canadians need to know the truth about the relationships with the Beijing regime and its influence here in Canada. That is why there are unprecedented leaks from the intelligence service in the media. What could have compelled people to take that kind of risk? Since Canadians have learned of these risks, what has the Prime Minister done? First, he asked Mr. Rosenberg to conduct an investigation. Mr. Rosenberg, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, said there was no problem, and that there was nothing to worry about. There were still scandals, so the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Johnston as a special rapporteur, a fake position that does not even exist. Who is Mr. Johnston? He has been a friend of the Prime Minister’s family for 40 years, a ski buddy, a cottage neighbour and another member of the Trudeau Foundation, which received the infamous $140,000 donation. However, the public was told not to worry because there was no conflict of interest. We know that because Mr. Johnston appointed a third person to give his opinion on the potential conflict of interest. It was another member of the Trudeau Foundation. There are 40 million Canadians, but no one can be found outside the Trudeau Foundation to investigate this matter. That is why we need a public inquiry to make sure Canadians learn the truth. The Prime Minister is trying to delay the launch of such an inquiry, which is inevitable. Indeed, if the Prime Minister does not launch that inquiry, I will do so when I win the next election. Today, we are studying a motion by the New Democrats, who helped the Prime Minister hide the truth and who are still in a coalition with this Prime Minister. If the New Democrats are serious about forcing a public inquiry then they should tell the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry or they will end the coalition with their Liberal bosses. That is the thing to do. We need a foreign influence registry to ensure that anyone who is paid by a foreign government to influence and manipulate our policies will have their name published online for all the world to see. We need stricter laws for those who facilitate setting up foreign police stations. We need to give more power to the RCMP and the police forces here in Canada to stop those who break the law by setting up police stations. We need to wrest control of our democracy from foreign forces. We need to put Canadians back in charge of their lives. It is common sense. Let us bring common sense back by shedding light on the truth and allowing a public inquiry so that all Canadians can know the truth. I will be splitting my time with the member for Brantford—Brant. How did this all start? It started with the Prime Minister, who, before he even took office, expressed his admiration for the basic Chinese Communist dictatorship. Elsewhere, he expressed his admiration for Fidel Castro, whom he called a great revolutionary. Seeing this ideological bond, Beijing decided it had a friend and wanted to help the Prime Minister get elected. It interfered in two successive elections. In the most recent election, intelligence confirms that Beijing wanted to see the Prime Minister win and defeat the Conservatives. It did this by intimidating people of the Chinese diaspora, who had otherwise been going out to vote patriotically. They were told they had to stay home and avoid voting. We saw that ridings with large Chinese populations had massive reductions in voter turnout. We know that members of Parliament have been threatened by the regime in Beijing, with even the possibility of their families facing harm back home in China. We also know that the Prime Minister has been aware of many of these facts for a very long time and yet chose to do nothing. His defence is that he knew nothing. If he knew nothing and was not getting basic information from his intelligence forces, then he is incompetent and incapable of protecting our homeland. Worst of all, the greatest victims of this are Canadians of Chinese origin, who came here to build this country, who came here to escape tyranny and embrace freedom, who follow the law and who contribute to our country every day and in every way. However, the government in this country has done nothing to protect them from the government in the country they left behind. We have the stories, which were told to members of Parliament in our caucus. They were on doorsteps during campaigns meeting people who were in tears, people who told them that they had to leave the doorstep and go to a faraway field somewhere, leaving their phones behind because they were worried they were being tracked by a foreign government, worried that their families could be harmed, worried that acts of intimidation or even violence could happen to them here on Canadian soil. Still, the government has not set up a foreign influence registry that could help us identify the thugs who carry out this intimidation. Still, the government has refused to bring in tougher laws to shut down all foreign-controlled police stations. Still, the Prime Minister has failed to call the public inquiry that is required. We call on the NDP to set a condition that if there is no public inquiry, the NDP will break the coalition and stand up for Canada and Canadians for once. These Canadians of Chinese origin attacked by this foreign government are patriotic Canadians. They deserve the protection of their government. These are our people. This is our land. This is our country. This is our home.

1238 words

All Topics

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

May/30/23 11:28:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said on a number of occasions that he does not want to receive and learn about classified information because he does not want to be silenced, yet there are members of his caucus, like the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for example, who have the security clearances, have received briefings through NSICOP and have participated in multiple debates in this House on foreign interference. Is it true that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about being silenced, or is it more that he would rather be wilfully ignorant?

100 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/30/23 11:29:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is the former. We know that if the Prime Minister had his way, he would bring me into a room, he would drop a bunch of paper in front of me, much of which would already be public knowledge, and he would mark it “secret”. Then, if I went out in the world and spoke about a similar subject matter, he would say that I violated the rules of national security. I know exactly what he is up to, and that is why I will continue to do my job, which as Leader of the Opposition is to hold him accountable. I will not be silenced. This is Canada, and in Canada we have freedom of expression.

122 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/30/23 11:30:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we just had the member for Vancouver East, who has had a confidential security briefing, speak very passionately, and she has brought forth this motion we are debating today. However, the leader of the official opposition is pretending that somehow having access to confidential material will muzzle him. How is it that the member for Vancouver East can speak so passionately and bring forward this motion when she has had a security briefing? How could the leader of the official opposition ever pretend the contrary?

87 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

May/30/23 11:30:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said moments ago, we know what the Prime Minister's plan is. He wants to mark secret things that would otherwise be publicly debatable, put things that would be in a grey area under the secrecy of the state and then put them before me to prevent me from speaking publicly. We know that is exactly his plan. As for NDP members, we want to know their plan. Are they going to continue to protect the Liberals? Are they going to continue to work for the Liberal Party instead of working for their own constituents? They put on a big show in here. We have already passed a motion like this, by the way, and the government did not do anything because NDP members kept it in power. Back in committee, it was exactly the same thing. They go to press conferences and act all tough, but back in committee, all they do is give all the procedural support necessary for the Prime Minister to cover this up again and again. They have abandoned their constituents. They do not work for the people of Canada; they work for the Prime Minister. That is why they will be out of office after the next election.

208 words