- 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/9/24 11:05:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that we need a full range of tools, which is what experts have been telling the government.
The government needs to implement a full range of tools to counter these foreign interference threat operations, and one of the tools that it needs to start using, which it is not very good at, is sunlight and transparency. The government needs to tell us and the public about foreign interference threats that it has derived from intelligence so that we are equipped with information to ensure that we become more resilient as a Parliament and more resilient as a society to counter the threats coming from authoritarian states.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 3:19:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has been late. It was late in the fall of Kabul in August 2021.
Has the government not learned the lessons of 2006 and 2021 of Beirut and Kabul? Throughout the Middle East and North Africa, there has been an outbreak of protests and violence targeting western interests and western missions.
Will the government clearly communicate to Canadians the information necessary to ensure their safety and inform Canadians about security threats they are facing in the region in a timely manner?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:06:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I keep raising this issue in the hope that the government will respond. We know, as the member mentioned in his remarks, that both the Jewish and Muslim communities in Canada are living in fear of an attack. The government's integrated threat assessment centre has assessed Canada's national terrorism threat level at medium, where it has been since October 2014. Does he think that it would be a good idea for the Government of Canada's integrated threat assessment centre to give Canadians, including those in the Jewish and Muslim communities, an update tomorrow about the threat level so that Canadians can be assured the government is assessing the situation and ensuring the protection and safety of Canadians?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 10:22:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member, since he is part of the ministerial party, about a question I asked one of my colleagues earlier.
There is a lot of fear, as he has mentioned, in both the Jewish and Muslim communities across Canada, that they may be attacked individually or that their cultural, religious or educational institutions may be attacked. The government's integrated terrorism assessment centre has assessed Canada's national terrorism threat level at medium since October 2014. Does he not think it would be useful for the integrated terrorism assessment centre to indicate to the public if the level remains at medium or to assess it at a different level in order to reassure Canadians or better equip them to ensure their safety?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 10:07:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre of the Government of Canada has a national terrorism threat level. When Parliament Hill was attacked In October 2014, which was the last terrorist attack here on Canadian soil, it was set to medium, which is that a terrorist attack could occur.
Does the hon. member not think it is a good idea for the Government of Canada to update Canadians about the threat level that communities like the Jewish community, like the Muslim community, might be facing and either to reaffirm the threat level at medium or to upgrade the threat level to high, a likely chance of an attack occurring, in order to either reassure Canadians or arm them with the information they need to protect their religious and cultural communities?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:06:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is an important question. I am very concerned about the weakening of Canada's national security and intelligence system, the intelligence community, because of what has taken place over the last several months.
I would add that it is not primarily the decision of CSIS whether or not to inform members of foreign interference threat activities. It is primarily the responsibility of the Prime Minister; an open and accountable government is clear. The Prime Minister has primary responsibility among all ministers for national security. The Prime Minister is primarily responsible for the government's relationship to Parliament.
What has clearly broken down here is the direction from the Prime Minister to direct his intelligence community, departments and central agencies to inform members of Parliament and their families, in an appropriate manner, about foreign interference threat activities. He has indicated that this will now happen going forward, but it should have happened as soon as he was appointed to office, in early November 2015.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:04:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a public inquiry into the general problem of foreign interference is needed.
However, I also know and believe one second thing, which is that we cannot allow the process, whether matters have been referred to NSIRA, NSICOP or a special rapporteur, which could lead to a public inquiry, to prevent us, prevent this chamber or its committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, or prevent the Government of Canada, the executive branch of our system, from taking immediate action in regard to threats that are directed to members and their families or directed to Canadians who are members of diaspora ethnocultural communities. We have to be able to do both: take immediate action and, at the same time, look at some of the systemic problems that have been brought to light over the last number of months, as reports about foreign interference threat activities have surfaced.
I say “yes” to a public inquiry, but also “yes” to immediate action, and not delay as a way to prevent action by deflecting to the process of NSIRA, NSICOP or a potential public inquiry.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:00:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my immediate family here in Canada is okay. We are fine, but, as I have said previously, I cut off communications with my family in the PRC out of an abundance of caution. Clearly, these events are very public. Like other cases involving Canadians who have family in the PRC, or Canadian consular cases in the PRC, these are difficult things to address and deal with.
With that all said, I know one thing: We cannot be cowed. We cannot be intimidated by these threats. We have to stand up for the fundamental principles and values that underpin this country and its institutions. As difficult as it may be to stand up for those fundamental principles in the face of intimidation threats, we cannot but take that course. To do otherwise is to undermine these foundational principles, undermine our democracy and hand to our children and grandchildren much weaker institutions that are subject to these subversive and coercive forces.
Generations past made very difficult decisions to stand up for these principles. It is our generation's task to do the same thing in the face of a very different threat than previous generations faced.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:00:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not new information that the PRC is targeting the families of Canadians in the PRC to coerce and intimidate Canadians here on Canadian soil. That is not new information. We have known for years that the PRC uses these coercive tactics, in democracies like Canada, to intimidate citizens in these democracies into silence or into other actions in order to mould the debate in democracies, in order to threaten democracies and in order to get their version of an authoritarian world promulgated around the world. That is not new. We have known this for years, through investigative reports by journalists at reputable publications, through committees of the House, both in the current Parliament and in the previous Parliament, and through reports of government agencies and services.
We have known about this for years, and not just in Canada. We have known about this taking place in other democracies. We have known, for example, that Canadians here in Canada who are advocating for democracy and civil rights in Hong Kong, who are advocating for free expression, for the freedom to associate and for freedom of the press have been targeted by the PRC, and that their families back home have been threatened. We have known that those advocating here in Canada for the human rights of Uyghurs, Tibetans and other minorities in the People's Republic of China have had their families in the PRC threatened by the PRC.
What is new is that, two years ago, the government did nothing when it came to its attention that a diplomat working in Canada, with the approval of the Canadian government, was targeting me and other members of the House in an attempt to change the course of the debate, to attempt to intimidate MPs into voting a certain way on the floor of the House. That is what is new here. That is the issue here.
Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the opposition whip.
That is the new information at play here. When the government knew, it did nothing. It was not until the information became public several days ago that the government started to treat this seriously. That is shocking. What else is going on that is threatening the national security of this country that is threatening the safety and security of Canadians here on Canadian soil that we do not know about and that the government is doing nothing about? The Prime Minister and the public safety minister say they did not know until this past Monday that a PRC diplomat was targeting me and other members of the House. That is astounding. That is unbelievable. That should shake everyone in Ottawa to the core.
The Prime Minister is responsible for the machinery of government. I want to quote from “Open and Accountable Government”, which says that “the Prime Minister forms a team, decides on the process for collective decision making, and builds and adapts the machinery of government in which the team will operate.” The Prime Minister is responsible for the machinery of government. The Prime Minister is also responsible for “the broad organization and structure of the government.”
I would like to quote again from “Open and Accountable Government”, which is a document of the Privy Council Office:
The Prime Minister determines the broad organization and structure of the government in order to meet its objectives. The Prime Minister is responsible for allocating Ministers’ portfolios, establishing their mandates, clarifying the relationships among them and identifying the priorities for their portfolios through mandate letters. The Prime Minister’s approval is required for the creation of new institutions and the elimination of existing organizations, some of which may also be subject to parliamentary decisions. Any proposals made by Ministers for significant organizational change or for altering their own mandates or those of other Ministers must first be approved by the Prime Minister.
Here is the most astounding part: The Prime Minister is responsible for national security. I will quote from “Open and Accountable Government”, which says, “As head of government, the Prime Minister has special responsibilities for national security, federal-provincial-territorial relations and the conduct of international [relations].” The Prime Minister is responsible not only for the machinery of government, how information flows and how the Canadian Security Intelligence Service transmits information to the other parts of the Government of Canada. He is responsible not only for the broad organizational structure of the government. The Prime Minister is also responsible for national security. For him to be the head of a government he has set up in such a way that he does not even know what national security threats are being directed towards members of the House and their families is a complete abdication of his responsibility
It really calls into question how safe and secure we are in this country. We know that the Prime Minister privately told NATO officials that Canada was never going to meet its 2% commitment. Despite the war in Ukraine having begun over a year ago, Canada's defence spending remains stuck at 1.3%, well below the Wales Summit Declaration commitment made in 2014. Despite the threats that we have been facing in the form of foreign interference threat activities, nothing has been done. We have not seen a single diplomat expelled. We have not seen the introduction of a foreign agents registry. We have not had a single prosecution that has led to an arrest of individuals in this country who are intimidating and coercing Canadians here on Canadian soil on the part of a foreign government. We have had no action from the government.
Other countries have taken action. In recent weeks, we have heard about the FBI arresting individuals in the United States for setting up illegal police stations. One of those individuals happens to be the same individual who helped set up an illegal police station here in Canada. We have had other democratic allies expel diplomats for coercive and clandestine behaviour. In fact, Germany just expelled dozens of diplomats of the Russian Federation in order to protect its citizens, because those diplomats were engaged in subversive activities. Since the war began in Ukraine, over 400 Russian diplomats have been expelled by American and European governments. Not one has been expelled from Canada. Not one diplomat from the People's Republic of China has been expelled for their intimidation and coercion here on Canadian soil.
This is happening not just to me and to other members of the House. This foreign interference is also happening to Canadians across the land who suffer in silence, as their government cannot even be bothered to learn about national security threats that PRC diplomats are conducting across the land. It is absolutely, gobsmackingly astounding that the Prime Minister did not know about what was going on. What else does the Prime Minister not know concerning what is going on with the safety and security of this country? He clearly does not care about properly funding our Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Now, it is quite clear he does not care about learning about serious national security threats to the members of the House and their families and the threats that are being presented to Canadians across the land.
I close by saying that thousands of Canadians across this land suffer in silence, and have been suffering in silence for years, because their families are being intimidated by authoritarian states back home, whether it is in the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran or other authoritarian states. People have been suffering in silence, and the government has not even had the interest to follow what is going on with these threat activities.
The Prime Minister did not know and the public safety minister did not know, because they did not care to set up the machinery of government, the broad organizational structure, in order to ensure that they did know so they could take action to protect Canadians.
1358 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 2:20:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, members of the government said, earlier today in the House, that I had known for two years about the specific threat that a PRC diplomat in Toronto was gathering information to target my family. That is false. I will categorically state again for the record that the briefing of two years ago, in June 2021, was general in nature. It did not contain any information about the specific threat that a PRC diplomat in Toronto, Mr. Wei Zhao, was targeting my family.
Will the Prime Minister correct the record to stop the spread of this misinformation?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:01:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think that Beijing poses a real threat to our post-secondary institutions.
CSIS has identified that Beijing is a threat in five areas of research and development. It is a threat to our national security and a threat to our intellectual property in the five areas of clean tech, artificial intelligence, biopharma, 5G telecommunications and quantum computing. However, the government has failed to take action to protect the post-secondary research institutions that my hon. colleague referred to. It has failed to provide a directive ordering the CIHR, the CFI, the SSHRC and NSERC, the four granting councils, to ban funding in partnership with entities in the People's Republic of China in these five sensitive areas. That is why we have been lax in protecting our national security.
More broadly, the government has failed to step up when it comes to protecting the cybersecurity of Canadians. In the last election, we saw the case of candidate Kenny Chiu, who was the subject of a volume of disinformation that Global Affairs Canada's G7 rapid response mechanism was tracking. The SITE task force failed to release this disinformation during the election to ensure that Kenny Chiu at least had a fighting chance to counter it.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:48:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Liberal members will be voting against the motion. It is not clear what NDP members will be doing, so I hope to convince them to support the motion with my speech.
The motion in front of us concerns all members of the House and all parties, including the NDP. In fact, as The Globe and Mail recently reported, former NDP MP Kennedy Stewart was the target of Beijing's interference in the Vancouver mayoral race.
Foreign interference is a serious threat. It is a national threat. It threatens our economy, social cohesion, long-term prosperity and the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. It threatens all parties and all candidates. That is the written assessment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. The people engaged in foreign interference are with the government of the People's Republic of China.
The PRC is interfering in our elections and in our candidate nominations through tactics like illegally and covertly funnelling money to political parties and candidates. That, too, is the assessment of CSIS. Both assessments, that foreign interference is a serious national threat and that the PRC is behind these threats, did not come to light because the government was transparent about what was going on. They came to light because brave public servants concerned about a serious national threat to the security of Canada decided to blow the whistle and to work with investigative journalists to make these assessments public.
They came to light through reports in The Globe and Mail, Global News and other news outlets, and all along the way the Prime Minister has refused to be accountable and to answer questions. Initially, he dismissed the news reports. When that did not work, he changed tactics. He suggested that critics were fomenting anti-Asian racism. He tried going after the whistle-blowers by suggesting that they were the real threat to national security. He tried obfuscation.
For example, last month, in response to a Globe and Mail story about how Beijing uses tactics like undeclared cash donations and illegally reimbursing donors, he said, “there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks”. The next day, he backtracked and said that he was not referring to the Globe and Mail story but to comments made two months earlier by his national security adviser, Jody Thomas.
His office has tried to block the procedure and House affairs committee from further investigating this matter through a filibuster that goes on as we speak. When all of that did not work, he tried to bury the whole thing in process. He announced he is referring the matter to two government committees, and he is appointing an independent rapporteur to make recommendations about a public inquiry.
The Prime Minister has refused to answer basic questions. We still do not know the details of which candidates were targeted in the last two election campaigns and who exactly was involved. Most importantly, we do not know the answer to the following questions: What did the Prime Minister know? When did he know it? What did he do about it? Why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to release this information? Only the Prime Minister can authorize the release of this information. We need to know why he has been reluctant to release it and why he is not heeding the advice of intelligence experts to release it.
That brings us to the motion in front of us today. We need to hear from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, and others enumerated in the motion. We need answers to questions, and here is why: Translating intelligence into evidence for a prosecution is often very difficult, but one tool governments can use when intelligence cannot be translated into evidence is sunlight and transparency. Sunlight and transparency would reveal the details of foreign interference threat activities, so that the Canadian public is made aware of these activities so that citizens, parties and candidates can make informed decisions about what is going on.
However, citizens, parties and candidates cannot make informed decisions if they do not know what is going on and if they do not know the details of foreign interference threat activities. They cannot make decisions about which donors and donations to reject or about which volunteers they will allow to work on their election campaigns if they do not know who exactly is involved with these foreign interference threat activities.
This practice of using sunlight and transparency to counter malevolent threats from foreign actors is exactly what CSIS has been advising the Prime Minister to do. It is written right in its top secret briefing note that was released to the procedure and House affairs committee before Christmas. It is the best practice of the Five Eyes intelligence allies. It is why, last year, MI5 went public about a PRC agent in the U.K. Parliament, Christine Lee. MI5 informed the Speaker about this individual and the threat, and in turn, the Speaker emailed the entire House of Commons with this individual's name, identifying her as a security threat. Members took appropriate action, cut off contact with this individual, and the integrity of the U.K. Parliament was protected. Sunlight and transparency worked, and the integrity of U.K.'s democracy was ensured.
However, unlike the U.K. government, this government is failing to heed the advice of its intelligence experts, failing to be transparent and failing to use sunlight to ensure that the details of these threat activities are made public. For a government that came to office promising to heed the advice of experts, this is truly puzzling.
We need answers now. We cannot wait for a year or more of a public inquiry before we get answers. We need to know before the next election so that parties and candidates can be equipped with the facts to protect themselves against the kind of foreign interference that we saw in the last two election campaigns. That is why this motion today should be adopted by the House. Then Katie Telford and the others enumerated in the motion would be called in front of committee to testify, give answers and tell us exactly what is going on so we can protect ourselves from foreign interference.
Some have suggested that, by raising the issue of Beijing's foreign interference, we are somehow fomenting anti-Asian racism. This is a facile argument, and I say that as someone who knows what it is like to be the target of anti-Asian racism.
I was born in this country in 1971 with the last name Chong to a Chinese immigrant father. This was a time in our country's history when there were not very many non-whites in this country, and when we had only recently opened up our immigrant system to non-whites. Attitudes regarding Canadians of non-white origins were very different than they are today. Therefore, I take exception when the Prime Minister suggests that those asking legitimate questions about Beijing's foreign interference in our democracy are somehow responsible for fomenting anti-Asian racism. Frankly, as the first MP of Chinese descent elected to the House of Commons from the province of Ontario, it is beyond the pale.
It is bigots who are responsible for fomenting anti-Asian racism, not those who, in good faith, are raising real concerns about Beijing's meddling in our democracy. It is bigots who are taking advantage of Beijing's threats to our democracy to foment this anti-Asian racism, just like they did when the global pandemic was under way.
We must counter both anti-Asian racism and the very real threats that Beijing is presenting to our cherished democracy. To do one and not the other is either to abandon our fellow Canadians to racism or it is to ignore the very real threat that Beijing presents to this democracy that we all own. We cannot allow either anti-Asian racism or Beijing's threats to our democracy to stand.
I will close by saying this: CSIS has assessed that Beijing's interference in our democracy is a serious national threat. It is for that reason that I implore all members of the House, particularly members of the NDP, to vote for this motion so we can get to the bottom of this matter and shed some light on what exactly is going on.
1410 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 2:35:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last month, on February 23, the Prime Minister said in response to the Globe story about how Beijing used undeclared cash donations and illegally reimbursed donors that “there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks.”
The next day, he backtracked and said that he was not referring to the Globe story, but to some comments made two months earlier by his national security advisor Jody Thomas.
Why does the Prime Minister give the impression in these responses to these very serious, national threats that he is being less than forthcoming and truthful about the facts?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:43:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government treated the threat seriously, it would listen to the advice of CSIS. CSIS has said that an effective way to counter foreign interference is through sunlight and transparency, to build resilience by informing Canadians about interference threat activities. The government has done the opposite. First it hid behind excuses and accusations, and then it hid behind a secret committee and a special rapporteur. The government has been anything but transparent about this. It is burying the truth in process. Why?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:41:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Beijing's foreign interference is a serious threat, a national threat. It threatens the integrity of democratic institutions, social cohesion, the economy, long-term prosperity and fundamental rights and freedoms, but the government has not treated this threat seriously. It has hidden behind all sorts of excuses and accusations, like anti-Asian racism. Now it is hiding behind a secret committee with secret hearings, secret evidence and secret conclusions, all controlled by the Prime Minister.
When is the government going to come clean with us and with Canadians about what exactly is going on?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:18:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for years, CSIS has assessed that Beijing's foreign interference “can pose serious threats” to the security of Canada. CSIS tracked this interference and brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister, as have others, like Global Affairs Canada's G7 rapid response mechanism.
CSIS advised the Prime Minister that “Canada can make use of a policy that is grounded in transparency and sunlight in order to highlight the point that [foreign interference] should be exposed to the public” and that “Canada can counter [foreign interference] activities by building resilience.” To build resilience, Canadians, communities and all levels of government need to be aware of foreign interference threat activities.
The Prime Minister has ignored this advice. He needs to heed the advice of experts, treat Beijing's foreign interference as the serious threat it is and tell us and Canadians exactly what is going on.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 2:27:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Line 5 is being threatened yet again with another shutdown through an application filed in U.S. federal court. This would cut off gasoline, diesel, propane and jet fuel supplies to Ontario and Quebec.
Has the Prime Minister picked up the phone and talked to President Biden to get this matter resolved, or will he have to invoke the 1977 treaty just to talk to the White House about this matter, as he had to do last year when Governor Whitmer of Michigan threatened to shut down the same pipeline?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, three of the safeguards that have been put into the act are the three criteria that the government must meet in order to trigger a public order emergency.
The first is a threat or the actual use of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective. The second is a threat to the health, safety and lives of Canadians that is beyond the capacity of a province to deal with, or alternatively that there is a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity or security of this country. The last is that there is no other law in Canada, federal or provincial, that could effectively deal with the situation.
Those three criteria are safeguards in preventing intrusions into civil liberties.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
