Kerry-Lynne Findlay

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could explain it. It makes no sense to me, because the number one priority of any national government is the safety and security of its citizens and the defence of our national sovereignty. If we do not have that, we really do not have a country. I do not understand. Whether it was laziness, lack of interest, incompetence or just not paying attention to the signals that were there, the mechanisms that needed to be there to protect us were not there.

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I can correct that, if I have used the wrong turn of phrase. However, the member did apologize for suggesting that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew of the specific threat two years ago. I appreciate his apologizing unreservedly for that.

With respect to the comments on what we have done and what they have done, we are where we are today because, no matter what long list or short list the member comes up with, the current government has not done enough. It has not done enough on a specific threat that was made to a member of Parliament, something that goes to the core of our democracy, which is the ability to debate and vote in this House. We know now, even after the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety denied that they had any prior knowledge, that those reports at least reached the Prime Minister's national security adviser. Therefore, if the mechanisms are not in place in the government to have a serious matter of national security go from the national security adviser to the Prime Minister and in fact go to the Prime Minister, then there is something very wrong with the way they are administering the government.

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the member for the unreserved apology he gave last week. When I brought up a point of order with respect to him victim blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, he got up and apologized, which his colleague did not do. I thank him for that.

With respect to the—

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I go back to a report from the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It was submitted to the Prime Minister on August 30, 2019, so in our 42nd Parliament, before I returned to this place.

A study was done and recommendations were made. I would like to read some of those recommendations, because they alerted this Parliament to some of the problems we are seeing roll out now. The report reads:

In the interest of national security, members of the House of Commons and Senate should be briefed upon being sworn-in and regularly thereafter on the risks of foreign interference and extremism in Canada.

That does not happen.

It continues:

In addition, Cabinet Ministers should be reminded of the expectations described in the Government's Open and Accountable Government, including that Ministers exercise discretion with whom they meet or associate, and clearly distinguish between official and private media messaging, and be reminded that, consistent with the Conflict of Interest Act, public office holders must always place the public interest before private interests.

It continues:

The targeting and manipulation of ethnocultural communities is the primary means through which these states control messages and seek to influence decision-making at all levels of government.

This was two and a half years ago.

It goes on to say:

Some individuals willingly act as agents of a foreign power for a variety of reasons including patriotism or the expectation of reciprocal favours. These states also co-opt individuals inside and outside of ethnocultural communities through flattery, bribery, threats and manipulation.

It goes on:

A great deal of foreign interference has the goal of creating a single narrative or consistent message that helps to ensure the survival and prosperity of the foreign state.... However, ethnocultural communities are not homogeneous and individuals or groups may not want to get involved or do not support the foreign state's goals. Therefore, foreign states utilize a range of tactics to enforce a single narrative. Those tactics include:

threats;

harassment;

detention of family members abroad; and

refusal to issue travel documents or visas.

Many ethnocultural community members are also monitored for what the foreign state considers to be dissident views or activities.

It also says:

States engage in foreign interference activities to support their national interests. These interests include regime protection and domestic legitimacy; strategic advantages and spheres of influence (such as their economic, political or security agendas); projection of power and deterrence....

It continues:

PCO and CSIS assess that Canada is a target due to its global standing; robust and diverse economy; large ethnocultural communities; membership in key multilateral organizations such as the Five Eyes, G7 and NATO; and close relationship with the United States.

It goes on:

The PRC utilizes its growing economic wealth to mobilize interference operations: “with deep coffers and the help of Western enablers, the Chinese Communist Party uses money, rather than Communist ideology, as a powerful source of influence, creating parasitic relationships of long-term dependence.”

The report goes on and on in the recommendations to point out that, yes, these are very real risks.

In a general sense, of course, we know that there are foreign countries with adverse interests to ours that try to gain influence here through money, through relationships, through threats and through intimidation. However, to do so specifically against a member of Parliament based on a vote taken in this House, particularly a vote on human rights, is outrageous. That is why we stand in support of the question of privilege by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills asking that our PROC committee study this and look at it. It is also why a motion was passed in the House today asking the government to create the foreign registry that I spoke of earlier, to establish an independent public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference, to close down Beijing-run police stations and to expel other operatives, not just the one we were told about today.

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we are at a pivotal moment in our democracy, because the threats we talk about, the threats to our core institutions, our members of Parliament and this very institution, are real. They are playing themselves out on a daily basis and there is no greater priority, or should be no greater priority, from a national government than our national sovereignty, than the safety and security of all our citizens.

It really does not matter when one became a citizen and whether one is a citizen by birthright or if one came here later on in life, maybe as a child with one's family and became a citizen or if one became a citizen as an adult. Having made the difficult decision to either leave or flee from one's country of origin, one became a citizen of Canada. As a citizen, this should mean something. What it should primarily mean is the government of one's new country, of the country one is now proud to say one is a citizen of, is there to protect one's interests, whatever they may be. This could be safe streets in communities at a very local level or on the macro level we find ourselves debating tonight, with threats from foreign governments or foreign entities, those who are adverse in interest to Canada.

I still am a lawyer, I confess, but in my active law practice days, we often would say that it was very important in any form of litigation, negotiation or mediation to understand who is adverse in interest to someone, or if one is a representative, adverse in interest to one's client. It is only with understanding that can one look to motivation, intent and how this may play itself out. We find ourselves in these kinds of moments here.

There are a couple of arguments I keep hearing put forward by government members. One is that the earlier government, the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, the Conservative government, has known all about this. They say that it knew this was going on and did not do enough. We certainly did not know, and how could we know, there were specific threats against the families of members of Parliament or that there were members of Parliament who CSIS, which is charged with our international security, at the time was concerned about being so compromised by a foreign country that they really should not be running as a candidate in an election or should be somehow more thoroughly vetted.

We did not have those kinds of situations brought before us at the time. Did we know there were foreign actors out there often adverse in interest to Canada who might play out their extraterritorial ambitions through proxies, money or through compromising Canadian citizens? Yes, we knew those general things.

Just before the 2021 election, I was one of the members of Parliament who had a general defensive briefing from CSIS. I received a call one day and someone said they wanted to meet me in my office. I asked if this was a secret meeting. They said no but that it was an important meeting and they wanted me to make myself available, which I did right away. That briefing, frankly, was not that detailed. It was a briefing about foreign governments attempting to influence our elections and our governments, and how they might go about doing that.

It might be something that seems like just a social invitation to go have dinner with a new friend. It might be through one's staff who they might befriend, and then that person might volunteer in one's campaign or have a paid position in one's campaign and then seek to have a position in one's constituency office or maybe one's Hill office, where they might have access to sensitive information.

Of course, depending on our role here in this Parliament or any other, the information one has coming into one's office may be more or less sensitive. I assumed at the time that they were speaking to me because we have in my area a large diaspora that came from or has the ethnicity of India and China. Those were two of the countries mentioned, as was Iran. These are places that may seek to influence what happens here in Canada because they are not our natural allies.

With that information, they asked me to speak to my staff to inform them about and give them these broad parameters. I did that. I understand now, from disclosures in this House, that approximately 49 MPs had these same kinds of briefings, but certainly on nothing specific at all.

What I saw play out in the 2021 election, and was aware of in the 2019 election but not to the same degree, was that citizens of Canada of Chinese ancestry in my riding and in neighbouring ridings around mine, where I was helping on campaigns, felt very much under threat from their country of origin. It was not even necessarily those born outside of Canada. Some had parents who were born outside of Canada but were of ancestry from China in particular.

They are very proud Canadians. I have often said that some of the proudest Canadians are those who have come here and become Canadians. They are very proud of the country they have come to, and they are very proud to say, “I am a Canadian.” That is how they see themselves. They do not see themselves as dual citizens and they do not see themselves as citizens of other countries. They see themselves as citizens of Canada, with all that that should entail.

It was an event that happened to me in my riding in particular that brought this home to me. In fact, our leader alluded to it in his speech earlier. We were asked to turn off our phones and go outside into the backyard of one of my constituents. With tears in his eyes he said he could not talk to me inside his home because he believed his home was being monitored. That was very upsetting because I could see the pain this man felt. He said he had voted for the Conservatives in the past, but he simply could not in that election because his family was under threat and he believed they would know if he voted Conservative.

I was also sent translated screenshots from WeChat where it was made very clear that even the idea of a foreign lobby registry was being painted as an attempt to register everyone of Chinese ethnicity in Canada, because it was our intent to round them up, just as Japanese citizens were rounded up in World War II, and confiscate their assets. That was the long-term plan.

I am also aware from other campaigns that there were people of Chinese ethnicity standing outside polling booth areas watching and even taking pictures of people of Chinese ancestry who were in line to vote. Some of those people turned around and went home. It is hard to brave that kind of intimidation.

A foreign government does not even actually have to do all those things. It just needs to make people believe that it can or it will. That is enough to make people afraid, enough to bring a grown man to tears in his backyard and enough to get to citizens of Chinese ancestry who are trying very hard to fit in here in Canada and become part of our life here. It is easy to have them think this is possible.

I have another example. We have a group in my riding, an educational group that is actually an incorporated society, made up of people of Chinese ancestry. They invite speakers from all parties. They have heard from all federal, municipal and provincial parties about how government in Canada works, what our various jurisdictions are and how we go about our business, that sort of thing. I was told, first, that they have disbanded their WeChat group because they felt it was being monitored, and they now communicate in another way. Second, two of their board of directors stepped away because they felt families were under threat simply because they were engaging in educational activities to learn more about their new country.

I had a volunteer on my 2021 campaign who was Uyghur. Just before the campaign, his mother went back to China because her father was ill. She felt it was her familial duty to go back, even though there were some dangers involved, in order to tend to her ailing father, who passed away at some point. When she got there, everything was taken away from her: her ID, her documents and everything that showed her citizenship status in Canada.

When she went there, she had permanent resident status but had not yet had her citizenship ceremony. As we know, during COVID, a lot of them were suspended. She was waiting to hear the date of her citizenship ceremony, but when she arrived in China, all her documentation was taken away. She had no way to appear for her citizenship ceremony in Canada. She had no way to leave China. It was very difficult to even communicate with her family back in Canada, who were all waiting for her return. What was supposed to be a six-month trip turned out to be an almost three-year trip by the time she was able to find a way to get some place where she could be communicated with in order to get the documents to get back to Canada.

These are real examples of how the Chinese government in particular is affecting what we do here.

When a threat is made against a member of Parliament, as chief opposition whip, it is my heightened duty to stand up for all members of Parliament, but particularly those in His Majesty's loyal opposition. I stand up for their privilege in this House and their right to vote and to exercise all the requirements of their duties as members of Parliament. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is suffering through this, but then added to that is government members suggesting that his general briefing two years ago, which was the same as mine, should have somehow put him on specific alert about his family members. That is a false narrative. It is impossible to put those two things together. That is victim-blaming in the classic sense, or gaslighting, as we often hear the term used now.

The very person who is under threat and told that the exercise of his franchise in this House is somehow compromised is being told that he should have done something about it, he should have brought it to the attention of the House and he should have done more. Well, we can only do more if we actually know that we have something to deal with, and he did not know that until last week through a news article.

I am not surprised CSIS is frustrated and talking to the press, and I know the government has had a strong reaction to that. Its reaction was to try to figure out who the whistle-blowers were in CSIS and go after them. Instead of praising the whistle-blowers and saying there is a problem here and that it needs to get on it as a government to protect our citizens and do more to protect members of Parliament, it was upset that the stories were getting out.

I go back to a report by Liberal member David McGuinty—

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I always find the member very thoughtful in the House with her remarks.

Yes, I think trust is lacking. I think there is a lack of trust in this government for the very reasons that we have outlined here today: that it has not taken the steps necessary to create trust and give confidence to Canadians that it is protecting them. It does not matter what category of citizen a person is; we do not have categories in Canada. Whether a person is a newly arrived citizen or has been here for generations or since time immemorial, this government is tasked with our national security and safety, and needs to take it seriously.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, because it was so long ago, most people might not know this, but I took my undergrad studies on Communism, so I am quite familiar with how Communism works. The member is absolutely right that it is often a matter of creating chaos and disorganization in a foreign government or in a foreign place that the Communist government wishes to either influence or take over, for that matter. This has nothing to do with it being China; it has everything to do with it being a Communist government that is acting in its own interest and not in the interest of Canada, and the chaos continues.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is true that David Johnston served honourably as our Governor General, but that was before he was chosen by this government to be the overseer of the election debates, and it was before he was named to the Trudeau Foundation as a director, a position he finally stepped down from after there were complaints that it put him in a rank conflict of interest, because the Trudeau Foundation had received $140,000 to $200,000, depending on the reports, from someone attempting to influence the government. That is why we said that it should be someone completely independent of this government, completely independent of the Trudeau Foundation, who would look into any of these matters.

We are calling for a public inquiry now, and they should vote for it.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, Canada's democracy is under threat. Its citizens and its institutions of governance are under threat, and this is a serious moment in our history as a nation. Canada has been under threat before and fought for its place among the family of nations that believe in peace, stability, the rule of law and protection of the citizens from adversaries within and without.

Canada, as it exists today, would not have been possible without the sacrifices, deprivations and evolution of many peoples, both indigenous and those who arrived later, coming together over time to fight alongside one another to forge a nation whose citizens pride themselves on upholding individual freedom, human dignity and enthusiasm for a way of life that is envied around the world. As Winston Churchill famously said, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

This Conservative opposition day motion recognizes that we have to fight and protect our citizens again. As chief opposition whip, I have the added duty to stand up for the members of Parliament who comprise His Majesty's loyal opposition in this special place, this House of Commons, the House that represents the common people of Canada, elected from ridings from coast to coast to coast.

We have a green carpet, representing the grass beneath our feet, the colour of the pasture in the greenwood, of the village green used by all: in other words, the colour of the common men and women. We have a common home and we should protect it. There are no titles of distinction in this place that give one person's vote more weight than another's. I have the “Honourable” designation before my name as a former minister and privy councillor, but my vote in Parliament remains one, as is the privilege of every other member of Parliament. That vote counts for something. That vote represents a whole district of Canadians who voted to give me and each person the honour of being in this chamber, their voices to be put forward and amplified often into law after debate.

Those laws govern Canadians equally, and we believe in equality before the law. Where there is injustice or unfairness, we have mechanisms to deal with those human failings: an imperfectly, entirely human system, yes; a flawless system, no. However, our Canadian system is as good as any in the world and strives to uphold its founding principles of peace, order and good government. We are a welcoming place for new Canadians to come and make it their home. No matter the date of their arrival into the Canadian family, they should have the protection of this nation's government. That any member of this House would find themselves under threat for a vote taken in this place for any reason, but particularly to uphold human rights in this country or any other country in this world, is an affront to our democracy.

Let us speak some truth in this House today. Political interference and intimidation of Canadian citizens was rampant and pervasive in the last election and, as we now know, the previous elections as well. In my province and riding, we have a sizable community of citizens of Chinese ancestry. They love their country of origin, its beauty, its art and culture, its language, its prominence in all areas of endeavour. They have enriched Canada in all aspects of life: the arts, literature, music, academia, business and, yes, even politics. We are all better for their contributions to this land and their leadership, historically under the harshest of conditions as labourers building a national railway that united us. Excluded from many aspects of citizenship, they were among our World War I and World War II soldiers, and they are today valued.

These are the Canadian citizens who took my volunteers and me aside during the last election and, with tears in their eyes, asked us to turn off our phones so we could speak in their backyards because they believed they were under surveillance by Beijing and if seen talking to a Conservative, they would be punished by Beijing, either directly or through their family members still living in China. They were told through WeChat and similar online groups, which I have seen, that China had people in every polling booth in Canada who would scan their voting cards and know if they voted Conservative.

They were told that Conservatives wanted a foreign registry to register every person of Chinese ethnicity in Canada so that they could later be rounded up, like the Japanese were during World War II, and have their assets confiscated. Therefore, they stayed home and their absence affected who sits in this House now.

Today, many of these same spokespersons are publicly saying that the call for a foreign agent registry, similar to the ones in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is Chinese exclusion 2.0: false, false, false. It is completely false.

There was and is an orchestrated campaign by a foreign country publicly admired by the Prime Minister, with books of praise written about it by his brother Alexandre Trudeau, and his father Pierre Trudeau many years ago, to interfere with and campaign against votes in this House and the votes in a democratic election.

As I stated earlier, it is my duty as chief opposition whip to stand in defence of the rights and privileges of every member of the House, not just my caucus colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. After all, and I heard this repeated from the government side today, a threat made against one of us is a threat against all of us. This House must demonstrate a collaborative, non-partisan response, yet we see that both parliamentary secretaries have repeatedly engaged in victim blaming today.

Let us be very clear: CSIS did not make known to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that threats were being made against his family. He was given only a general briefing. I had the same briefing, very general, about how foreign governments, and several foreign governments were highlighted, seek to influence Canadian politics and politicians, and how they might go about doing so: they might infiltrate an office or volunteer in a campaign. We were told about these things. There was nothing specific and nothing personal whatsoever.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been clear in public statements and before the press that he never had “numerous” briefings from CSIS, as the Minister of Public Safety repeatedly declared in the House yesterday.

The assertions from the government benches today that he, the victim, has known details for two years and that he, the victim, did nothing about it are irresponsible, completely false and meant to deflect from the government's past and ongoing failure to protect its citizens of Chinese descent from intimidation, coercion or manipulation that we know is real and is playing itself out across this country on a daily basis.

However, CSIS did advise the Liberal government about these threats. This information would have been brought to the attention of the public safety minister, the foreign minister and the Prime Minister. Those ministers need to be clear about what they learned and what they did about it.

To say nothing, as the Minister of Public Safety and the foreign minister did previously in this House, or for the Prime Minister to tell a scrum yesterday that he just learned about it through the news, is a dereliction of the duty to protect the citizens of this country writ large and the privileges of the members of this House. As the member just stated, it is a dereliction of the duty to put into place the mechanisms that would make sure that those people knew. Who else are Canadians to turn to?

This is another abject failure and another “I am just an observer” Prime Minister answer. No wonder CSIS members are frustrated and talking to the press. No wonder Canadians have lost faith in the government. They cannot trust their safety or protection to the Prime Minister anymore.

I ask all members to support our calls to action: the creation of a foreign agent registry; the establishment of a public inquiry; the closing down of Beijing-run police stations operating in Canada, including some in B.C.; and the expulsion of Beijing's diplomats responsible.

We call on the government and the Prime Minister to show up, stand up and do the hard work of governing this nation.

[Points of Order, May 4th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, I have the quotation from earlier today by the member for Winnipeg North, and he said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years.” Then he went on to accuse the member of doing nothing about these threats.

We are not talking about the briefing this week, the one the Prime Minister and the member had. We are talking about not just a suggestion but an assertion that the member has had information about the threats to his family for two years, which is false, and has done nothing about them.

He was blaming the victim. There should be a proper apology, and that was not it.