Debates of May 9th, 2023

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must first acknowledge the Speaker’s ruling on the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington-Halton Hills. I find the Speaker’s response to that motion very interesting.

I am an economist by training. More specifically, I am a macroeconomist. Some say that a macroeconomist is a microeconomist who knows how to count, but, no, I would not say that. Many things could be said about economists, but I would say that I like to have an overall picture of the situation, so that is what I will provide to the House. I know my colleagues have waited a long time for me to explain the situation to them. No, that is not true, I know that is not the case, but I will nevertheless take on the task of explaining who the Prime Minister is. I will share my macroanalysis of this situation. I will start at the beginning.

I was a member of the National Assembly in Québec City before sitting here and, in Québec City, I served under two premiers, Ms. Marois and Mr. Couillard. When I saw them during oral question period, they were always passionate. For Ms. Marois, it was always a true pleasure to cross swords with her friends across the floor. It was clear that she loved debate and that she loved being premier.

As for Mr. Couillard, there are many things that divide us. I can say that because I faced him for four years. However, he was like that as well. When he got to question period, he was prepared. It was clear that he enjoyed it, and we enjoyed asking him questions. One of Mr. Couillard’s problems is that he had left “his heart at home”, as Michel Rivard would say. However, that is another debate. If he is listening today, I salute him and I reverently salute Ms. Marois, the first woman premier in Quebec history.

When I arrived in the House of Commons, I was anxious and happy. I told myself that I would be finally seeing the Prime Minister in all his splendour. In 2015, it was said that he was a rock star, a bit like Bono or something. He was heard singing songs from Queen even though it was not very convincing. I still thought it would be impressive.

I arrived in the House and I saw him for the first time. I would say, respectfully, that I was disappointed. There are many other words that would come to mind. I know that there are people who would encourage me to say them, but I will just say that I was disappointed. In summary, I would say that I saw someone who did not want to be here. He is in the House but he does not really want to be, nor does he want to answer questions. Sometimes, he prorogues Parliament and leaves for a while. He was excited to be re-elected in 2021, but we waited months before returning to the House. It appears as though he does not really want to be here.

It occurred to some that he might not like this part of the job, but surely he still worked hard as the leader of Canada, was aware of everything that was going on, read the CSIS reports and had an opinion on everything. People really wanted to believe that that was true.

I will give a short presentation. I hear people laughing on this side of the House, while on the other side, people are giving me the stink eye and wondering where I am going with this story. I feel like they are worried, but I want to assure them that I am not speaking to the Liberal Party, but to its leader. I know, there are small differences.

I figured that I might as well watch him for a while and give him a chance, because that is the kind of guy I am. Those who have watched me for a while know that I give people a chance. It is something that people like about me. I therefore gave the Prime Minister a chance and then I studied his actions over many crises.

First, I always have the proverb in mind that says, “To govern is to anticipate, and whoever does not anticipate is doomed.” It was Émile de Girardin who said that in 1852. I believed that, because he was in government, the Prime Minister had to be someone who plans ahead, but that is not so. He planned to hire McKinsey until 2100. This is one of the things that he can anticipate. He anticipated that Canada would have a population of 100 million by 2100. It is a prediction, but I am not sure that it would be very glorious.

When it comes to anticipating things, he scores a big fat zero. He simply does not have that skill. Some might say that anticipating is not always easy, but I would remind the House that to govern is to anticipate, and whoever does not anticipate is doomed. He certainly seems to be running toward a brick wall. He is running toward it at such speed that even Alexis le Trotteur could not catch up. Then, when a crisis hits, he decides to take his time. It is a bit like The tortoise and the hare. He starts off very late and moves at a tortoise's pace. He has both disadvantages at the same time.

Let us return to the crisis. Let us talk about crises for a moment so that members can understand where I am going with this. I am painting a portrait.

First, there was the Wet'suwet'en crisis. When that happened, had he anticipated it? The answer is no. He did nothing. In fact, it is because he did nothing that it ended in a crisis. When the crisis began, he was travelling. That is another thing, he likes to travel. He does not like crises, does not like governing, does not like being here, but he likes to travel. He is a great traveller. Let us think back to the first 10 days of the crisis. He was travelling and said that he would not return for that. It was a rail crisis and there were no more trains anywhere, but he said that he would not return for that, that there was no way he would miss a trip. It is like a trilogy. It lasted 30 days. In the first 10 days, he said he was travelling and did not want to be bothered. However, he had to return one day. In the next 10 days, he acknowledged that there was a problem but stated that it was not the government's job to address it and that the provinces would have to figure it out. In the last 10 days, he realized he was really in a jam, so he decided to listen to what the Bloc, among others, was saying, and to do what the Bloc had requested him to do, and it worked.

Then, there was the COVID‑19 crisis. Could it have been anticipated? Of course not. COVID‑19 could not be predicted. I cannot blame him because nobody, or at least almost nobody, saw it coming. Countries began closing their borders. People were panicking and asking what the Prime Minister had decided to do in Canada. He had not done a thing. People were coming here and they did not need to be tested. There was nothing. Planes full of people were arriving from China, from Italy. There was no problem. The Prime Minister's handling of the situation was so abysmal that even Valérie Plante, the mayor of Montreal, became involved. The mayor arrived at Dorval and said to stop letting people into the country, that it was terrible and that we would end up full of COVID‑19 cases. It is unbelievable: The Prime Minister did so little that the mayor of Montreal had to become Canada's head of state on the fly.

Let us talk about trucks and the occupation in front of Parliament. Was it foreseeable? It was, a bit. There was talk of it. I remember a man from British Columbia. He was in Vancouver in his 53‑foot truck. He said he was headed to Ottawa to protest. Canada is big. He left Vancouver with a 53‑footer. When I heard him talking he was clean shaven. When he arrived here, his beard was so long he could have joined ZZ Top. In other words, we saw him coming, the guy with his truck. The protesters settled in. Once they were settled, someone a bit calmer than the others asked the Prime Minister to intervene. The Prime Minister did just that: He went outside and insulted them. He waved his arms in the air and insulted them. He went back inside satisfied that his job was done. Sadly, no, it was not; the protesters were even more riled up than usual. Their eyes were practically popping out of their sockets and they needed sunglasses to keep them in. It was bad. The Prime Minister finally decided to emulate his father, more or less. He brushed off the Emergencies Act and ended the whole thing by using the nuclear option.

The Prime Minister is a procrastinator. He keeps putting things off and letting them drag on. Picture a teenager's bedroom. That is pretty much Canada, in Trudeau's eyes. He lets everything drag on—

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

I would remind the member that we do not use names.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I was not referring to him. I was talking about the Prime Minister. I am sorry and I will never do that again, unless I make a mistake.

Now let us talk about Chinese interference. Chinese interference is very serious. It poses a threat to democracy. According to the intelligence services, it is the greatest known threat to Canada. This is very serious. It seems to me that the guardian of democracy in Canada is the Prime Minister. It is up to him to ensure that we have a healthy democracy. This guy was democratically elected, so I think it would be in his interest to try to protect our democracy.

This all began in the fall of 2022. Honestly, there are so many elements to Chinese interference, but I will focus on the most important ones. I will address all of them and try to find the common threads, in other words, the same issues that keep coming up over and over again. Members will see where I am going with this.

In the fall, we read in the papers that China had interfered in 11 ridings in 2019. We asked the Prime Minister what was going on. He said that he had no idea, that he had never heard anything about it. When we asked again, he compared us to Trump, of all people. I cannot say we were happy about being compared to Trump. The Prime Minister accused the opposition of saying that the elections were not legitimate, despite the fact that no one in the opposition had said anything of the sort. That made us angry.

We answered that we were not saying that the Liberals had not won the election, but that we simply wanted to know what happened in 11 ridings. The Prime Minister told us that he had no knowledge of this. Right after that, he went to the G20. I can still see it. He told us he did not know what was happening, but at the G20, he ran after Xi Jinping to talk to him, as if he had no one else to talk to. He spoke to Xi Jinping for so long that Xi got fed up. The Prime Minister told us that he had talked to Xi about interference.

However, he had told us that he had no knowledge of any of this and that the election results were not illegitimate. Why did he talk to the president about interference? That is the first problem. Was he joking? Is the Prime Minister a joker? Perhaps he is.

There was also interference in 2021. I would like to remind the House that this is a minority government. According to the final polls, it was a close race. The Chinese interfered in 11 or 15 ridings in 2019. Since then, they must have practised and gotten better at it, because they may have interfered in up to 15 or 20 ridings. It does not take a PhD in math to understand that, if someone can influence the election results in 10 or 15 ridings where the Liberals and Conservatives are neck and neck, that could mean victory or defeat for one of the parties. It could determine which party forms government. This is no laughing matter.

We know that the Chinese government is fond of the Liberals. It likes them. It believes it could get close to the Liberals without much trouble. It would prefer a minority Liberal government. The Chinese government is not as fond of the Conservatives. It is a well-known fact. This is troubling.

We told the Prime Minister that the issue had to be dealt with before the next election. We have a minority government, which means that an election could be called at any time. We need to resolve this problem quickly to make sure that the dice are not loaded when the next election happens. That will take intelligent action.

Then we learned that, in 2021, the member for Don Valley North apparently spoke to the Chinese consulate and even asked them not to free the two Michaels, so as not to favour the Conservative Party. It is not always easy to grasp all the arguments in this affair. It is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racquet. I do not really understand it, but, in any case, that is what happened. Obviously, the Prime Minister says that he was unaware. The Liberal member for Don Valley North is now an independent member, despite the fact that he had the Prime Minister’s support. It is troubling.

Then there is the Trudeau Foundation debacle, and that is a real circus.

If anyone thinks they understand something about the Trudeau Foundation, it is because someone explained it wrong. It is complicated, so we are looking into that. Apparently, in 2016, the Chinese government donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation.

The Prime Minister says that he has not had anything to do with the foundation for 10 years. That is another joke. He is a real card. He says that neither he nor his office has had anything to do with the foundation.

Then again, his brother is involved in the foundation. In 2016, the Prime Minister’s Office called the foundation about the Chinese donation. After that, the Prime Minister asked Morris Rosenberg, the former CEO of the Trudeau Foundation, to look into the matter and determine whether there had been any Chinese interference. In Mr. Rosenberg’s massive report, there are four lines about Chinese interference and that is to say that there is none. The Prime Minister then asked David Johnston to act as special rapporteur so he could decide on whether there is a need for an independent public inquiry. Mr. Johnston told him that that was a big ask, that he was not sure he could answer right away, and that he would study the situation for two months. It is like Rodin’s The Thinker: everyone is waiting.

While we are waiting, other things are happening. All of these people are from the Trudeau Foundation. The Prime Minister goes to spend Christmas with a friend who is involved in the Trudeau Foundation. His office also hosted the Trudeau Foundation.

Do they take me for a fool? The Prime Minister says that he has not had anything to do with the foundation for 10 years. He keeps repeating it. The members of his government keep repeating it. The government House leader rises and says that he has not had anything to do with the foundation for 10 years. Does he believe that? The Liberals are in trouble. They believe that guy, when everyone knows that it is all complete nonsense, and it just goes on and on.

The latest news is about the police stations. There are two in Quebec. That is new. The Minister of Public Safety was very serious last week when he said that they had been closed. We called, and they are still open.

How can he not know that? Before saying something, he should check it. He is a minister. He also has a team. If he does not have time to check, he can ask his friend to call and find out.

They are still open. It is troubling. One of these police stations is five minutes away by bike in my riding. I will say it again, this is troubling.

Here is the cherry on the sundae. Now I come to the present day. Two years ago, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family received threats. Once again, the Prime Minister says he was unaware. Jody Thomas, his national security adviser, said she was aware, but he was not. Is he telling jokes, or is he a little lost? I am putting it extremely politely, but that is what we must ask ourselves.

Now, we have a member who was threatened by the Chinese government because he voted against its wishes. We do not care about its wishes. It did not elect us.

I just said that. The Prime Minister will never be able to say that the hon. member for La Prairie may have been threatened. We do not know. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills was threatened two years ago, but we did not find out about it until this week. The government still says it was unaware.

I swear that if I were the prime minister of Canada, which will never happen, but let us just pretend for a moment, and I found out that a member had been threatened, I would be throwing the diplomat out five seconds later. It would not take me five weeks or five days. In just five seconds, he would be out on his ear.

If the Prime Minister had learned about this right away, he could have thrown him out and told him to beat it. Instead, he procrastinated. The Liberals got together to figure out what they should do. The Prime Minister knew two years ago, the rascal.

He knew two years ago. Now they are getting together to figure out what they should do. The opposition demanded that this person be ejected. They said that they could not do that and that it is no easy thing to expel an ambassador.

Finally, yesterday, they bought themselves a spine and announced they would be throwing him out. Now they are patting themselves on the back like they are heroes.

We do not believe that. Are any other members of the House being threatened by China? We do not know. It is troubling. It is very troubling.

Members of the House and their families may be under threat. The Prime Minister may know this is happening, but he will not say. The Prime Minister is a cross between Ulysses and Pontius Pilate. Happy the man who, like Ulysses, has travelled well.

There is one thing this Prime Minister likes. He likes to travel. Last weekend, when he was in front of the Liberals, he was happy because he was travelling to see the King—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, at times, we can witness that the coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc is doing quite well. It is kind of like the blue and the light blue. It is interesting.

I went through premiers Gary Doer, Greg Selinger, Gary Filmon and, of course, former prime minister Stephen Harper, all in opposition. I am very comfortable with what we have been able to accomplish.

I would challenge the member. He has a different view of the last eight years. I could talk about the tax break to the middle class; the GIS lifting hundred of thousands, going to millions, of people out of poverty; and the historic number of trade agreements signed off by the government. Shall we talk about COVID and about the nine million Canadians who benefited from CERB? What about the wage subsidy program? Shall we talk about post-COVID? We can talk about child care. We can talk about the health care agreements. We can talk about the Volkswagen deal. It is endless.

That is a leader who has demonstrated an immense amount of focus, when every day, the Conservatives, and now the Bloc, are more concerned about character assassination. As those two political parties focus their attention on the negative, on the Prime Minister, and are spreading misinformation, we will continue to espouse what is important to Canadians.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was not really a question. It was a love letter to his own party. I am surprised to hear him list all the things that the government has done in the last eight years. Considering how much money they make, I should hope that they are getting things done. The Prime Minister certainly ought to be doing things. He has a packed schedule. However, we could list all the things he did not do or did wrong. Dental care was a mess, and CERB was plagued by fraud.

My colleague said that we are a coalition. I would respond that we are the coalition of democracy. That is what we are. The Conservatives are right to be angry with this government, because one of their members was intimidated, threatened for two years, and this government sat idly by. Now the government is trying to get the Bloc Québécois to say that they are only Conservatives and that they are not part of our party. Come on. They are right.

When the Conservatives are right on one issue, we are not ashamed to stand up and say we support them. The coalition for democracy is standing up to this government of opacity.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. If I ever have the opportunity to be prime minister, regardless of where the threat came from and against whom, that diplomat and that country would know, exactly, that the government would not tolerate that.

It is NHL hockey playoffs right now. Evander Kane, from the Edmonton Oilers, said something that is a saying in my riding as well, which we say to bullies. I will paraphrase because some of the language is unparliamentary: If someone messes around, they will find out what will happen to them. That is the message I would send to China regarding this: Mess around and find out.

In my intervention, I said that there are two choices we have here: malicious intent or willful negligence. I want to ask what my hon. colleague believes as to why the Prime Minister sat on this information and did not inform the sitting member of Parliament.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is an obvious kernel of truth in my colleague's question. It is very troubling. Did the Prime Minister know the truth but fail to say anything when he should have, or did he not know because he was too naive? Which of these alternatives is preferable? Neither of them.

The government obfuscates and remains silent every time we say something about Chinese interference. Their attitude is deny, deny, deny. Lives may be at stake, but the Liberals continue to deny. That is the problem.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Prairie for his speech. I always learn new turns of phrase from him. This time, it was, “It is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racquet”. I had not heard that one before.

I would like to make it clear that the NDP obviously supports our Conservative colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and his family, who are in an extremely delicate position. I also agree that troubling facts keep emerging, what with the secret police stations, the contributions to Liberal candidates, the strange donations to the Trudeau Foundation, and now these threats against a member of Parliament, who was not informed for two years.

There is nothing more important in a democracy than getting to the whole truth so that Canadians can trust our institutions and the electoral process. Does my colleague agree that the only way to get at the whole truth is to hold an independent public inquiry?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Speaking of coalitions, I think it is pretty clear. The Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all agree. Is that partisanship? No, it is not.

I completely agree with my colleague that we need an independent public inquiry. We have been asking for one for a long time. The NDP has been asking for one. The Conservatives are also asking for one. The government got the brilliant idea to procrastinate once again, hoping things would get better on their own, only to discover that it had wasted two months and that the revelations keep on coming. It is not over yet, I am sure.

I therefore agree with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. We need an independent public inquiry.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from La Prairie for the tone and mood of his speech. He addressed serious topics, but he found a way to make it fun to listen to. He is a talented speaker who should inspire many. I really like listening to him in the House.

A few days ago, the Prime Minister stated that he was not aware of the threats and intimidation that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been facing for the last two years. Soon after, we learned that he may have been aware and that his entourage was aware. In short, all this is unclear. However, CSIS was well aware of this information and did its duty by notifying the Prime Minister's Office.

My question for my colleague is as follows: Does he feel that this government is listening to the agencies, especially CSIS, the way it should, or is it operating in isolation?

Is CSIS just there for decoration?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recognize all the work done by my colleague. Our caucus truly appreciates him and so do his constituents.

The question is whether CSIS has discovered anything. I have never been there, but I imagine that those people must work hard. They are not sitting on their couches eating chocolates and waiting for people to come to them with information. They have to go look for the information and work hard.

They go look for information some place, somewhere, and that is extremely important. They want to protect Canada's democracy and parliamentarians. After making all these efforts, they come up against a government, and especially a prime minister, that completely ignores the hard work they do. There is reason for concern. We are in the dark.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in English, because I do not have much time.

I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, the history and the truth. In my interactions as former House leader, I found that this member speaks the truth. He is honourable, and his word is his worth. I cannot actually say that about the Liberal or NDP House leaders.

Is there no other option at this point but to have a public inquiry, with Mr. Johnston, to get to the bottom of what is happening with foreign interference and all of the stuff that is happening with the Trudeau Foundation? Is an independent public inquiry the only way to get to the bottom of what is happening here?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for La Prairie has 40 seconds to respond.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would take me longer than 40 seconds to say how much I appreciate my colleague. He is amazing.

To answer his question, yes, an independent public inquiry is essential. One thing we know for sure about the Prime Minister is that he is in no way competent enough to find out what happened and disclose it publicly. He has to hand over the reins to someone else, and an independent, public inquiry is what it will take.

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

Madam Speaker, I too want to add my voice to the conversation we are having here today in this debate on privilege. The issue of a member's vote in this place is really what we are after today. Our ability to vote without influence from other countries is very important.

I would note that the vote in question had to do with the recognition of the genocide of the Uyghur people in China. The Beijing government has been focused on repressing the Uyghurs through things such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, re-education camps and concentration camps. Members may have seen the photos of Uyghur folks lined up at the bus terminals and being loaded onto the trains. We have stated often in this place “never again”, and here we are watching “never again” happen again.

That vote that took place in the House of Commons was historic. The Canadian Parliament was one of the first parliaments around the world that voted to recognize that. It was something many members had worked fairly hard on, and we had also felt pressure from various corners to ensure that we got that right.

What is fascinating is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills voted for that motion while the entire Canadian cabinet did not. That is telling, perhaps, as to the weight of that vote. However, it also raises the question of foreign influence happening here in Canada. What kind of influence is that having on the Canadian cabinet, given the fact that we have discovered now that the government knew for over two years that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' family was being harassed because of this particular vote? What was happening to members of the cabinet in their personal lives and how was that being influenced? That is what this whole debate is about. It is about the privilege of members of Parliament to be able to do their job.

Probably one of the most important things we do as members of Parliament is to vote from our seats in this place. That is what we are elected to do. We are elected to take our seats in this place to vote on things. Votes are a moment in time. Votes are a very binary thing. We vote for something; we vote against something.

In many cases, when we have a vote, those are weighty moments. Members must consider all the ramifications and impacts of the position they take on that. There is nothing that brings more clarity into a situation than having a binary vote on a particular piece of legislation because that is when we get to find out about who is affected, what the ramifications are and all of these kinds of things. Particularly if people are upset about that vote, we get to hear about it after we cast that vote. Our ability to vote in this place is incredibly important.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been a stalwart defender of democracy. This may be due in part to his roots, as he comes from Hong Kong, so he has a firm understanding of the relationship with the Beijing government and the world. Just due to the nature of his heritage, the member has some fortitude when it comes to understanding how democracy works, and he has worked very hard in this place to ensure that democracy works better. He has a very good grasp of the history of this place and the history of our mother Parliament over in England. He worked on the Reform Act, which is an act that has empowered individual members of Parliament. That is something that the member has been passionate about.

He has argued for increased members' budgets. He has argued for more members of Parliament, so we have more representation for individual Canadians. His allegiance to democracy, parliamentary democracy and the House of Commons is unquestioned.

I want to thank him for that. I know his passion and diligence on these democracy issues are so important. That is perhaps the great irony of this particular situation. Of all members of Parliament for this to fall upon, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has impeccable credentials in the defence of democracy. That is why it is so frustrating to see that the government sat on this information for over two years, only for us, as individual members of Parliament, to find out about this through the press. That goes to show why the freedom of the press is so important.

This is something the Liberal government has been undermining over the last number of years, just as we have seen with Bill C-11. We see how voices that may disagree with the government may be repressed online. We see that with the funding of journalism across the country. We see this with the subsidization of CBC, how that money influences the reporting that we get.

This particular instance shows that the freedom of the press, the ability for the press to be unencumbered by owing the government a favour of any sort, is necessary. We see, with The Globe and Mail and Global News, that if it were not for the work they had done, we would never know about this. We would never know that, for over two years, the government and the Prime Minister sat on the information that a member of the House and his family were being threatened because of a vote that had taken place here.

We have heard, over the last couple of days as we have been having this debate, over and over again how the Liberals are trying to spin this, and it is classic gaslighting. My working definition of “gaslighting” is that whatever someone is doing, they accuse their opponents of doing the same. I would like to address a couple of those things.

One of the things they say is that the Conservatives did nothing when they were in power. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have done nothing to stop this. They have allowed it. They have watched it grow. They have watched the foreign influence grow in Canada and have done nothing to prevent it over the last number of years.

The other thing that is interesting is that, under Stephen Harper, there was a different leader in China. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there was a different leader. China had a different outlook on the world under the other leader. There has been a significant shift.

If someone wants to look it up, they can google “wolf warrior”. The current leader of China, Xi Jinping, has openly stated that China is moving into a wolf warrior pose in the world. Instead of biding its time, which was the previous leader's line, it is looking at being a wolf warrior. They are looking to be dominant in the world. There is no doubt about that. They are much more aggressive.

That is a completely different context. I know the member for Winnipeg North will probably stand up to talk about Stephen Harper and the great job Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. The point is that, when Stephen Harper was the leader, Canada was seen as a strong player on the international stage. We were convening meetings to take on ISIL. We were a valued partner of the Five Eyes. Australia, the United States and the U.K. looked to Canada to provide a leadership role in many of these discussions. Now we are ignored, sidelined and not trusted by the international community when it comes to dealing with things like China.

The Beijing government worked much more carefully. It was much more concerned about what Canada had to say about what it was up to. Today, we have a completely different context.

Today, we see the Chinese run roughshod over Canadian values and institutions. They have set up police stations on Canadian sovereign soil. We have seen this over and over again. We just know that a lot of this is about posture. We know that, under Stephen Harper, Canada had a proud posture on the international stage. We had a posture that said we were open for business but that we had rules that everybody had to follow. Canadian sovereignty was something we were very concerned about.

In fact, we spent a lot of time mapping the north. The entire search for the Franklin expedition was a mapping exercise to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north. This was a nation-building exercise. It was something that we told the Canadian people about. It was a source of pride for Canadians. However, we also said we needed to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north because of threats from China.

Threats from China were something that the Harper government took very seriously. It was something that we went into with both eyes open. We dealt with China, but we said that we knew it was a Communist country and that Communism is not something that is equivocal. We cannot make equivalencies between Communism and democracy, and therefore, the rules of engagement that we deal with when dealing with France, Germany, Holland or the United States are going to be different from those we have when we are dealing with China.

Because it operates on a different system, we need to ensure that we deal with China appropriately. To some degree, this comes back to ideas around humanity and whether people are basically good. Maybe it is postmodernism that the government really espouses, with ideas around equivalency, and we just have to basically trust that everybody is good. There are evil actors in the world. There are nefarious actors, and China is one of them. China has not been a force for good in the world over the last number of decades.

That is a major difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals have a naive view. They want to equivocate. They want to say that it is a different system, but it is just as good. I would argue that this is not the case and that there are threats and nefarious actors in the world. These are threats and actors that we must take seriously and challenge. We must stand up for democracy and make the arguments for why democracy is better and why the Western systems are better.

Those are important things to do, and I do not think it is good enough to say, “You do it your way, and we will do it ours.” I think we should say, “This is the way we do it because it is better, because it is moral and because it is the right way to do things.” I see this postmodern idea that there is no truth, or that the truth is relative, as a failure of the current government. All of these kinds of things have really been worked into it.

The other area of gaslighting I see happen through this debate, particularly in questions from the Liberals, is how this is the member's fault and how the member should have known about this. Of course—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou is rising on a point of order.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my hon. colleague for interrupting his riveting speech, but we have no French interpretation. We have to select the English channel to hear anything. The French channel is completely silent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We will look into it right away.

Is it working now? Yes.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, the other area where we are seeing some significant gaslighting is where the government says that it is the member's fault and the member should have known about this. This is an interesting thing about victim blaming. We see the government accuse others of doing this all the time, and here we are seeing that once again. The government's newest line is that it did not know; it only found out on Monday, just the other day. However, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it knew about this over two years ago. That does not include all the other troubles we have with foreign interference in this country. The Trudeau Foundation is embroiled in a whole host of scandals now around taking Chinese money.

When the government was kind of embarrassed about its coziness with the Beijing government and Chinese influence in Canada, it appointed a special rapporteur. This position does not have any legal standing in Canada; nonetheless, it has appointed this person. One would think that if one were trying to allay Canadians' fears around this foreign interference issue, one would find somebody with no connections to the Beijing government and no relationship to the people who are being accused of not doing anything about it. However, here we are with the director of the Trudeau Foundation being appointed as the special rapporteur.

That organization has taken money from the Beijing government or their emissaries. We have seen all kinds of confusion around who took the money and how it was organized. The Prime Minister's brother was the one who facilitated a donation. Then we see that this organization's annual report names the Prime Minister as a member. Now, he says he is unaffiliated and has not had contact with it for over 10 years, but his name is still in the annual report. He is still part of the Trudeau Foundation. That is the reality, whether the Prime Minister wants to admit it or not. He can say that he is currently uninvolved in the operations of the organization, but when he leaves this place, he will be able to be a part of its directorship. If he says that funds donated to that organization today could not be disbursed in the future, what does he take Canadians for?

Today, donations are being made to the Trudeau Foundation; despite saying he is unaffiliated to it at the moment, the Prime Minister has connections to this organization. It is obvious that even if it were true that he is unaffiliated, which it is not, he will be reaffiliated in the future. He will be back on the governance board doing the same things, and he will have whatever kind of money has been donated to the Trudeau Foundation at his disposal once again.

We have also seen over and over that the Liberals' claim to success is about how much money they spend. The Liberals accuse the past Conservative government of not doing anything and then go on to state how much they have increased funding for whatever the situation is. The Liberals accuse Conservatives of not having done something compared with how much more money they are spending on a particular thing.

Again, this is another place where the Liberals will say that they have spent more money on this, which is an interesting way of ranking things. If we can get something and not have to spend money on it, that would seem to be a good win. We will not have to spend money on it if we can have national security because of our posture in the world and because we speak softly and carry a big stick. We will not have to spend money if we have no foreign interference because, rhetorically and by our posture, we signal to the world that Canada is not open to foreign interference.

These are things that will happen naturally and organically. We will prevent foreign interference by our posture and by our rhetoric, and we will not have to spend money. However, the Liberals will come and tell us how much money they are spending on initiative X, Y or Z as a point of proof that they are doing more. I just want to reject that whole premise outright. The amount of money that is spent dealing with a particular thing does not necessarily correlate to taking action on that thing.

I just want to restate once again that Canada is not for sale. Canada is a sovereign nation. The Canadian government should do all that it can to prevent foreign influence in our democracy and ensure that Canadian democracy is upheld wherever it is under threat.

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

Madam Speaker, just to pick up on the member's last points, people who are following the debate should be very much aware of the facts. The fact is that, whether the Conservatives want to agree or disagree, the Prime Minister first found out about this just last week. He took immediate action. Within a week, we now have a diplomat being expelled from Canada.

Back on March 12, we talked about establishing a foreign influence transparency registry. On March 15, we put in a special rapporteur, who could well come back suggesting that we have a public inquiry. The Prime Minister says that if that is the recommendation, that is what we will accept. Would the member not acknowledge that the Prime Minister found out for the very first time last week, as he has indicated?

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

Madam Speaker, the member will have to forgive me for not believing a lot of what comes across from that side of the floor. There was the WE Charity scandal, the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the question of who stayed in a $6,000-a-night hotel room. We have seen over and over again that the government has not been forthcoming. It has been a distract-and-deflect kind of government. Therefore, we are not going to take the Prime Minister at his word. We are going to continue to investigate this and call for an independent inquiry. We are going to hold the government to account so that we can show Canadians that there is an ethical government-in-waiting ready to take a seat on that side of the House.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motion is important because it enables us to express our indignation and shine a light on what happened to my Conservative colleague and his family.

Since day one, this government has been reacting instead of taking action. This has been going on for weeks. It is hard for us to believe that the Prime Minister just happened to find out last week that a member and his family were being threatened for the past two years. That is pretty hard to believe.

There is only one way to shine a light on the situation as a whole, which is not pretty: an independent public inquiry. We have been calling for this for weeks, as my colleague just said.

Instead of waiting for the special rapporteur, who is not independent in the least, will the Prime Minister stand up right now and launch an independent public inquiry?

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

Madam Speaker, that is probably the crux of the situation. Canadians are looking to the government to provide stability, to provide clarity and to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen anymore. A public inquiry that is truly independent and has the ability to follow its nose and to look in the dark corners, if set up correctly, would actually have the opportunity to bring trust back to our Canadian institutions.

The member is totally right in that this is bigger than just the individual member. I mentioned this off the top. For me, it is an interesting thing that the entire cabinet did not vote on that particular item, on the same vote that the member's family was threatened over. Therefore, was their vote being influenced? Were their families being threatened, or was there some other part of their personal life that was being used to extort a non-vote on that particular item? This is the one that we know about. What other actions have been happening in this place to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.