Debates of May 9th, 2023

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I think that in the current context, his question answers itself. It is extremely worrisome.

I admit that, as an MP, I feel concerned. Obviously, I have no ties to China. However, I am not surprised by the example from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and his leadership on the issue of the Uyghurs and protecting these people. The Uyghurs are under pressure because the Chinese regime is trying to wipe them out, and their safety and survival are truly at risk.

As a Parliament, we are going to need to take strong positions and accept the consequences, as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean did. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is leading by example. Obviously, he can no longer visit China, and these types of threats are absolutely unacceptable. We must stand firm in solidarity.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that may be the only time my friend from Lac-Saint-Jean is ever on the government's side, but I know there was a lot of space over there he was doing his best to fill.

I want to ask about the Hong Kong national security law, because this is an important aspect of the issue of foreign interference. Many flights transit through Hong Kong, of course, and Hong Kong's national security law effectively claims a universal jurisdiction. If I get up and give a speech in this House and say certain things about the democracy movement in Hong Kong, theoretically that law claims the right to arrest and prosecute me if I transit through Hong Kong. It is really an incredible disregard for national sovereignty in other countries shown through this law and is an explicit in-statute claim to interfere in the affairs of other states.

We heard during previous testimony at the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship how indeed this national security is a threat to members of Parliament in every part of the world as it is in particular a threat to the people of Hong Kong. What should we be doing to respond to this law and to stand up for the freedom of people in Hong Kong?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his comments and his foresight, and especially for his willingness to educate all Canadians and members of the House of Commons about the importance of protecting themselves.

I do not think that denying this information is the answer. On the contrary, I think we need to pass it on and address it. As far as China is concerned, I cannot help but think of all the facial recognition systems that can identify and register individuals as they pass through an area. Police officers can quickly descend on a location to intercept and arrest these people. We know about the arrest of the two Michaels and all the arbitrary processes they faced.

Now there is a third Michael, the member for Wellington-Halton Hills, who is also being subjected to retaliation. Everyone must be extremely vigilant. They must think about their own safety, but under no circumstances should silence be part of the solution.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a serious issue. I think everyone in this House is very concerned with this. We know this is a serious issue that keeps coming up again and again and again. What we need is transparency. Could the member talk about why a public inquiry is so important, even more so now as we discuss this matter of privilege?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her concern for this issue.

Yes, transparency is part of the solution, because without transparency, we are sure to repeat past mistakes.

Let me draw a parallel with the holding of a public inquiry in the world of sports. We want this kind of inquiry because we want strong recommendations that will have the force of law. We want to get to the bottom of things and encourage people to come forward who may be too scared to speak publicly but who can confide in an authority they trust. We need a robust system, reliable mechanisms and independent people. A public inquiry can do this, but what we really need is for a country like Canada to take a strong stand.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the speeches in the House today are excellent. I want to congratulate my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for the overview he just provided.

What happened is serious. I will try to summarize what happened recently, but also what happened in the years that we have been talking about interference here in the House.

Yesterday, in the late afternoon, diplomat Zhao Wei was declared persona non grata in Canada by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We believe that was a very wise decision. We applaud the government's decision, even though it was made two years too late. Now that it has been made, we must say that it was the right thing to do. I believe that is what all opposition parties were asking for. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois were asking for it and, I believe that the NDP also supported this decision, which we applaud.

Now we are talking about a member of Parliament who is being threatened with retaliation. Honestly, there is reason to be concerned about more parliamentarians and about democracy in Quebec and Canada. The article in The Globe and Mail referred to a number of MPs in connection with the motion on the Uyghur genocide. I had the honour and privilege of making an amendment to that motion in 2021. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills allowed me to do that. That amendment was adopted and then the motion was unanimously adopted, even though all of the government members just happened to abstain from voting. Perhaps they had a stomach ache that day.

Let us review the facts. It seems as though the main person involved, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has been targeted by the Chinese Communist Party since he sponsored that motion in 2021. Let us recall that the motion described the treatment of Uyghurs in China by the Chinese Communist Party in power as a genocide. As I said, an overwhelming majority supported that motion. Once again, it is important to point out that the government members showed a complete lack of courage by choosing to abstain from the vote.

I have the good fortune of representing my political party on international human rights. I am a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I had the opportunity to be invited by my Uyghur friends to attend various panels abroad, including in Europe twice. I can say that the government's lack of courage has reverberated around the world. The people I talk to on these panels come from different parliaments around the world, including in the United States, but also many parliaments in Europe and even in Asia and in Africa. These are people who come together to discuss the situation of the Uyghurs in China. They are very aware that when the motion was moved in the House, the Liberal government ensured that its executive, or the ministers, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretaries, abstained from voting. That was noted around the world.

That is Canada's international reputation, now. It has a reputation as a government that lacks courage when the time comes to stand up to torturers and dictators who violate human rights, as the Chinese regime in power is currently doing against Uyghur minorities. I want to note that it is also committing these acts against other Turkic peoples in Xinjiang, which my Uyghur friends call East Turkestan. Simply put, this government lacks courage in every regard and on many files.

I could talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, we are not here to talk about that, we are here to talk about Chinese interference. This shows that the government lacks courage. However, back in 2015, when talking about Canada's international reputation, this Prime Minister said loud and clear, “Canada is back”. Some people believed him. Let me share a little secret: I believed him, too. The Conservative government's nearly 10-year reign had just ended, and that government had failed to distinguish itself internationally or in terms of human rights. After years of the Harper government, we thought that Canada would finally regain its place on the international stage and restore its historic reputation in the area of international human rights. This is coming from a Quebec sovereignist.

We know that Canada is not considered a military power. We know that it is not considered an economic power. However, Canada, and therefore Quebec, does have a history of leadership in the area of human rights when we had to stand up to state criminals.

I will give an example. Lester B. Pearson was a Liberal. The idea for peacekeepers came from Canada. As a kindness to my Conservative friends, I will cite the example of Brian Mulroney, who took a stand when the time came to condemn the odious apartheid system in South Africa.

The first person to take a stand was a Quebecker. It was the mayor of Montreal, Jean Doré. He was the first to stand up against apartheid in South Africa. Brian Mulroney took up the cause and amplified it around the world. He convinced the United States and Great Britain. At the time, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were not exactly keen on opposing apartheid, but Brian Mulroney finally convinced them. Then history took its course. After Nelson Mandela was released, the first trip he took was to Canada. Believe it or not, his plane was scheduled to land in Ottawa, but while he was en route, he asked to land in Montreal so he could meet Jean Doré, the mayor of Montreal, the person who got the ball rolling.

It might seem like I am getting off topic, but this is in my speech, and it is related. I am making a link with what is happening right now in terms of Chinese interference. What happened to my good friend from Wellington—Halton Hills is awful. Imagine being in his shoes. I think that is the problem. The Liberals are good at lecturing anyone who will listen, but they are not so good at putting themselves in the shoes of anyone who is suffering.

I have to wonder about something. When they heard about the CSIS reports aimed directly at my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills two years ago, I wonder whether things would have been different if it had been a Liberal member. I will say it again, but not too loudly: I doubt it. I have a feeling that if a CSIS report had found that a Liberal MP and his family in Hong Kong were being targeted by the Chinese authorities, we would not be here today, because the government would have acted much more quickly. I am sure of that.

It makes us think. It shows that the government is simply not serious about dealing with Chinese interference and that it does not concern the Liberal Party. It is pretty shocking. When the Liberals found out that a Liberal candidate might have been funded by the Chinese Communist regime, they did nothing and said nothing. They let him get elected. When a Conservative candidate like my friend Kenny Chiu was defeated in the election, presumably because the Chinese Communist regime financed his defeat, they did nothing either. It all worked out for them because he is no longer in the House to defend himself.

Then, when it happens to our Wellington—Halton Hills friend, no one says anything, even though his family was allegedly targeted. Frankly, that is not acceptable. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is a sincere and respected individual. He and I are at odds over only one thing: My friend voted against the motion that recognized the Quebec nation. We will not go down that road. He and I still have to have a conversation on that.

Let us remember one thing. We were elected. We were trusted. One of the first things we were elected to do is to uphold democracy and institutions in our country, and to defend democracy, freedom and our democratic institutions. Right now, we need an independent public inquiry because this government is not getting the job done.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his work. It is a pleasure to work with him on the matter of Uyghurs' rights and other important human rights issues.

It is important to underline how the threats that were made against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills followed the leadership he showed in recognizing the Uyghur genocide issue. The fact is that Canada's Parliament was the first in the world to pass this motion. In a way, this is a recognition of how important that moment was in catalyzing the global response. It was a proposal vote that had such an impact on the discussion that it catalyzed some of these responses and threats. However, the government still has not been willing to take the step of recognizing that.

Does the member think that now would be a good time for the government to recognize the importance of this issue and recognize the Uyghur genocide?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question. I work with him on a lot of files. I know that he does meaningful work on those files. He is very organized and easy to work with.

He makes an excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, I have to tell my colleague that we have already seen how the government reacts when we ask it to stand up and act courageously on human rights issues.

I agree with my colleague that this would be a good time. It is time for the government to show that it is capable of doing something. Unfortunately, I have some bad news for my colleague. It is not going to happen. The government is not going to just suddenly find some courage hidden away in its backpack today.

I am sorry. We can ask the government, but it is not going to happen.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a member of PROC, I really look forward to getting this in front of us so we can do the important work that needs to be done to honour this member's privilege in this place.

I am curious about whether the member could speak a bit to this: A lot of people are calling my office who are worried that this discussion around foreign interference is becoming too politicized and not really focusing on the core issue. Of course, what Canadians want to know is that they can trust their institutions and that there are actually processes in place to address this issue. Does the member agree with me and the NDP that calling a public inquiry will help take it out of this political institution and put it in a place that can be accountable to all Canadians.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is another excellent question. We are fortunate this evening.

I think that the Bloc Québécois shares the same position as the NDP. We like working hand in hand with our NDP friends. There needs to be an independent public inquiry. This would completely depoliticize the debate since this inquiry would be independent.

Appointing someone who was a director of the PM's father's foundation is not going to make the public believe in what we are doing. I think it is a mistake. There needs to be an independent public inquiry.

I have had discussions with my Tibetan friends, with my Uyghur friends, with my Hong Kong friends, and they all tell me that they want this inquiry.

Can we listen to the minorities who are the primary victims of this Chinese Communist regime and ensure that this inquiry is launched?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his friendship. Even though he is a sovereigntist Quebecker, I can say that I worked with him on the Special Committee on Afghanistan and the immigration committee, and it is fun to work with him.

He mentioned Kenny Chiu. I want to correct him, through you, to say that the fellow who was elected in Steveston—Richmond East was born in that riding, worked hard in that riding and raised money on his own. I can say that he is a deserving candidate; the people of Steveston—Richmond East voted for him to be here, and that is why he is here.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker. I love my colleague. I understand his question. He just demonstrated why we need an independent public inquiry.

Yes, he might be a good guy, but Kenny Chiu was also a good guy, and we do not know what happened because we are unable to shed light on the situation.

My hon. colleague's question comes back to what we have been saying from the outset along with the Conservatives and the NDP. We need to have an independent public inquiry to clear the names of several people, but also to understand what happened so it never happens again.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

Today, we are discussing this question of privilege. It is interesting that we use this term around privilege because the privilege that we speak of is for a member of this place to exist and do his job without any fear or intimidation from a foreign entity. That is the question of privilege. That seems like something we should be able to take for granted, something that we should just be able to count on, day in and day out, not only as members of this place but as members of the general Canadian public. Why should we be able to count on that? Why should that be our reality? It is because we belong to the country of Canada.

As citizens of this fine country, we should have a government in place that prioritizes the safety and security of Canadians. Why? Because the safety and security of Canadians is the foremost job of any government, no matter its political stripe. If it does not keep its citizens safe, if it does not secure our borders, which are not just land borders but borders as in the security and safety of persons, we have little else as a country.

Without safety and security being achieved, we are not able to pursue economic well-being or prosperity. We are not able to dream of a vibrant future and what is possible. We are not able to implement environmental policies. Without the very basics of safety and security it is impossible to be the prosperous nation that it should be. It is interesting that we are talking about this as if it is a privilege when in fact the safety and security of members of this place and all Canadians should simply be their right based on citizenship.

What prompted this debate today? It is because a member of this House, a colleague, has come under fear and intimidation from Beijing. We know about this because the government informed this member of Parliament, though it knew about it. We know about this because of a journalist who released the story. The journalist knew about it because of a brave whistle-blower who released CSIS documents into the hands of the media, and from the media into the public. That is what has allowed us to become aware of this.

As a side note what is interesting to me is that the Liberals just met this last weekend to talk about policy at a policy convention. During that convention they put forward a policy that would require journalists to give up their sources in order to be published online. If journalists chose not to give up their sources then they would not be publishable. That is a direct attack on the freedom of the press. That is a direct attack on journalistic independence. That is a direct attack, therefore, on Canadians because Canadians rely on journalists to tell stories. They rely on journalists to tell the truth, to reveal things that the government might want to hide or that other corrupt actors in this country might not want Canadians to know. When the government wants to hinder the ability of journalists to tell the stories that need to be told, that is very disconcerting not only to me as a member of this place but to Canadians at large because it concerns their freedom, their ability to access information that is then put at stake.

We are here today because we found out that this colleague of mine, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, was the target of intimidation tactics and threats, as well as his family. These attacks came from Beijing. We know that the Prime Minister knew about this two years ago. We know that because intelligence documents told us that, yet the Prime Minister chose to remain silent and did not give the member a heads-up. When did the member find out? The member just found out about a week ago, when a journalist gave him a call wanting him to comment on this news. We can imagine how shocked my colleague was finding this out from a journalist. As time has gone on, more of the story has been revealed. The reality is that we know this is not the whole of the story. We know that this is actually only one part of Beijing's larger interference plan, with silence and inaction by the government.

With regard to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, what might be the reason Beijing would target him? Well, we suspect it is because of a position he took on a motion that declared the Chinese government's attack against the Uyghur people, a minority group in China, a genocide. Members of this place voted for that motion, with the exception of cabinet. Cabinet stayed silent; they stayed mum. I wonder why they failed to take a stand for this repressed group.

When I say “repressed”, I do not mean a bit hard done by. When I talk about the Uyghur people of China, I am talking about a minority group that essentially lives in enslavement. They live in prison camps. I am talking about a group whose human spirit the Chinese government is looking to destroy. I am talking about a group that is forced into mass sterilization. That is genocide. I am talking about a group whose children are separated from their families. I am talking about a group that is physically tortured, mentally tortured and sexually abused. Women are raped. I am talking about all of this being done at the hands of Beijing while these individuals are huddle like cattle in these concentration camps, these encampments.

This place debated this motion, and out of that, my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, took a very strong stance calling this oppression against the Uyghur people what it is: a genocide. Now, of course, from there these threats ensued.

Again, I come back to the fact that the government knew for two years that this was happening and said nothing. However, it gets worse, because it is not just my colleague who came under this pressure or these threats from Beijing. We know that many Canadians reported coming under similar sorts of threats.

We also know that Beijing donated $144,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. We know that the Prime Minister's brother, Mr. Alexandre Trudeau, to be clear, was the one who signed off on that donation, yet the Prime Minister claims to have no affiliation whatsoever.

Further to that, we know that the Prime Minister was actually briefed through our intelligence agency in this country with regard to Beijing's interference in our 2019 and 2021 elections. We know that money was filtered illegally from Beijing businesses into Liberal campaigns in Canada. We know, again based on CSIS documents, that it was the intent of the Beijing government to make sure the Liberals won the election.

I wonder why they would be silent. I wonder why they would do nothing. After all, it is the government's responsibility to keep Canadians safe and secure. However, members sat on their hands. Perhaps it was a $144,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation. Perhaps it was the fact that Beijing was funnelling money into campaigns, hiring interns and putting them in campaign offices. Perhaps it was because Beijing was actively working to suppress candidates from other parties. Perhaps that is why the government forgot its first promise, which is to keep Canadians safe and secure and to make sure that the citizens of this great country are respected and that our democracy is upheld. Perhaps it was simply worth a piece of silver.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her awareness of such a fundamental issue.

I have asked this question several times today, but it is absolutely fundamental for me. As a member of Parliament, what aspect affects her work? Does she feel completely capable and independent to make decisions, or does she feel some pressure and a threat to her independence and her ability to make decisions?

What would happen if she or members of her family received such threats? Are we adequately protected?

Is the government doing enough, or should we have an independent public inquiry to make sure that we put in place the necessary framework to allow us to do our jobs properly?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, I will just take the attention off of me because it is not about me. It is about Canadians. It is about the responsibility of the government to keep Canadians safe and secure. That is the foremost job of the government. That is prime.

The government has failed to do that by allowing Beijing to intimidate not only a member of this place but also many Canadians across the country. Furthermore, to intervene in our election process is absolutely wrong and should never be permitted.

The larger question here is what Canadians deserve, and Canadians deserve a public inquiry.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate that the hon. member shares the NDP's view that a public inquiry is absolutely necessary. I do have one question, though.

I know transparency is super important, but one other way to protect our democracy is to make sure that we have a sense of national security. I wonder if the member could share with us how we could make sure that there is a fine balance between protecting our democracy and making sure there is a good sense of national security without sharing too much information that protects us.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the question. I think it is a very good one.

There is this balance between protecting individuals' privacy and access to information and data ownership. Those are all definitely very important questions. There is also this question around safety, security and transparency.

I think what is at stake here is not necessarily the individual's privacy. Rather, we are asking for there to be greater transparency around what happened. Why is it that the government was aware, for more than two years, that there were threats being made against my colleague? Why is it that the government knew there was interference from Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections and did nothing?

We know that the Prime Minister had access to those documents, and we know, based on the testimony of his chief of staff, that he reads everything that he is given. We have no other conclusion to draw than the fact that the Prime Minister had the documents, read the documents and did nothing. Canadians deserve better.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that my colleague put an emphasis on the reason why the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was threatened. He was threatened because of his leadership in standing with victims of genocide.

Through the motion that he put forward, the motion that was adopted unanimously, though with cabinet abstaining, Canada's legislature was the first in the world, but it started a global movement of other legislatures recognizing the Uyghur genocide. This was a consequential moment of leadership for that member and this Parliament, in spite of the inaction of the government. The threats this member has faced underlines just how consequential that moment was.

I want to thank the member for raising that issue and just invite her to add additional measures, perhaps, that the House needs to take and the government needs to take, to stand with the Uyghur people. The House has spoken on this multiple times, but the government has been far behind.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague highlighted something really important and that is that the motion that was at hand had to do with calling what is happening to the Uyghur people within China, at the hands of Beijing, a genocide. This place passed a motion to that effect, which means the government has a responsibility to act, and it has not done so yet.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lethbridge for sharing her time with me and, of course, for her great words.

I would like to take some time this evening to comment on the point of privilege from my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Let me start by expressing, not just for this House but for all Canadians, the admiration that I have for the hon. member. There is no finer gentleman to have ever graced these halls.

Last week, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills spoke in this House about the intimidation tactics of the People's Republic of China and how these tactics are being deployed against many Canadians of Chinese descent in diaspora communities across the country. That motion went further, emphasizing that such tactics have been widely reported and well established through House of Commons committee testimony. It was also reported by Canada's security establishments that families of members of Parliament had been subjected to an intimidation campaign orchestrated by various actors out of Beijing's consulate in Toronto.

The hon. member articulated the need to create a foreign agent registry, similar to the registries of Australia and the United States of America. Of course, with the myriad of intimidation infractions that the committee had heard about during previous elections, the member discussed the establishment of a national public inquiry on the matter of election interference in the name of Canadian sovereignty.

The next main point related to the unbelievable development that the People's Republic of China was operating police stations here on Canadian soil. The realization that this was only considered because we were alerted by the Americans does not really give us a strong sense that the Liberal government is on top of things. The final point was the need to expel all the diplomats from the People's Republic of China who were responsible for, and involved in, these affronts to Canadian democracy.

Much has been said of the interactions and interventions made by senior members of the Liberal Party in their attempt to sweep a serious international transgression under the rug once again. To put blame on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was the lowest of lows. However, to his credit, at least one Liberal recognized that his usual partisanship was offside and apologized to the member. That was the member for Kingston and the Islands.

My educational background is in mathematics, science and agriculture. China's contribution to mathematics, science, engineering and health over the last 3,000 years has been phenomenal. Sadly, the 112 years that have elapsed since the creation of the PRC during the Chinese Revolution in 1911, and the subsequent fall to Communism of mainland China in 1949, have placed an iron grip on the once-proud Chinese people.

This closed society has taken away so many remnants of the past. Whether it was an array of binomial coefficients, the standard conversion of rotary and longitudinal motion, or ploughshares of malleable cast iron, China was the first of firsts. However, over the centuries, these contributions have become as much a surprise to the Chinese people as they are to westerners. The reason I mention this is that there is a definite distinction between the genius of the people of China and the oppressive Communist regime of the People's Republic of China.

How do we deal with a dictatorship that has used its massive authoritarian rule over its own people and then chooses to use the same tactics on other foreign nations? My feeling is that we stand up to them and do not back down. We have seen the consequences of capitulation around the world, whether they involve taking over such infrastructure as ports, exploiting foreign natural resources using child or slave labour, or de-engineering patented products to compete against original designers.

Such actions should not be rewarded. However, because China supplies us with many products, we tend to turn a blind eye to these transgressions. The most serious of these is their mocking of environmental standards as they flood the world with products; countries like Canada give them a pass while, sadly, treating them like a poor country cousin in need of charity. This current action is but one more transgression to which the free world must react.

We now know that CSIS was aware two years ago that family members of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills were being targeted by the Chinese Communist government because of his role as a member of Parliament. We know that there were election irregularities where members of the Chinese diaspora were being targeted and told not to vote for particular candidates during the last federal election. I know an amazing entrepreneur and community advocate of Chinese descent who was targeted in the last municipal election in my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View, where lies and disinformation were commonplace. It is a real problem.

Why must we address the actions against our esteemed colleague as a question of privilege? If we are weak when it comes to our actions, this will never end. Any one of us could be subject to these tactics. The results would be the silencing of the voice of the people. If our government does not take this seriously and chooses to minimize these actions because it has an affinity for the present Chinese government, whether out of admiration or fear of reprisal, then this truly becomes a question of privilege.

The Prime Minister, his cabinet and his Liberal caucus all need to take stock of their actions. The Prime Minister and cabinet chose to abstain on the question of Uyghur genocide by the Chinese government. He lectures Canadians as to the bar that the term “genocide” must reach to be accepted internationally while seeing no problem using such terminology against our own ancestors. Is that the real reason for abstaining, or was it fear of reprisal from a Chinese government that had helped fund certain pet Liberal projects? If the government is in any way compromised and is not taking actions because of that, we also have a serious problem.

Two years after the government became aware of an MP and his family being targeted, it took a full week for the government to do the bare minimum and do what it should have done long ago. This Beijing operative should have been ejected when his intimidation actions became known to the government. For the government to rise and oppose the Conservative motion that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills presented perhaps shows its unserious commitment to our democracy. This must never happen again.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier that I think this is a really important debate. The situation is quite serious.

There was an article in the Journal de Montréal a few weeks ago about the election of a city councillor in Brossard who may have been assisted by individuals working for the Chinese state. Those individuals were sending messages in Mandarin on the WeChat platform controlled by the Chinese state to people in Brossard's Chinese community. Their candidate was elected. The mayor of Brossard has launched an investigation, and it has been documented in the newspaper. This is something that happened in Canada.

The Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship heard from representatives of Hong Kong Watch. They have been documenting this kind of Chinese state interference in municipal and provincial elections for 30 years. It has yet to be proven, but they suspect it is happening in federal elections as well. This is a very serious matter.

What we have seen over the last few weeks and months could be just the tip of the iceberg. I am a bit disappointed that our Liberal friends are completely absent from tonight's debate.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the discussion we are having is simply about how the government has reacted to the fact that a member of Parliament has been pointed out and his family has been forced to suffer. However, it is not just members of Parliament. If we allow that to continue to happen, it makes it easier for the regime to continue some of the outrageous things it is doing at the provincial level and the municipal level.

I saw some of the documentation being presented around the small town of this individual, and basically it was all lies. Fortunately he topped the polls, but the point was that nobody believed that any of it was true. That is one of the things we all have to be aware of. It is so important. Folks like the gentleman I am speaking of have contributed so much to our country, and they want to do that and be away from the dictatorship and oppressiveness of the Chinese Communist regime.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, since the member mentioned the foreign agent registries in Australia and the U.S., I wonder how he would consider those registries to be effective in protecting our national security and to make sure these registries are effective in informing Canadians about lobbying efforts by foreign agents.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is so important. If someone who works for a small community organization wants to lobby the government, the person has to register. To think that someone might be on our soil from another country and could have come without any type of scrutiny is just unreasonable.

We see a model. We see what Australia has. We understand that the United States also has this. Australia is very close to China, and it sees a lot of the problems and issues that are associated with that. The U.S. has constantly been back and forth, especially on some of the things I have mentioned as far as patents are concerned, and it takes this rather seriously. I think that is the least we can do.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

This is a critically important debate. We are debating a question of privilege, which means that we are debating an instance in which the rights and privileges, and the ability of a member or members of this Parliament to do their job, were threatened.

In particular, we are dealing with a situation where, incredibly, a member of Canada's Parliament and his family were threatened by a foreign government. We have to contend with the reality that a member of Parliament was threatened by a foreign government, the People's Republic of China, Beijing's Communist Party. Why was he threatened? He was threatened because he stood with victims of the Uyghur genocide.

As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, this is deeply personal for me. I grew up hearing stories from my grandmother not only about the persecution she and her family faced, but also about the stories of politicians, everyday leaders, church leaders and everyday people in Germany and throughout the world who were willing to stand with her and stand with other victims of that genocide. Their courageous witness for justice, for universal human dignity, is part of what contributed to my grandmother surviving the war, and to me being alive today and able to give this speech.

I honour and recognize the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for, just like courageous those heroes of the past, being willing to stand with victims of genocide in our own day and bearing the costs of that. He has faced threats. He has faced intimidation from the government of China, a loss that I think is challenging for all of us to understand. There is now an inability, for instance, to safely visit his ancestral homeland and show it to his family. These are real sacrifices, and the member has shown significant courage in taking this stand.

The fact that the government of a foreign state would presume to threaten a member of Parliament here in Canada should underline the new reality we are facing in the world today. It is the reality, sadly, of a new kind of cold war where we have fierce ideological, economic and other forms of strategic competition between a free democratic bloc, on the one hand, and a group of autocratic revisionist powers that seek to reverse and undermine the international rules-based order on the other. In particular, it seeks to overturn the idea that borders should be set through agreement and through the sovereign will of the people, not by force.

These revisionist powers seek to overturn that long-standing consensus. They do not have any respect for national sovereignty, which is why they presume to not only dictate other countries, such as in the case of Russia's actions to invade Ukraine and the cases of the PRC's action to threaten Taiwan and the sovereignty of various other countries in the area, but also intervene and try to stealthily control and direct our institutions here. This is the reality of the world today. It is one of intense strategic competition that I think could be appropriately and honestly described as a new kind of cold war.

The outcome of this competition between free democratic values and this emerging authoritarian revisionist bloc is not certain. We cannot presume the triumph of the values of democracy and liberty. We must struggle, work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our way of life and spread the cause of freedom to expand the space of freedom to more people around the world. This is something we can hope for, but we cannot presume will happen unless we fully commit ourselves individually and collectively to the pursuit of this end.

I believe the system of free democracy is superior. It harnesses the energies and the creativity of more people and it will prevail under the right circumstances. A critical part of that circumstance is that we summon the courage required to meet the challenge.

I want to speak specifically tonight to the virtue of courage. Courage, quite simply, is the virtue of being willing to risk important and valuable things in pursuit of greater things, in pursuit of things that are good, true and beautiful. It is a willingness to risk our own safety, security, comfort or economic well-being to pursue greater and more important goods. That is the preservation of democracy and of liberty, and a system that recognizes universal human rights and the rule of law. It requires courage and a willingness to sacrifice, if we are going to prevail in the midst of this.

This story of what happened with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with the threats he faced and the stance he has taken, is about courage. It is about a contrast in courage, sadly, between the stand he took and the positions the government has taken.

The member, in working with other parties, especially other opposition parties, put forward a motion to recognize the Uyghur genocide. It was telling the simple truth that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are victims of an ongoing genocide. That motion passed because the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all members of the opposition and some members of the government were prepared to stand up and say it was true and that Canada has obligations under the genocide convention to act for and stand with victims of this genocide. Cabinet did not show the necessary courage. It showed cowardice. Its members remained in their seats and abstained on that all-important vote.

That took courage, because it involved sacrifice. It led directly to threats made against the member and his family, but it also led to legislatures around the world following Canada's example and recognizing this genocide. It was a crucial step in helping people everywhere understand what the CCP is really all about and what its agenda is: The CCP is using the latest technology to inflict a campaign of genocide against an ethnic and religious minority.

That vote was a crucial moment. It took courage and it had consequences: challenging consequences for the member and his family, but positive consequences in terms of advancing awareness and action in response to the still ongoing Uyghur genocide.

I think the response by the government to the threat also tells an important story about courage and cowardice. Because the government did not act, the member was not informed, and when he was informed this past week, when the information was out on the news, the response from the government was to say that it cannot take certain actions, or that it at least has to be very careful to take certain actions because there might be retaliation.

It is the old logic of appeasement, the logic of Neville Chamberlain, to say we do not want to annoy our adversaries in this global reality of competition because they might do things back to us. We will therefore tolerate such outrages as threats to members of Parliament, and we will not take action in response.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee said that we have to consider this very carefully because China might retaliate. We should have the courage to say it is a fundamental point for us here in Canada that we will not tolerate threats made against our citizens, whether or not they are members of Parliament, and we will expel diplomats who engage in that behaviour, period, full stop. That takes courage. That takes a willingness of the government to draw a line. If this was a government of courage, we would not have gotten this far in terms of the vulnerability to these threats.

If the government had courage, we would have had our government recognize the Uyghur genocide. We would have taken strong measures to combat foreign interference, including bringing in a foreign agent registry. We would have taken those measures years ago. However, the government, in a pretense of sophistication, says it cannot do that because we have to think about it carefully and they might retaliate and so forth.

This is fundamentally the logic of weakness, and I think it is so important for us to reflect on this issue of courage and what strength or weakness looks like in the challenge in front of us. I think we will face in the years ahead an ongoing competition between free democracies and revisionist authoritarian powers. We can win this struggle if we collectively have the kind of courage that has been shown by my colleague on this side, and if we have the kind of courage to say we will make the sacrifices required, we will stand up for what is right, we will tell the truth about genocide, we will protect our country and we will protect our citizens.

If we have, collectively, the courage to take that stand and to make the sacrifices associated with it, we will preserve freedom and democracy for generations to come. If we do not, if we buy into the logic of appeasement that refuses to act and that is calcified in faux sophistication, then we will not prevail.