Debates of May 4th, 2023

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

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for setting me up. I can hardly wait to hear what I have to say.

I was literally sitting here wondering what I could contribute to this debate. One of the hon. members talked about the chaos in this chamber. It is true. Question period was chaotic, and I have never seen the Speaker quite so animated or so angry. We have all contributed to the chaos that is here.

I actually wonder what Beijing thinks. In some respects, Beijing is having a good day, because we are fighting among ourselves. However, I have some confidence in colleagues that we can actually come to some point of resolution not only on the motion but also on the way in which we face the existential threat to the nation of Canada that is the government of China.

I think it is a fair observation that, as a nation, we have never faced such a threat from another nation. Another government wishes to turn us into a vassal, subservient state, a state where the belt and road literally apply to us. All roads lead to Beijing, and the belt is for our neck. That is the ultimate goal of the government of Beijing; stirring up chaos in our country is the technique. Part of me regrets participating in this debate, because in some manner, I am contributing to that chaos. As I said, I am rather hoping that by the end of the day, we may have some resolution or may at least be starting to move toward some resolution on how to deal with this existential threat.

I had the privilege of travelling to Taiwan with the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills a couple of weeks ago. I regard that member as a friend. I think that may be one of the first things that we could deal with. We are a little too partisan here. There are not many on that side who can say they have friends on this side, and there are not many on this side who can say that they have friends on that side. However, I do regard the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills as a friend. As a consequence of travelling with him in a delegation of 10 to Taiwan, all senior members of four parties, we had what I regard as an exemplary way in which Canadian parliamentarians can do good diplomacy and actually move the yardsticks in a serious area of diplomacy.

The hon. member and I, and other members of the delegation, I am sure, discussed the last election. Obviously, we did not get as far as some of the material that has come out in the last little while, but he was aware at the time that there were people who, strangely, were part of public events for him. We all live in a political environment. There are times when I do not know who is supporting me. I do not even know who is not supporting me. Sometimes, there are a lot of people who are not supporting me. That does not happen to anybody else, of course.

The point I want to make about the unanimity that is required in order to face this existential threat and to move our diplomatic interests forward is that we based part of our time in Taiwan on a unanimous report generated by the Canada-China committee. There are times when reports of committees hit the floor of the House and that is it. We never hear about them again. Interestingly, we took this report to Taiwan, and it was literally presented to the president by the chair of the committee. I will not say that she clutched it, but it was not too far from that. It was a show of unanimity by this Parliament and these parliamentarians, as well as a friendship to a government that is literally under an existential threat.

When we arrived, there were warplanes overhead, and there were warships surrounding the island. We all concluded that, frankly, one could learn a lot from the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese people in terms of how to respond to existential threats by the People's Republic of China. That is the first point I want to make. We do, for the sake of our nation, need to come to ground on the way in which we respond to misinformation, disinformation, interference and intimidation.

One of the points that comes up in the motion is the issue of police stations. There is one in my community. From all reports that we can gather in the public domain, it is an intimidation operation run from local Chinese diplomatic authorities, and it affects the diaspora community in ways that we probably cannot even imagine.

In that respect, I think the motion has merit. However, I would just point out to colleagues that if we are to have integrity ourselves, then we also need to let the police move as police move, which is basically on the basis of evidence. As much as I would like to light a fire under police authorities in my community, or the RCMP, as the case may be, using the rule of law is the way we operate in this country. I do not think that we should deviate from the rule of law and the way in which we prosecute, even if we are virtually unanimous in our view that these police stations need to be shut down.

The other area in which I agree is the foreign agent registry. I think we are moving forward on that. The minister is moving forward. I do not know if it is the be-all and end-all, but I think it is a useful thing to do. Other nations have adopted it. I just take note that the same Canada-China committee has adopted a motion that calls for the Government of Canada to prioritize the introduction of legislation to establish a foreign agent registry. Interestingly, that was a Liberal motion.

I hope that I have contributed to the conversation here today.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that there is an illegal Beijing police station operating in his riding. I presume that he has brought that to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety.

Last week, when the minister appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee, he repeatedly claimed that the RCMP had shut down all illegal police stations. That is not true. Either the minister does not know what is going on or he intentionally misled the committee.

Does the hon. member have concerns about that, and did he alert the minister to the illegal police station in his riding?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was not in my riding; it was in my community. Having said that, I had received assurances from the minister, as it is of concern, that the one in Scarborough has been dealt with. As far as I know, that is true.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not every day that we hear members waxing existential or philosophical. Unfortunately, that does not happen often enough in the House.

All of that raises the question of why. Why are we here? Why are we taking action? Rather than reducing the question to a vague “how-to”, I want to ask the member the following. Does he not believe that today's Conservative motion is an excellent opportunity to think about the reason for our action and to turn the chaos that I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the Chinese ideogram into an opportunity to reclaim control over our destiny?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, which is a good one: Why are we here?

The larger answer is that we as a nation, we as parliamentarians and even we as a government are flummoxed by how to deal with the way in which China intervenes routinely, regularly and massively in the fabric of our society. We have never, ever in the history of our nation faced such a threat. That is why we are here. I want to stress how important this motion is and it is symptomatic of our somewhat chaotic response to the threat to our democracy.

Again, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have asked myself “why?” a few times myself.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was one of the members who travelled with my colleague to Taiwan on that recent trip.

My concern now as we go forward is, how we deal with this perception by Canadians, and real perception, that our democracy is at risk, that our institutions are under attack and that Canadians are being threatened. When we hear things like the member just said, that there was a police station in his riding and he does not know what happened but he has been told it has been dealt with, it does not seem like that is the way that we are going to give Canadians confidence that this has actually been accurately taken care of. From my understanding, no one has been charged, there have been no arrests and nothing has been done.

I wonder what the member would suggest we do in order to rebuild confidence in our institutions, in order to rebuild confidence in our democracy and in order for Canadians of backgrounds from a variety of different countries to feel safe in our country again.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's contribution to our delegation in Taiwan.

The short answer is that I do not know how to answer the question. I know that is strange in this place. Everybody answers the questions and even answers questions that are not asked.

It is kind of trite, but true. We are at a bit of an inflection point on how to move forward democratically. I was asked by the press yesterday how I would conduct a future election and I now have to think about that. I now have to think about who is supporting me, who is contributing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will leave it at those questions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today in my role as the shadow minister for national defence for the official opposition. I agree with my colleague who just spoke that this is an issue that all members in this House should be engaged with. It is an issue that is definitely impacting each and everyone of us and our ability to represent our constituents without the fear of a foreign entity trying to intimidate us by threatening our families abroad.

As everyone knows, I have been an incredibly outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. I was in the original tranche of 13 members of Parliament and parliamentary Canadians who were sanctioned by Russia back in 2013. We are now witnessing a situation where one of our fellow colleagues, my friend, the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, has been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing and its foreign agents here in Canada, threatening him and his family back in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, what we see from the government is just dithering and delaying in the typical Liberal way when it comes down to doing things that are important to each and every Canadian.

National security and national defence responsibilities are paramount to the Government of Canada, yet we see a government that has not taken this issue seriously. It knew for two years that there was a legitimate threat made against the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We knew that the Communist regime in Beijing did not like the way he brought forward a motion to call out its activities against the Uyghur population in China as genocide, for which it decided to intimidate and sanction his family in Hong Kong.

The motion we have before us today lays out a path for our House and the government to finally act. It would create a foreign agent registry, similar to what we see in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. I would say, with respect to all the comments coming from the other side during the debate earlier today claiming that as Conservatives we did not do anything, that it only became an issue toward the end of our time in government, and that our platform for the 2015 election campaign called for the need to establish a foreign agent registry.

The second part of the motion calls for the establishment of a national public independent inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference, which we have been dealing with here now for several months once we found out that the Prime Minister had been briefed that seven MPs and their ridings had been targeted for foreign interference by the Communist regime in Beijing. Instead of having that independent public inquiry that the majority of members in this House have been asking for, the government went with a Liberal insider, someone who is a family friend of the Prime Minister's, with direct ties to the Trudeau Foundation, who is the former governor general David Johnston. Everyone is questioning the independent advice that will come from that process. That is why we need to move forward with a public inquiry to establish public confidence.

The motion also calls for the government to shut down all of the People's Republic of China's police stations that are operating in Canada. We know there are a couple in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal that are still open to this day. They may be observed by the RCMP, but we know for a fact that operatives of the Communist Party of China are using their diplomatic immunity in those stations to intimidate Chinese Canadians. That has to stop now.

Yesterday, the Falun Dafa, who are Falun Gong practitioners, were on the Hill standing for their rights and liberties that are being denied to them in mainland China, to stop the genocide against Falun Gong practitioners, and the illicit harvesting and trafficking of organs across the planet. Of course, the source of those organs are persecuted, executed and butchered Falun Gong practitioners.

Why have they been targeted by the regime in Beijing? It is because they had the right to assembly, which was denied them. They had their faith, which was denied them. They could not even come together to practise a faith that promotes tolerance, truthfulness and compassion, which are the founding principles of the Falun Gong doctrine.

The fourth and final part of this motion calls for the expulsion of all diplomats from the PRC who are responsible for the affront to all Canadians, including the member of Wellington—Halton Hills, for their attack on democracy and foreign interference right here Canada. Again, the government has made the argument that it cannot do it.

However, I can tell members for a fact that, under Stephen Harper when the Conservatives were in government, we had a similar situation with the Iranian regime here in Canada where it was using its diplomats to target and intimidate the Iranian diaspora right here in Canada. What did we do? We expelled every single diplomat. They were declared persona non grata. We shut down its embassy here in Ottawa. We shut down its consulates in Toronto and Vancouver. Now we have its properties that we will hopefully be able to use to actually compensate the Iranian families here in Canada who lost loved ones on the Ukrainian International Airline Flight PS752, which was shot down as a terrorist act by the Iranian regime. Of course, we continue to fight in here on having the government honour the motion that was passed in 2018 to call the IRGC a terrorist organization and that this entity should not be allowed to operate in any way, shape or form in Canada.

What we are living through right now is an affront to our democracy. It is an attack not just on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills but an attack on every single minister, every single member of Parliament and every single Canadian. If we are going to protect our democratic institutions, then we have to act now. Enough is enough. Yet, we have not seen a single diplomat from Beijing expelled by this government. We have not seen the government carry through on its promise to shut down the police stations that the PRC has opened across Canada. The government has not taken a single step forward in establishing a foreign agent registry.

What we saw earlier today was disgusting when the member for Winnipeg North played the victim blame game and tried to blame the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for not doing anything on information that he never received two years ago. We know that this government received information from CSIS, and we know that the government did not act upon that intelligence. CSIS said that the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was being threatened through information that it had gathered through signals intelligence, and yet the member for Winnipeg North stooped to a new low by trying to say that it was the fault of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. That is ridiculous.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

On a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is just outright and absolutely wrong.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The Speaker has ruled on the issue right after question period and will come back to the House if necessary.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can quote the parliamentary secretary to the House leader for the government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I remind the member that this issues was dealt with right after question period.

The hon. member has the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to lay out what the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, said at committee back in December of 2022.

She said, “The Prime Minister is briefed regularly. He's very interested in this subject and has directed work for agencies to do...We are briefing regularly, and those briefings are received and acted upon.” This is in relation to the Prime Minister getting briefed. Jody Thomas also went on to say that their are constant briefings to the Prime Minister. She said, “He's briefed on foreign interference when we have issues to raise to his attention. He has a daily foreign intelligence brief, and he has a weekly Prime Minister's intelligence brief.”

I am not saying Jody Thomas was involved in this, because Jody Thomas was not the national security adviser at the time, and I know that before her, there was a revolving door of national security advisers in the PCO.

The Prime Minister does get briefed. If he did not get this briefing, then shame on him. If he did not act upon it, he has responsibilities under our parliamentary process to make sure he gets that information as part of accountable government. He has not acted. He has failed Canadians, and he has not kept us safe.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Private Members' Business—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 19, by the deputy House leader of the government regarding Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.

On March 30, in a statement on the management of private members’ business, the Chair pointed out that Bill C-318, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, may infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The Speaker then invited members to make arguments regarding the need for the bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In her point of order, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-318 would add a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This benefit is not currently contemplated in the act and would result in a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 838, and I quote, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.”

The Chair has reviewed Bill C‑318 and found that clause 5 adds new section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons.

Implementing Bill C-318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.

In the meantime, the House is about to start debate on the second reading motion of the bill. This motion will be allowed to be put to a vote at the conclusion of that debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Foreign Interference and Alleged Intimidation of Member

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised Tuesday by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills concerning the alleged foreign intimidation.

Before beginning my remarks, I want to make some things very clear. When a foreign government attacks one of us, it attacks all of us. We must remain united against it.

I want to reiterate what my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, said on May 2 in the House to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We express our solidarity to him and his family and we will continue to work with him and all parliamentarians to make sure he and all parliamentarians get the support they need.

As the Minister of Public Safety has said, since we formed government, we have been vigilant in fighting against foreign interference and ensuring we have in place the people, resources, tools and oversight to defend our institutions, Parliament and Canadians. We will continue to do that work together.

On the specifics of what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills raised, I cannot comment, of course, on an intelligence leak that was the basis of the Globe and Mail's reporting on the alleged allegations by the Chinese government. However, I will raise a few points.

I will use an example of the situation of the question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent respecting the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying from a previous session. The member raised his question of privilege the day after the other members had raised other questions of privilege the day earlier. The Speaker at that time ruled that the member did not raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity and, therefore, declined to find a prima facie case due to this fact.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in his intervention, stated that he had not raised the matter at the earliest opportunity and stated:

Our authorities refer to the need for questions of privilege to be raised at the earliest opportunity in the House. While the Globe and Mail report was published yesterday morning, this afternoon is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of privilege. In fact, this afternoon is the first time I have been up in the House since the report was published in The Globe and Mail.

I would like to examine whether, in fact, the member was not able to raise this matter earlier. The day the Globe and Mail story broke, in the morning of May 1, the leader of the Conservative Party was able to ask at least 10 questions in Oral Questions on this matter. During Routine Proceedings on the morning of May 2, the House leader from the Conservative Party requested an emergency debate on the matter respecting foreign intimidation, which had been raised in question period earlier. The leader of the Conservative Party then ostensibly challenged the Speaker on his ruling to not allow the emergency debate to proceed. That afternoon, after the matter was raised repeatedly during question period, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills then finally, at 3:30 p.m., raised his question of privilege.

Given these facts, the statement that the member made that the afternoon of May 2 was the earliest opportunity to raise his question of privilege clearly stretches the limit of credulity. I take all members in this place at their word, but the sequence of events over Monday, May 1, and the morning May 2 raises serious questions about the veracity of the statement that 3:30 p.m. was, indeed, the earliest that this question could have been raised.

Although I cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the House, I would note that, now that we are in hybrid mode, there is no reason the member could not have raised the matter at the earliest opportunity, which would have been Monday morning, particularly as he stated that this matter is serious and grave.

If a member believes an issue is serious enough to constitute a prima facie case of privilege, he or she has an obligation to raise it at the earliest opportunity. The delay cannot be justified by a member wishing to conduct research to supplant his or her argument with various precedents to support, or to consult legal counsel.

The Speaker has, at his disposal, all relevant procedural precedents and access to procedural authorities to deal with this matter. The precedents are crystal clear. A member must raise the issue at the earliest opportunity. This did not occur in this instance.

The actions that allegedly took place, according to a leaked document as it relates to the member's family abroad, outside of Canada, beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament to deal with.

Finally, since these are uncorroborated statements that were allegedly leaked by a member of Canada's security services, it is impossible for the House to confirm the facts in this instance. As the Globe and Mail story stated, the individual would not disclose their identity so as to not breach the Security of Information Act. Allegations that the House cannot corroborate can never serve as a determinative means to establish a prima facie case of privilege.

Moreover, on Monday, May 1, the Prime Minister asked senior officials to consider the matter immediately.

I therefore conclude that this matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, and uncorroborated allegations should not be seen as meeting the high threshold for a Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege.

Before I conclude, I would also like to set the record straight about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' assertion that the government did not tell him about the Chinese government's alleged actions.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister became aware of the matter following the story that appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 1. On May 2, security officials also briefed the member on all the information that could be provided.

Additionally, the member has received briefings from CSIS on a number of occasions regarding the fact that his work makes him a target of foreign governments. Unfortunately, we live in a time when many foreign governments are targeting democratically elected members of the House. Going forward, we have made it clear to CSIS that, in cases of threats to an MP or their family, regardless of a level of concern, the MP should be briefed quickly and thoroughly.

This is not a partisan issue. We must all work together to defend our institutions, the communities and, most importantly, the parliamentarians who serve on behalf of their communities to protect our democracy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the added information, which will be included with the other information previously provided to be considered for the upcoming response.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary time of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 o'clock midnight pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.

Bill S-5—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Madam Speaker, I would further put forward that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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