Debates of May 4th, 2023

Speaker's Rulings on Decorum

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. If you want to speak to each other, please just cross over and go see each other. Do not shout back and forth.

Now, let me finish. As far as the questions go, if one group is getting rowdy or trying to drown out the other side, it is no better than bullying in a schoolyard where a group is picking on one or another group. That is not acceptable in the House.

I will continue to do what I have done today. It is unfortunate that it was the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, because he was not a part of the problem. He just happened to be the victim of exchanging his question with a member at the back.

What will happen is that we will be using that as a tool to calm things down in the chamber. I hope people take it to heart and start respecting each other.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, on the same point of order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone needs to calm down and, above all, trust the Speaker that the House elected. We need to keep things civil.

While you were speaking, Mr. Speaker, I heard the House leader of the New Democratic Party yelling at a female member in an improper tone, telling her to sit down. I encourage everyone to calm down. We have a Speaker who is capable of making decisions. We must be polite.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think that part of the issue today is the inconsistency with which this type of behaviour has been handled in the House across party lines, as well as inconsistencies in how it is handled by whoever happens to be in the chair. I would ask for consistency.

It is really important that we do not escalate responses to a particular behaviour in the House in a way that looks to be very partisan. The member across was allowed incredible latitude for a long time before she was required to do what you instituted in a second in this place. I am just asking for consistency.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Actually, it was instituted instantly for her part. I do not want to start an argument, but it takes a while for people to come around. That is human nature, and we have to deal with human nature in this House.

The hon. opposition whip.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, we do respect your authority. I agree that you are here in this place to bring order, sometimes from chaos, and we respect those decisions. The issue was about consistency, so I leave it at that.

This point of order that I rise on is another serious point of order to address two incidents that took place during the course of debate on the opposition day motion earlier today. As the Chair knows, the House is debating a Conservative motion that addresses the serious threats made against the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

The statements I am about to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, centre around one defensive briefing provided by CSIS to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills about foreign interference two years ago. The member was actually in the House today during question period. It is important to note that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been clear in his public comments that the threats made to his family were never made known to him in the briefing two years ago. The only specific briefing he received happened this week and only after the matter became news reported by The Globe and Mail. However, during the debate, both parliamentary secretaries to the government House leader engaged in misinformation and disinformation in a blatant attack on the reputation of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said about the threats, and I quote, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had a defensive briefing on this two years ago, so he knew about this when it actually happened.” This same member went on to say, “it is true that I said that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills received multiple defensive briefings.... He did. He received multiple defensive briefings and it is absolutely true that I have absolutely no idea what he was told.”

These comments are outright disinformation. The member for Kingston and the Islands ought to know that there was only one briefing two years ago and that it was a general defensive briefing. It did not contain information about specific threats. However, he has allowed his false statements to stand on the record, although he has been given many opportunities to withdraw.

To make matters worse, the member for Winnipeg North said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years.” He went on to accuse the member of doing nothing about these threats.

The accusations made by the members for Kingston and the Islands and for Winnipeg North are false; worse, they amount to victim blaming. I demand that these members rise to correct the misinformation and disinformation they provided to the House and that they apologize for their attempts to impugn the reputation of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on this point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to what I had indicated previously when I said that the member was aware of this, I apologize for the choice of words. What I was trying to imply was that he was aware that there were some threats that were out there, which was the reason he received the defensive briefing. I apologize unreservedly for my choice of words because I have led people to believe that he knew about what was being talked about today specifically.

I have a ton of respect for that member. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, through you, to that member, to all Conservatives, to you, to the Chair and to this House, I apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Okay, we can put that to rest.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, again, for those who are here or not here when members stand up, just for clarification purposes, I will quote what I had indicated. Earlier today, I said this: “Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, on the same point of order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is only my second term and I have not even been here four years yet, so I would like to ask you a question.

Throughout question period, the Conservative Party rightly asked members who had just spoken to apologize. Question period is now over and those members, who did not stand up once during question period, are suddenly apologizing now that everyone else has left.

I want to know how this works. Should the members have answered those questions during question period rather than waiting for all the reporters to leave before answering them?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is getting into debate.

I would like to remind the member that the House is always full of people who are working.

The hon. opposition whip is rising on the same point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, I have the quotation from earlier today by the member for Winnipeg North, and he said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years.” Then he went on to accuse the member of doing nothing about these threats.

We are not talking about the briefing this week, the one the Prime Minister and the member had. We are talking about not just a suggestion but an assertion that the member has had information about the threats to his family for two years, which is false, and has done nothing about them.

He was blaming the victim. There should be a proper apology, and that was not it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I was not here; there was another person in the chair. We will take a look and see what the scripts are, because this is turning into a “he said, she said”. I want to make sure we have everything down and that Hansard is in place, and I will come back to the chamber should I see fit.

Business of the House

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday afternoon after question period, and as part of the routine aspects of things, the Conservatives are looking forward to the rest of the week, which is actually just this afternoon as the House is adjourned tomorrow. We are anxious to know what legislation and what details will be brought forward by the government so we can be ready to hold it to account.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the other side for the question and the opportunity to illuminate the government's agenda for the coming week.

On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday morning, we will call Bill C-42 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act and then return to debate on Bill S-5 in the afternoon.

On Wednesday and Friday, we will call Bill C-13, an act for substantive equity of Canada's official languages.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, May 11, shall be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Interference by the People's Republic of China

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to speak to this motion. I want to say from the outset that I have the utmost respect for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. As a matter of fact, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is the only Conservative member of the House, over the last eight years, whom I have had the pleasure of going out to dinner with alone to talk about issues that we are both passionate about. I have always regarded the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as one of the most progressive voices on the other side of the House. In fairness, the bar has been set pretty low, but nonetheless, I have always had the utmost respect for him.

I sincerely apologize for the manner in which this debate got kicked off this morning. I should have perhaps chosen my words a little more closely. I have since apologized for that, but I think it is very important to reflect on what we are actually experiencing here.

We see the Conservatives, routinely, day after day, get up and directly and indirectly accuse the Prime Minister of Canada of lying. They have said so many times in this debate alone that the Prime Minister of Canada and the government have known about this particular incident with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for two years. They are saying it now. They are heckling about it now.

Why I find this to be so incredibly amazing is that, on the one hand, we all believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when he says he was not briefed on this specific matter, yet we will not afford that same luxury of belief to the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister of Canada, when he says the same thing. I cannot help but wonder where all the outrage is in the House when the Prime Minister of Canada says he did not know until Monday and, time after time, the Conservatives will get up and say, well, yes, he did know and he is lying to us.

That is the double standard around here that I am having such an incredible time wrapping my head around. I believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I will get to my previous comments, but I also believe the member for Papineau, because they are both honourable members who come before the House. I think anybody who comes in here and cries bloody foul over the idea that we have to trust every member at their word, as they are honourable, but then chooses who exactly they are going to accept that from is disingenuous at best.

I think it is important to go back and reflect. What I said earlier in this debate is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, along with 47 other members of Parliament, in 2022 alone, although for him it may have been in 2021, received defensive briefings from CSIS. Of course, we do not know what the content of those briefings was. We do not know exactly what was said, but we do know generally speaking what a defensive briefing is.

A defensive briefing is basically CSIS coming to a member of Parliament and saying that it wants to give the heads-up that they are person of interest who should be watching out for certain things. They are given some tips on how to handle this and on the things they should be looking out for, and are asked to inform CSIS when things happen. We know the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and 48 other members in 2022 alone received that particular briefing.

When the member for Wellington—Halton Hills says that he did not learn about these specific threats, I believe that. All I am trying to say is that we have to understand that these particular briefings occur on an ongoing basis. To come to the conclusion that they are one-offs is not the reality, because the CSIS report indicated that in the 2022 report.

The other thing that I am having a very hard time with is the general assertion from the other side of the House that the government has done nothing as it relates to foreign interference. That is completely and utterly untrue.

I will read the second half of what I read earlier in a question, because I think it is the most important part. It is from a 2013 CSIS report, the same one as the 2022 version from CSIS, the public report. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, who at the time was the minister of democratic reform, received that briefing, which said:

As boundaries between foreign state and non-state actors become increasingly blurred, it is particularly challenging for intelligence services to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate activities. Foreign interference in Canadian society—as a residual aspect of global or regional political and social conflicts, or divergent strategic and economic objectives—will continue in the coming years.

The member for Carleton, when he was minister of democratic reform, received this briefing in 2013 and did absolutely nothing about it. For the two more years the Conservatives remained in government, they did not act on this. As a matter of fact, shortly after we came along in 2015, we brought in a bill to tighten up the rules around funding with respect to foreign interference. Do members know who voted against it? It was the Conservatives. The Conservatives voted against Bill C-76, a bill that would specifically strengthen our ability to control foreign interference.

We have done a whole host of things in addition to that.

We established NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. There are Liberal, Bloc and NDP members, as well as Conservative members when they choose to show up and not boycott the committee, who sit on this committee. They are sworn to secrecy and receive the most sensitive information, not only for this country but indeed for our allies around the world. They have the political oversight and accountability to assess information and make recommendations to CSIS and the government on how to act on it. By the way, it is a credible tool that the United Kingdom and other Westminster parliamentary systems have, and we adopted it.

What else did we do? We brought in a special advisory panel that is activated during the writ process of an election, while everybody in this House and other candidates are running around the country trying to sell themselves and their political parties as the best choice. We do not have the time or capacity in those circumstances to act as a caretaker to watch over our democracy at that most important time, the time when an election is happening. That committee is made up of experts who are charged with reacting in real time to what is happening. It is something the Conservatives have criticized as being an almost useless tool. These people are watching our elections in real time to make sure they are not being interfered with by foreign state or non-state actors.

The Conservatives have come here and said we have done nothing, when the record clearly shows they knew about this from CSIS in 2013 and did nothing about it for two years. We came along in 2015 and have implemented policies and legislation time after time since then to strengthen our ability to control foreign interference as it relates to our democracy. It is completely unfair for the Conservatives to be making their assertions and they should know better.

I will now get to the motion we are talking about today. I will be honest with members. Of the four asks in this motion, there are three I do not see a problem with.

One is to create a foreign agent registry, similar to those in Australia and the United States. We announced months ago that this is already in process; it is already happening.

I will get to the public inquiry in a second.

Another one is to close down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China and operating in Canada. Of course, the RCMP is going to be seized with that and will do everything it can there. There is only one respected police authority in each jurisdiction in this country: the RCMP federally; the provincial police, where applicable, or the RCMP as charged by the provincial governments; and the local police. Those are the only police authorities the government or any member of Parliament, regardless of the rhetoric, will ever accept, and we of course will do whatever necessary to ensure that illegal police stations and operations like these are shut down immediately.

Of course, the motion would expel all of the People's Republic of China's diplomats responsible for and involved in the affronts to Canadian democracy. As indicated today by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, she is absolutely willing to do that where it is deemed necessary. There is obviously a process in place to do that. She has already summoned the ambassador of China regarding this issue, so I do not have an issue with that either. I think, as appropriate, that absolutely has to happen.

The part I have a problem with, which I feel is the most political, is the call for the public inquiry. I will be honest. I am on the PROC committee, and when this first came before the committee, I thought to myself that it made sense. A public inquiry would shine sunlight on this issue. Why would we not do that?

Unfortunately, this is not what we heard from the experts who came before the committee, whether it was those from CSIS, the national security experts, or the head of the RCMP. Everybody told us that we were dealing with extremely classified information. There was no way we could release that information to the public, and not just because of the effect it would have domestically. Can members imagine how our Five Eyes partners would feel if they realized we were sharing this sensitive information? We would be the laughing stock of the international community. They could never trust us with that information. We would be ostracized from the international community if we were to try to release that information.

It became very clear to those who were sitting on the committee, and those who were interested in hearing the expert advice, that a public inquiry is not the place for this sensitive information to be discussed. Rather, we were told it should be discussed in NSICOP, which is the parliamentarian committee that is established for this.

What I found to be the most interesting out of all of that, when this discussion was happening, was that the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, was told by the media that the government offered to give him a briefing, but he would have to be sworn into secrecy. He was asked if he would be willing to take that briefing. He said he did not want to know the information if he could not go talk about it. All that matters to the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, is to grandstand and get out there to politicize every single issue he can get his hands on.

As such, the member for Carleton is not interested in receiving highly classified information, even if it is for the betterment of the country. He is not interested in that because it would serve absolutely zero political gain for him. That, I think, is what Canadians should be reflecting on.

As I come to the conclusion of my speech, I want to say that there is great opportunity here for the House to work together. I understand there is a difference of opinion, when it comes to the public inquiry. I am going to respect whatever David Johnston, the former governor general, recommends to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister already said that we would accept his advice. If David Johnston says a public inquiry is the best way to go, we will do that.

However, I find it very troubling that members, primarily Conservatives, are railing against a former governor general who is so highly respected throughout this country. They talk about him as though he is a Liberal insider or something. He was a governor general who was appointed by Stephen Harper. The Conservatives should think about that.

They will stop at nothing. They are on a crusade to take down absolutely everybody, as long as it gives them a tiny bit of political gain. They would take an ounce of political gain at the expense of ruining somebody's reputation, if the opportunity presents itself to them, and they do it time after time after time.

We have an opportunity to work together to do something about foreign interference. I respect the debate between a public inquiry versus an inquiry that is not public. It is a debate that I respect. It is an issue I have found myself on both sides of, at times, and I hope we can have meaningful debates about how we can genuinely affect the security of our democracy. It is absolutely imperative. It is not something we should be playing politics with.

I will take responsibility for the way this debate started off today. I feel as though I contributed to that manner, and I apologize for that, but I really hope that, when this settles down, we can all focus on what is really important, and that is protecting the democracy we all hold so dearly.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the apology from my colleague across the way. Blaming the member on this side for the harassment he received at the hands of a diplomat was wrong, and I appreciate that very much.

I listened to the member's speech intently, and there is something we agree on, as I want to find some common ground, which is that the foreign, Chinese-run police stations should be shut down. There are still two in operation, as we heard from the public safety minister, and the member said they should be shut down immediately. My definition of “immediately” is as soon as—

[An hon. member]

Right now.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Yes, it is right now.

Madam Speaker, will the member stand with me to ask the minister to shut these down before the weekend? They should be shut down before the weekend. Will he stand with me, talk to his minister and put his name on the line to say that they should be shut down this weekend?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the details of the operations that are apparently still ongoing, but I have great confidence in the RCMP to do its job. The RCMP has been charged by the government and, indeed, all Canadians. The RCMP walks the hall of Parliament. That is a pretty big deal. Only about five years ago, it did not. The RCMP was not even allowed in this building, if we remember correctly.

We have great faith in the RCMP and its ability to protect Canadians, and I have no doubt that the RCMP is doing and will do whatever is necessary to combat not just this, but all illegal activity, in particular, as it comes from foreign actors.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was really pleased to hear our colleague indicate that he supports three of the four points dealing with foreign interference, particularly the idea of expelling diplomats involved in interference. Kudos to him.

After the crazy week we have had, considering all the revelations and information we have heard, does he really believe that there was no interference by a Chinese diplomat?