Debates of May 8th, 2023

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of Parliament

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that former member very well. He is in a neighbouring riding to mine. In fact, I used to represent his riding in another configuration, before redistribution.

I know the riding and its makeup well. I saw a lot of the comments that were made in the last election about that former member, on various platforms, such as that he was a traitor to his own ethnicity.

Currently, there is a campaign in British Columbia and nationally to call the request for a foreign agent registry “Chinese exclusion 2.0”. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is not what we are talking about in this request. However, these are the kinds of allegations that were thrown against the former member. He had a very hard time combatting them, because it was so pervasive that a lot of voters of Chinese ethnicity simply stayed home. They were too afraid to vote and certainly too afraid to vote for him.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the response to my last question. She indicated that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff did not know, and she questioned why on earth this information would not have made it up there, as it relates to any MP.

I think that is a very good question and something that, when this gets to committee, the committee could seek to clarify and understand. I certainly do not think it is something that just started. It is not as though the Prime Minister told CSIS not to bother telling him about anything that has to do with an MP. There were obviously thresholds and benchmarks that CSIS determined it needed to meet in order to elevate things to certain levels.

There may be other avenues we could explore to further enhance our protection and ensure that interference like this does not occur. In the vein of trying to better protect members of Parliament in relation to these types of activities, could the member comment on other avenues that the PROC committee might want to explore when doing their work?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent suggestion that it go to this particular committee, because this committee has dealt with these issues and similar ones before. Of course, I do not suggest what questions they would ask, but they need to explore how this all came about in the first place, where the gaps are in knowledge, why those gaps exist, why steps were not taken when they needed to be taken and what mechanisms need to be in place to make sure that the decision-makers know what they need to know to protect us in this House.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, exactly 182 days have passed since November 7, the date on which Global News reporter Sam Cooper informed the public that China's united front work department had attempted to influence the 2019 election. Then, we learned from other media outlets that China had also attempted to influence the 2021 election.

I cannot emphasize enough how serious these allegations are. The cornerstone of our society is that we are a strong, proud democracy that has thrived for over one hundred years. There are 338 MPs in the House of Commons, and we represent the people.

I am a sovereignist who serves as a member of a Parliament that I do not really want to serve in because I want Quebec to be independent. Everyone knows that. If I am in the House today, it is because our democracy is mature enough and healthy enough that I can stand before you and be heard without being booed or removed because I am free to speak my mind, just as all members in the House should always be. What is happening right now? Where are we at today?

We know that a whistle-blower, who is said to be a Liberal, felt he had to disclose information to the mainstream media because he was concerned that the government was not doing enough. This CSIS official is watching the debates—especially now, with everything that is happening with respect to my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills—and can see how the Liberal Party is treating this file with disdain.

This official knows the truth, the quality of the information provided and the fact that the highest levels of Canadian government are not taking this seriously. We see that even though his agency alerted the Prime Minister 100 times, nothing is being done. Yes, ministers did come to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. They told us nothing. At best, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Public Safety told us that everything was fine and that they knew nothing prior to this. Afterwards, they told us that they did know and they took action. They have been telling us that, since 2015, everything is fine and that the system works.

I see this as a house under construction. Before, there were walls; then, in 2015, the government decided to install windows and doors. However, the roof is a nice tarp. Yes, they did something, but the rain still gets in.

I want to highlight the work of Robert Fife and Steven Chase who, frankly, remind me of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They were the ones who wrote about the Watergate scandal, the story that was the downfall of Richard Nixon. I am just saying.

It took the work of a journalist, we know how it goes, to find sources, analyze what was said and understand the system. This was all done for the common good and in the collective interest. Knowing all that, I cannot look my constituents in the eye and tell them that I am reassured by the defence of our democracy. I cannot. I am saying this with an abundance of partisanship, as if we engaged in a lot of partisanship in the Bloc Québécois. Yes, I am a partisan supporter of safeguarding democracy. There, I said it.

For weeks now, the opposition parties have been calling for an independent public commission of inquiry into foreign interference in our democratic process. The government is turning a deaf ear. We are being told to wait until May 23. We will see.

The government tells us that the Rosenberg report does not point to any serious breaches or highlight any areas of concern. Then, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Morris Rosenberg demonstrated to us that he is definitely not the right person to analyze the issue of Chinese interference in Canada.

At the same time, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, is leaking documents to the press because the government is not taking the threat seriously. That said, it was not through leaks that we were informed that a member of Canada's House of Commons, who was duly elected in a democracy that claims to be healthy and mature, is being watched by an agent of the People's Republic of China. We did not know that.

Is this a road show? A comedy act? It feels like a bad spy movie where no one knows how to do their job.

I think that now would be a good time to launch an independent commission of public inquiry, rather than waiting for a possible May 23 announcement from the special rapporteur, Mr. Johnston. Looking at the big picture, one has to wonder how it is that Morris Rosenberg and CSIS did not come to the same conclusion. Mr. Rosenberg found that the threshold, the infamous threshold, for launching a public inquiry had not been met. As for the CSIS agents who are supposed to protect the country, they had to turn to the media because nobody was doing anything. Is anyone on the government side actually concerned? Do any of them see this as urgent?

It is not just Quebec sovereignists who are concerned. We have learned that the Americans have been interested in China's activities on Canadian soil for 20 years, because the United States considers these activities to be a threat to the security of the North American continent, pure and simple. Our closest ally, our neighbour, is worried about our ability to keep those who wish us harm at bay. For 20 years, the Americans have been worried about the presence of disruptive united front agents. Canada has had four prime ministers in the past twenty years.

One has to wonder what these four successive governments have done since 2003 to ensure Canadian sovereignty. It is crazy that a Quebec separatist is worried about Canada's sovereignty. It is laughable.

This is not just a national issue, but a continental one as well. We are responsible for securing our part of the continent. Of course, that includes physically defending it through NORAD, but also defending those things that may not be tangible but are just as important, namely, our system of laws and our democratic system.

We are talking about defending the continent but also about our standing with our Five Eyes allies. I bet that if the United States is worried, then Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom likely are as well. Are we the weakest link in the group? I would like to know.

Just today, we learned from Robert Fife and Steven Chase that the government wants to join AUKUS, the military alliance between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. We were excluded. Why? Perhaps it is because we cannot be trusted. The answer is obvious.

I do not want to know just to get on the government's case. I want to know because, as legislators, we need to know the truth about how deeply Chinese spies have infiltrated our system.

We need to get to the truth in order to work together on building a 21st century defence against disruption attempts by states that want to harm us. Australia has the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The United States has the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The United Kingdom has its Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. In Canada, all we know is that the clerk of the Privy Council advised the Prime Minister to put such a registry in place. She told us that in committee.

We even know, again thanks to the journalists, that the Prime Minister had an exchange on the subject with the Australian Prime Minister in June 2022 and nothing was done.

In the European Parliament, a special committee on foreign interference was launched in 2021. The report was tabled a year ago. The facts are all there: Russia and China are among the biggest threats to western liberal democracies. The ties of high-ranking European politicians were cited in the report as being a systemic problem. Diasporas are manipulated, misinformed, used and diminished. We need to protect them.

It has been 182 days of water torture for the government. How is it managing? I do not know. The Liberals have been changing their tune for 182 days. They know, they do not know. For 182 days they have been telling us that they took action in the past. Yes, I do have the document. We would not be here today if all was well. Action must be taken to protect democracy. This prompts me to ask, what are they going to do starting now?

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs we have been hearing for weeks that Canada's defence system is not robust enough. David Mulroney, former ambassador to China, told us that Canada's defence system is the equivalent of the Maginot Line. For context, the Maginot Line was an array of defence structures comprised of fortifications and trenches along France's eastern border between Belgium and Italy. It was supposed to protect France from an attack from the east. How did the Nazis invade France in June 1940? They entered via the Ardennes, where the French believed there would be no threat.

Then the government members say that everything is fine. They might as well laugh in our faces. The Liberals can laugh at me all they want; I can take it and I will get over it. However, laughing at our constituents is highly problematic.

Let us get back to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. If this ever happens to me, I hope the government, CSIS or the RCMP would tell me that I am a specific target of a foreign government, that my family is at risk. In a democracy, freedom of expression is fundamental. Still, the government is allowing an openly hostile state to intimidate the family of a Canadian MP. Is it honestly allowing this to happen because it is an opposition concern, so it is not a big deal?

I sincerely and perhaps naively thought that, across party lines, we were all democrats. This government must have the courage to act. It needs to act swiftly and firmly. We know that the government, the party in power, has been lax. How is it that an individual reported by CSIS as having close and worrisome ties to the consul general of the People's Republic of China in Toronto was allowed to run for office like everyone else who sits here and is elected as a member of a political party?

Candidates have to win the nomination for their party. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we saw that, at the returning officer's office, candidates must have in their possession a declaration from their party leader indicating they are officially the candidate for that party. My question is this. Why did the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada sign a document allowing a man close to China's spy network in Canada to run for the Liberal Party?

The Prime Minister and his government will pay a high political price for their inaction and lack of consideration for voters' concerns. What is most worrisome is the heavy burden that will be placed on Canadian democracy. Democracy is being abused throughout the western world. I am very concerned and I know other people are too, but something can be done.

Everywhere, the far right is trying to restrict the right to vote, take away free speech, silence opponents. I have no desire for that here. As a legislator, I cannot betray the oath of allegiance that I personally swore to democracy and the values it represents.

Once again, Canada is falling short. Once again, Canada disappoints. Once again, I say to myself that Quebec would be so much better off if Quebec's National Assembly took the reins of our nation's destiny. The situation is critical, the allegations are serious, and subversive action is being taken against our citizens.

First, I call on the Prime Minister to immediately launch an independent public inquiry to fully and completely explore the issue of foreign interference. Second, I call on the government to introduce foreign interference legislation. Third, I call on the government to establish an independent office of inquiry into foreign political activity. Fourth, I call for the establishment of a foreign agent registry to ensure that no member of the House is ever again intimidated by a foreign state and that meaningful steps are taken to protect members of Parliament.

Finally, with respect to everything I have just said, we truly cannot wait any longer. We must act with conscience and dignity. The Prime Minister must shoulder his responsibilities. The government must shoulder its responsibilities. From this point forward, the government must act for the future.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I note that both Conservatives and the Bloc are calling for a national inquiry into the foreign interference. I am just wondering what she thinks the government is waiting for before it calls this national inquiry.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, from what I understood, they are trying to buy time. If there was any real desire to shed light on this and confidence in what has been done, they would act quickly so as to set the record straight for our constituents. Only those who are not sure whether they are sure and who now know what they did not know before need to buy time.

That is why the government delegated all this to a special rapporteur selected by the Prime Minister. The special rapporteur is being left with this responsibility and being asked to report on it. The House is being told that we will talk about it again on May 23, and until then maybe we could work on other things since there are so many other, more pressing matters. Now, however, we wait. We keep going because the situation is critical. One thing leads to another, week after week, we keep finding out more.

My answer to my colleague is this. When someone is confident that everything is fine, they have no qualms at all about calling an independent public inquiry as soon as possible to reassure the public.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are having a very important debate tonight. We have been discussing the topic of foreign interference for a couple of days and the importance of protecting democracy. During these days, I have heard heckling across the floor and name-calling. At a time when we see threats to our democracy, now is not a time for that. Now is a time for all of us to come together to protect democracy but also to protect each other as members of Parliament.

We have a right to do this job and be safe, and I certainly would not want to see any violence perpetrated on any of my colleagues. This is not partisan for me, which is one of the reasons why the NDP, and certainly the member for Vancouver East, called on the leaders of all parties to come together to pick an independent person, to pick somebody who could oversee an independent public inquiry.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague agrees with me that we need an independent public inquiry and that the person to oversee it should be chosen by all parties so that we can work together across party lines to protect democracy.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was the very essence of what we recommended.

When I speak to my children, I tell them that if they want impartiality, they must agree to choose a person who will get to the bottom of things. Otherwise, if one person chooses someone, there is something fishy going on. It is possible that everything will be fine in the end, but there is too much ambiguity.

Had we in the House chosen from the outset an independent person to get to the bottom of things, we would already have introduced a bill and worked on it to create the registry. We have been wasting time and that has affected people's trust. It is going to take a lot to recover from this, because this situation has been dragging on for 182 days.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on several committees with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle. I would like to ask her a simple question. She said that she would have preferred to see the Prime Minister launch a public inquiry. Would she have been on board with the idea of the Prime Minister determining the parameters of that public inquiry she is calling for?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are many worthwhile suggestions, but if the government wants to instill confidence, then it needs to be more neutral. If the government wants to show that what it is doing is not partisan, then it needs to be as neutral and impartial as possible for the sake of democracy and for the sake of all Quebeckers and Canadians. In order to do that, the first step is for the House to choose an individual that everyone can agree on.

Then, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or another committee can look at the rules regarding state secrets, because it is only appropriate that they be respected. If the government had done it this way from the start, we would not be here tonight until midnight.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for painting such a clear picture of the doubts that unfortunately prevail in the House. As she indicated, the government has certainly taken its sweet time on this.

We were told that Ottawa could not act quickly because of the potential consequences. Obviously, every action has consequences. They are actually part of the action itself. It seems to me that any government must be prepared to accept the consequences of its action or inaction in terms of protecting democracy. I would like to know what the government will have to do when it gets to that point. It has appointed a so-called independent rapporteur, so at least it has begun to take action.

What can the government do to really remove all doubt?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of many leaders who have walked this earth, humility is about saying what is going on, presenting the facts and indicating what needs to be done, while respecting the wishes of the House of Commons.

Each party has made proposals. As I have said several times in question period, I look forward to getting another registry because I am very concerned, as are our constituents. Frankly, an independent public inquiry would be the first step to having other recommendations, such as legislation to create a foreign agent registry. From the outset, if the government is worthy of a true leader, it will say what is going on and it will describe exactly what will happen in the coming weeks, in all humility and in the name of our democracy.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her interventions on this, and I want to reference the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has been here for a very long time. His experience as a parliamentarian is something we all look to. His defence of democracy has been profound.

Does my hon. colleague have any comments about her relationship with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, given what is happening here tonight, the situation is critical.

I have been here since 2019. Unfortunately, every time this government has taken real action to ensure that Canadians continue to have confidence in our institutions, it was because we made every effort to keep the issue in the spotlight and make sure that the government could not avoid it.

Unfortunately, I feel like I am reliving the WE Charity events of 2020 with what is happening today. That was my first experience. They filibustered for over 40 hours until the noose tightened, and then they chose to prorogue. I had no idea what it meant to prorogue a Parliament. I came to understand that they were putting the lid on a pot that was about to boil over.

We need to act now before we are forced to tell our constituents that something has happened, that the pot was about to boil over. We still have a few weeks left. We can do it before June 23. We need concrete results so that we can reassure our constituents.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise, and it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. I will ask for the Chair's indulgence for a brief 30 seconds, before I start my remarks on the substance at hand, to recognize the Ramara Chamber of Commerce, which held its annual AGM tonight, and to recognize some wonderful businesses and organizations in the community. Lagoon City Pier One Resort, the Ramara Public Library, Casino Rama, Ramara Quilting, Spray-Net Northern Ontario and Orillia & Lake Country Tourism are businesses and organizations in the Ramara region that have done a lot in the community.

However, we are here to talk about a very serious issue, and that is the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills about potential threats and harassment that members of the House or their loved ones have been subjected to based on some of the actions taken in the House.

One of the things we have actually lost in the debate, given everything that happened last week, is that the report out of CSIS allegedly refers to multiple members of Parliament, not just one member of Parliament. There may be members in more parties, and perhaps even in the governing party, who are asking themselves whether the government is taking the necessary actions to keep them and their families safe or to keep them free from intimidation and harassment. This is why the question of privilege is important to explore. It is also why all members of the House, in many of the speeches tonight, have indicated their support for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explore in greater detail the questions raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

I heard many great speeches here tonight, but the member for Scarborough—Guildwood also imparted some wisdom to us in terms of keeping some humility. There are lots of things about this situation that we do not know. There may be some things we will never be able to know because of national security, but it is the Prime Minister's job to set up the apparatus or machinery of government, to set in place a system through which the Prime Minister will be informed of the most serious matters.

It is not a defence, in a Westminster parliamentary system, to put up a shield and say that one did not know about something. However, in the greater context, we have been losing this thing called “ministerial responsibility” over the last number of years. In parliamentary democracies, or in Westminster parliamentary systems, ministerial responsibility is very important. What we have seen recently from the government is that ministerial responsibility no longer exists. All one has to do is stand up in the chamber and say, “This result is unacceptable and we are working really hard to change it”, but I am not really sure we are getting the results we need or that there is accountability for actions of the government.

Time and time again, unfortunately, it is the same playbook with the government. How many times have we heard, “The story in The Globe and Mail is false”, “The conversations never happened the way the Globe reported them”, or “We didn't know of that happening”? Then, when more information comes to light, the story changes to “Well, those might have occurred, but they didn't happen the way they were reported.” Then we learn a little more information and it is revealed that, actually, the issue in question did happen or the conversation did occur the way it was reported. Then, at the very end, time and time again we are told, “This has been a learning experience for all of us, and we will do better next time.”

Let us just recap how we arrived here in just one week. On Monday, the government would not confirm when it had become aware of the allegations in The Globe and Mail.

These are pretty simple questions. Either the government knew or it did not. It waited three days before acknowledging whether it knew and when it knew. I will note that not only is it a very simple question, but that the government confirmed, not in this chamber for Canadians, based on questions from parliamentarians, but in a scrum to the media. Why is it always that a simple question cannot get answered in the House, but government members will freely give some fact to the media when asked directly?

On Monday, the government also said that any individual who contravenes the Vienna convention would be expelled.

On Tuesday, there was no information given; there was no expulsion.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that he was unaware of the allegations until Monday, and that was the same for any of the other members of the executive branch. That was also the day when the Prime Minister said that the briefing note did not leave CSIS. “CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern.” There was still no expulsion.

On Thursday, a really important day, the narrative began to change. The Prime Minister and senior government members appointed to senior parliamentary posts engaged in what anyone else would describe as gaslighting. In fact, they implied that it was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills who actually knew about these allegations two years ago from a briefing. We know that is categorically false.

On Thursday, we also learned that in fact the alleged briefing document did, indeed, make its way out of CSIS and into the government apparatus. The national security adviser at the time received this note, as did other government departments. There was still no expulsion on Thursday, but the government summoned the ambassador to the People's Republic of China and asked what the consequences would be for expulsion. That is a little bit bizarre to me. How on one hand could the government take the position that there were actually no actions that rose to the level of expulsion but then ask what the consequences would be if an expulsion occurred? Was the government just trying to figure out the minimum that it could do to make this issue go away?

Friday was a very important day as categorically false implications were made about the character and recollection of events by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The Prime Minister himself got in on the gaslighting game. “I was reassured to see that Mr. Chong received multiple briefings following the information collected by CSIS to ensure”—

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

I remind the hon. member that we do not refer to names of colleagues in the House.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

My apology, Madam Speaker. I will paraphrase appropriately.

On Friday, the Prime Minister got in on the gaslighting action. He said, “I was reassured to see that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] had received multiple briefings following the information collected by CSIS to ensure that he and his family were kept safe or would at least know what was going on in the extent that they needed to and they could be briefed.” The last part was a little jumbled, but I believe the implication and the only conclusion one can draw from listening to that quote is that the Prime Minister's comments are that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was aware of the interference.

I do not know if anyone from that side of the House just parachuted in from another planet, because there is no one in the Milky Way who believes that these two things can be true. Nobody can believe that there was not serious enough action to be taken. That was one story. Then Liberals say that the member himself was made aware of the allegations. Then they also say that CSIS told the member, that he was made aware of these allegations, but we never knew. It is an impossible thing to have actually happened. They cannot, on one hand, say that because it was so serious, the member was made aware, but the government did not know. There is no possible way that CSIS would brief a member of this House on a serious issue without making people in the national security apparatus aware.

Why do we need further investigation? The government's favourite game seems to be who knew what when. We always have to play that game with the government. We had to play it during SNC-Lavalin. We had to play it during the investigation of the Nova Scotia shooting. We had to play it during the WE Charity scandal. We will never know where the idea originated for the government program for the WE Charity to disburse $1 billion of government funds. We also had to play it last week with respect to the Trudeau Foundation donation that was linked to the Chinese Communist Party.

There are allegations that donations to the foundation that bears the Prime Minister's name were made to influence the government. These are in reports. These allegations are very serious. Now we have evidence that the government either sat on some information, was unaware of it or was not curious enough to find out about certain interference actions. We know that there were not enough inquiries made with respect to the political donation scandal from just a few months ago that was revealed, where CSIS again produced reports, documents and evidence that suggested there was money being funnelled through a People's Republic of China official or consulate in Toronto to various political candidates from multiple parties, I would add, yet we have seen virtually no action on that front, no arrests, no expulsions with respect to that scandal and there have certainly been no fines related to or levied by Elections Canada. It should concern all members when there are accusations of improper and illegal donations for campaigns and political parties. Should all members of this House or all potential candidates not know who they should not accept funds from? That would be very important, I would think.

I mentioned there are allegations that donations made to the foundation were done in a way to influence the government. I give full credit to a minister of the Crown for being transparent with the fact that Liberals summoned the Chinese ambassador to ask what the consequences would be. I cannot believe we asked what the consequences would be if we telegraphed that hostage diplomacy works, that we are worried about the repercussions of the expulsion of a diplomat because of what has happened over the last couple of years to Canadians in China.

Today, we learned that the government has finally expelled the individual in question, which is interesting. Is it because the government got assurances from the Chinese Communist Party that the retaliation would be small in nature and that the government could take this action and that it does not think it rises to the level of expulsion but it is under a lot of pressure to do so? The government actually has not come out and said why the individual was expelled or that it believes the individual did anything in question. We are only left to go with what the government actually said last week, which was that it did not think that the actions that were taken rose to the level of expulsion.

On my way here, I bumped into the member for York—Simcoe, who I know you like very well, Madam Speaker. He would like to speak tonight, but the spots were full. We were having a discussion about a similar question: Did the government have to give anything up? Does the government know what the retaliation is going to be already? Is it going to be transparent with Canadians? Is there some discussion about a tit-for-tat that is acceptable and that we accept as a country and so we can take this expulsion?

Even the Chinese Communist Party has said that Canada is a good target for election interference because the consequences of being caught are not that serious. That is the level of respect that the Chinese Communist Party has for Canada. I submit that Canada is not viewed as a partner; we are a means through which the Chinese will accomplish their objectives. We have resources that they are interested in. We go along to get along. We are always worried about our standing in the world, so we do not want to take too aggressive foreign policy positions.

However, the other thing that is very interesting is that we know the global power imbalances are shifting and we are funding them. We are using taxpayer dollars to fund the global realignment. We spent $256 million and funded the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Against the advice of basically every national security individual expert, we used $256 million of Canadian taxpayer money so that the Chinese Communist Party could grow its influence in the world. We have paid to undermine the global order that we enjoyed for a long time. That is a complete shame.

The government does not like to talk about its investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It had not said much about it, but the last government refused to make that investment and the current government could not make it fast enough when it first took power.

Why are we talking about all this? It is clear that we need to learn more about what happened. We also have hanging over our heads the potential for an inquiry. Let me just say this about the inquiry. Nobody says here, or at least I certainly do not say here, that former governor general David Johnston is a bad person. He is an eminent Canadian and an incredibly qualified individual. It does not make him a good choice to recommend actions to the government. It is the Prime Minister's own words that say that Mr. Johnston is a very close family friend. It is the Prime Minister's own assertions of how close the former governor general is to his family. In addition, he was so linked and such a prominent figure in the Trudeau Foundation.

That does not make him a great choice to give the government advice on this matter. The test is actually quite simple. The test is whether a reasonable person would believe there is a reasonable apprehension of bias? An actual conflict does not need to exist. Just the mere perception of a conflict is enough.

There was some discussion earlier about whether or not we are to just take the Prime Minister at his word that he learned of the allegations on Monday. I believe in the height of the Cold War, it was Ronald Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify.” That is what we are going to do at the committee.

Canadians deserve more. Thank heavens we have a member in the member for Wellington—Halton Hills who has the honour, the integrity and the principled approach to stand up in this place to face down his critics.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I really appreciated the history and timeline the hon. member provided.

Since I was elected, there have been two times when I felt our democracy was under threat. The first time was during the so-called “freedom convoy”. Those were intense times. The second time is now, with this debate, and what happened with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

It seems that, when our democracy is under threat, the government does not take it seriously enough. I wonder if the member could share with us what the potential implications could be internationally, and why the Liberal government needs to be more active in ensuring that our democracy is protected?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful question.

I share the member's concern about the future of democracy. I would also just reiterate that the briefing note alleges there were multiple members of Parliament. We actually only know of one that has been public. It is possible that there are other members in this chamber who have actually experienced a similar thing. It should concern all members.

As for the government's delayed response to some of these issues, I would say that we are hanging a sign out for the rest of the world that tells them what would happen if they meddle in our democracy, and we better be very clear about the signal that we send. We better make it clear that no amount of meddling is appropriate.

Let us be honest, there have been countless times over the course of history where governments, maybe even Canadian governments, have gotten involved in the politics of other countries. We should be thinking before we do that. However, I will say that, when it happens here, we pride ourselves on transparency. Now that we know, we must dig more. We owe it to Canadians to dig into this more. We owe it future Canadians and to our democracy to take the sign out that says no meddling is welcome here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was enlightening, as usual.

I have been watching this situation unfold for weeks, even months, and I wonder: Is this an error, a mistake or negligence on the part of the government?

I will be precise here. An error comes from the verb “to err”. That is when someone loses their way. A mistake is when someone does something wrong. Negligence is when someone knowingly does something wrong.

I ask my colleague, was it an error, a mistake or negligence that allowed the situation to deteriorate like this?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

My hon. colleague has another thoughtful question.

Is it a mistake, or is it an error? Could it be negligence? It could be all of the above.

We cannot set up a system where we insulate ourselves from very important issues and then try to use that as a shield to say, “I did not know, and I cannot be held accountable for that.” Westminster parliamentary democracy has a thing called “ministerial accountability”. I actually cannot remember the last time there has been a lot of ministerial accountability in this chamber. Apparently, all they have to do is stand up to say that they think what is happening in a relevant department is unacceptable and that they are working to change it.

Do we think that passports would have been issued quicker if ministers were losing their jobs? Maybe they would have. Do we think the backlog at immigration would get faster if ministers were held accountable for the performance of their departments? Maybe.

Can the Prime Minister stand in the House and say that it is reasonable that he did not know of the allegations? It is entirely possible that he is being truthful and he actually did not know until Monday, but is that an acceptable way to manage the affairs of government? We are setting ourselves up for a precedent to say, “If you shield yourself from information, you cannot be held accountable.” Surely, I do not think that is the road we want to go down.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Simcoe North, a person whom I have come to know. He is an hon. member, certainly, but I found his speech lacking because of the many examples he offered. If he were concerned about getting to the nub of the issue, he would look towards the testimony that we have had in committee when we had allegations floating around. When we get to the nub of it at committee, we discover that things that were painted a certain way were certainly not so.

For example, I think of the allegations around the Trudeau Foundation and foreign interference. When we started having people come to committee and being put under question, we discovered that there was no foreign interference. There was no quid pro quo for donations. Then that leaves us with the issue that it is just a question perhaps of bad management, which I think is something that is well worth exploring.

I guess the real point I am trying tell the member is this: Is it not worth, on a serious allegation such as we are facing, to take the time, with cool heads, to investigate further to see where the problem was before we just lay out a number of unproven allegations, some of which I heard, disappointingly, in the hon. member's speech?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right. We need to thoughtfully think about allegations of foreign interference, and we need to examine them very closely. Do members know where we would be able to do that? It is in a public inquiry, for which the government seems very reticent to admit.

Now, this hon. member, whom I respect greatly, says that we learned at committee that there was no interference. However, I did not see a report coming from PROC that said there was no interference with the Trudeau Foundation. The hon. member also says there was no quid pro quo, but let us look at the facts. Money went to the Trudeau Foundation, for which it was reported as an effort to influence the government. The government's action since taking government seems to be not very aggressive on dealing with China. I do not know. What is a quid pro quo?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech. It would be a speech I would give on the topic if I were speaking to it tonight.

The member worked as a staff member years ago for Jim Flaherty. I think the excellence that Jim would have demanded from his staff, and the briefings he would have demanded, is why this member is so right in his speech.

There is just something that does not add up here. There is something that does not add up with the public safety minister and the Prime Minister. They will know for sure which cabinet ministers through the years have had special security detail. They will know that. Why is that? It is because they were briefed, and they knew it. They should have known the same thing about members of Parliament who are not in cabinet.

We are humans as well. We have families and extended families, and we are owed the same level of respect and security. This is what we really need to get to, which I think is what the member is getting to, and I would like him to comment on that.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Huron—Bruce makes an excellent point. This is exactly why the question of privilege was raised.

This also affects every other member in the House. That is why we need a further thoughtful study at committee. I look forward to the results of that study and whatever comes from it. Tomorrow is another day, and we are sure to learn new information.