Debates of May 4th, 2023

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Order. I am just going to sit down.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the briefing was about.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Apologize, you joke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize for saying that he—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are done.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the hon. member, in his defence, mentioned coming in 15 seconds before the member for St. Albert—Edmonton stopped speaking. I will point out that it was the precise moment that chaos descended on this conversation. It was his question for the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton that triggered the condescension and mockery among his colleagues over here. It was his question where he talked about the member's being "supposedly affected“, which he apologized for unreservedly but reservedly a few minutes ago, and that was what triggered the other parliamentary secretary to the House leader, though it is hard to keep track of the parliamentary secretaries to the House leader over there, the member for Winnipeg North, who then said to his laughing colleagues that the member is not credible, talking about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is highly irregular for a member to be able to stand up and then, an hour or two hours later, try to reflect what I might have said from my seat. I would suggest that the member needs to look at what the leader of the Conservative Party was heckling at the Speaker yesterday or at the Prime Minister the day before.

If they want to talk about behaviour and inappropriate language in Parliament, they can look at what the leader of the Conservative Party does on an ongoing basis. That is what one should be ashamed of. If anyone owes an apology, it is the leader of the Conservative Party who owes an apology to the Prime Minister of Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not know what is going on here. We all have set times in opposition debates and we all have the opportunity to get our thoughts forward. There are members on the list.

All those who wish to speak should have an opportunity to speak and to present their thoughts about the motion being debated.

All members will get to speak if they do not interrupt each other or stand on these points of order for clarification. Maybe we can do that for a little while. Let us try with a few members and see how that goes in this opposition debate today.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Let us look at the context of the conversations we are having right now. There is a member of the House of Commons, a colleague who is well respected by members on all sides, whose family has been threatened and who clearly did not know about the situation.

Earlier in the debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew about it for two years. He then asked if the member had done anything on the issue. How is he supposed to do anything on the issue?

Here is the situation. There was a general briefing. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that dozens of members of Parliament received these general briefings, which highlights the fact it was a general briefing.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said that at no point was he ever informed that Wei Zhao was targeting he and his family. Meanwhile, to be clear, this individual, Wei Zhao, has not been expelled by the government even though it has known about this for two years. He was absolutely free to travel across the country and gather information that he could use against the member and his family, and the government has done absolutely nothing about it.

It is not a stretch for us to imagine what that would be like. This is not about any one specific person, because Canadians of Chinese origin across the country have been victims of this. Their families in the PRC have been victims of this. The government, despite the fact it has known about it for two years, has done absolutely nothing about it. Then hon. members have had the absolute gall to stand in the House today and blame the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for this.

It is very rare for members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP to agree on anything, but it is very clear today that we are in vast agreement on this. I think it is mind-numbing for all of us to think that the government, the party in power that was elected by Canadians, as unfortunate as we might think that is, is not on the same page when it comes to defending Canadians. Rather, it has come into the House today with a very clear strategy of sowing chaos and blaming the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills.

I think most of us are probably going to change the talking points, notes and speeches we have come here with because of the tone set by the two parliamentary secretaries, two members of the Liberal Party in the Liberal leadership team, who have come into the House with a very deliberate strategy. They have apologized for some of it, but they continue to get up and continue in that same vein.

I hope, from this point on, that the tenor of the debate will change today. I hope I see it in the questions I will asked by the Liberal members during my Q and A. Hopefully, we can move forward, as an entire House of Commons, in solidarity with the Chinese Canadians living in every corner of our country, including several members of the House who have been targeted by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, regardless of their political stripe, and support this very important motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, CSIS is the deciding authority that ultimately determines what is brought to a higher level. CSIS did not make the Prime Minister aware of this until Monday of this week, yet the Conservatives have been accusing the Prime Minister of hiding.

The member is asking for members of this side of the House to apologize. He should look in a mirror. Does he not see the hypocrisy that is oozing? Is the Prime Minister not owed an apology, a collective apology from members of the Conservative Party, for their behaviour on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most ridiculous questions I have ever heard in the House of Commons. We are talking about a member of Parliament who is serving in the government.

We all wish we were serving in the government, but we are not. There is one government. There is one Prime Minister. All of this has happened under that Prime Minister's watch. The government has known for two years about this situation and it has done absolutely nothing.

That member should be ashamed to get up in the House and ask that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just rhetorically asked the question, “You only have to tell the truth when you are in government then.” To which the response, through a heckle, was “That's right.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order. It is not something I heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, the member said, “It's when the government has to tell the truth” and I said, “You should try that.”

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

No, that's not true. You know it, Warren.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the clarifications. There is a lot of clarifications today.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a suggestion. Maybe we should reserve a room and shut the Conservatives and the Liberals in it with a bucket of water to slake their thirst until they resolve their issue so we can carry on debating like grown-ups here.

The member who spoke just now said that we all wish we were serving in the government. I beg to differ. The 32 Bloc members do not aspire to be in government. Nevertheless, we do like collaborating when doing so is in Quebec's interest. My question for my colleague is about today's debate on the Conservatives' opposition day motion.

When people come to Parliament Hill to meet with MPs and government members, that is called lobbying. They have to register in a registry. People want to know who is here trying to influence politicians. Why does Canada not have a foreign agent registry like other countries? Our neighbour, the United States, has had one since 1938. Such registries enable officials to identify more quickly people who may engage in dubious tactics, such as opening Chinese police stations.

Why does Canada not have a foreign agent registry like the U.S. does?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally get this fired up in here. There is a lot of people who get very fired up in here, but usually I try to avoid my hockey side, in a sense.

However, to the hon. member's point, I came in today expecting to discuss a motion that I thought would be unanimously supported. If we take a look at what is in the motion, including the measures on the registry and on closing communist China-run police stations in our country, I thought we would have common agreement here. I did not expect to come in and be heckled and mocked by Liberal members of Parliament, especially members of the Liberal leadership team.

I am hoping, again, that we can move forward with this conversation in a more constructive way and get to the heart of what is a very thoughtful motion that hopefully everybody in the House can support.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am going to express my concern that the level that this debate has descended to in the House actually does much of the work of foreign powers that would like to disrupt our democracy.

Instead of focusing on the very good proposals put forward by the Conservatives in their motion today, which I do support, the debate has been of such a calibre that we lose sight of those things and how adopting those measures would help us counter foreign influence from China and other powers.

I would like to give the member a chance to talk about the content of the Conservative motion today, which I fully support.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are four main elements of the motion. There is some preamble, which is really important, but the four main elements speak to things that should be universally supported. I think Canadians across the country will support them and I am glad to hear that the NDP and Bloc support them as well.

The four elements are: creating a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the U.S.; having a national public inquiry, which seems like common sense given the circumstance that we are in right now; closing down foreign run police stations, which should be a pretty easy thing for us to agree on; and, finally, expelling the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy.

Hopefully, we can all agree on those things.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this gravely serious issue today, the threats to our beloved country’s sovereignty and security presented by foreign, state-backed interference, especially such interference originating in Beijing. This is the primary defining security threat of our country in this time. Foreign state-backed interference seeks to undermine our sovereignty by co-opting and dominating our institutions through a variety of means, both carrots and sticks.

People of all ethnocultural backgrounds can be impacted by foreign interference, but members of diaspora communities are particularly vulnerable to threats from foreign powers if they have close friends or family members living in the state that is seeking to influence or intimidate these Canadians. We should stand together, stand with all victims of foreign interference and implement the effective measures required.

The government has been profoundly weak in its response to foreign interference. It has been worse than weak. In certain cases, members of the government have been complicit. I recall the time John McCallum spoke publicly to say that, in his view, the Liberal Party was better for relations with the PRC. Therefore, the PRC should take certain actions, or not take certain actions, that would be useful to the Liberal Party in a lead-up to the election. Those were explicit comments made by the former ambassador to China, the former immigration minister, speaking on the record. The reality is that many of those conversations, I am sure, happened behind closed doors. We have heard so much about the frustration within our intelligence agencies about the weak response from the government.

This is not a new issue. When I was first elected in 2015, I started engaging with members of different communities in different parts of the country, and foreign, state-backed interference was top of the list of concerns. This was not just from one community, but from many communities. They were very concerned about threats within their communities coming from foreign governments and how they undermined their security. They often involved threats to family members in other countries.

The problem of foreign interference requires us to change the way we think about national security threats. There are many ways of framing the new understanding we need to have, but at this point, it is both honest and illuminating to describe the challenges we face in the world today as something of a new cold war. Although different in many respects, our current reality has many of the same features as the Cold War. We greet this reality with no relish, but this new era of global tensions and conflict is one we must, with sadness, recognize.

The world has now two clear blocs of nations that are engaged in both strategic and ideological conflict, each in hopes of creating a world that is more inclined to its own kind of political system, and we have varying degrees of non-alignment within those blocs.

If I were to describe those blocs, on the one hand we have the community of free democracies that believe in, though perhaps do not always perfectly practise, the ideas of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The largest of these countries is of course the United States, but Canada is a key part of this community of free democracies, and this community includes other nations on various continents and of varying income levels.

On the other hand, we have a community of revisionist neo-imperial powers. This community of nations does not have the same ideological clarity around its objectives as the free democratic world does, or even what the old Communist bloc did, but what unites this revisionist neo-imperial community is its collective rejection of the core ideas championed by free democracies. The revisionist bloc challenges the idea that freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law are essential for political communities. It especially rejects the international rule of law, the idea that states should not be able to acquire territory through the force of arms and without the consent of the people affected.

Beijing’s Communist Party is the primary player in this bloc, but it includes other players, most notably Moscow and Tehran. These other powers of course exercise individual agency and have distinct objectives, but they share a common antipathy to western democracy and oppose the idea of an international rule of law binding neo-imperial powers. They are also increasingly working together. Between these two blocs of nations, we see many of the dynamics of cold war competition have re-emerged.

While I want to focus on the issue of foreign interference, I want to parenthetically say that one key area of cold war-style competition is the area of international development and engagement with countries, more broadly, those in the global south. A sad reality of western engagement in Africa is that the memory of western colonization is still very fresh, and the claims of western nations to represent rule of law and respect for national sovereignty can sometimes sound very hollow in light of that reality.

This is one of the reasons Beijing and Moscow have had success building influence in Africa, but this is not the only reason. Many African nations face serious challenges that require immediate solutions. They desperately respond to the overtures of those who offer even short-term solutions in areas such as infrastructure and security.

In the long run, the neo-imperial powers have imperialist designs in the global south as well. They are, in fact, using the old imperial tool kit to establish their control, but those long-term considerations can end up taking a back seat to short-term needs, especially when elites in the global south are also subject to influence operations.

Western engagement with the global south needs to grow in this context, and it needs to emphasize collaboration on solutions to real-world problems that African nations and other nations in the global south identify with. Strengthening the hand of freedom and democracy in the world today requires us to win the hearts and minds of the in-between nations that are deciding whether to align with the community of free nations or to align with the revisionist neo-imperial ones.

Our efforts to win over the swing states of this new cold war must involve building substantial and mutually beneficial relationships based on mutual understanding. They must be based on a will to genuinely live out a commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That policy will make us friends, if not with governments everywhere, then certainly with ordinary people everywhere.

On the issue of foreign interference here in Canada, though, ideological influence operations have always been a part of warfare, but they escalated during the Cold War and have escalated since. During the last Cold War, nations which sought to represent certain ideas would seek to convince people elsewhere to buy into those ideas and then be helpful in the advancement of those ideals.

Today, the ideological competition and influence operation dynamics are different because of the lack of ideological clarity within the revisionist neo-imperial block. They have become both more sophisticated and more crude. They are more sophisticated in the sense that they try to use a variety of different, and even contradictory, arguments to try to advance their strategic objectives. However, they are also more crude in the sense that, without a unifying ideology, neo-imperial revisionist powers often resort to effective bribery and threats much more than persuasion.

We see the reality in this new global context. The multiplication of foreign interference operations here in Canada through the designs of revisionist neo-authoritarian powers are not geographically limited. They are not just limited to their so-called mere periphery. Indeed, the comprehensiveness of influence operations here in Canada underlines that the threat to free democracies is direct and existential.

The bottom line for Canada then is that we cannot put our head in the sand to pretend that these realities do not exist. We need a comprehensive and principled response to this new reality that includes military spending, strengthened engagement in the global south and, most crucially, a comprehensive plan to combat foreign, state-backed interference right here on our own soil.

Our motion puts forward concrete tools for doing this, such as creating a foreign agent registry, similar to the United States and Australia; establishing a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference operations; closing down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China that are operating in Canada; and expelling all foreign diplomats, particularly those from the PRC, responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy.

This has been a long-running issue, but since it has arisen in public discussion, we have seen no action by the government in expelling foreign diplomats who are involved in these threats. We know the names. In the case of the threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, we know the name of the person involved in that interference.

We had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the foreign affairs committee today. She was asked why she has not expelled the diplomat. Essentially, she said that they are still studying and considering this issue. She went on to say that they have to consider possible retaliation. The implication of that is that the government is cautious or reluctant to hold accountable the foreign diplomats who are threatening Canadians because they are afraid there might be some kind of response. To think that, to say that and to be so behind the eight ball in its response projects such weakness and increases our vulnerability.

The government has failed to act. It has failed to inform people who are being victimized, not just the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but others as well. It has failed to create the systems that allow victims to have the support they require. It has failed to expel diplomats. It has failed to establish the kinds of legal frameworks we need to protect the victims of this practice.

That leaves us wondering why. Why has the government failed to act? I think there are three possible explanations. One is naivety. It just does not know. Another is infiltration. The government is compromised, which prevents it from actually responding to a problem. The third is a philosophical weakness that makes it unwilling to confront the authoritarian threats we are facing in this emerging new cold war.

Naivety could have been an explanation for a lot of the lead-up time, but it is too late to plead naivety. It is too late to say it did not know. “You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know”, as Wilberforce put it, because the facts are on the table now. The government was too naive for too long but it is too late for it to claim naivety. Now, it knows that it knew two years ago, in the case of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and it failed to act.

We know there have been issues of infiltration, but there is also a profound philosophical weakness, an unwillingness to project the kind of strength that is required to stand up to the threats we face in the world today. It is a refusal to take action that it knows is necessary by standing up to the PRC, expelling diplomats, expelling those involved in foreign interference and undertaking the measures that are required. The government needs to act, or the government needs to change.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on the motion the Conservatives have brought before the House today, the only one of the four demands I really see as problematic is that calling for the establishment of the national public inquiry.

When this was first being discussed in the PROC committee, of which I am a sitting member, I actually thought, yes, it made sense to have a national public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. The problem is that, witness after witness who are privy to this sensitive information and understand how information would be provided and where information should and should not be provided, kept telling the committee, time after time that, no, a public inquiry would not be successful because we would be trying to put information in the public domain that cannot be discussed there for national security issues.

Could the member explain why it is that Conservatives, and indeed, the Bloc and the NDP, cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the experts are advising against that course of action?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the critical tools we have in the fight against foreign interference is sunlight. When we expose the efforts of foreign powers to influence this country, not in every case but in many cases, it undermines the ability of those efforts and that interference to be effective. This is well established. In fact, many other countries intentionally choose to declassify swaths of information with the objective of undermining that foreign interference. The problem here in Canada is that, we not only see the use of sunlight in this strategic way, but we also see the government using national security as an excuse to not share information, when in reality that information would be about holding it accountable.

We have a major crisis of public confidence in this country around the issue of foreign interference. We had the foreign affairs minister telling the committee today that she only found out about threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills through the news. Apparently, Bob Fife and Steven Chase are getting better information about our national security from our intelligence agencies than our ministers.

We clearly have a problem. This is why, from time to time, as a nation we have used the tool of national inquiries to get to the bottom of serious crises in public confidence to allow us to get to the bottom of issues and propel forward the kinds of solutions we need.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech. I did not have a problem with his speech, but I do have a problem with the fact that the members opposite are telling us that we, as an opposition party, understand nothing.

The government does not seem to understand that a public inquiry would be a transparent, democratic way of getting to the bottom of something that is having a serious impact on our democracy.

On this side of the House, we understand nothing, but the other side seems sworn to secrecy. Is it convenient for the Liberal government to keep secret all of the information that should be made public?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

Clearly, in areas of national security, not everything can be shared publicly, but that should not be a carte blanche for the government to be able to call anything “national security” when it might not actually pose a risk, or to keep secret whatever information it, for its political interests, wants to keep secret.

Again, we clearly have a problem here of foreign interference and a lack of government action. Let us have a public inquiry where we have a leadership structure that all parties can agree on and a competent outside person investigating what the government is doing. It could make public what it could, of course, not making everything public, but that would provide an accountability function that the government wants to avoid right now. The government wants to keep the sharing of any of this information out of the public eye, not just because of national security, but also, I think, primarily because the motivation is that it does not want to be accountable.