SoVote

May/9/23 1:00:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it that interesting, and I talked a lot about process and history and why this debate was important, that the member seems to disagree with virtually everything I said, other than my wish of a happy Mother's Day to all moms in Canada. This highlights the concern that exists with the growing disconnect between the executive government branch and the legislative branch. The Liberals say that they did a lot, yet the Prime Minister's chief of staff said that he saw everything. Now, all of a sudden, he did not know about it. This is not just me as a Conservative saying this. I am hearing this from many constituents and many Canadians across the country. It is either ignorance or incompetence. Either way, it is incredibly concerning and we have to do better as a country.

143 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/9/23 1:01:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously I am appalled by this whole situation. I am concerned about our parliamentary privilege. There is also the issue of security for us and for my family members. I would like my colleague to comment on the message that the Prime Minister's inaction is sending. How should we, as members of Parliament, interpret his inaction in relation to the fundamental public service that we perform and that serves democracy? What message does this send to any potential candidates who might decide to sacrifice part of their lives to go into politics, when that can have a dramatic impact on their safety and that of their families?

110 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/9/23 1:02:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. It is not serving our democracy well. More than that is the fact that it is not only members of Parliament who have been pressured in an effort to silence their voices when they stand up for human rights, let alone many other things that we stand up for on a regular basis. As the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has referenced repeatedly, it is not only the privileges of members of Parliament that we need to be concerned about, but rather the implication this has for all Canadians, whether that is because they swore their oath to the Crown today or because they are multi-generational Canadians. Democracy is put at risk when we allow hostile foreign states to take advantage of Canadians. The fact that the Liberals did nothing is so incredibly concerning and puts our democracy at risk.

150 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

May/9/23 1:03:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has talked a lot about the foreign interference that has taken place in our country beyond just my colleague who we are speaking of directly. He also raised the point that in committee the Prime Minister's chief of staff stated that nothing was ever withheld from him and that he read everything. Given that intelligence reports have been produced with regard to my hon. colleague and the harassing nature of Beijing toward him and his family, given that those reports have been released and given that the Prime Minister has access to everything and nothing is ever withheld, that he reads everything and never ignores a thing, I wonder what my hon. colleague might say to the Liberals' proclamation that the Prime Minister somehow did not see these documents.

134 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/9/23 1:04:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was and old radio show, although I did not listen to it on the radio, as I am too young for that, in which detectives would say, “Just the facts.” What my friend from Lethbridge has referenced is where the facts dispute the official narrative that the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal Party have forwarded. The fact is that they obviously knew about it or they lied at committee in regard to another matter. That is a question; it is not an accusation. If my reading of the Standing Orders is accurate, it is my understanding that the question can be raised. Either way, we need to get to the bottom of this, because the facts are disputing the Liberals' narrative. Something does not add up and Canadians deserve answers.

137 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:05:30 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the member that he might want to stay away from the word “lie”. We cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader.

38 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/23 1:05:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, maybe the member can explain why it is that the Conservatives intentionally choose to ignore the fact that the Prime Minister did find out last week and, as I indicated, a number of actions were taken virtually immediately, one of which led to a diplomat being expelled from Canada within a week. I would suggest that is action. Why do the Conservatives continue to want to make this a political issue by spreading misinformation?

76 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/9/23 1:06:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in relation to your previous ruling, accusing somebody of spreading misinformation, I would suggest, is doing indirectly what they are afraid to do directly. We are faced here with a pretty substantial dispute on what the Prime Minister has said, versus what everything else says. When it comes to the Prime Minister's record, his is a litany of broken election promises, of things he said or did not say, and of accusing people of experiencing things differently. Quite often we look at the integrity of somebody who is making a claim as to whether it can be backed up. Of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, members of all political parties have emphasized how trustworthy he is. When it comes down to the claims that Prime Minister has made, I cannot find anybody who is willing to believe a word he says, other than those Liberals.

150 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:07:22 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to the other question, I just want to say that members are using the words “spreading misinformation”. Both sides have used it over and over again, and I would just say that, again, it is similar to saying that someone is lying. The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

54 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/9/23 1:07:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been listening to this debate intently. There has been a lot of information that has come out over the last couple of weeks as a result of CSIS and The Globe and Mail. I am going to suggest that there is a disconnect between government, our security establishment and certainly the information that is being leaked to the media. There is only one option, and it is the only option that Parliament should be seized with, but also Canadians are showing a willingness and a desire for an open public inquiry into foreign interference, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague shares those sentiments.

109 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/9/23 1:08:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my friend from Barrie—Innisfil is right. A public, fair, free and open inquiry is absolutely essential. That is one small step that needs to be taken to help Canadians to restore their trust in our democratic institutions. Canadians cannot trust what happens here and Canadians, regardless of their political stripe, cannot trust what their Prime Minister says. We see increasingly this is the case, and that is not my opinion, that is increasingly what Canadians say when they are polled. It is so deeply concerning about the future of our democracy, so we need that full, transparent and open public inquiry on this issue, and we need to ensure we get to the bottom of it, so that we can do the tough work to restore trust in our institutions, but we have to do so. I would simply note that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has referenced how this case is only the tip of the iceberg of foreign election interference is in Canada. That behooves each and every one of us to take seriously the fact that we have to get answers. We have to get to the bottom of this, so that we can preserve our democracy.

206 words

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

May/9/23 1:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great intervention. Things have gone badly over the last eight years, and they are going badly. Inflation is rampant. The economy is struggling. Canadians are not able to keep up and are not able to make ends meet. Members may ask themselves how are these connected to the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members. They are more connected than we may think. Governments work on many levels. We act locally with our neighbours, voters, Canadians who farm, Canadians who work in the energy sector and Canadians who care for our communities. As members of Parliament, we also have a role to play internationally. The things that we say publicly have consequences that are substantially larger than they may appear to be at first glance. The Prime Minister and his ministers know this. What is worse is that they knew this when they were in the third party position in this House and they were willing to do anything to return to power. In 2013, 10 years ago, the Prime Minister said, “There's a level of admiration I actually have for China,” because of its basic dictatorship. It seemed foolish, did it not? It seemed outlandish and bizarre. Inexplicably, Canadians who were too busy living their own lives, and not tuned in to the inner workings of politics, could not be faulted for missing that there was possibly something more behind it. Perhaps it was not spoken off the top of his head in an absent-minded moment. Perhaps it was an invitation. Other governments listen. They listen to what we say in this House and in committee. They listen even closer to what we say in the media. They listen especially carefully when we say their name, is that not right, China? Why should we care? We know they are listening. Here is why we should care: China will do what it always does. It acts in its own best interest. It will always look after its own best interest no matter the risk and no matter the cost, it will unabashedly do that until it gets caught, and even after it gets caught. Why should we care? We have something to lose. We have a delicately crafted democracy. It is not perfect—

396 words

Dictatorship

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:12:44 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order. The hon. government House leader.

11 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/9/23 1:12:47 p.m.
Watch

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

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:12:59 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

32 words

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

May/9/23 1:13:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, the question was this: Why should we care? We should care because we have something to lose. We have a delicately crafted democracy. It is not perfect, but we are proud of it and it is a democracy that we built together and one that we are proud of as Canadians. However, it is fragile. Threats to our democracy are real and they need to be treated as such. We have heard stories over the last number of weeks about the intimidation tactics that Canadians from China and Canadians with family in China faced in the last election. We have had a member of the Liberal caucus leave the party among allegations that he was part of foreign interference by the Chinese Communist government. He stands accused of having a hand in delaying the return of Canadians held in China because it was politically valuable to the Liberal Party. Now, we have the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills reveal that he and his family were targets for the Chinese state interference in 2021. Why, though, did the Government of China want to ensure that the Liberals won the last election and, in fact, the last two elections? Here is why. The Conservative stance on the Chinese Communist government was too principles-based and the resolve of our party was too strong to be advantageous to foreign interference. The Conservative position was in line with 53% of what Canadians believe, which is that the government's response to China in recent years has not been strong enough and that more needs to be done. In fact, a recent poll from the Angus Reid Institute shows that 69% of Canadians believe that the government is scared of standing up to China, including 91% of past Conservative voters, 62% of past NDP voters and 46% of those who have mistakenly voted for the Liberal Party at some point in their life. Let us not overlook the recent activity with spy balloons that are in Canadian airspace and how our Prime Minister has little to say about the ongoing situation. We know that foreign interference can undermine the integrity of democratic processes, such as elections, by attempting to sway voters or influence political outcomes. We live in a country where corporations cannot legally provide any funding to political candidates. Individuals are limited to contributing $1,700 annually. The reason for this is to prevent our politicians from being bought off by the big money of special interest groups and wealthy individuals. Canadians themselves can only contribute $5,000 to their own campaigns and yet Liberals think that it is okay for the Trudeau Foundation to receive $200,000 from two businessmen identified as being linked to the Communist government in China. That is utter, absolute nonsense. For those listening at home, the House ethics committee is probing a $200,000 donation given to the charity by two men with links to the Chinese Communist government. The committee is deciding whether the donation was an attempt by Beijing to curry favour with the Prime Minister. If we can just for one minute cut through the political rhetoric and admit to ourselves, like all Canadians already have, that we know this money was intended to buy favour with the Prime Minister, ignoring the reality would be willful blindness on all of our parts. We are sent here to represent our constituents, Canadians, but also to defend our Canadian democracy. If the members opposite need to wonder why they are here or why they cannot stand in their places and say that, when a foreign government that the Prime Minister admires so openly donates a six-figure sum to a foundation in the name of his father and run by his brother, it is at best inappropriate and at worst foreign interference. This is not just any country getting uncomfortably close with our Prime Minister. It is among the worst in the world for a government's treatment of ethnic minorities, shown by its treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners. If at any point we want to see how far the Prime Minister's admiration of the Beijing leadership goes, we can just ask him to stand up for Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners in a meaningful way when meeting with Chinese leadership. He will not. He is afraid. He is afraid that he will offend the country he so admires. The ruling of the Speaker of the House is an important first step, but now the committee needs to be allowed to do its job, which is a tall order with this government. It seems that whenever a committee is trying to do its duty for Canadians and thoroughly investigate or review bills, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners find a way to strangle the committee and steamroll democracy. Here is an example of that: I sit on the public safety committee, and we are currently reviewing Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. It has been in front of us for quite some time. When Canadians hear that we have been at this for months, it may seem slow, but in fact, we are simply doing a job of government. The government put the bill forward as a handgun bill and then, in a move that can only be seen as averting democratic process, stuffed the bill full of other unrelated amendments, completely changing the scope. What happened when we brought this it up? It was steamrolled by the Chair in a unilateral decision that it was in order when, in fact, we know it was not. That was upheld again by the Liberal alliance when we challenged the Chair. The Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on that bill and limit the opposition on each of their amendments to five minutes per amendment and then force votes. Over in the PMO, there is—

990 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:21:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/23 1:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is proving, by the statements he is making, that more and more of his debate is not about the motion. The member is talking about other legislation. He is not talking about the motion at hand. He is either attacking the Prime Minister or talking about issues that are not relevant. Some hon. members: Debate.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:21:29 p.m.
Watch

I am able to make my rulings. The hon. parliamentary secretary knows full well that there is some latitude during discussions in the House and that other matters get brought into the debates. I would say that this is what is happening, and the hon. parliamentary secretary has raised more a point of debate than a point of order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner has the floor.

72 words

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:22:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling on this. As I said before, the Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on Bill C-21, limit opposition to only five minutes per amendment and then force votes. As I said, over in the PMO, there is a Prime Minister proud of the basic dictatorship that he has created for himself. When the Speaker of the House made his ruling, and in that ruling supported a prima facie case of contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it gave me hope and it ought to give Canadians hope. The Speaker of the House and I are no different. We are two MPs, elected by our constituents to represent them here in Ottawa. We are both doing our best with the skills and experiences we have. We know that we have to go back to our constituents, face them and account for the decisions that we make in this place. I speak here today with some hesitancy, as we are not immune to the intimidation that was faced by the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of the House. I know that speaking on this important topic opens the possibility of being put in the sight of the Communist government in Beijing, much in the same way that I can imagine the Speaker of the House had and was possibly thinking about when he drafted this decision. For me and those in law enforcement, we have faced these decisions before. Back in the years I was in policing, I faced threats and intimidation, but I always knew that my brothers in blue had my back. There was a sense of being protected from those who wished me harm because we were a team, a family. In this place we are a family too, but recently the trust that is needed to rely on each other as a family has been eroding. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and its cross-party membership is now in a unique position to rebuild that trust. It will need to look past party differences, just as the Speaker of House did and has been able to do. It will need to take the required time, debate openly and review the situation. It will have a chance to send back a decision that shows support to the MP for Wellington-Halton Hills and other members of the House who have faced the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao on behalf of the Communist government of China, as well as the others who could possibly could face that, moving forward. This committee can show Canadians and the Beijing Communist government that, although we disagree on a lot, and I mean a lot, when it comes to protecting Canadian democracy, we are all unwavering. That would send a clear message to Beijing to stay out of our politics, and a strong message to all members of the House that we have each others' backs. Will we admit that we are susceptible to foreign interference, or will the Prime Minister instruct his coalition to continue to cover this up, to steamroll the committee, as they seem eager to do when it comes to domestic policy such as the example I gave with Bill C-21? Will the committee show the world that we are fractionalized with a system of government that can be influenced from the outside? Will the Prime Minister utilize his control through the basic dictatorship he has been building in China's likeness? I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have the same sense of honour and good conscious that the Speaker of this House showed in the prima facie decision he made.

639 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193