Debates of May 8th, 2023

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of Parliament

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

Madam Speaker, the member just referenced the absence of a minister from the House at a particular time. Perhaps he would like to rephrase that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did not catch that, but I am sure the hon. member caught himself. I would ask him to please be careful not to mention whether someone is or is not in the House.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona could please wrap it up.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for the error. It was an absent-minded error and was not intentional.

However, it was an important announcement that the government tried to make from a point of order after question period, which it could very well have made during question period if it wanted to take some of the political gamesmanship out of it. I would ask the member why it was that the government made that decision around the timing of that announcement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily want to indicate that I fully understand the timing and the way in which things ultimately unfolded. However, I would like to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the public inquiry.

At the end of the day, I believe that we have an incredible individual, who was an appointment by Stephen Harper as the Governor General of Canada, an individual of impeccable credentials, who has now been assigned the task, as special rapporteur, of looking into the whole issue of foreign interference, influence and so on, and coming back with a report. I think everyone in the House has had the opportunity to express their thoughts about the public inquiry. The commitment from the Prime Minister is that, if the report comes back with that recommendation, a public inquiry will, in fact, be taking place. I would not underestimate the impact that the NDP has had on the issue.

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

Madam Speaker, let us just recap for a second.

In 2013, the Conservatives and the former democratic reform minister, the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition, received a report from CSIS saying that election interference was real and was going to continue. He did nothing for two years and literally sat on the report.

Later on, in 2017, after we came into government, we introduced Bill C-76, which limited funding from foreign actors. The Conservatives voted against it. We introduced Bill C-22 shortly before that, to create NSICOP. Conservatives would not even let it go to committee. They voted against it after the first or second reading.

I am wondering how the Conservatives can actually stand here and try to claim that they have any credibility on the issue of foreign interference, when they did nothing and routinely voted against every measure that we brought forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is sharing a little bit of the frustration of when we look across and see the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative Party, on this particular issue, given the fact that foreign interference and influence have been taking place for many years. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for the issue, he, let alone the prime minister at the time, chose to do nothing. That is what I mean about throwing rocks in glass houses and looking in a mirror before they make some of the statements they make inside the House.

At the end of the day, we should try to wind things down in terms of the politicization we have witnessed over the last little while on this issue and resolve it.

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

Madam Speaker, it takes a stunning level of audacity for the member to give a lecture to the House on politicization and throwing stones in glass houses. On Thursday, he and his friend from Kingston and the Islands undertook a blatant strategy to discredit the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in order to defend their incompetent government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

I want to remind the member that we went through this a while ago, so I want him to be judicious with what he is going to say.

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

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I apologize if I was not here at the time, but on Thursday, after question period, I rose to clarify my comment and apologize, not only to that member but also to all members of the House and to the Speaker. I would, therefore, appreciate the member's withdrawing his characterization of me at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I did not actually reference any comments that the member made—

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

He said “Kingston and the Islands.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is becoming a point of debate again. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to wait until I am finished.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Madam Speaker, he did withdraw two words that I am not referencing at this point in time, but the entire strategy that they undertook is what I am taking issue with right now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is all becoming a point of debate.

I know the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona also was rising on a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a separate point of order, I noticed that, in his remarks, the member for Kingston and the Islands made reference to his presence or absence in the House, and seeing as he is a member of the House, I think he may—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We can mention that we are in the House, but we should not mention who was not in the House.

We are going straight to the question at hand. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Madam Speaker, I will note that, through the course of the debate, both of those members had to step back from the incorrect remarks that they made. We have a chance today—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I would ask the hon. member to ask his question. I have looked at Hansard, and from what I can see, it is all in the interpretation. The discussion being had right now is all on debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I unreservedly apologized, and I clarified what my intent was. Anything else the member is trying to suggest is just factually inaccurate and actually goes to my integrity as a member, by his continuing to say this after I apologized.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If this continues, I am just going to end the debate, because we are going to run out of time.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Madam Speaker, we have a chance tonight, at the end of this debate, to right that wrong. Will the member support the motion to have PROC study this point of privilege from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to take very seriously the approach of the member across the floor, which is to threaten to stand up on points of order every time I speak. I would ask that the member come and apologize to me. It was not very parliamentary for him to do so. If he is not prepared to do that, I do not feel I have to answer his questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am certainly happy to rise, although three minutes late because of some of the shenanigans arising in this place this evening on this very important issue.

Before I begin, I want to thank the Chair for the ruling today on the question of privilege from the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is an extremely important issue that we are debating here tonight. It has far-reaching consequences, not just for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but also for those Canadians in the Chinese diaspora who have felt the threats of intimidation, the harassment and the fear of the Communist regime in Beijing's interfering in almost every aspect of their lives.

We are here tonight not just because of the question of privilege, but also because there are questions that need to be answered. The hope is that the motion presented by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, to have the PROC committee look into this, will find some of those answers. Some of those questions are these: Who knew, when did they know and what did they do about it?

With recent reports in the media, particularly in The Globe and Mail with information that is seemingly being provided to it by the security establishment, there are many facts related to this case that are indisputable. First, we now know that the government knew about these threats almost two years ago. We know that there has been foreign intimidation of Chinese diaspora members for several elections now. We also know, according to the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, that the government did receive a report from CSIS saying that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family were facing threats. They were facing threats not just here in Canada, but were facing threats also, by extension, in Hong Kong. Those facts are indisputable. There is no amount of standing up and elevating our voices that will dispute those facts.

Therefore, the question remains: What, if anything, did the government do about it? We found out today, and over the course of the last week, through lines of questioning, that it has done nothing about it. It has done nothing with this information over the course of the last two years. The impact of that is significant, not just for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He is a member of Parliament and enjoys certain privileges as a member of Parliament, not the least of which is the expectation of security being provided by the government. All Canadians should expect that.

If this can happen to a member of Parliament because of a position they have taken with a vote or multiple votes, what about the members within the Chinese diaspora in Canada who come to this country to be free of intimidation, to be free of fear and to be free of harassment? We have heard that there are many members of the Chinese community, Chinese Canadians, who are being intimidated and harassed, and who, quite frankly, are afraid. We have also heard of the interference of the Chinese regime with respect to cultural associations within this country, infiltrating and setting up police stations within this country to keep track of those in the Chinese diaspora, to promote fear, to intimidate and to harass them.

The consequences of what we are discussing today are far-reaching. Let us think about this: A member of Parliament, or any Canadian, for that matter, wakes up in the morning on a Monday and finds out through The Globe and Mail, through reports from our intelligence infrastructure, that the person's family, for over two years, has faced threats, intimidation and harassment. Think of the fear this instills in anyone, not just a member of Parliament. Think of the fact that the member has children. What if the Chinese consulate and this now-exiled Chinese diplomat had conducted a campaign of gathering information on his family and his children, having access, perhaps, to his Internet and his family's Internet?

This is why this is so egregious and why we are seized with this issue tonight. The member's privileges have been breached. I hope that the procedure and House affairs committee can get to the bottom of this and find out exactly what is going on and what happened to this member and to his extended family in Hong Kong.

As I mentioned earlier, it is not just a member of Parliament. There are countless stories, thousands within the Chinese diaspora, among those who came to the country to flee persecution and fear, to be able to practise their own faith and political freedom in this country. They are dealing with the same issues as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills; maybe they are not doing so as publicly, but they are dealing with them.

One thing that we are doing at the ethics committee is studying the issue of foreign interference. One of the first panels of witnesses we had involved those within the Chinese diaspora who are facing this harassment, these fears and these intimidation tactics by the Chinese government. This is how we got to this point with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. If we recall, in February of 2021, there was a motion put before the House to declare the human rights abuse of the Uyghur Muslim community in China as a genocide. It received majority support in the House. In fact, some of the Liberals voted for it. However, can we say who did not vote for it and actually abstained? It was the entire cabinet of the government of this country. Marc Garneau sat in this place and abstained on behalf of the cabinet.

I am going to call it for what it was. It was a gutless move. When the government had a chance to stand up for human rights and call out the Beijing Communist regime for the human rights abuses of the Muslim Uyghurs, it hightailed it out of this place. It did not even have the decency to vote. However, who voted for the motion? It was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and every other member of Parliament, with the exception of cabinet. For that, the member was targeted; he faced a campaign of harassment, fear and intimidation. Who carried out this campaign? It was the very person who got kicked out today.

The government has known about this for two years. It had two years to act; however, with diplomatic immunity, this agent of the Chinese Communist regime was able to run amok around this country.

We know about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, about the intimidation and the fear that he faced. How many other Canadians faced the same tactic by this diplomat over the course of the last two years? By extension, in other countries, such as Hong Kong, how many other family members were intimidated?

When we had that panel come to the ethics committee, it was sobering. We heard a former colleague, Kenny Chiu, talk about this fear and intimidation tactic on the part of Chinese Beijing officials. He talked about this misinformation and disinformation campaign that was executed against members of this place during the last couple of elections.

We heard from Mehmet Tohti, one of the foremost defenders of human rights of Uyghur Muslims in China. He lives in this country, and he told us a story of phoning his relatives in China and having Beijing Communist officials picking up the phone. They just wanted to intimidate him and to let him know that they were there, in case he wanted to continue this campaign of speaking out against human rights abuses toward the Muslim community in China.

This is what we are dealing with. This is the reason for this debate tonight. It is why it is so important for the procedure and House affairs committee to deal with this issue. It is why the ethics committee is dealing with foreign interference. There is another committee of Parliament dealing with foreign interference, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the government will not launch an independent inquiry about this. I have sat through most of this debate today, since the point of privilege was read out by the Speaker. I have heard members from the government side talk about the politicization of this issue. However, one way to not politicize this issue is to have an independent public inquiry so that we can get information on the depths, the infiltration and the impact that foreign interference from the Beijing Communist regime is having on this country. This is something the government does not want to do. However, it is time for the truth to be known.

We have put forward motions. They were approved of by opposition parties in this place. However, the government voted against them. I have the utmost respect for the former governor general, Mr. Johnston. In the eight years of my time here, I have gotten to know Mr. Johnston. I travelled to Vimy Ridge for the 100th anniversary of Vimy with him. He is a decent man, and I do not think anybody should be impugning his character. However, Mr. Johnston is too closely connected to the family and to the Trudeau Foundation to have any sort of independent view on whether a public inquiry should be had. It is not just opposition members who are speaking about this. A majority of Canadians are speaking about the same thing. We need an independent inquiry, and we need the Prime Minister to call it now.

This pandering to the Chinese Communist regime on the part of the Canadian government seems to be a pattern. It effectively started, as we are finding out through our study in committee, when the Prime Minister won the leadership of the Liberal Party, well in advance of his becoming the prime minister. There was a $140,000 donation that was procured and negotiated by the brother of the Prime Minister, Alexandre Trudeau; he actually signed the cheque. We had him at committee last week, and it was the first time in the history of the Trudeau Foundation receiving a cheque that the Prime Minister's brother was actually involved in it. Therefore, he had a lot to do with it and a lot of say in the $140,000 donation.

A question has arisen about the receipt that was issued. The receipt was issued to an individual in Beijing, yet the donation was made through a company located in China. We started seeing a pattern of influence and infiltration by the Chinese Communist regime at around the time the Prime Minister won the leadership of the Liberal Party. The donors of those cheques had access to the Prime Minister shortly after he became the Prime Minister. Therefore, a lot of questions are being raised about the connection between the Liberal Party and the Chinese Communist regime. Of course, it has been well documented that the Prime Minister said that he had a basic admiration for China and the Chinese regime. We started to see very early on, when he won the leadership of the Liberal Party, that the pattern of pandering and infiltration was starting to work its way through the Liberal Party. Therefore, it is not surprising to me when we see the evidence starting to mount about this.

We have also seen some other things related to China. Members will recall the Winnipeg lab incident, the information related to that and how the government fought so hard to make sure that this information was kept under wraps. It required a court challenge on the part of the Speaker to get that information.

I mentioned the Trudeau Foundation and the failure to recognize cabinet stepping away from its obligation to stand up in this place and be counted, actually abstaining from a vote on the Uyghur Muslim genocide. We have illegal police stations that are still operating in this country. We have donations to election candidates. We saw over $70,000 donated to one riding in this country within a 48-hour period. The donations came from right across the country; they were not even part of the riding.

We have heard stories through CSIS and, again, through The Globe and Mail, where these donations were actually paid back by the Chinese consulate. We have CSIS documentation, CSIS reports, through The Globe and Mail, about involvement in choosing candidates. Of course, we have heard about what happened in the 2019 and 2021 elections. It was well documented in 2021. We have had former members of Parliament talk about their experiences during those campaigns and how difficult it was to get their message out. People who had traditionally supported them within the Chinese community were now not supporting candidates because of the level of disinformation and the misinformation campaign that has been directly attributed to those consulates. They were acting to undermine not only our democratic institutions but also the electoral process in this country.

Today, and I would like to say as a result of the motion that we put forward, we saw the government act. Over a week after the news came out about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, we finally saw the government act and consider a Chinese consulate official persona non grata, expelling this official two years too late. When this information first came out two years ago and the government was made aware of it, as the national security adviser told the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, there should have been no question about what the government was going to do with this individual.

He should have been expelled. As I said earlier, he has had two years now to continue this campaign of harassment, intimidation and inciting fear, not just in terms of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and perhaps other MPs in this place, but also in terms of the Chinese diaspora in this country. Those citizens of Canada who have come here from China do not have the platform that we do, as members of Parliament. They do not have the platform of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. They cannot stand up in this place and ask the Speaker to rule on a point of privilege based on newspaper and CSIS reports.

From what we have heard at committee, many of them live in fear. They do not participate in the electoral process because of the fear of retribution by those agents who are acting in this country on behalf of the Beijing Communist regime. What kind of country have we descended to when we cannot even protect, not just our own citizens, but a sitting member of this House because he or she stands for what is right, standing up against human rights abuses in China? It is a sad indictment that we are actually at this point.

It is sad that the government does not see the seriousness of this issue, where they would call an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. That is what is needed. We need somebody who is not connected in any way, shape or form, to either the family or the foundation to make that decision.

We are seeing more stories, more accusations and more pathways that our committees could go down. We are going to see those things over the next little while. However, the only pathway that they lead to is an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this so that we can deal with the issue of foreign interference once and for all.

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

Madam Speaker, the member said at least three times that the government knew about this and sat on this information for two years. It is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has recently said, in an interview that he gave outside this place, that he was informed by the national security adviser that both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's chief of staff knew nothing about this until last week.

I asked this same question to the member for Perth—Wellington and he stepped back from that because he realized that he was going beyond where reality was. Therefore, I will ask this member the same thing: Is the member saying that, when the Prime Minister stands in this House and says that he did not have that information prior to last week, he is lying to this House?