SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 193

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2023 10:00AM
  • May/9/23 10:06:55 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today. I want to start by thanking you for your very important ruling on the matter of privilege raised by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, a ruling in which you found a prima facie case of a breach of privilege and allowed the member to present his motion for this matter to be further studied at the procedure and House affairs committee. I want to put your ruling in some common language for the common people. I do not want to put words in your mouth, Mr. Speaker, but when I thought about it, I was reminded of the quote from the movie Network when the anchor said, “I’m as mad as [blank], and I’m not going to take this anymore!” That is how Canadians feel about what has happened with these allegations around foreign interference in our elections. What a nightmare. One can imagine waking up one morning and reading in the paper that a foreign power is threatening one's family. I cannot imagine waking up, seeing that and knowing how I, or any member of this House, or any Canadian, might feel. The problem is that many Canadians are experiencing this. I will get to that in a minute. Let us think about that. A foreign power decides it does not like how a high-profile elected politician voted in this House and makes it its mission to threaten and intimidate his family. I wish it was just something from a spy novel or a movie, but it is real. It actually happened and it is happening as we speak. Those who are watching this broadcast right now might think that I am talking about the Prime Minister, but I am not. In fact, the Prime Minister abstained from the vote that triggered this whole matter, which is like not showing up to play with his team and then saying that because he was not there he is not to blame that they lost. I am not speaking of the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister, although they also abstained from the vote, or a member of the government or even a Liberal member; in fact, I am speaking about an opposition member. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills was sanctioned by Beijing for taking a moral stance and voting against genocide. I want to take a moment to read from an article published on March 27, 2021, after this occurred. After the sanctions, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, said, like the mensch he is, that he was going to wear those sanctions “as a badge of honour.” That is leadership. That is not hiding, delaying or impeding the progress of this House in terms of passing laws that are important to Canadians. He stood up to the PRC, the Communist Party in China, and said that he was going to wear this as a badge of honour: in other words, that he was not going to allow it to intimidate him by doing this. What were those sanctions? After the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who is also our party's foreign affairs critic, voted on the motion, which I will get to in a minute, the sanctions were also placed on the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights, which concluded in October that China's treatment of its Uyghur population amounted to genocide. The Chinese Communist Party said that the individuals concerned are prohibited from entering the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao, and Chinese citizens and institutions are prohibited from doing business with the relevant individuals and having exchanges with the relevant entity. Other members might have just said nothing. They might have said that they did not want to stir the pot any more than it has already been stirred. However, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills took a principled stand, and he said, to the Chinese Communist Party, that he was wearing it as a badge of honour. That is what leadership looks like. When I was a young man, I would often tune into the proceedings in this place. I looked at the MPs debating and understood the high honour bestowed on those who put their names on a ballot and come to this place to make laws and shape the future of this great country. It is a high honour. My favourite, Winston Churchill, said something that has been quoted many times in this House but it could never be quoted enough. He said that “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms.” Our system is messy by design, chaotic, as members know, and at times descends into a serious state of disorder. Many people ask, “What are these guys doing? Why are they so critical of the government? Why do they not actually offer solutions?” Our debate can, at times, be furious in this place, but it is from the hot cauldron of debate that good policies and laws are created. The reality is that we, in this party, are His Majesty's official loyal opposition. We believe that it is an act of loyalty to oppose the government. Consider what things are like in countries with no strong opposition that is free to be critical of the government. We need look no further than what Mr. Putin has done to his critics, like Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza and Sergei Magnitsky, or what China has done to its Uyghur population, to the Turkic Muslim population and to Hong Kong, and what it wants to do to Taiwan, to understand that in countries where opposition is silenced, terrible things happen. That is what Beijing tried to do. It tried to silence this opposition through intimidation efforts against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family, and to silence Chinese Canadians through ongoing intimidation and scare them into thinking that voting in Canada might be hazardous to their future. I will get into more of that in a moment. This did not happen in China. This is happening right here, on Canadian soil. I am astounded at the lack of care, the lack of attention, the lack of interest by the government in dealing with this fact. I am going to talk a little more about that as well. I just want to say, to Canadians of Chinese descent, Chinese Canadians who are watching this speech right now, that I want them to know that the Conservative Party of Canada stands with them. We will always stand with them. Just like my grandparents came here 100 years ago to avoid the pogroms in Ukraine perpetrated against Jewish communities, they came here to avoid the oppressive freedom-hating regime in Beijing. On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank them for being here and I want them to know that we will always stand up for their rights as citizens of this country. So many stories have come out of this about Chinese communities in ridings across this country, where, as the leader spoke about in his speech yesterday, there is demonstrably lower voter turnout. Why is that? It is because, although the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has the ability to stand up in the House, on the biggest stage in this country, and defend himself, millions of Canadians who do not have that ability are suffering at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party in this country. The House needs to wake up and do something about it before it goes on any longer. I say to the members of the Chinese community that they should always know that we will be with them and that they should never be afraid to go vote in this country. It is a great privilege. I can say, as someone who won by only 460 votes in the last campaign, that every vote counts. Their vote really matters, and that is what makes Canada such a great country. I want to thank the Chinese Canadian community for trusting our country to do the right thing, even if the government needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing by His Majesty's official and very loyal opposition. With respect to the facts of the specific matter, the Prime Minister claims he did not know until last Monday about a Beijing operative's intimidating a sitting MP. He claims that he did not know about it, even though the intelligence report was in his office two years ago. It is hard to imagine. It was not just in his office; it was with his national security adviser, ironically. It was not with his chief of staff. It was not from someone else in the PMO; it was actually with a person who is responsible for advising the Prime Minister about national security threats. That is what the role of the national security adviser is. This whole sordid affair reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes quote, “when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” We have a mystery here. The Prime Minister says that he would never deliberately keep such information from any member, and that it would be wrong to do so. I agree with him. It would be very wrong to do that. Therefore, for the moment, let us take him at his word. He says he did not know. That is something I can somewhat believe, because he does not seem to know much about what is going on in his office. He did not know that the Trudeau Foundation had a meeting in his office. He did not know that Beijing donated $140,000 to that very foundation. He did not know about an important intelligence report that his national security adviser was given two years ago. He did not know, even though Katie Telford, his chief of staff, said in committee that he reads everything and that nothing is kept from him. How do we reconcile these things? There is something missing here when the Prime Minister says he did not know about this until a week ago, but his chief of staff says he is told everything and he reads everything. There is a disconnect here. That is why it is so important to pass this motion; we need to get these questions answered, and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is the right place to get to the bottom of all this. The bottom line is that we have a Prime Minister who does not know what is going on in his office. That should be a concern to every Canadian. What is left? The report was in his office, but he never read it. The only thing really left to assume is incompetence and negligence. There it is. Option one is that he knew and is denying it; option two is that he did not know and is incompetent. Two years ago, the government was briefed by our security agency, CSIS, which said that there was an ongoing intimidation campaign against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Why was this happening? It was because that member brought an important motion to the House. I thought it would be worth taking a moment to read that motion and bring us back in time to two years ago, the time of that vote, to understand what that important motion was speaking to. The motion said: That, (a) in the opinion of the House, the People's Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention”, including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; and (b) given that (i) where possible, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada to act in concert with its allies when it comes to the recognition of a genocide, (ii) there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States where it has been the position of two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People's Republic of China, the House, therefore, recognize that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, call upon the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Olympic Games if the Chinese government continues this genocide and call on the government to officially adopt this position. That was a very important motion. To put it in basic language, it was about calling out Beijing for committing genocide, the most heinous crime a government can commit against any people. We did the right thing, or most of us did. Conservatives voted for the motion, with the Bloc, the NDP and even some Liberal members, but there was one important Member of Parliament in the House who did not vote for it; it was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister refused to recognize that there is a serious problem. Not only did he not vote for it, but he did not vote at all, which is even worse. It was a gutless move that left the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, a member of the opposition, to bear it, which is what I am trying to get across. In the aftermath, China banned him from entering the mainland, as we talked about, and it did something else: It threatened his family because of his motion and how he voted. Nothing is more important than our democracy, and that is underpinned by the privilege MPs have to speak their mind in this place and to vote how they choose. There have been a lot of leaks about foreign interference since last fall. Intelligence officials, frustrated with the Prime Minister's actions, have taken to leaking information to The Globe and Mail. Each leak is like a bomb going off. First, there was the one about funding 11 candidates. Then came foreign police stations, and then there was the allegation that a Liberal member tried to get Beijing to hold the two Michaels longer for political reasons. Now we have this. Canadians desperately want a public inquiry. Members want a public inquiry. What does the Prime Minister do? He drags his feet and appoints a “special rapporteur”, a term never used before, who happens to be a member of the Trudeau Foundation. The Prime Minister looks weak, and I am sure Beijing thinks he is weak. In fact, I think this is pure Neville Chamberlain-level weakness and incompetence. Finally, yesterday, after a week of questions and immense pressure from His Majesty's loyal opposition, the Prime Minister expelled the diplomat. I just want to conclude by saying that it is time for the House to wake up from this nightmare. This country desperately needs a real leader who will stand up to tyrants and dictators without delay or hesitation, and bring home respect for Canada on the international stage. The member for Carleton would be that leader after the next election.
2561 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 10:30:55 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, first, in terms of being the opposition party, I just want to say to that NDP member and his entire party that we could use a little help over here. They are not the opposition any more; they are a part of the government. They vote with the government on pretty much everything. I appreciate the question, but, of course, the member knows very well that our position is that we should have a public inquiry. If it had been called right off the bat instead of having an appointment of the Trudeau Foundation as special rapporteur, maybe we would not be in this place right now.
109 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 10:33:17 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Repentigny rightly pointed out, we have been discussing the issue of foreign interference, particularly Chinese interference, for several weeks now. We know that the government has blundered on several fronts when it comes to dealing with interference. We saw it with the elections and with the $125-million endowment it gave to a foundation several years ago out of the public purse—our money. I am talking about the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, of course. The foundation is having major problems, especially on the tax front. For many years, the foundation has failed to meet the criteria for a charitable organization, and things are only going to get worse, because the criteria are increasing and the foundation is not doing anything to improve. What does my colleague have to say to members about the threat that Chinese interference poses to charitable organizations in Canada?
152 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 10:34:16 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it just stretches credulity to think that, when a so-called Chinese philanthropist showed up at the Trudeau Foundation to give it $140,000, they did not have their own agenda. They did have an agenda, which was to influence the Prime Minister to be soft on China. That is why I said in my speech that this is Neville Chamberlain-level appeasement, weakness and incompetence.
68 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 10:52:15 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, “speak softly and carry a big stick” was the foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt, the American president in the early 1900s. It meant softly spoken diplomacy, backed by something that could make one's word count when it mattered and make it stick. We may not have the largest military in the world, or population or government, but we do have trade, resources and IP. All of those can be used to ensure we uphold our great nation. It allows Canada to maintain its democratic system, while simultaneously expelling any unacceptable state actors who threaten our democracy. Why does it matter? Because this country matters and our country's place in the world matters, as it is becoming increasingly more hostile. Canada has always been a beacon of hope, a pillar of democracy and freedom alongside our allies including Europe, the United States, Australia, Japan and South Korea, among many others. However, our democracy is under threat and the threat has infiltrated the very democratic system that we hold incredibly dear. The government has failed to protect Canadians from foreign interference from Beijing. There have been no less than eight police stations set up in Canada to monitor our own citizens in Canada, and 11 MPs were influenced in nominations and elections. Two years ago, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had his family threatened and intimidated by a Beijing operator over a vote to denounce the treatment of Chinese Muslim Uyghurs in China and the government allowed the perpetrator to remain in Canada for that two years. This country, the Prime Minister have allowed Canada to be in an abusive relationship with China. China takes advantage of Canada, which has resulted in a “speak softly and carry a small stick” foreign policy to allow China to treat Canada as the “little potato” nickname it calls our Prime Minister. China is taking advantage of Canada. If we want proof of that, we can compare it to a survey that talks about the five signs that someone's partner is being taken advantage of. Members can be the judge. The signs are constantly making excuses for them, frequently compromising on the things one wants, being afraid of confrontation with them, often waiting around for them and paying for dinner almost every night. We constantly make excuses for China. We only need to look at Hansard from the last few weeks to see the government tripping over itself and making excuses for China. The Liberals go so far as to blaming the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills for the fact that his family went through hell. They say it was his fault. The Liberals have said that it was the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister of democratic reform, who did not put stricter laws in place that would have restricted the Liberal government from being interfered with. They say that it is not China's fault. It is the fault of the Conservatives. It is the fault of Canadians. It is the fault of anyone but the Liberals. They constantly make excuses for China when they should not. We also frequently compromise on the things that we want. What is the biggest export from Canada? Coal. For a government that talks about net zero, or how great it wants the environment to be and how it wants to make the world better, Canada ships coal that is burned in China. Of course, the wind just blows it back toward Canada. Does that sound like we are frequently compromising on the things we want? We had a deal for vaccines with a company called CanSino in China. It was signed in May 2020. Canada put all its eggs in that basket. It said that said this would save us. The government did not go to Pfizer. It did not go to Moderna at that point. It went to CanSino and signed a deal. Guess what. The deal fell through because China fell through. We are in an abusive relationship with China. We lost $55 million. I know this is small potatoes compared to the almost $1 billion we lost with Medicago and Novavax, but it was the first of three failed deals, and it was with China. The government promised we would get vaccines. It promised we would have them produced in a facility in Montreal in the summer of 2020, but China let us down because of this relationship. Another issue is that we are afraid of confrontation with China. We took two years to kick out an agent who threatened a sitting MP in the House. Intelligence went to CSIS and to the Privy Council. We are afraid of confrontation. We often find ourselves waiting around for China. The Prime Minister had to wait for a meeting with the president of China. We buy $100 billion in trade from China, yet when there was a G7 meeting, the Prime Minister had to go to a side room and have a meeting off camera. The president told him that he was supposed to have a meeting off camera, that he was not supposed to tell anyone about it. The Prime Minister then said that Canada respected the rule of law. Again, we are afraid of confrontation. That is an abusive relationship. We also pay for dinner every night. In the trade relationship with China, Canada buys $100-billion worth of goods per year from it and China buys, in response, $25-billion worth of goods per year. Madam Speaker, an analogy would you giving me $100 and I give you $25 back, saying that I have the better relationship, that I have to compromise. No, if people give me $100, they have the relationship and the ability to set the compromises. It is a really sad situation. The real question for Canada and for the Prime Minister is this. What are we going to do to protect Canada's democracy, its people, its government, its MPs, their freedom and democracy, and our home and our values? The government has failed its citizens in its basic duty to protect our values and our home. If it were not for the accurate and honest reporting of reporters for The Globe and Mail and Global News, the litmus test for a free and democratic society being freedom of the press, our democracy in the House would be worse off than it is now when it comes to protecting the values of our democracy. If it were not for His Majesty's loyal opposition, the government-in-waiting and this prime minister-in-waiting, we would be worse off than we are now. It has been this freedom of the press, not the government, that is truly protecting Canadians by reporting accurately and honestly. It may be too accurately and honestly. At the Liberal convention this weekend, a motion was passed, saying that the Liberal Party of Canada request the government to explore “options to hold on-line information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.” In other words, if The Globe and Mail or Global News did not disclose its sources, these stories would never have been allowed to come out. Let us think about that for a moment. We are in the House today only because of the freedom of the press. Reporters Without Borders just demoted Canada from fifth in the world for freedom of the press to 22nd. That is really alarming. Is it only to protect this abusive relationship with China? The bigger conversation is that a government that promotes democracy should be prepared to face the consequences in protecting it. When this democracy is under threat, the government does not seem to take it seriously. The real question is this. Why do Canadians continually have to shame our government into action? If the government had a leader, that leader would stand up for the country and the democracy which it represents. Perhaps the biggest question is this. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of an open inquiry into foreign interference that is not headed by a former member of the Trudeau Foundation? Are we afraid of sending very bad actors who threaten our very own MPs packing? Why did it take two years and two weeks? Why are we afraid of shutting down and stamping out Beijing police stations, with force if need be? Why are we afraid of setting up a foreign registry like they do in the U.S. and in Australia? Are we afraid of defending our democracy, our people and our nation and of holding Canadians and Canada to the high standard that we expect of our government? We can work together but we will not put up with this abusive relationship. We do not capitulate to infiltration of our elections and our national security or to threats and intimidation to our citizens and our elected officials. When it comes to an abusive relationship, we can either get out of the relationship or we can improve it. The first step, when we are looking at an abusive relationship, is to accept that we are in an abusive relationship and to tackle it head-on in an open inquiry. I think every party in the House has asked for an open inquiry. Maybe it is better if we phrase it as counselling. Maybe we just need a new leader. To fix this abusive relationship, we need to stand up for Canadians. We need to speak softly, diplomacy is very important, but we carry a big stick. We do not put up with abuse. We do not put up with compromise in our democracy. We certainly do not put up with one country infiltrating another, and we do not put up with democracy as a whole being threatened and putting down Canada, which we know is the number one nation on this planet. To fix this abusive relationship, we need to stand up for Canadians, but perhaps what Canada really needs is a prime minister who will do just that.
1706 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 11:47:48 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize. I was not referring to him. I was talking about the Prime Minister. I am sorry and I will never do that again, unless I make a mistake. Now let us talk about Chinese interference. Chinese interference is very serious. It poses a threat to democracy. According to the intelligence services, it is the greatest known threat to Canada. This is very serious. It seems to me that the guardian of democracy in Canada is the Prime Minister. It is up to him to ensure that we have a healthy democracy. This guy was democratically elected, so I think it would be in his interest to try to protect our democracy. This all began in the fall of 2022. Honestly, there are so many elements to Chinese interference, but I will focus on the most important ones. I will address all of them and try to find the common threads, in other words, the same issues that keep coming up over and over again. Members will see where I am going with this. In the fall, we read in the papers that China had interfered in 11 ridings in 2019. We asked the Prime Minister what was going on. He said that he had no idea, that he had never heard anything about it. When we asked again, he compared us to Trump, of all people. I cannot say we were happy about being compared to Trump. The Prime Minister accused the opposition of saying that the elections were not legitimate, despite the fact that no one in the opposition had said anything of the sort. That made us angry. We answered that we were not saying that the Liberals had not won the election, but that we simply wanted to know what happened in 11 ridings. The Prime Minister told us that he had no knowledge of this. Right after that, he went to the G20. I can still see it. He told us he did not know what was happening, but at the G20, he ran after Xi Jinping to talk to him, as if he had no one else to talk to. He spoke to Xi Jinping for so long that Xi got fed up. The Prime Minister told us that he had talked to Xi about interference. However, he had told us that he had no knowledge of any of this and that the election results were not illegitimate. Why did he talk to the president about interference? That is the first problem. Was he joking? Is the Prime Minister a joker? Perhaps he is. There was also interference in 2021. I would like to remind the House that this is a minority government. According to the final polls, it was a close race. The Chinese interfered in 11 or 15 ridings in 2019. Since then, they must have practised and gotten better at it, because they may have interfered in up to 15 or 20 ridings. It does not take a PhD in math to understand that, if someone can influence the election results in 10 or 15 ridings where the Liberals and Conservatives are neck and neck, that could mean victory or defeat for one of the parties. It could determine which party forms government. This is no laughing matter. We know that the Chinese government is fond of the Liberals. It likes them. It believes it could get close to the Liberals without much trouble. It would prefer a minority Liberal government. The Chinese government is not as fond of the Conservatives. It is a well-known fact. This is troubling. We told the Prime Minister that the issue had to be dealt with before the next election. We have a minority government, which means that an election could be called at any time. We need to resolve this problem quickly to make sure that the dice are not loaded when the next election happens. That will take intelligent action. Then we learned that, in 2021, the member for Don Valley North apparently spoke to the Chinese consulate and even asked them not to free the two Michaels, so as not to favour the Conservative Party. It is not always easy to grasp all the arguments in this affair. It is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racquet. I do not really understand it, but, in any case, that is what happened. Obviously, the Prime Minister says that he was unaware. The Liberal member for Don Valley North is now an independent member, despite the fact that he had the Prime Minister’s support. It is troubling. Then there is the Trudeau Foundation debacle, and that is a real circus. If anyone thinks they understand something about the Trudeau Foundation, it is because someone explained it wrong. It is complicated, so we are looking into that. Apparently, in 2016, the Chinese government donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. The Prime Minister says that he has not had anything to do with the foundation for 10 years. That is another joke. He is a real card. He says that neither he nor his office has had anything to do with the foundation. Then again, his brother is involved in the foundation. In 2016, the Prime Minister’s Office called the foundation about the Chinese donation. After that, the Prime Minister asked Morris Rosenberg, the former CEO of the Trudeau Foundation, to look into the matter and determine whether there had been any Chinese interference. In Mr. Rosenberg’s massive report, there are four lines about Chinese interference and that is to say that there is none. The Prime Minister then asked David Johnston to act as special rapporteur so he could decide on whether there is a need for an independent public inquiry. Mr. Johnston told him that that was a big ask, that he was not sure he could answer right away, and that he would study the situation for two months. It is like Rodin’s The Thinker: everyone is waiting. While we are waiting, other things are happening. All of these people are from the Trudeau Foundation. The Prime Minister goes to spend Christmas with a friend who is involved in the Trudeau Foundation. His office also hosted the Trudeau Foundation. Do they take me for a fool? The Prime Minister says that he has not had anything to do with the foundation for 10 years. He keeps repeating it. The members of his government keep repeating it. The government House leader rises and says that he has not had anything to do with the foundation for 10 years. Does he believe that? The Liberals are in trouble. They believe that guy, when everyone knows that it is all complete nonsense, and it just goes on and on. The latest news is about the police stations. There are two in Quebec. That is new. The Minister of Public Safety was very serious last week when he said that they had been closed. We called, and they are still open. How can he not know that? Before saying something, he should check it. He is a minister. He also has a team. If he does not have time to check, he can ask his friend to call and find out. They are still open. It is troubling. One of these police stations is five minutes away by bike in my riding. I will say it again, this is troubling. Here is the cherry on the sundae. Now I come to the present day. Two years ago, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family received threats. Once again, the Prime Minister says he was unaware. Jody Thomas, his national security adviser, said she was aware, but he was not. Is he telling jokes, or is he a little lost? I am putting it extremely politely, but that is what we must ask ourselves. Now, we have a member who was threatened by the Chinese government because he voted against its wishes. We do not care about its wishes. It did not elect us. I just said that. The Prime Minister will never be able to say that the hon. member for La Prairie may have been threatened. We do not know. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills was threatened two years ago, but we did not find out about it until this week. The government still says it was unaware. I swear that if I were the prime minister of Canada, which will never happen, but let us just pretend for a moment, and I found out that a member had been threatened, I would be throwing the diplomat out five seconds later. It would not take me five weeks or five days. In just five seconds, he would be out on his ear. If the Prime Minister had learned about this right away, he could have thrown him out and told him to beat it. Instead, he procrastinated. The Liberals got together to figure out what they should do. The Prime Minister knew two years ago, the rascal. He knew two years ago. Now they are getting together to figure out what they should do. The opposition demanded that this person be ejected. They said that they could not do that and that it is no easy thing to expel an ambassador. Finally, yesterday, they bought themselves a spine and announced they would be throwing him out. Now they are patting themselves on the back like they are heroes. We do not believe that. Are any other members of the House being threatened by China? We do not know. It is troubling. It is very troubling. Members of the House and their families may be under threat. The Prime Minister may know this is happening, but he will not say. The Prime Minister is a cross between Ulysses and Pontius Pilate. Happy the man who, like Ulysses, has travelled well. There is one thing this Prime Minister likes. He likes to travel. Last weekend, when he was in front of the Liberals, he was happy because he was travelling to see the King—
1701 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 12:03:03 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Prairie for his speech. I always learn new turns of phrase from him. This time, it was, “It is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racquet”. I had not heard that one before. I would like to make it clear that the NDP obviously supports our Conservative colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and his family, who are in an extremely delicate position. I also agree that troubling facts keep emerging, what with the secret police stations, the contributions to Liberal candidates, the strange donations to the Trudeau Foundation, and now these threats against a member of Parliament, who was not informed for two years. There is nothing more important in a democracy than getting to the whole truth so that Canadians can trust our institutions and the electoral process. Does my colleague agree that the only way to get at the whole truth is to hold an independent public inquiry?
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 12:07:05 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in English, because I do not have much time. I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, the history and the truth. In my interactions as former House leader, I found that this member speaks the truth. He is honourable, and his word is his worth. I cannot actually say that about the Liberal or NDP House leaders. Is there no other option at this point but to have a public inquiry, with Mr. Johnston, to get to the bottom of what is happening with foreign interference and all of the stuff that is happening with the Trudeau Foundation? Is an independent public inquiry the only way to get to the bottom of what is happening here?
126 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 12:23:17 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the other area where we are seeing some significant gaslighting is where the government says that it is the member's fault and the member should have known about this. This is an interesting thing about victim blaming. We see the government accuse others of doing this all the time, and here we are seeing that once again. The government's newest line is that it did not know; it only found out on Monday, just the other day. However, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it knew about this over two years ago. That does not include all the other troubles we have with foreign interference in this country. The Trudeau Foundation is embroiled in a whole host of scandals now around taking Chinese money. When the government was kind of embarrassed about its coziness with the Beijing government and Chinese influence in Canada, it appointed a special rapporteur. This position does not have any legal standing in Canada; nonetheless, it has appointed this person. One would think that if one were trying to allay Canadians' fears around this foreign interference issue, one would find somebody with no connections to the Beijing government and no relationship to the people who are being accused of not doing anything about it. However, here we are with the director of the Trudeau Foundation being appointed as the special rapporteur. That organization has taken money from the Beijing government or their emissaries. We have seen all kinds of confusion around who took the money and how it was organized. The Prime Minister's brother was the one who facilitated a donation. Then we see that this organization's annual report names the Prime Minister as a member. Now, he says he is unaffiliated and has not had contact with it for over 10 years, but his name is still in the annual report. He is still part of the Trudeau Foundation. That is the reality, whether the Prime Minister wants to admit it or not. He can say that he is currently uninvolved in the operations of the organization, but when he leaves this place, he will be able to be a part of its directorship. If he says that funds donated to that organization today could not be disbursed in the future, what does he take Canadians for? Today, donations are being made to the Trudeau Foundation; despite saying he is unaffiliated to it at the moment, the Prime Minister has connections to this organization. It is obvious that even if it were true that he is unaffiliated, which it is not, he will be reaffiliated in the future. He will be back on the governance board doing the same things, and he will have whatever kind of money has been donated to the Trudeau Foundation at his disposal once again. We have also seen over and over that the Liberals' claim to success is about how much money they spend. The Liberals accuse the past Conservative government of not doing anything and then go on to state how much they have increased funding for whatever the situation is. The Liberals accuse Conservatives of not having done something compared with how much more money they are spending on a particular thing. Again, this is another place where the Liberals will say that they have spent more money on this, which is an interesting way of ranking things. If we can get something and not have to spend money on it, that would seem to be a good win. We will not have to spend money on it if we can have national security because of our posture in the world and because we speak softly and carry a big stick. We will not have to spend money if we have no foreign interference because, rhetorically and by our posture, we signal to the world that Canada is not open to foreign interference. These are things that will happen naturally and organically. We will prevent foreign interference by our posture and by our rhetoric, and we will not have to spend money. However, the Liberals will come and tell us how much money they are spending on initiative X, Y or Z as a point of proof that they are doing more. I just want to reject that whole premise outright. The amount of money that is spent dealing with a particular thing does not necessarily correlate to taking action on that thing. I just want to restate once again that Canada is not for sale. Canada is a sovereign nation. The Canadian government should do all that it can to prevent foreign influence in our democracy and ensure that Canadian democracy is upheld wherever it is under threat.
791 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 12:38:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, foreign interference in nothing new. Let me provide a quick run-down. First there was the contract for embassy equipment awarded to Nuctech, a Chinese company. Next we have the telecommunications contract for border services and protections for the Prime Minister awarded to a company using products from Hytera, a Chinese company. Then we have the Trudeau Foundation, the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and the illegal police stations. Let us not forget the delayed release of the two Michaels and the threats to an MP and his family. How many so-called coincidences will it take for this government to understand that Chinese interference is real, and that an independent public commission of inquiry is absolutely critical? When will this government finally take action to send a clear message to the Chinese government that Quebec and Canada are not for sale?
144 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:03:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of the Hon. Marc Lalonde, a distinguished Canadian statesman, lawyer, dedicated politician and Order of Canada recipient, who passed away on Saturday in Notre‑Dame‑de‑l'Île‑Perrot, with his wife, Claire, by his side. Born in Île‑Perrot in 1929, Marc was a lifelong learner, earning degrees from the Université de Montréal, Oxford University and the University of Ottawa. After completing his studies, Marc worked as an adviser to prime ministers Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In 1972, he was elected as the Liberal member of Parliament for Outremont, and he would hold five different ministerial portfolios over the course of his 12 years in office. His work positively influenced the lives of millions of Canadians, and that work continued even after he left public life, as he remained actively involved in his community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. We will remember the Hon. Marc Lalonde. We will celebrate his extraordinary life, his devout commitment to public service and his dedication to this country that he loved so much. May Mr. Lalonde rest in peace.
202 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:17:26 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to honour the passing of a great man, a great Canadian and a titan in federal politics. As the member for Outremont, Marc Lalonde dedicated himself to serving our community. During his time as principal secretary to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and later as a key member of his cabinet, Marc Lalonde played a pivotal role in shaping our society. His unfailing commitment to promoting national unity and social justice are woven into our history. As our Prime Minister so rightly said, it is impossible to overstate the impact that Marc Lalonde has had on Canada. As an aspiring member for Outremont and a lawyer practising international law, I had the pleasure of working alongside Marc Lalonde and getting to know him. I could never thank him enough for everything he did for me. He was a strong believer in helping young leaders, and he passed on to me, and to all of us, his vision of a just and united Canada. May Marc Lalonde rest in peace. His love for our peace will continue to inspire future generations.
186 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:35:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister said that he would launch a national public inquiry on foreign interference if necessary. Who will decide if it is necessary? The decision will be made by a former director of the Trudeau Foundation, which received an illegal donation from the regime in Beijing. I can already guess what the special rapporteur's response will be and how much credibility he has. Yesterday, we gave every member of the House an unique opportunity to vote in favour of a independent national inquiry on foreign interference. All members of the House, except the government members, voted in favour of that motion. Why does the government show so little respect for MPs?
116 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:35:58 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnston is a former governor general of Canada. He is independent and will soon present his action plan to counter foreign interference. As an expert, he can look at all of the options, obviously. With regard to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, it is an independent foundation in which the Prime Minister has no personal interest.
59 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:23:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to my turn to speak. I want to congratulate the member for Abbotsford on his speech. The current chair of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation appeared today before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Here is another example of someone willing to testify about this foundation who either has no conscience or has done very little self-reflection. Perhaps it would help him to have a conscience if he took a look, hard look in the mirror. That said, Mr. Johnson appeared before the committee and said that everything was fine. There was never a threat of interference. CSIS had never sounded the alarm or warned of any risk of Chinese interference through the foundation. He found a way to throw former CEO Pascale Fournier under the bus. He denied just about everything she said. He also lambasted the media. Edward Johnson was a member of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's team in the early 1980s. He was also a senior executive at Power Corporation. Obviously, he is not the kind of person who likes to pull strings and stay close to the circles of power. I found it interesting that he was lambasting the media for their work on this. I would like to ask my Conservative colleague if the Conservative Party sees that as a good opportunity to ensure that Canada's news media is well protected by robust laws so that we have quality journalism and support journalists in this investigative work.
255 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:24:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that we should be ensuring that journalists and journalism have a good future in our country. What I will not agree to is anything that smacks of censorship. That would be the government using the strong arm of the law to try to coerce the media to act in any particular way. The freedom of the press needs to remain sacrosanct. Having said that, I do want to address the other issue the member raised, which is the national inquiry that the member's party and mine have been calling for, a national inquiry into foreign interference in the affairs of our country. We note that the Prime Minister has, time and time again, refused to call such a national inquiry. Finally, he was under so much pressure, that he asked his friend, Mr. Johnston, who is a former member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, to investigate and determine what further steps should be taken to address foreign interference. I think we could have saved ourselves all of that effort by simply doing what Canadians have asked for and Conservatives have asked for, and that is to immediately call a national inquiry into foreign interference.
201 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:31:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this evening by thanking our Speaker for yesterday's ruling on the question of privilege from the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This was an important moment and important decision because it brought into sharp focus the intimidation by foreign agents operating in Canada. Even tonight, the House, a day later, is still gripped by this decision. That is relevant to members who are participating here tonight and who have participated up until now on this question. As a past member of the Canada-China special committee, I know from the evidence submitted to Parliament that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is not the only Canadian to be targeted. At committee, we heard from Canadians, particularly from Canadians of Chinese ancestry, about tactics used by the Chinese Communist Party to intimidate and silence our democracy. We have witnessed, over the past two decades, how Beijing's Communist Party revealed itself not only to be at odds with international laws and norms, but also be opposed to accountability, openness and even the basic rights of people, including mainland China's own citizens. Like a few other members of Parliament, and many hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I have had the pleasure and privilege of living in Hong Kong. That territory is an amazing place. I was fortunate enough to be on hand for the handover from Britain's rule to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997. It was a heavy moment with feelings of both apprehension and opportunity. Afterward, I visited Asia frequently once I returned to Canada a year later, and I have fond memories of both rural and urban mainland China, energetic Hong Kong and even remote Tibet. Today, sadly, I would not travel to any part of mainland China. This saddens me because I have deep affection for the Chinese people. One cannot travel for days, weeks or months at a time and leave untouched by their hospitality, fondness for family, tradition and remarkable cuisine. I also deeply admire China's culture and long history of struggle, perseverance and many great accomplishments. However, I know that travelling to mainland China is something I cannot do anymore because of my committee work in Parliament. Today, I am prohibited by Beijing from entering the country. I called for a free and democratic China, and because of that, I am in violation of Beijing's draconian national security law. I uttered the words that I believe China would be better served by being democratic and by directly electing its leaders. I said these words on Canadian soil and in Parliament, yet the national security law, according to the regime in Beijing, applies anywhere around the world. By uttering those words, a call for democracy in China, I have broken that law. I view it as an immoral law, but as we saw with the two Michaels who were arrested and detained, that means nothing when faced with the dictators in Beijing. I know that many members on this side of the chamber, and probably many who have served with the government since 2015, would have never believed that it could take the Government of Canada two years to expel a foreign diplomat sent here by Beijing's Communist Party who planned and executed an intimidation and harassment campaign against the family and loved ones of a fellow parliamentarian, our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. It happened. This is a Liberal disgrace and it must be investigated. I want to take a moment to repeat some remarks from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when he addressed the House last week and provided the basis for our ongoing debate. The member noted that on March 6, 2012, our then Speaker rightly said: Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate. In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters. However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously. It is right for this to be debated, it is important that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs investigate and it is necessary that Parliament gets to the bottom of this and discovers the truth. CSIS discovered, as reported by The Globe and Mail, that multiple members of Parliament have been targeted by Beijing's Communist Party. Indeed, this privilege motion we are debating is, as we see on our screens, “Intimidation campaign against members of Parliament.” Who would have thought such a debate would be necessary in Canada or that we would be tasked with discovering what happened? Members of all parties in the House of Commons should be questioning why the government was so keen to permit a foreign diplomat sent here by Beijing to remain here and continue intimidating and threatening the family and loved ones of not only a parliamentarian but several parliamentarians it seems, as well as Canadians across this country. Either the government takes prompt measures to uphold our rights and protect Canadians from harassment or foreign nations that wish to undermine us and do us harm will double down and threaten more and more Canadians, yet whenever it comes to issues relating to Beijing's Communist Party, the Prime Minister does not feel any urgency to act. He deflects, denies, blames and does nothing unless absolutely forced to by opposition parties and ultimately Canadian voters. We see this with the Uyghur genocide recognition motion that the Prime Minister and his cabinet abstained from when the vote was held in this Parliament. We see this with the Winnipeg lab document leak motion the Prime Minister and his cabinet voted against and to this day is still buried. It is an issue meant to be resolved by a special working group of parliamentarians working with an oversight committee to release documents, but that has disappeared. It is one more issue the government prefers to sweep under the rug. We see this with the Prime Minister and his decisions not to apologize for the comments made by several Liberals in this chamber that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew about the threats against his family and loved ones and did nothing. It is a disgraceful misrepresentation meant to obscure what had happened. The government's response to these allegations in The Globe and Mail has been evasive and inconsistent, with simple questions about its knowledge of the situation going unanswered. This all raises additional concerns about transparency and accountability. At first the government announced that anyone violating the Vienna convention would be expelled, so we waited. Days passed without new information or an expulsion. Later the Prime Minister claimed to be unaware of the allegations until they actually appeared in the newspaper, asserting the same applied to other executive branch members in his cabinet. He also mentioned that CSIS determined the issue was not significant enough to warrant escalation and still no expulsions took place. The narrative shifted again when it was revealed that the security briefings did not even leave CSIS; they did not reach the national security adviser and other government departments, the government maintained, yet of course we discovered they had reached the highest echelons of the public service, and the government was somehow in the dark. Despite no expulsions occurring, the government raised concerns about the possible consequences of expelling a People's Republic of China diplomat, leading to questions about its intentions and resolve. More false accusations were made against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with the Prime Minister participating in the attempts to undermine his credibility and the seriousness of the CSIS reports. It was all, and remains, a bloody mess. For these reasons and others, it is imperative that Parliament explore the violation of our privileges and the threat of election interference through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Leaving this to the government bench alone is, without question, the wrong move. The government simply cannot be trusted. It is why Conservatives also continue to call for an independent, public inquiry into Beijing's foreign interference in our elections. There are so many inconsistencies that have surrounded the Liberal government's handling of the situation that it is right to question its judgment. For example, it is just not credible to believe that CSIS would brief the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on a serious issue of interference and intimidation without informing the national security apparatus and the political level of the current government. Of course, this was recently corroborated by Cherie Henderson, the assistant director for requirements at CSIS, who said, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, “I can say that we definitely have seen specific cases of hostile activities of states against politicians. In those specific cases, we definitely brief our government on the challenges that are being faced.” To be clear, the government's pattern of obfuscating information from parliamentarians has been evident in previous scandals, such as the SNC-Lavalin debacle, the WE Charity scandal, and, just last week, with the Trudeau Foundation. Why would anyone think this situation is any different? The debate's significance lies in the need for the procedure and House affairs committee to address the issue, as well as the ethics committee's focus on foreign interference. Despite multiple committees investigating foreign interference, the government has not initiated an independent inquiry, and it should do so immediately. An independent public inquiry would help assess the impact of the Beijing Communist regime's interference in Canada. Our former colleague Kenny Chiu has discussed the fear and intimidation tactics employed by Chinese mainland officials in Beijing, including misinformation and disinformation campaigns against members of the House during recent elections. Mehmet Tohti, a leading advocate for the human rights of Uyghur Muslims in Canada, shared his experience of Beijing Communist officials monitoring his calls to relatives in China in an attempt to intimidate him. There are still an unknown number of Chinese Communist Party police stations operating in Canada. These serve one purpose, and that is to intimidate citizens and landed immigrants who live here, in what should be a free and democratic Canada. There is a pattern of pandering to Beijing, which appears to have begun when the Prime Minister won the Liberal Party leadership. A large donation was soon made to the Trudeau Foundation, and questions have arisen about the receipt issued for the donation. Parliamentary committees are studying that as well, urging the CRA to investigate that to get to the bottom of any undue influence on our democracy and the Prime Minister. This pattern of influence must be investigated further, because it undermines democratic institutions, the electoral process, and, of course, faith in our democracy. At the same time, it is important to recognize that many Chinese Canadians live in our country in fear, and may not participate fully in the electoral process due to potential retribution. That is where we are today. Our government and Prime Minister took two years to act and to expel a diplomat for meddling in Canada's democracy. Because the Liberals finally declared one diplomat from Communist China not welcome in this country, they think they should be congratulated, after waiting two years. The Liberals had ample evidence of Beijing's diplomats interfering in elections, particularly from its Toronto and Vancouver offices, yet, when questioned about this at the procedure and House affairs committee, the foreign affairs minister claimed there was no evidence. However, they did possess evidence about a foreign diplomat sent here by Beijing's Communist party, which had been known for two years. The Liberals might claim that the information never made it to the Prime Minister's desk, and that is why we need an investigation to find out what happened. If that is true, that is still the government's responsibility. If the Liberal government is not capable of overseeing the security of this country, it should be held in contempt for its inability to govern well and responsibly. It took a report from The Globe and Mail, and pressure from the opposition and Canadians at large, for the government to finally act. Why was there this long delay? It is unacceptable for Beijing diplomats to facilitate funding for political candidates, to target Conservative candidates, or any candidates for that matter, in this country, and then to boast about defeating disliked incumbent MPs. It is equally intolerable for them to organize illegal police stations to harass and intimidate Chinese Canadians, and to threaten MPs and their families. Canada has a long-standing commitment to accountable government. We must uphold and preserve that. Canadians should be informed of the recent security lapses. Instead, the Prime Minister continues to put electoral decisions ahead of national security. This is the most serious failing of anyone who occupies the government benches under the Liberal government.
2235 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:55:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert was saying. He talked about getting the sense that people are wearing rose-coloured glasses, but I am getting the sense that people are worried. I am concerned about how the government is handling issues that are more serious than pretty much anything we have ever seen. I remember the WE scandal from a few years ago. The government did all it could to cover everything up, to sweep things under the rug over and over until hard-working reporters and opposition members managed to uncover the details. It was appalling. It was even worse than everyone thought initially. Now we have these allegations of Chinese interference. The more we dig, the more outrageous things we find, yet the Liberals and their Trudeau Foundation friends keep burying their heads in the sand. They act like nothing happened and they never do anything wrong, but actually, something very serious happened. The government needs to be transparent and collaborate to get this all out in the open and reassure people. The whole situation is extremely worrisome. I would like my colleague to comment on that.
199 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:59:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start off with an excerpt from a Globe and Mail article from February 2019. It reads, “The allegations reported in the story are false. At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney-general to make any particular decision in this matter”. This is, I think, what starts our debate here and takes us into a concern for many Canadians, which I am hearing from across all party lines, about where we are with China and the information that is slowly coming out from the PMO. If we are trying to compare this to something like SNC-Lavalin, we truly cannot. It is one of those pinnacles, one of those things that is so high. This is about democracy, integrity and the work we can do as parliamentarians without fear for our families. I started reading these stories once I heard about the allegation about the foreign interference with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I came to this very simple point: How can we do our jobs when we do not feel safe or when our families are threatened, whether here in Canada or in China? This is something that the government must take seriously. I am looking at all the members who are here tonight, and there things that are important, but when it comes to our families, for many of us, that is the bottom line, and it changes everything. It is the fear and the love for our loved ones. How do we ensure that they are safe? I look at what the Prime Minister said back in 2019, just sloughing it off, and months later, we find out that everything he had said was inaccurate. This is what concerns me today as we are having this debate. I fear that these same issues of “I didn't know” and “everything is false” may be the same situation here today. I think that is the big concern here. I will go back to some information on this, but I would like to start with the fact that our Conservative critic for foreign affairs has done such an exemplary job. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is extraordinarily respected in the House by not only members of his own caucus but also the individuals he comes across, whether stakeholders meeting with him on key issues, somebody chairing a committee or a minister being asked hard questions by the member. There is a respect because of the way he proceeds, holds himself and shows the value of what democracy really is. The member shared with us the reason his family came to Canada, why they wanted to come and why his father chose to have a better life here in Canada. It is like so many other fathers and mothers who are descendants, and why so many people came to Canada to find a better life. Unfortunately, some of these bad actors and some of these things follow people. When we look at what happened to this member, we have to understand that it did not just happen to this member, but to the rest of the 337 of us as well. I spoke to one of my colleagues who happened to be one of the 49 members who were also briefed on this defence and what was happening. He shared with me that, if he were to rate it, it was a one out of 10 when it came to security and safety and making him feel that it was a great threat. I think if someone had maybe provided more information to let people know who was being targeted, they would understand that this really was not a one out of 10. Perhaps for that member who had a similar briefing it was a one out of 10, but for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I do not think that is the case. We have to look at the fact that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills stood up against Chinese influence on Canadian institutions. He has criticized the Prime Minister for cash-for-access fundraisers, which had been done with Chinese-Canadian businessmen. He has fought against the ties of the government, and the Prime Minister specifically, to the Chinese Communist Party. He has called for a stronger stance on human rights, trade violations and cybersecurity concerns, which are all related to China. When we start looking at this, it seems pretty clear why the member was targeted. It is because he is a man of principle, and he is a man who will stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. This leads me to a concern, because one of the things he was bringing forward was genocide and things that are happening in China. From just a few months ago, I remember a member from the Liberal Party who was clearly so cheerful because his private member's bill had also gone through, and it targeted that. I do not know if that member of Parliament has been or is being targeted, but when we know this is happening to good people who are working for vulnerable people, we should assume it may be. This is where I am hoping the Prime Minister, the national security advisers and the cabinet will not just worry about politics, but about the people within their own caucus. I do not know the situation there, but I really do fear what is going to happen to that member. Knowing that our own member was targeted, what is happening to the Liberal members in their own benches? Let us go back to the questions and this timeline. Every day there are new questions about the federal government and how it handled the Chinese government's plot to target MPs. All of this came out, and we talk about the security briefing received by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the information that was provided by the Prime Minister just two days apart. It is very concerning. We have a Prime Minister who is saying he knew nothing, that CSIS did not release the document and that they did not see it as a big issue. Of course, I am not quoting right now, but that is the overall essence of it. However, we then have somebody, who came to give our member an intelligence report, who is saying the exact opposite the next day. I am not indicating necessarily that the Prime Minister had read it. Although, as everybody has said in here, and as we have heard his chief of staff, Katie Telford, say, the Prime Minister reads everything. We have heard her say that. We must understand that, if there had been a briefing, he must have read it, because that is his job. This is not just because Katie Telford said so, but because his job as the Prime Minister is to read security briefings, not only because this is a democracy and he should be sure everybody is safe, but also because it is his job to ensure Canada is safe. If there is a security briefing that is coming in, he needs to take the time to read it. All that was said last week continues to be contradicted, and I think we have to look at where this conversation started. Last Monday, I was watching everybody debate this, and we saw members of Parliament get up and not answer the questions. The minister for the government was not answering specific questions, and we could see that intensity. We know the government had to make a choice on what it was going to do, but two days later we actually saw its members double down. I saw the compassion from some of those members on Monday, who recognized that one of their own colleagues in the House was targeted, but we watched the government members, two days later, double down, and all of its members and parliamentary secretaries were providing the same answer. That means they are working together to try to redirect this conversation, and the good work promised by some of the members over there had to be halted because it was against their political agenda. Those are things that concern me. When we know that a person has been here and has targeted members of Parliament, why have they not been immediately removed? It took the government over a week, and as we have heard, it was not just a week, but two years and a week, because the government knew beforehand. However, we have to look at things that were also said in here, and if we are talking about democracy and coverups, we had the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House of Commons, Senate, state: The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had a defence briefing on this two years ago, so he knew about this when it actually happened. My question for the member is this. When did he find out about it? Did the member for Wellington—Halton Hills bring it to his attention at any time prior to the media doing so? I am going back to a simple comment that was made by my colleague, who said that they were briefed, and it was like a one out of 10. If people are giving general information, that is a problem, and I think, when I hear from one member that it was just such an overlay, I understand. However, I know this person did not go forward and ask, but if the government was worried, why did it not do something about it? If it knew there was more, why did it not press go to try to start on foreign interference by looking into this? I think it comes down to the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is so entangled with the Chinese government because of his admiration for that country that sometimes he cannot see right from wrong, because it is more about popularity and polling than it is about leading this great country. I feel sorry for some of the members I see over there who are having to applaud a Prime Minister who will not stand up for members of Parliament and will continue to wipe things away. However, we have a Prime Minister who was part of cash-for-access fundraisers back in 2016. That all ties into the Trudeau Foundation and the money that was given from members of the Communist Chinese government via conduits so that the money could get in there and a statue of the Prime Minister's father. Those are all wonderful things. They are everything that is great to make an ego shine. That is what we are selling off. We are selling things off such as Canadian democracy for egos. That is why I have a problem with this. I feel that we have not taken the Chinese government seriously for the last eight years. Throughout these question periods the government members have asked repeatedly, multiple times what our government did about it, and they have said that it did nothing about it. They and I know that, like Facebook since I joined in 2007, things have changed and things progress with IT and all of the things that are available to us in this world. Of course we have to narrow and change the ways that we are doing things. Canada had a different relationship with China prior to the current government. Prior to the government's coming in, we always tried to work, but we were trying to build strong relationships where we both were separate and we had a sovereign democratic country for Canada. However, we do not see that with the Chinese government anymore. With respect to the Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, when somebody had said something bad, the Canadian ambassador to China made an inappropriate comment, and he was accused of being too cozy with the country's authoritarian government. We saw the firing of the ambassador to China happen because the Chinese government spoke up. When the Chinese government is not happy with what Canada does, it calls the Prime Minister and fires the Canadian ambassador. However, when this is happening with our own Canadian member of Parliament, we do not see the same thing occurring. These have to be discussed. I want to continue, as we are discussing this, looking at the connection between this Prime Minister and the judgment that he is using throughout these cases. We have talked about the seriousness of these allegations and we have already talked about how people are not taking this seriously. That is so concerning. We saw fewer voters from the Chinese community come out in the last election because their democracy was stolen from them by foreign agents coming to their doors, knocking on their doors and advising them on whom they had to vote for. We know that people were targeted through group chats. It is not just our members of Parliament who are targeted, but it is Canadians who were being targeted in the last election. We have people who were fearful of voting. That should never happen here in Canada. We understand that some countries tell people what to do. Here in Canada, we are supposed to be a country that has freedom of expression, freedom of speech and a democratic process. We know that in the last election that was not the case. I appreciate this time. I will continue to fight for democracy. I will continue to fight for transparency and accountability from the current government, specifically on the case of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but I will fight for every Canadian who should be free of any interference from abroad.
2328 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border