- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- May/1/24 3:50:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Monday I rose on a question of privilege related to foreign interference. I have come across—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is hard to speculate what is in the minds of the members across. I have asked this question over and again to successive foreign affairs ministers, at committee, in the House, at every opportunity. We never get a clear explanation.
I have put forward the bill that would allow the government to do it. I have asked if we could expedite that bill at least to committee. In fact, I will ask for that now.
I ask for unanimous consent for Bill C-350 to be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Let us send it there for further study. Is there consent?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:55:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we will see how the vote on this proceeds tomorrow. Following that vote, there will be votes on other measures.
There are sometimes instances where the government may not want to proceed with something but also not want to talk about it. For example, we have the issue of forced organ harvesting and trafficking before the foreign affairs committee. We think we should move that issue forward. I will give the Liberal members credit that every time the issue has been brought to a vote in the House, they have voted in favour of that bill, yet we are not seeing a will to move it forward. If the foreign affairs committee had been going forward, I would not be here in the House speaking on this issue, but at the foreign affairs committee testifying on Bill S-223. However, the chair cancelled that meeting arbitrarily without consulting with other parties, which meant I was not able to be there and we were not able to move the bill forward.
I hope members of the government will reflect on why that meeting was cancelled, because bills like Bill S-223 are important bills on forced organ harvesting and trafficking that should be moving forward at the committee and are not. There are other bills, like Bill S-211, where a lot of work is required but things are being slowed down.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:52:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from some Canadians who are considering or have made the decision to join Ukraine's foreign legion. That is obviously a very difficult decision. What those Canadians are not looking for from government is a repeat of travel advice. Those who are choosing to go and fight in defence of Ukraine are already aware there are significant risks associated with doing so and they do so in full knowledge of those risks.
What those Canadians are looking for is legal clarity from the government. My question, in the first instance, was never about if the government can give those people life advice. It was about whether the government could help those people have the clarity of knowing how the law applies to them, specifically with respect to the Foreign Enlistment Act that was passed in 1937, which I think has an important area of ambiguity that the government would do well to clarify. The Foreign Enlistment Act makes it an offence for a Canadian to join or engage in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with a “friendly foreign state”. That is the operative phrase. If someone is going abroad to fight against a friendly foreign state, then that person is committing an offence in Canada.
The act does not contain a definition of what constitutes a friendly foreign state. In fact, in the entire history of this act, from what I was able to discern, there have not been any prosecutions under it, which might suggest that the risk of prosecution for a Canadian who is going to fight abroad is low. However, people are still looking for that legal clarity and they do not have the benefit of legal precedent to look at. A friendly foreign state could mean a state that Canada is not at war with. A friendly foreign state could mean an ally or partner of Canada or a like-minded state in some ways, but the problem is that we just do not know.
My original question to the government was if it could clarify whether, for the purposes of the act, not in colloquial usage of the term but for the purposes of the act, is the Russian Federation considered a friendly foreign state.
However, I think more broadly it is important for the government to consider the need for clarity around this legislation, because there are many other cases where Canadians choose to participate in conflicts, feel very deeply on behalf of one side or the other, and there may be national interests that are impacted in Canada by those actions. We do not have clarity in the law with respect to when that would or would not be allowed at all.
I asked the government then, and I am asking the government now, to provide Canadians with legal clarity with respect to the application of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and in particular, the provisions around what constitutes a friendly foreign state. Could the government clearly state that, for the purposes of this act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?
Could the government also consider regulations or modifications that would provide greater meaning to that section, so that Canadians who are taking this risk to fight in the defence of Ukraine do not have to worry about the possible, what I would argue, misapplication of this statute?
The law also gives the government an opportunity, through Governor in Council regulations, to, “by order or regulation,” provide for “the application of this Act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict”. Therefore, the government does have the ability, under this act, to put forward regulations that would provide that clarity.
I have an Order Paper question as well that asks the government specifically to respond, to provide a list and to provide information on what it considers a friendly foreign state, because Canadians should know whether or not this law applies to them.
676 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 2:54:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians who choose to join Ukraine's foreign legion would do so at great risk to themselves. They should not have to worry about being prosecuted in Canada. According to the Foreign Enlistment Act, it is against the law for a Canadian to fight against a friendly foreign state, but the act contains no definition or list regarding who is a friendly foreign state.
Could the Attorney General of Canada clearly state that, for the purposes of this act, Russia is not considered a friendly foreign state?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
