- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- Wellington—Halton Hills
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $120,269.09
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their institutions to protect them from the malign threat activities of authoritarian states. Canadians expect the whole of the Government of Canada, including its intelligence agencies and law enforcement, to protect our elections and democratic institutions from the coercive, clandestine and corrupt foreign interference threat activities of authoritarian states. That is what Canadians expect, and that is why Canadians were so shocked when the extent of foreign interference in our democracy was revealed to Parliament and to the public.
Justice Hogue, who was leading the foreign interference public inquiry, concluded in the inquiry's initial report that “interference occurred in the last two general elections” and became so serious that it “diminished the ability of some voters to cast an informed vote”. She also concluded that foreign interference had a negative impact on the broader electoral ecosystem in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and that it undermined public confidence in Canadian democracy.
The government was slow to act on the advice from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other national security bodies, who had identified these threatening activities years ago, before the two general elections that followed.
The Prime Minister was first warned in 2018 by the director of CSIS of the existential threat from foreign interference threat activities of the People's Republic of China here in Canada. National security agencies advised the government to introduce a range of measures to counter these threats, including legislation. It took years for the government to introduce Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, but finally it has been introduced. Let me outline our views on this bill.
The bill is divided into four parts. Part 1 proposes amendments to the CSIS Act. These amendments are the most significant changes to the act in decades. As my hon. colleague, the minister, pointed out, the CSIS Act was introduced in 1984, just after disco but before the introduction of the Internet, social media, smart phones and many other technologies. The amendments would allow CSIS to obtain preservation and production orders as well as warrants to obtain information, records or documents through a single attempt. They would allow CSIS to better collect, retain and analyze data for intelligence purposes. They would allow CSIS to collect foreign intelligence for the first time and would allow CSIS to disclose classified information outside of the government, to provinces, municipalities, universities and companies.
Part 2 would amend the Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code to create new foreign interference offences. The bill would create a new offence of up to life in prison for a person who commits any indictable offence under the Criminal Code or under any other act of Parliament at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity. The bill would also create new offences for a person who engages in clandestine activities at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of Canada or to influence the exercise of a democratic right in Canada.
The bill facilitates foreign interference proceedings by eliminating the need for the Crown to demonstrate that the purpose of the foreign interference is to harm Canadian interests if the person who committed the offence or the victim has a link to Canada.
Finally, part 2 would amend the Criminal Code to broaden the offence of sabotage to include sabotage against essential infrastructure, which is defined as transportation, information and communication technology, water and waste water, energy and utilities, health care, food supply, government operations and financial infrastructure. Sabotage is defined as anyone who “interferes with access to essential infrastructure” or anyone who “causes an essential infrastructure to be lost, inoperable, unsafe or unfit for use” with the intent to “endanger the safety, security or defence of Canada” or the armed forces of an ally in Canada, or to cause “serious risk to the health or safety of the public”. As the minister pointed out earlier, the minister's view is that essential infrastructure includes the construction of essential infrastructure.
The sabotage offence provided for in the bill is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and for greater certainty, part 2 makes it clear that it exempts legal advocacy, protest or dissent that does not intend to cause harm.
Part 3 would amend the Canada Evidence Act and would make consequential amendments to other acts to create a general scheme to deal with information related to foreign affairs, national defence or national security in Federal Court proceedings. It proposes amendments that would permit the appointment of a special counsel to protect the interests of non-governmental parties in those proceedings.
The fourth and final part of the bill would establish the foreign influence transparency and accountability act, which creates a foreign influence registry and a new foreign influence transparency commissioner. Any person under the direction of or in association with a foreign state or foreign government, or any entity controlled by that state or government, and who communicates with a public office holder, who communicates or disseminates information to the public about political or governmental processes, or who distributes money or items of value, or provides a service or the use of a facility, must register.
The bill would create an indictable offence of up to five years in prison and up to $5 million in administrative monetary penalties for failing to register, for providing false or misleading information to the commissioner or for obstructing the commissioner's work. These are tough penalties for failing to register, and they will have a deterring effect on those thinking about acting on behalf of a foreign state or a foreign-controlled entity in a corrupt, coercive and clandestine manner.
For those who do act in such a manner and, as I expect, do not register, tools are available to law enforcement and other enforcement entities, such as the commissioner, to hold these individuals accountable for their activities, either through the new administrative monetary penalties of up to $5 million, which have a much lower threshold for use, or through a referral to the appropriate police of jurisdiction for criminal prosecution.
The new foreign influence transparency commissioner would oversee a public registry containing information on individuals engaged in influence activities on behalf of a foreign principal. The act provides that the commissioner is to provide reports to the public safety minister and Parliament. The commissioner is appointed by Governor in Council, effectively by the Prime Minister, after consultations with the leaders of the House of Commons and Senate. However, ultimately the decision to appoint the commissioner is a decision of the Prime Minister's alone.
In principle, we support Bill C-70. Now that it has finally been introduced, the government, the official opposition and other recognized parties in this House must work together to ensure that our democratic institutions and elections are protected from the threats of authoritarian states. Inaction and delay cannot continue. As Justice Hogue noted, the risk from the impacts of foreign interference will only increase as long as “sufficient protective measures to guard against it” are not taken.
As our general election draws closer and as the life of this Parliament draws to an end, time is running out to strengthen the confidence Canadians have in our elections through legislation.
That is why the Conservatives are proposing to work with the government and the other parties in the House to fast-track the adoption of Bill C‑70 in the House of Commons and in committee, leaving enough time to implement foreign interference protection measures before the election.
Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure the rapid progress of Bill C-70 through the House while ensuring sufficient scrutiny of its provisions. We are willing to consider amendments to the bill, but we want it to pass.
The government has often asked the official opposition to work with it, and this is an instance in which we will.
1355 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 3:04:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the government what Justice Hogue concluded in Steveston—Richmond East. She found that “there are strong [indications] of PRC involvement and there is a reasonable possibility that these narratives could have impacted the result in this riding.” Again, the Prime Minister said, just several weeks ago, that in “every single constituency election...election integrity held and it was free and fair.”
Does the government agree with Justice Hogue that PRC interference could have impacted the election result in Steveston—Richmond East?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 3:02:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on April 11, the Prime Minister said that “it wasn't simply, an overall the election was free and fair”, but that in “every single constituency election...election integrity held and it was free and fair.”
Justice Hogue concluded otherwise. She concluded that well-grounded suspicions about PRC interference in Don Valley North “could...have impacted who was elected to Parliament. This is significant.”
Does the government agree with Justice Hogue that PRC interference could have impacted who was elected to Parliament in Don Valley North?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 4:32:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we support the report of the committee. We have submitted a supplementary report, along with the main report, that makes three supplementary additions that buttress and support the report. The three recommendations are in respect of Confucius Institutes, the critical election incident public protocol and the new federal beneficial ownership registry.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 2:17:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on November 7, the first report appeared about the PRC's interference in our elections. Since then, 19 weeks have passed. Since then, hundreds of questions have been asked in question period, in debate and in committee.
Despite these hundreds of questions, despite 19 weeks having passed, the Prime Minister has not told us much of anything. The government has responded with non-answers, denials, obfuscations, and accusations of racism and partisanship. The only reason why we know anything is because whistle-blowers have leaked to the media.
This is appalling. It is contemptuous of Parliament. By denying Parliament the most basic answers to the questions about a serious national threat, by forcing whistle-blowers to leak to the media, by going outside Parliament, the government is undermining Parliament and the very foundations of our constitutional order.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 2:56:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our questions are not about the overall integrity of the 2019 and 2021 elections, nor questioning whether overall our elections are free and fair. We are asking who knew what, when, about Beijing's interference in our elections.
The Prime Minister said, in response to questions, “I do not have any information, nor have I been briefed on any federal candidates receiving any money from China.”
The government is parsing its words and is obfuscating, so let me ask this question. Has the government received any information about election interference by Beijing?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 2:46:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for years for a plan from the government to combat Beijing's meddling in our democracy, but it has failed to act, and now we have a situation where candidates are receiving illicit funds from Beijing funnelled through its Toronto consulate. Canadians deserve answers. Who are these candidates? Are they members of the House? Are they going to be candidates in the next federal election?
Again, who are these 11 election candidates?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 2:45:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to answer a very simple question: Who are the 11 election candidates who, in the 2019 election, received hundreds of thousands of dollars funnelled by Beijing through its Toronto consulate?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked to President Xi about these 11 candidates, but the government and the Prime Minister have yet to tell the House who these 11 candidates are. What are they hiding?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 2:45:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has an opportunity to answer a question that I asked twice yesterday. This is a serious matter in the public interest that requires an answer.
Who are the 11 election candidates who received hundreds of thousands of dollars funnelled through Beijing's consulate in Toronto in the 2019 election?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 2:52:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is an appalling answer. It is the government that allowed People's Liberation Army scientists of the People's Republic of China into a top-level lab in this country against the government's own security protocols and in threat to the Five Eyes alliance.
We are talking about payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars to election candidates. We are talking about Beijing putting agents in MPs' offices. We are talking about an increasingly aggressive campaign to silence Canadian MPs.
My question for the government is very simple: Who are these 11 candidates?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 2:51:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Beijing interfered in last year's 2021 election. Beijing’s ambassador to Canada commented critically and publicly during that election campaign and Beijing spread disinformation through proxies on Chinese-language social media platforms.
Last week we found out that Beijing also interfered in the 2019 election. We found out that the Prime Minister was told months ago, in January, about hundreds of thousands of dollars that were illegally funnelled to at least 11 election candidates.
My question is simple. Who are these 11 election candidates?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:27:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of Huawei is one that needs attention. Then public safety minister Ralph Goodale, in May 2019, said that the government would be delivering a decision on Huawei before the 2019 election. Then the government changed its mind on it. Several months later, it said the decision would be coming after the 2019 election. We still have no decision. Last September, the Prime Minister indicated to Global News that a decision would be forthcoming in several weeks, and yet there is still no decision today.
It is another reason why we need this committee, to help the government along with its policies on Canada-China. There are so many aspects of the security relationship that need attention that I cannot elucidate them here in my short answer to the hon. member.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
