Debates of May 8th, 2023

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of Parliament

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that if the member were to reflect on question period and the questions he asked, he made a very clear indication in saying the Prime Minister knew. In fact, the Prime Minister was very clear in indicating that the Prime Minister did not know. Therefore, does the member believe that members should be respected when they say that they did not know and that the member is spreading misinformation by telling people that the Prime Minister did know? The member could maybe reflect on that.

Does the member recognize that in 2022 there were 49 members of Parliament who had general briefings that were provided. Does he believe that 2022 was the only year or that, in fact, that might have been happening for a number of years prior?

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

Madam Speaker, I have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister did know. After all, the Prime Minister's national security adviser informed the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that the national security adviser to the PCO and all relevant departments had been briefed and similarly that this information absolutely would have made it to the Prime Minister.

Given the fact that the Prime Minister is responsible for the machinery of government and that he has special responsibilities for national security, if something as significant as this did not reach his desk and if he had set up a government that shielded him from being informed about this, that is no excuse. That is an indictment on this Prime Minister and underscores what I said in the conclusion of my speech, which is that he is completely unfit for the office that he serves and he is completely unfit to protect the national security interests of Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government admits that the Speaker of the House made the right ruling today. It is worth mentioning, but certainly a lot of questions remain unanswered. Why did this take so long? Why did they sidetrack the debate by appointing Mr. Johnston? Why not take the bull by the horns, as the saying goes?

Does my colleague agree that if this had been the case, we could have saved a lot of time in the House and we could have debated several other topics that directly affect our constituents, such as health, seniors, and climate change?

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

Madam Speaker, if we had a competent Prime Minister and a competent government that took national security seriously, two things would have happened following that July 21 CSIS assessment. First, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills would have been immediately informed that a Beijing diplomat was targeting the safety and security of his family and threatening his ability to do his job in this place on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of Canadians. Second, that diplomat would have been sent packing to Beijing immediately, and not two years after the fact.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some concerns about how we are going forward with this discussion and how we are building a stronger democracy in Canada. I know the member to be very thoughtful.

Can the member speak about the circumstances where we have to keep things private?

Regarding national security, we know not everything can be public. I am struggling right now. I am sure many people in this House are struggling with knowing where that line is and how we protect that very important public security line, but also have the ability to be transparent and also have the ability to ensure that parliamentarians know when they are at risk and when their families are at risk.

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

Madam Speaker, the member does raise a point, but I would submit that, under the government, the pendulum is way over on the other side: no transparency and no sunlight. The advice of CSIS to the Prime Minister has been that in order to combat foreign interference, there needs to be transparency and sunlight.

We have a situation so serious that a member of Parliament was being intimidated because of a position they took in this House and how they voted, and that their family was being threatened and sanctioned, potentially in Hong Kong, by an accredited diplomat in Canada.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills should have been made aware of it, the Canadian public should have been made aware of it and the Beijing diplomat should have been sent back to Beijing then, not two years after the fact.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the diplomat was expelled today, two years too late. He has been operating on Canadian soil for two years and the government knew about it.

Is the government negligent?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. The diplomat should have been expelled immediately and the government had all the tools at its disposal.

Article 9 of the Vienna Convention gives the government the unfettered discretion to expel any diplomat at any time for any reason.

The government did not do that. In doing that, it sent a message to Beijing that Beijing effectively has a green light to interfere in our democracy and our sovereignty to the detriment of the safety and security of Chinese Canadians and all Canadians.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton spoke about foreign interference with respect to one particular jurisdiction. Colleagues of ours, including the member for Edmonton Strathcona, have called out foreign interference with respect to other jurisdictions as well. Russia is one example.

Does the member for St. Albert—Edmonton feel we should be looking at a full national public inquiry into all matters of foreign interference, regardless of what jurisdiction it is from?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right that it is not only the Beijing regime that is a threat in terms of interfering in our sovereignty and our democracy. The Canadian security establishment, including CSIS, has been very clear that by far the biggest threat emanates from the Beijing regime.

There are other regimes, such as the Iranian regime that is interfering in Canada and intimidating and threatening Iranian Canadians. There is something the government could do to stop that, and that is to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity so it can stop recruiting, fundraising and intimidating Iranian Canadians.

However, the government's soft approach, four years after the House voted overwhelmingly to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, has not seen fit to do that. It is just another example of the government not taking national security seriously and not putting the interests of Canadians first.

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

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, while my hon. Conservative colleague was speaking, he was being heckled by members on the Liberal side, particularly the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Winnipeg North.

The member for Winnipeg North, in his heckle about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, said the member is not credible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is a point of order by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the last time the member stood up on this point of order, he crossed the floor and threatened—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Could I please hear them member out so I can see whether it is a point of order or not?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the last time the member stood up on this issue and commented on it, I raised it and then he walked across the floor and threatened me. The member said to me that he was going to continue to rise on this issue until I apologized for something I do not believe I have to apologize for. I do not believe a member crossing the floor and making those types of verbal threats is appropriate. I would ask that the Speaker look into the matter, as I indicated earlier, about what actions members are taking to try to intimidate members of the government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am going to review the Hansard, as I am sure the Speaker said when this was brought forward. We will check to see if the recording is in Hansard. I was not privy to this and we do not always hear everything that is going on in the chamber. I would ask members to be judicious in their language to each other and to be respectful. I know that this is a very important debate that can be very emotional at times.

I would ask the member to ask his brief question so we can get to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on the same point of order.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing I noticed is that when you were standing up, the member's light was still on. It is convention in this place, in fact it is a standing rule in this place, that when a Speaker rises from his or her chair, the lights are immediately cut off and the debate is ended. I just want clarification on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It all depends on whether I stay standing or not. Sometimes it is still on while I am listening to the member. I take note of it and we will certainly keep that in mind as we move forward.

I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin to ask a brief question so we can get to the answer.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I did walk across and said that if he did not apologize, I am going to keep asking the question, and I will keep asking the question—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to ask his question of the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton. We can leave this other debate to the side so that we can go back and look at the Hansard.

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

Madam Speaker, does the member believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North should stand right now and apologize for saying that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was not credible?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This is not becoming a point of debate as it is somebody's point of view. I am going to allow the hon. member to answer and then we are going to move on.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, in short, the answer to my colleague's question is yes.

Do members know who was intimidated? It is not the member for Winnipeg North. It is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and for two years the Prime Minister covered it up.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge the total hell that the family of our foreign affairs critic, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has been through. I also want to highlight and salute the courage he has shown in the face of threats from a foreign dictatorship. This should never have happened to any MP of any party. All Canadians are with him and his family. We wish them happiness and complete safety.

Unfortunately, a member, with the privileges of a member, told me something. I believe he will allow me to share it with my colleagues. How many families remain silent when faced with similar threats by this dictatorship? We have heard stories about this. Families of Chinese descent here in Canada, patriotic people who care about our country, tearfully asked our candidates, during the election, to go into their backyard, without their telephones, because they thought the regime was eavesdropping on them. Families are threatened by the police stations of a foreign dictatorship that exist across the country. We know that there are still at least two of them in Montreal.

The government has known about these threats for years. The Prime Minister and his government were aware that families were being threatened and that propaganda from a foreign dictatorship was being posted on social media. They knew that Canadians were being threatened. These individuals were being told not to vote for the Conservative Party in elections. Their families abroad were being threatened. The Liberals have known about all of these instances of interference for years. The government did absolutely nothing to stop it.

Instead, if any journalists asked about this, the government said they were racist in order to shut them down and avoid these kinds of questions. Our intelligence services had to leak it to the media. It is inconceivable that our intelligence services felt the need to give this confidential information to the media to inform the public of the Prime Minister's dangerous inaction. Why has the Prime Minister done nothing—and that is being generous—about this threat?

Allow me to list some possible explanations. We now know, thanks to our security intelligence services, that Beijing helped the Prime Minister win two elections. Is he happy to let this go on because the regime is helping the Liberal Party? Is he pleased to see it happen again in future elections because it would give him an edge? Are these the reasons he is doing nothing? Is it because he still admires the “basic dictatorship” of Communist China, to quote his words? Is it because Beijing donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation, the same foundation whose donors funded the Prime Minister's lavish vacations? Is it because he supports the regime's ideology? As he said himself, he admired Fidel Castro, another communist dictator.

Is it because the Liberal Party has corporate ties, financial ties, that have made members of the Liberal Party, including former prime minister Jean Chrétien, very rich?

We do not know why.

What we do know is that after he became Prime Minister of Canada, he went to Beijing. The dictatorship nicknamed him “little potato”. He was very proud of it. His foreign minister announced it to everyone and translated it from Mandarin to English to broadcast the fact that Beijing refers to our Prime Minister as the “little potato”. He is happy to be their “little potato” instead of our prime minister who protects our national security.

What we do know is that nothing has changed. After each and every Canadian learned that a member of Parliament had been threatened, it took one week for the Beijing agent who was responsible for those very threats to finally be expelled.

Then there was a motion in the House—