SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/8/23 10:41:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of responding to interference by foreign diplomats. Of course, foreign interference does not always involve diplomats, but it often can and the government has been way behind on disciplining or expelling any diplomats, none up until today. This is in a context where the member pointed out some of the anomalies, in terms of the numbers of diplomats here. She mentioned there are 176 from China and 81 accredited diplomats from Russia. Meanwhile, Poland has 26 accredited diplomats. Germany has 50 accredited diplomats, and the U.K. has 51 accredited diplomats. There are more Russian diplomats here in Canada than German and Polish diplomats combined. There are more than three times as many diplomats from China as there are from the United Kingdom. This suggests that, when we have these large numbers of diplomats from countries that we do not actually have a particularly warm relationships with, without the same level of trade relationships, people-to-people exchanges and so forth, we should be concerned about what those diplomats might be up to, yet the government has allowed very high levels of accredited diplomats from states that have interests that are contrary to our own, and they have not been responding to clear instances of foreign interference. It seems that one issue we should be looking at in responding to foreign interference is asking what the appropriate number of accredited diplomats is. Should it be, in some sense, proportionate to the number of Canadian diplomats in the other place? Should it be proportionate to other aspects of the relationship, and is this an indicator of something else? Further, do we need to be setting limits so that somehow they are proportionate to what the relationship actually is?

297 words

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/8/23 11:25:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a different point of order. The Speaker, prior to question period, made it clear that doing indirectly what we cannot do directly, which is accusing someone of lying or calling someone a liar, is a violation of the rules. The member just got up and said that what had been said by the member was not true. I think he should be forced to apologize and withdraw that comment or be prevented from speaking henceforth.

80 words

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/8/23 11:36:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a critical point for me in the development of this discussion was when we had the foreign affairs minister before committee on Thursday last week. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills was asking her about the expulsion of diplomats. What she said back is that we have to weigh the possibility of countermeasures, retaliation, economic measures and other things. To me, that just underlined the fundamental problem with the government's mentality that keeping Canadians safe from foreign interference is being weighed in the calculus against other things, when it should be the fundamental point. The Prime Minister has repeated those comments. They project a kind of weakness by saying we might not act against foreign interference because there might be some retaliation. The bottom line for us should always be protecting Canadians full stop and standing up against those kinds of threats of intimidation. This demonstrates the weakness and flaw in the government's mentality and how it responds to these kinds of situations. I wonder if the member has a response to that.

178 words

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/8/23 11:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there were four specific issues in the opposition motion that was voted on today. Those measures involved the expulsion of diplomats and the creation of a foreign registry. These are common-sense measures that all members should support, like having a national public inquiry. The government voted against that motion. It did not really provide any explanation for what it is not prepared to do. On the issue of a national public inquiry, the government would rather have people from the Trudeau Foundation, in spite of all that the Trudeau Foundation has been implicated in, be the ones doing this investigation. I wonder if the member has reflections tonight on why the Liberals opposed our motion and would not explain why, and why they would rather have people from the Trudeau Foundation investigate foreign interference than the people who are genuinely independent and have the confidence of all parties.

151 words