Debates of May 4th, 2023

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask a question, but I just want to point out that I appreciate the quiet in here. I am really worried about the state of our democracy. The NDP first put forward the need for an independent public inquiry. The member for Vancouver East urged all parliamentarians not to be partisan and to bring the leaders to the table to pick somebody independent, chosen by all party leaders. The partisan bantering, including from the member for Winnipeg North, is a stage for all the foreign interference that is happening now.

In fact, I find it disturbing, particularly in the riding that he represents and my riding, which neighbours his, that there is all this anti-Asian hate happening. My colleague, the member for Vancouver East, spoke about how these kinds of debates impact people who look like her.

I appreciate the quiet and the decorum in the House right now. In terms of democracy, this is how it should be. I think this is good. Does the member across the way agree with the NDP that we need an independent public inquiry and that oversight by somebody who is agreed upon by all leaders of the political parties, the Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties, needs to happen?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, in my speech, that I made reference to any single country. It is quite possible I might have, but I did start off by making it very clear that there is no single country that participates in political interference and interventions in Canadian society. Rather, there are a multitude of different countries doing this. Moreover, Canada is not alone; there are other countries, whether Australia, the United States, European countries or other democracies, that also get interfered with by a wide variety of other countries.

I am very sensitive to the issue. I would suggest to the member that she might want to give serious consideration to having confidence in the former governor general doing the work he needs to do, which could ultimately lead us to have a public inquiry. He was a Stephen Harper government appointment as governor general.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is just it. After all we have learned in recent days and weeks, my question to the parliamentary secretary is this: At what point is it enough? At what point have we already learned enough information that we do not need to wait for recommendations from a rapporteur? When is the need for an independent public inquiry on foreign interference pretty clear? When do we say that enough is enough?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the former governor general, the hon. Mr. Johnston, in terms of his being able to look at what would be in Canada's best interest and how we can best proceed. If that means we have to be patient and wait an extra few weeks or a couple of months, I am quite prepared to be patient, knowing full well that at the end of the day, it could lead to a public inquiry, if it is deemed necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the 2022 public report by CSIS was tabled. In 2013, there was also a report tabled, and it was received by the then minister of democratic institutions, who happens to be the leader of the Conservative Party right now. That report said:

Canada, as an open, multicultural society, has traditionally been vulnerable to foreign interference activities. When diaspora groups in Canada are subjected to clandestine and deceptive manipulation by a foreign power in order for it to garner support for its policies and values, these activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada. As boundaries between foreign state and non-state actors become increasingly blurred, it is particularly challenging...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.

This was a report received by the member for Carleton. What did he do about it?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It sounded like the member was making a speech; it was supposed to be a question, which is limited in time. I would just like him to stick closer to the time.

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

It is questions and comments, so it does not necessarily need to go into a question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to correct my hon. colleague, who was the chair of the committee I was formerly on, and who I do not like to normally cross. It is not that he was making a speech. It is that every time he speaks it sounds like it is a speech because it seems to go on for so long. Maybe if he were briefer in his comments, it would be easier on all of us and we would not get confused.

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

We are going to descend into another major debate. How about we give the member a whole 59 seconds to respond?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to say that I agree with the comments the member across the way made.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor for one more minute and then I will move on to the next speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what it does is it reminds us all that foreign interference is not new in Canada. It has been around for more than a decade. CSIS has made us aware of it.

What is important to recognize is that this government, since 2015, has taken concrete steps toward providing assurances. There are many other opportunities for us to not only improve this system, but ultimately to work in an apolitical fashion, hopefully, through standing committees and other mechanisms, so we can all get onside and assure Canadians we have a democracy that is healthy, vibrant and that will be there for future generations.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is also always a pleasure and an honour to speak in the House, although today I feel dismayed that I am having to give this speech.

Obviously, people on this side of the House are quite angry. We are angry with what we have learned about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and what he has been through. As many others have said, I stand in solidarity with him. We stand in solidarity with him. I will commit to stand in solidarity with all members of the House, regardless of their party, if they suffer the same fate, even if it is the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg or the parliamentary secretary from Kingston and Islands, who have, in my view, with all due respect, belittled what that member has gone through with their comments today.

I want to pick up where the member for Winnipeg North just left off. He said that the Prime Minister took this seriously. Let us delve into that just a little. I was not going to go down this path, but since he opened the door, let us step right through it.

The Prime Minister does take this seriously, he says. I know that we, as Conservatives, take it seriously. I take it so seriously that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who I am sure takes it seriously as well.

However, as the member just said, the Prime Minister took this seriously. Why then did nothing happen until a Globe and Mail story with various leaks occurred? Is that the action of a prime minister who takes this seriously, waiting for a leak, waiting for Bob Fife to report? That is what caused the government to act, and that is a government that takes it seriously.

Forgive me if I am incredulous and question what I would characterize as a dubious assertion based on the fact that the government only took it seriously when it came to light that it was occurring. That is a government that was supposed to be transparent by default. It knew and did nothing until a newspaper leak came out, which is unacceptable, and then waited for weeks and weeks. The government put it off for weeks.

The Liberals might ask why I am yelling. I am yelling because we should all be angry. We should all be angry by what the member for Vancouver East spoke about in her speech. We should all be angry about what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is going through. We should all be angry that this came to light simply because of a leak. It is not proactive, not transparency by default, but self-serving politics, the precise thing that we were promised would not occur.

The member for Kingston and the Islands in his comments read from a 2013 memorandum or publication of some sort to point out what the Conservatives had not done. If it were such a big issue to the Liberals, why did they wait until 2023 to act? If they are going to trumpet what we did not do in 2013, and I do not recall a member of the House being threatened in the same way, if it was such a big deal then, why did they not act in the years between 2015 and 2023?

Kenny Chiu lost his seat. All of us have worked so hard to be here. All of us give up time with our families. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has served this country in public service for 23 years in the House. I cannot imagine the sacrifices he has made. We have all made sacrifices to be here, because we believe in this, yet it is not honoured. Kenny Chiu, somebody who made sacrifices to sit in the House with the green carpet likely lost his seat, as did others, due to electoral interference, and it was not on the government's radar until a leak. The Liberals were prepared to look the other way until a leak happened, yet we are supposed to believe the government takes electoral interference seriously.

As my colleague from the Green Party just said, “When is enough enough? When do we get an inquiry? When and at what threshold? Does another member of the House have to be targeted with intimidation, or three members? Does it have to be a Liberal member? Do there have to be actual consequences? I say this as somebody who, in a prior job and in this job, has seen criminal charges laid in respect of the work I do and the way people have dealt with me. When is enough enough?

If we want to talk about past Liberals, I believe it was Jean Chrétien who said that only 10 or 15 ridings were affected, that it was no big deal. Yes, it is a big deal because people have put their lives on the line to sit in the House. They have given up and sacrificed so much to be here. If it is one person who does not sit in the House because somebody prevented it, that is unacceptable, and I will stand with my Liberal colleagues, my Green Party colleagues, my Bloc colleagues, my NDP colleagues and my Conservative colleagues in saying that.

I touched on this very briefly, but I want to again recognize the member for Vancouver East for a very touching speech, speaking about racism. I have spoken about solidarity here. That is something on which we also have to stand in solidarity. I am a first-generation Canadian from a family that lived through fascism in Italy. We must all stand in solidarity.

I was told when I arrived here that there was partisanship and that we all would go back and forth in the House. As a lawyer, I understand that because it happens in court as well. However, at the end of the day, when somebody needs something, we are all going to be there. This is the time for all of us to be there.

What have we seen? We have seen a lack of action. The Conservative motion speaks for itself. What consequences have occurred as a result of something the government is not even denying happened? It is not even denying that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills went through this. Where are the consequences? I understand the foreign affairs minister appeared at committee this morning. I have not had a full briefing on what she said or reviewed her comments, but I really look forward to hearing from her, our highest diplomat, as to why nothing has occurred.

I want to deal with some of the fallacious and ridiculous arguments that have been made, one of which was by the member for Winnipeg North, who said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years. The question is whether that member has brought it up with the member for Calgary Midnapore or any member of the Conservative caucus. Has he brought it up inside the chamber? Has he done anything on the issue?”

With all due respect, it is not for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to do something. It is for the government to do something. It is for this chamber to do something. In fact, I will give the member my last 30 seconds if he is prepared to apologize for those comments. It does not look like he is prepared to apologize. They are shameful. It is absolutely shameful to say that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills should have done something.

Another argument was that 49 people were briefed. What a terrible argument. The fact that 49 people were briefed means that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills should have been aware, or whatever that means. It is a terrible argument.

Another argument was to blame Stephen Harper. That is one of my favourites. If we are to do that, we could go back to every prime minister, Liberal and Conservative, and ask why they did not do what we are doing in the House today. Things evolve. I do not recall this type of issue coming up with Prime Minister Harper.

The last argument is that there is no need for an inquiry. Again, I go back to the hon. member when he said, “When is enough enough?”

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his clear, accurate and glowing speech. What is happening right now with the Chinese interference is outrageous. The government is not telling us what is going on. The government is not being proactive. What is the government waiting for? When will it protect our democracy?

We also need to protect our citizens, our people, our elected officials and ourselves. I would like my colleague to further explain the situation, which is unclear to the government.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is not clear for the government. It seems to me that it is abundantly clear that there is a problem. There is such a problem and this government has governed by obfuscation. That is part of the problem.

It would rather that we not know, and I bring this up again, that it said it will govern by transparency.

The parliamentary secretary said that they have been clear with Canadians. No, they were clear with Canadians when they had a leak.

For weeks, for instance, we also asked who stayed in that $6,000-a-night hotel room and did not get an answer. Nothing is clear with the government.

To my hon. colleague, I do not know what it is waiting for. It certainly is not for transparency to knock on the door.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. The Prime Minister found out on Monday. Maybe the member can share with us: do we have any sense in terms of—

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

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising on a point of order.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the member gave a speech, he asked the member to apologize. He made the point a few times. The member said some extremely egregious things about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has impugned the integrity of the House and of that member. What has he done? He has—

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

That is a point of debate. That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question, in addressing the point of order, and ask the member this. Am I not accurate in saying that the member in question actually did get, I am told, not only one but multiple briefings? I suspect, like me, the member himself has no idea of what was actually the content of—

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

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, he is referencing the point of order. The fact of the matter is that if we are looking at that particular point, and there is something else that you should apologize for but, on a technicality, said it was not on the record, on that particular point, you said the Prime Minister had a briefing on Monday and then you said that the member got the same briefing two years ago.

The member did not get the same briefing that the Prime Minister got, and then you put it on the member and asked—

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

I need to remind folks to run it through the Chair and to not speak directly to the members. There is a reason why we have the Chair here.

That is not a point of order but I know the member for Winnipeg North does want to respond to it.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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 question that I posed to the member was: Can he please correct me if I am wrong? They are accusing me of saying misinformation.

Did I misquote, in any way, that the member did get a briefing?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the member did misstate. I will invite him, with my last 15 seconds, to apologize.

Here is what he said: “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years”.

Let us see what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said this morning. I am holding up a press conference here. The briefing was general in nature and did not contain any specific threats concerning a person in Canada.

I am paraphrasing next about the targeting of the hon. member and his family. He welcomed these briefings.

I am paraphrasing again. The government knew about this two years ago and it did nothing. It did not tell him about this particular individual and it did not expel this particular individual.

When the member says that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years, that is inaccurate. He received a general briefing. It is wrong that he knew what was actually occurring for two years, that he and his family were targeted.

I invite the hon. member to apologize.