Debates of May 4th, 2023

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to again remind members to be very respectful toward each other, and when they do not have the floor, they should not be making comments or trying to pose questions. If this continues, those members who are continually doing this will not be recognized should they decide to get up for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Vancouver Granville has the floor.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the remaining time I have, I would just like to say a couple of things. CSIS has been reporting on the challenges to our democracy and foreign interference since 2013. That was a time when many of the members opposite were part of the government, and the prime minister of the day chose not to act. The minister for democratic reform, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, chose not to be involved. When he was asked why, he said it was because he did not feel the Chinese government was helping his party get elected, so it was not worth getting involved.

If all of us in this House believe that a threat to one of us is a threat to all of us, which I know we believe on this side of the House, then it is up to all of us to hold to account those who chose not to act when they had the opportunity. It is also incumbent upon all of us to act when we do have the opportunity, which is what our government has done since we took office. The processes that have been put in place, the tables that have been created and the committees that are doing the hard work, all of that work is going to help strengthen our democracy in the face of threats that evolve every single day.

I know that Canadians can look with confidence at this side of the House, at this government and at the actions we are taking, because they know we are doing it not to preserve our own interests, but to preserve the democracy that we cherish. It is to ensure that every single Canadian, regardless of their background, their faith, the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation, can feel proud to participate in our democratic process. That is something that comes by respecting the diversity of this country. It comes by working with communities to ensure that foreign actors do not have the opportunity to permeate and succeed.

That is the work we are doing. It is the work we will continue to do with our law enforcement agencies, with communities and with all Canadians who chose to be part of this conversation.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was quite a speech after we just sat and watched a group of Liberal members of Parliament mocking and laughing at the member for St. Albert—Edmonton as he was speaking earlier.

The member talks about taking these concerns very seriously, but earlier, in a question, the member for Kingston and the Islands referred to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as “supposedly affected” by this situation. The Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader, in referring to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, while heckling, said that the member is not credible. This is a quote.

Will the hon. member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Hansard will clearly indicate the many words I said inside the chamber. I do not necessarily need the member opposite to pretend he is Hansard by trying to convey things that I said that are not recorded in Hansard. I honestly cannot recall and I do not believe the member knows either.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is not saying that he did not say those words; he is just saying that they were not recorded. He absolutely said those words. I was sitting right here and I heard him say them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is becoming a point of debate. As for what was said and what was not, I will endeavour to ask that we review Hansard to see if we can determine what was said and come back to the House if need be.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin can continue with his question, which I would ask that he wrap up. There are only 20 seconds left.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it will not take me 20 seconds. My question, given the gravity of the situation, is very straightforward: Will the hon. member who just spoke turn around and ask his two colleagues, who hold leadership positions in his party, to unreservedly apologize to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, every single member in this House belongs to what I consider to be a parliamentary family. We may not agree on politics. We may not agree on policy. However, one thing that is important to me, as a Canadian and as somebody whose family left very difficult circumstances to come to this country because of the democracy we hold dear, is that I take threats to any member of this House very seriously. To me, it is very important that any member of this House feels safe in doing this job and that their families are not under threat. Every single member of this House has an opportunity and obligation to work together so we can find solutions to the problems that we want none of our families to face.

I think it has been very clear, by the actions the Prime Minister has taken since he found out about this on Monday, that we will engage with any members affected by this in a productive and thoughtful manner.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a little taken aback by something my colleague seemed to be implying in his speech at one point. He seemed to be saying that we could be encouraging foreign interference, emboldening other countries, merely by asking questions. Apparently, the opposition parties are somehow making us more vulnerable simply by asking questions in the House or on committees about interference. That kind of talk is really hard to bear.

What does my colleague think our work here is about anyway, if not exactly that, to ask questions about important issues like a foreign country's interference in our democratic process? Does he really think we should stop asking questions about it?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to clarify. That is not what I said.

Asking questions and getting answers to those questions is very important. However, the danger, or the issue, arises when our rhetoric or our words are meant to create mistrust in our institutions.

The act of asking questions in this chamber is critically important. I welcome, and we all welcome, these questions, but we should draw a fundamental difference between asking questions in the House, which is a critical responsibility of all of us, and going out there to misrepresent facts, score political points and, most importantly, sow discord.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question.

I want to begin by saying that New Democrats stand in solidarity with community members who have been the target of threats and intimidation in support of the Chinese government. Canadians deserve to feel safe, and Canada must not tolerate any type of intimidation, harassment or targeting of the diaspora communities. I want to stand, personally, as the member for Hamilton Centre to extend my solidarity with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for what he and his family have had to go through.

For my question, there seems to be some discrepancies about who knew what and when, and exactly what it was they did about it. The public safety minister said that he did not hear about China targeting the member for Wellington—Halton Hills until this past Monday, but CSIS was aware two years ago.

The Prime Minister claims he does not know either, yet we have been presented with the CSIS report for 2022, where it states that “foreign intelligence may...be collected from within Canada at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of National Defence, and with the consent of the Minister of Public Safety.” If there were any involvement here in Canada, why was it that the Minister of Public Safety was not briefed on this, and what is he going to do about it?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, the way that the process works is that CSIS determines what the briefing should look like. If it rises to the level that it should reach the Prime Minister or the ministers, CSIS makes that determination. If that is not the case, and I am given to understand that it was not the case for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, a defensive briefing is given to that particular member. It was my understanding that the member was briefed a couple of years ago.

If in fact that is true, if the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was briefed prior to Monday, the minister was informed on Monday. There is a material difference between a briefing given to a member and one given when the level rises such that somebody else, a minister or the Prime Minister, would be informed of the same.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing my support for my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Like him, I am a proud Canadian of Chinese heritage, and it is leaders like him who made it easier for people like me to serve today.

My Liberal colleague talked about transparency and accountability. The fact has been that it is now confirmed, not only by CSIS but also by the Prime Minister, that a Chinese diplomat targeted my Conservative colleague.

Would my colleague not agree that this action is clearly in contravention of the Vienna Convention? Why does the government not exercise article 9 to declare this diplomat persona non grata and kick him out of the country?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that every Canadian knows that we take very seriously the activity of foreign diplomats in this country.

Concerning the Vienna Convention, any time the Vienna Convention is invoked and diplomats are expelled, it is important that countries do the work required to understand, number one, the implications, and number two, what implications might be felt by Canadians at home and abroad.

As that assessment is done, in the context of whatever malfeasance may or may not have occurred, action is then taken. We know that our department of foreign affairs, Global Affairs Canada, takes this very seriously. Those recommendations are developed by security professionals, by the officials. Those recommendations are then made and decisions are taken.

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

Madam Speaker, based on the public report that was tabled today from CSIS, a staggering 49 federal members of Parliament have received briefings from CSIS.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is just one of 49. As a matter of fact, I recall a discussion in the PROC committee when the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said that he had also received a briefing. I am going to assume that that was a defensive briefing from CSIS as well.

The reality is that CSIS provides these defensive briefings a lot. I am wondering if the member could inform the House as to whether or not he has received a defensive briefing from CSIS?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have not received a briefing of any kind from CSIS.

I would say, as somebody who has worked in the public service, and who had the privilege of working with the folks at CSIS and the RCMP, briefings, when given, are taken seriously. When people are called by CSIS, those briefings should be taken seriously.

What CSIS shares with one individual, when they are being briefed, is not necessarily the purview of others. Those briefings are, hopefully, supposedly held in confidence. It is important for us to recognize the way our security intelligence apparatus works in this country. It works in a way that seeks to not only keep Canadians safe but also ensure that the methods and sources they work with are also preserved and protected, so that the work they do can continue. It is important for all of us in the House to respect that work.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I will not keep the members on tenterhooks any longer: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting today's motion from the Conservatives.

As we know, when things drag, they tend to pick up dirt, and right now everything is turning into a crisis. The longer this drags on, the more likely it is that we will have to face two risks that are coming our way.

First, as the public hears different information about allegations of foreign interference, there is a growing risk that the public will lose confidence in democracy, in its institutions and in the work of members of Parliament.

Second, the more time that goes by without meaningful action being taken, the greater the risk that an election will be called and that, for the third time running, there will be foreign interference in an election because the right legislative measures have not been put in place to fight it.

The motion before the House today has four main points calling on the government to create a foreign agent registry, establish a national public inquiry, close down the People's Republic of China run police stations, and expel all of the diplomats responsible for these affronts to Canadian democracy. I will address all of these points, but not necessarily in that order.

I will begin with the point that the Bloc Québécois sees as the most important. We were actually the first to recommend it. I am talking about establishing an independent public inquiry. We want to make one main point or one key request. The person in charge of this inquiry must be appointed by all parties represented in the House. We have been calling for an independent public inquiry since February 28.

That was two months ago. I cannot believe that, in two months' time, the four parties, representing the entire Canadian population, have not been able to agree on the right person to appoint to lead a public inquiry, someone who is not part of the Prime Minister's inner circle, family or friends.

We have been asking for this inquiry for a long time, and, above all, we want to ensure that the person leading this inquiry is non-partisan and impartial so that the public will have confidence in the recommendations resulting from this inquiry. We hope that this inquiry will be launched.

If information is handled behind closed doors during this inquiry, the public must have confidence that this is being done for valid national security reasons, not for the benefit of a party that wants to hide certain information. That is why it is important to have a commissioner, judge, or commission chair who is impartial. If the information is not disclosed and must be handled behind closed doors, the public will have confidence that it is for non-partisan reasons.

It has been argued on a number of occasions that holding an independent public inquiry in an open and transparent manner could compromise the work of national security institutions by revealing sources or investigative techniques. We could trust this future commissioner to determine what needs to be done behind closed doors.

We in the Bloc Québécois are not alone in calling for an independent public inquiry. Jean‑Pierre Kingsley, a former chief electoral officer for Elections Canada, said in March on Radio‑Canada, “Canadians need to know what happened. Until there is a public inquiry, information will come out in dribs and drabs and people are going to pay the price for that”.

The fact that this is dragging on and no meaningful action is being taken is another problem. The information is being reported haphazardly, which could jeopardize some investigations and certain sources.

In addition to recommending an independent public inquiry and the appointment of an impartial chair to lead the inquiry, the Bloc Québécois recommended overhauling the Inquiries Act to ensure that future chairs of public inquiries are appointed by consensus in the House.

The motion also calls for the creation of a foreign agent registry. In our opinion, we need to go much further than the simple creation of a foreign agent registry. We need to bring in legislative measures to help address interference. That is something people have long been calling for. In November 2020, the House adopted a motion to implement mechanisms with a lot more teeth to tackle foreign interference.

Once again, unfortunately, it took a crisis and media attention for the government to start moving. About a month ago, the government finally announced that consultations would be held about creating a registry.

In addition to creating a registry, we need much broader legislation to tackle interference. One of the things we learned in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is that there are legislative gaps. Often, information comes in and it is clear there has been interference, but it cannot be addressed because there is no legislative leverage to do so.

Information is also coming in dribs and drabs. National campaign managers have said that information passed between intelligence agencies is a one-way street. Parties give information to the intelligence agencies but get little or nothing in return. Even if someone is given information, there is no avenue for a party to take action and address this interference.

As for a registry, both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP have been calling for one. Will it solve everything? No. However, it is one of the tools that would, in conjunction with other tools, help us move in the right direction.

Some people are saying that this kind of registry could inadvertently target members of Canada's Chinese community, but I think such a claim is purely hypothetical. There is no definite indication that members of the Chinese Canadian community would be targeted. Besides, when it comes to foreign agents, members of the Chinese Canadian diaspora are the ones paying the price. They are the ones enduring threats and harassment from foreign agents. All things considered, setting up a registry is the best option, precisely to protect members of the Chinese Canadian diaspora.

The Conservatives also propose that we close down these police stations. The problem is that there seem to be some discrepancies concerning what is really going on. The Minister of Public Safety told us on April 27 that all the Chinese police stations operating in Canada had been shut down. However, the media reports that calls made to these offices and agencies, like the Service à la famille chinoise du Grand Montréal, suggest they are still operating.

All the elements presented today are interrelated. Any single recommendation in the Conservatives' motion would not have an impact in and of itself. It would only reach its full potential in conjunction with the other recommendations. If the police stations have not been closed, it is because the law does not allow it. That is why it is important to also create a foreign agent registry, which will allow us to have some control over these police stations.

I would also like to mention that the issue of police stations is somewhat limited. We must tackle other issues and appropriate legislation would make that possible. For example, there are all the issues with economic threats, threats to Chinese Canadians' families who are still in China or, for example, everything connected to honeytraps, an influence tactic whereby a woman seduces a member of the community and then threatens to inform the person's family.

With regard to the expulsion of diplomats, once again, something could have been done but was not. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that it is difficult to expel foreign diplomats in the absence of sufficient evidence and that doing so would not be in keeping with the Vienna Convention. However, we know that the Vienna Convention allows for the expulsion of diplomats without any justification from the government, so this story about respecting or not respecting the Vienna Convention does not hold water. Former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint‑Jacques, and the former counsellor at the embassy, Charles Burton, both agree with the request and acknowledge that Canada does not have to provide an explanation for expelling diplomats, as the United States and Great Britain did when similar situations occurred there.

The fact that the government is saying that it will not expel diplomats sends the wrong message. It is as though the government is saying that they can continue with their threatening activities in Canada and that we will tolerate their intimidation.

Above all that, I would also like to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, which could have perhaps been included in today's motion, and that is the creation of an independent office on interference. That office would not answer to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Safety. It would answer to the House, a bit like the Auditor General does. That office would also have the advantage of being able to work outside election periods because interference does not just happen during elections.

An office with the power to investigate, search and arrest and the ability to work with CSIS and the RCMP would cut down on foreign interference and restore public confidence. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports today's Conservative Party recommendation in addition to the recommendations we have already made.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, so far this morning the members for Kingston and the Islands, Winnipeg North and Vancouver Granville all alleged that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew about the foreign interference and the threats to his family. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has stated that the briefing he received from CSIS was general in nature and did not contain any specific threats concerning a person in Canada, Mr. Wei Zhao, who was targeting the member and his family.

Why is it that the government continues to push the narrative that somehow the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is guilty regarding what took place?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not claim to be inside the government's head, nor do I wish to be. That said, I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am hearing conversations on both sides of the House.

I do not remember any questions being asked on the right side of the House, and I do not recall recognizing other members on the left side of the House to pose questions, aside from the member who has already spoken.

Therefore, I would ask members to be respectful while somebody else has the floor.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I do not claim to be inside the government's head, nor do I wish to be.

That said, I will reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech: The longer this drags on, the dirtier it gets and the more it becomes a partisan issue, when that is not what democracy should be. The longer the House continues to refuse to hold an independent public inquiry, the longer we will be embroiled in he-said-she-said debates, instead of putting measures in place to prevent foreign interference in the future. Unfortunately, we are mired in secrecy and innuendo, and the longer we delay creating an independent public commission, the more likely we are to descend into partisan squabbling, which, unfortunately, will not get anyone anywhere.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House saying anybody is guilty of anything. What we are saying is that the only person who had actually been briefed on this matter, with a defensive briefing received from CSIS, was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. What I also know is that the member who posed the last question also received a briefing from CSIS, as he indicated in a PROC committee once. I am just left to wonder who the other 47 MPs are who have received briefings, because a CSIS report that was tabled this morning said 49 MPs have been briefed.

I am wondering if the member for Saint-Jean could tell us if she is one of those 47 remaining MPs who received briefings.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is no but, in any case, I do not think the question is that relevant given the debate today.

The questions I am hearing from all sides concerning specific members just lead me to reiterate that this debate is becoming far too partisan, which serves no one, and certainly not democracy. That is why I urge all members to vote for the motion, because the main thing it is calling for is a transparent and independent public inquiry. That will allows us to move forward rather than get stuck in partisan politics and to address pressing problems that, if this continues, may not be resolved by the time the next election comes around.