44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 4, 2023 10:00AM
- May/4/23 11:29:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, welcome to “Chinada”.
As Canada is perfectly fine with being a post-national laggard, as it settles into the comfortable position of “everyone gets along, everything is fine and dandy”, the People's Republic of China is taking advantage of western naivety to become a conquering empire.
The Beijing regime is applying the principles of revolutionary war, a war of influence, a war of subversion, developed by its founder, Mao Zedong. We all need to recognize that China has become a worrisome power in times of peace. While China is one of the greatest civilizations, that of Confucianism, that of Buddhism, that of Taoism, the conduct of its regime in stifling the truth, as was seen with the COVID‑19 pandemic, leads at best to mistrust.
In 2013, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, who was not yet Prime Minister, said, “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.” It would probably be easier for him. Whether he likes it or not, we are in a Parliament.
Ottawa should answer to the Chinese interference that has been revealed. The facts are overwhelming. When it became clear, known and documented that there had been Chinese interference in the Canadian electoral process, and not just in one way on one occasion, only one outcome was possible: a public, independent commission of inquiry. That idea was supported by the former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and by the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, Richard Fadden.
What did Ottawa do? First, they dismissed the idea of an inquiry, saying that that posed a public safety risk because secret information could be revealed and sources compromised. However, the many meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning Chinese interference in elections have shown the need for a public and independent inquiry. The format is simply not the same. The committee format is not as suited as that of a public and independent inquiry. Witnesses are not questioned in the same way.
Since at some point the pressure became too great, following that initial refusal, Ottawa appointed Morris Rosenberg and David Johnston, two former members of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, itself directly at the heart of the scandal due to its ties to Beijing, to shed light on the matter. That is promising. Who are they?
Morris Rosenberg was appointed to investigate and produce a report on the assessment of the critical election incident public protocol for the 2021 election. This is the same Mr. Rosenberg who was president of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation when it accepted a $200,000 donation, $140,000 of which was paid out. It was a donation from Beijing, which CSIS believes was intended to influence the Prime Minister. The Chinese donor, Zhang Bin, a political adviser to the Chinese government, cut a cheque on behalf of a Chinese company. According to the foundation's former CEO, Pascale Fournier, China was issuing directives regarding that donation. That is huge. Unsurprisingly, Morris Rosenberg found that Ottawa did nothing wrong in the 2021 election.
According to an expression we have in Quebec, just because something is laughable it does not mean it is funny. Even more surprising is something Mr. Rosenberg said in committee. He said he accepted the Chinese donation to try to influence China. I find that quite rich.
David Johnston is a former governor general, member of the Trudeau Foundation, personal friend of the Prime Minister, with close ties to Beijing. Johnston was appointed special rapporteur by the Prime Minister to determine whether there should be an inquiry and what should be done. The Prime Minister himself has already publicly said that he was a close friend; his father and Johnston were friends and had neighbouring cottages. The Prime Minister grew up playing with Johnston's children, and Johnston has also called him a friend of the family. This same Johnston also has close ties to China. His three daughters studied in China and he himself was received by Xi Jinping in person. For his part, Johnston has said that he feels at home in China.
Did the Prime Minister do his due diligence before appointing Mr. Johnston? Did he put as much effort into it as he did for the interferences? Are the appointment and the interferences appropriate? Only a real public, independent inquiry could shed light on these questions and answer them.
In November 2020, the House adopted a motion demanding that the government table legislation similar to the Australian act, particularly with respect to the issue of a public registry of foreign agents. A country, a real country, might I say, normally takes the issue of national security seriously. The United States has had a foreign agent registry since 1930, nearly 100 years before us. We still do not have one, in fact. This kind of tool can have a real impact by making it easier to lay criminal charges against those who break the law. It was due to that registry that the United States was recently able to arrest two Chinese nationals who were operating illegal Chinese police stations on U.S. soil. In Canada, despite the mandate passed by the House, little has been done. Two Chinese police stations are still open in Quebec and in the Montreal area as we speak.
To top it all off, The Globe and Mail recently revealed a CSIS report from 2021 stating that threats had been made against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family in Hong Kong by a Chinese diplomat who is still in Canada. What terrible crime had the member committed? He had simply sponsored a motion condemning the Uyghur genocide perpetrated by the Communist regime in China. The Prime Minister is boasting that he called him to reassure him. Well, that changes everything. The member can sleep soundly now. Does the fact that the Prime Minister called the member not show that he is taking it seriously? I think the member can rest easy now.
I want to make one thing clear. We would be opposed to expelling the Chinese ambassador. An act that extreme is valid in times of war. Of course, we must maintain international relations, and that requires dialogue and diplomacy. However, when it comes to diplomats implicated in interference attempts, in interference operations that include trying to intimidate and punish certain democratically debated opinions, that is another story.
Ottawa is ducking the issue by saying that it is respecting international conventions by not expelling the diplomat involved, yet the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations allows for the expulsion of diplomats. Of course, this should only be done when necessary, but it is necessary here.
The official opposition motion before us today comprises four points, namely, creating a registry of foreign agents, similar to those in Australia and the United States, establishing a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference, closing down police stations run by the People's Republic of China here in Canada, and expelling all of the People's Republic of China diplomats involved in these affronts to democracy. The Bloc Québécois supports these four ideas. We will therefore vote in favour of the motion.
To conclude, in 1961, the Prime Minister's father published a book entitled Two Innocents in Red China. As a friend once said, an innocent is someone who is not smart enough to be guilty. That said, someone here is guilty, and feigning innocence as official policy is not going to help us figure out who it is.
1298 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:39:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that always depends on whom one wants to be quarrelsome with. I tend to be diplomatically inclined myself, but I do believe we need to seek the truth. I do not doubt the member's integrity in the least, but we need to seek the truth. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Based on what we know, on what came out in The Globe and Mail, the member knew nothing about it. Is that so? I do not know. I am not in his head, and I did not have a camera at the scene, but one thing I know for sure is that we need answers from the government. We cannot just grasp at diversionary tactics and pass the buck back to the member in question. It is not appropriate for the very parties implicated to react with righteous indignation. As we say, enough already.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:42:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that question from my colleague. His tone is much more appropriate for today's debate than some of the language we heard earlier from that side of the House. I welcome that.
This matter relates to national security, and if interference has occurred, there must be human beings somewhere behind it. Someone is guilty of this. Yes, something happened, which is why this commission of inquiry is needed.
I would be very surprised to learn that there is no one, anywhere, who has done anything. That is simply what I meant. I am not suggesting for a second that I could identify them myself today. I am not the investigator. However, we need a real investigation, and friends of the government must not be appointed to key positions.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:43:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in this kind of situation, the bare minimum would have been to inform the member.
Based on the information we have today, the member was not informed, despite some speculation. The minimum would have been to inform the member and offer him all the supports needed in this kind of situation. I must say, I would not sleep well knowing that the diplomat behind this is still safely ensconced in his position.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
