SoVote

May/9/23 8:59:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the motion before us, which is a privilege motion raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I am so pleased to engage in this debate and to be here in support of my friend, a fellow member of Parliament who, very clearly, has had his privileges as a member of Parliament violated. It is that motion that is before us today. Members will have noticed that over the last month, when I have spoken in the House on different occasions, I have spoken about whom Canadians can trust. Whom can Canadians trust with their privacy, for example, or with their economic prosperity? Of course, each time, the conclusion I have reached is that we cannot rely on the deeply flawed, failed Liberal government to be a trustworthy defender of Canadian interests. Today, I would like to continue that thought as we talk about whom we can trust to defend Canada's national security and sovereignty and our fundamental democracy. I would like to suggest, again, that we cannot trust the Liberal government to defend the most cherished institution in the country, which is our democracy and our right to vote, to think and to speak freely. Recently, a very serious vulnerability in Canada's security and democracy was exposed. It turns out that my friend and colleague in the House, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, had his family, his extended family in China, threatened and intimidated. This was because he, as a member of the House, promoted and voted for a motion that effectively declared that the persecution of the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang, China, amounted to a genocide. That is what we do in the House. We make judgments. We weigh evidence and information that we receive, and we come to policy conclusions. We pass legislation. We pass motions in the House. That is democracy in action, but it appears that the Communist regime in Beijing did not take kindly to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills actually supporting this effort and voting in favour of it. It appears that a diplomat here in Canada, for the Chinese government, promoted the intimidation of my colleague's family members overseas, as well as aiding and abetting in threatening them. The Speaker recently ruled that this, in itself, was a prima facie case of privilege, which required redress through the procedure and House affairs committee, as well as a debate in the House. That is the debate we are having today. I would love to flesh out exactly why it is that member after member of our Conservative Party has been engaging in this debate tonight. The motion we have before us is a very serious matter; it affects one of the most respected members of the House. We have heard from all parties in this esteemed House that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is one of the most knowledgeable, competent, capable and ethical members of this House, and we all have great admiration for him. He does his job on behalf of his constituents extremely well. We found out that this member is being attacked by a foreign government because that government does not agree with Canada's human rights regime or that member's views on what constitutes true freedom. That member stands up in this House and speaks to and defends the rights of the Uyghur minority in China to be free from forced labour and from persecution. When he is then attacked by a hostile foreign regime, this House needs to take action. It turns out that the government should have known about this over two years ago. In fact, we know that CSIS became aware of intelligence two years ago that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was being targeted and that his family members were being targeted with intimidation and threats because of the position the member had taken in this House supporting the Uyghur motion. However, the Prime Minister did nothing about it. Our Prime Minister claims that CSIS never brought it to his attention, but that is simply implausible. It is something of a critical nature, going to the very root of our democracy. It is about the right to vote freely in this House, to speak our opinions, to take positions and to shape the policies of our country. These things are of such importance that the intelligence would have been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister. There is no doubt in my mind. However, we are told in this House day after day that the Prime Minister did not know about this until a week ago. Over time, more and more Canadians are realizing that the Prime Minister cannot be believed. That is why it goes to trust. I started off by saying that the question Canadians are asking themselves more and more often is whether they can trust the Liberal government. The answer we are hearing more and more is “no”. People cannot trust the current Liberal government anymore; it is not transparent about what it does as a government or about what it says here in this chamber. The government would have known, at least two years ago, that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was being targeted by a hostile foreign regime, and it did absolutely nothing to inform the member. In fact, do members know how the member for Wellington—Halton Hills actually—

922 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:09:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this, and I want to do it unambiguously so there is no mistake about what I intend to say here. The Prime Minister knew over two years ago that our colleague in the House was being targeted by a hostile foreign regime, and the Prime Minister did nothing to inform our colleague in the House about that threat and intimidation. It was only recently that we learned about it, and not through the Prime Minister or any minister of his government. We found that out through the media, The Globe and Mail. That should never happen in this country on something as critical to our democracy as the right of each member in the House to vote freely without intimidation. That should be unchallengeable, yet the government and the Prime Minister failed to advise our colleague of this threat to his family. I find it incomprehensible that we as MP colleagues in the House would do that to each other. That should never happen. Yesterday, we found out that the diplomat involved in promoting this threat and intimidation against our colleague was expelled by the Prime Minister. All I will say to that is it is too little, too late. The damage is already done with the threats and intimidation. This should not have happened. The least that the government and the Prime Minister owed to our colleague was transparency and the right for him to be informed the moment that CSIS became aware of this and the communication went to the Prime Minister's Office. I have already mentioned that what is at stake here is not only our right to vote in the House freely, to express ourselves freely, to take positions that are consistent with human values and to do so without the threat of intimidation. It goes far beyond that. Every single Canadian who is watching these proceedings will be asking themselves, “Well, hold it. Am I at risk? Could a hostile regime from around the world, from elsewhere, say Russia or Iran, interfere in my life and threaten me in that way to try to achieve some nefarious outcome that is in their interest and against my interest?” They could say that, yes, and Canadians across this country should be concerned. However, do members know who should be really concerned? It is Canadians of Chinese background who are concerned that agents of the Communist government would seek to influence them here in Canada to promote the interests of Beijing rather than the interests of Canada. That is what is at stake here. I fear for our country if we as members of Parliament cannot even ask or expect our government to notify us as these threats emerge. I have no doubt that CSIS would have communicated this to the Prime Minister's Office. I have no doubt at all. We know from the Prime Minister's chief of staff that the Prime Minister reads everything. Yes, that is what she said. She said he reads everything, as if she looks over his shoulder every waking moment of the day. However, that is what she said. That was her testimony at committee, and I take her at her word. The Prime Minister reads everything, and no doubt this would have come before him because of the serious nature of this threat to the members of this body, this august chamber. Let me talk about why we have focused on the Communist regime in China. It is this regime that actually perpetrated this violation of our colleague's privileges in this House. I did mention the publicly acknowledged genocide of the Uyghur minority population in China, but this regime is also responsible for many other threats to our country. We know that there have been at least eight different foreign police stations established by the regime in our country, and to date, no one has confirmed that all of them have been shut down. We have been pleading with the Prime Minister for months to shut down these foreign police stations that Beijing has established here in our country in violation of our sovereignty. The latest report has it that at least two of these foreign police stations are still operating in Canada. That should not be happening in our country, but it is happening under the Liberal government. What about the two Michaels? It took forever to repatriate those two Canadian citizens because of bogus charges levied against them in China. We know there has been election interference. By the way, that is another case the Prime Minister has said he was never advised about. There was election interference during the 2019 election and the 2021 election, but he said that nobody ever told him. Really? There were two elections and there was foreign interference in each one. CSIS knew about it and never brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister's Office. We know he reads everything. It is implausible. It is unbelievable that he would not have known, yet to this day he denies actually knowing about that. We know that with that election interference, at least 11 candidates were targeted in order to be defeated. The conclusion has been drawn that the overall election results were fair and represented the right outcome. I am not challenging that conclusion at all. What I am saying, however, is that for those 11 candidates, like my friends Kenny Chiu in Richmond and Alice Wong in Richmond, it made all the difference because they are not in this House today. It is election interference that the Prime Minister and his government did not take seriously. Bob Saroya is another one of our colleagues who is not in this place. The overall election might have been fair, but for those three individuals and the other eight, it made all the difference. We have to take foreign interference in our elections seriously. To close, I am going to talk again about what is at stake for our country. Our national security is at stake. Our economic security and prosperity are at stake because these hostile foreign regimes have been active in intellectual property theft, stealing our research, breaking contracts and violating the international rules-based order. That is serious stuff. That is something this House has to take up and take seriously. With respect to the personal security and safety of Canadians, I have already mentioned my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. His family was threatened by a hostile foreign regime. It is critical that we take this seriously. Other things at stake are human rights, freedom, the rule of law and democracy. That is what is at stake here in this debate. I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion and vote in favour of it.

1139 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:22:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that members on this side of the House who believe in the truth do believe it. Having said that, I believe it is Canadians who will judge for themselves. They have seen this movie before time and time again, with the Prime Minister prevaricating, exaggerating, denying and then being found out. Then it is oh well; too bad, so sad. This is the Prime Minister who twice has been found in breach of Canada's ethics laws. He just swats them to the side as if he can get away with that. We can do better than that as a country. The member should take this debate seriously, because it is our national security, our sovereignty as a country and our democracy at stake. These are not trifling arguments that I have been making. I have been very serious about them. I hope that he and the rest of Canadians actually take this seriously.

161 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:24:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that we should be ensuring that journalists and journalism have a good future in our country. What I will not agree to is anything that smacks of censorship. That would be the government using the strong arm of the law to try to coerce the media to act in any particular way. The freedom of the press needs to remain sacrosanct. Having said that, I do want to address the other issue the member raised, which is the national inquiry that the member's party and mine have been calling for, a national inquiry into foreign interference in the affairs of our country. We note that the Prime Minister has, time and time again, refused to call such a national inquiry. Finally, he was under so much pressure, that he asked his friend, Mr. Johnston, who is a former member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, to investigate and determine what further steps should be taken to address foreign interference. I think we could have saved ourselves all of that effort by simply doing what Canadians have asked for and Conservatives have asked for, and that is to immediately call a national inquiry into foreign interference.

201 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:27:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member may have had a short political life in this chamber, but she has already distinguished herself as an excellent member of Parliament. The Liberal government has actually distinguished itself in a very different way, and that is its unserious nature. Everything it does is about virtue signalling rather than the substance of the policies that Canadians need to drive prosperity, to drive our national security, to protect Canadians against crime and to re-establish our reputation on the international stage. Our reputation on the international stage, which is what I think the member was getting to, has been badly tarnished and besmirched, quite often by the actions of the Prime Minister. I wish it were different. I wish I could stand here in this House and say Canada is doing well, Canada is so well respected all around the world, but that is not the case. Bridges that used to be available for us to cross have been burned by the government time and time again. What a tragedy. Yes, we can do better.

178 words

Virtue

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Hon. Ed Fast

May/9/23 9:30:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the comment that our Prime Minister has been quoted as saying is somewhat telling. I think it is instructive as to why he takes the positions he does toward some of the hostile regimes around the world. The fact that our Prime Minister would have this abiding admiration for the basic dictatorship that is China because of its ability to get things done is not what we should be aspiring to promote when we are promoting Canada's interests.

84 words