- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Conservative
- St. Albert—Edmonton
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $119,185.60
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, at report stage. I will get into the particulars of the bill shortly, but before I do, let me say that in a little more than an hour and a half, Liberal members across the way will have a choice. They can vote for our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all home heating, or they can do the bidding of their boss, the Prime Minister, and sell out their constituents.
These are Liberal MPs from Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. We will see whose side they are on, because their colleagues from Atlantic Canada, including the member for Avalon, received an exemption for Atlantic Canadians on home heating oil. However, it seems that all other Liberal MPs are so useless that their constituents, including my constituents, Albertans, have received nothing. We will see whose side Liberal MPs, including the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Calgary Skyview, are on very shortly.
With respect to this legislation, when it was presented in the House at second reading stage, it was a modest bill. It was, frankly, inadequate in terms of strengthening the foreign investment review process, which takes into account the net benefit for Canada, as well as national security considerations. However, the good news is that the bill has been significantly improved thanks to four Conservative amendments that were adopted at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, although opposed by the Liberals.
I would submit that the most important of those amendments is to require a mandatory security review for investments by foreign state-owned enterprises in which Canada does not have a trading agreement with the countries.
This legislation marks the first major revamp of the Investment Canada Act since 2009. It goes without saying the foreign investment environment has changed considerably in that time, with foreign bad actors, including Beijing, posing an increased threat to our security and sovereignty.
PRC firms work closely with Beijing's military and intelligence apparatuses to gain information about foreign companies, as well as to acquire their technology. Professor Balding, who testified at the industry committee in 2020, indicated that PRC firms are actually given a list each year of foreign assets to acquire, underscoring the threat posed by Beijing.
The fact that we have this increasing threat demonstrates that the Investment Canada Act is long overdue for an update. However, for the past eight years, the Prime Minister has been asleep at the switch, while Beijing has attacked our sovereignty, security and democracy on his watch.
Beijing has used its embassy and consulates to interfere in our elections and to target sitting members of Parliament for daring to speak up and call out Beijing's egregious human rights violations, including the genocide being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims as we speak. This regime has set up illegal police stations to harass, intimidate and repatriate Chinese Canadians, and it is spreading disinformation on a mass scale to divide Canadians.
In the face of that, the response of the Prime Minister has been to do nothing, to turn a blind eye. Indeed, the only concrete measure that the Prime Minister took was to expel one Beijing diplomat, but only after he got caught for keeping the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in the dark about how he and his family were targeted by a diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate.
For the past eight years, Beijing has effectively been given the green light to acquire vast amounts of farmland. It has gained a foothold with respect to critical infrastructure and strategic resources, including minerals. Even worse than that, we have a government, under the Prime Minister's watch, that has refused to undertake national security reviews and has given the green light to Beijing-controlled enterprises to invest in Canada and acquire Canadian companies, to the detriment of Canada's national security. In so doing, it has also caused irreparable damage to Canada's reputation among our Five Eyes allies.
One egregious example of that, and I stress that there are many examples I could cite, was when the Beijing-controlled Hytera sought to acquire the B.C. communications technology company Norsat, which worked with National Defence Canada, Public Safety Canada and the Pentagon. Our U.S. ally said to put a pause on this takeover by Hytera, but the Liberal minister of the day, in his infinite wisdom, ignored the U.S. and gave the green light without any security review.
Last year, Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage by the U.S. This underscores the degree of recklessness on the part of the government to give the green light, not to mention the damage it has done to our reputation with our most important ally, the United States.
As bad as that is, one would think that after a company such as Hytera was facing 21 espionage charges in the U.S., it would be enough for the government to decide not to do business with Hytera. However, one would be wrong; it was not enough for the current Liberals. Eight months later, the Liberals gave the green light for a contract with the RCMP to sell technology to protect sensitive RCMP communications equipment for espionage from a subsidiary of none other than Hytera, a company charged with 21 counts of espionage. One cannot make this stuff up. It is scandalous incompetence with real national security implications.
In 2020, to make it appear that he was actually taking Beijing's interference seriously, the minister of industry announced a policy of enhanced scrutiny for investments from foreign state-owned enterprises. No sooner had he announced the policy than he disregarded it, giving the green light to another Beijing state-owned enterprise to acquire a mining company that operates the largest lithium mine in Canada. Now, all that lithium is controlled by Beijing.
In closing, let me say that when it comes to protecting Canada's national security from authoritarian states such as Beijing, the government cannot be trusted. The good news, however, is that this bill would require the reckless government to undertake the security reviews that it should have taken but did not. On that basis, it is a much stronger bill going forward, thanks to the Conservatives and no thanks to the Liberals.
1070 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:35:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, his loyalty should be to the people of Canada and the elected members of this place, not to the Prime Minister.
This House voted non-confidence, and Canadians have no confidence in the so-called special rapporteur because he is in a conflict. He is a lifelong friend of the Prime Minister and a former member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation. Yesterday, he admitted that he does not work for Canadians; he works for the Prime Minister.
Why will the Prime Minister not acknowledge this blatant conflict of interest and fire his fake rapporteur?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:34:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after this House voted non-confidence in the so-called special rapporteur, the rapporteur issued a statement in which he said that he does not answer to this House; instead, he answers to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister's so-called rapporteur has finally admitted that he is not independent, will the Prime Minister end the charade, fire him and call an independent public inquiry?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:19:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister's watch, Beijing interfered in two federal elections, set up illegal police stations and targeted the family of a sitting member of Parliament. In a blatant conflict of interest, the Prime Minister appointed a family friend and member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation to investigate Beijing's interference.
From the start, the report had no credibility, because by the time the Prime Minister's fake rapporteur decided to meet with the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, the report had already been written. The report has no credibility because its author is not independent, but rather the Prime Minister's Beijing-compromised friend.
If the Prime Minister had any integrity, he would fire his fake rapporteur and call a truly independent public inquiry.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:49:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister's non-answer is an absolute disgrace. The seriousness of this cannot be understated. We are talking about a hostile foreign state that targeted a sitting member of Parliament to intimidate him from doing his job, from being able to vote freely in this place, free of Beijing's coercion. CSIS told committee that it definitely briefs the government when it learns of foreign states targeting politicians.
Again to the minister, on what date did his office learn of this most serious incident?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:48:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, CSIS says that Beijing sees Canada as a “high-priority target” and that its agents are “unconcerned about repercussions”. No wonder, because under the Prime Minister's watch, Beijing diplomats with impunity have been interfering in our elections and setting up illegal police stations.
We now learned that a diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate tried to punish the family of a sitting member of Parliament. On what date did the Minister of Public Safety's office first learn of this serious incident?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:09:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, respectfully, why the NDP joined the Liberals in blocking Katie Telford from appearing before committee not once, not twice, but on three occasions? They did finally come around and support my motion, and that is a good thing.
Earlier, my hon. colleague said that Telford was a mere staff member and that she should therefore not be called. The second most powerful person in the government is the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Why did the NDP block Telford?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:19:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was the NDP that worked with the Liberals three times to block Katie Telford from appearing before the committee. That is the NDP record. New Democrats cannot walk that back, and they cannot hide from that track record.
It was only as a result of public pressure and Conservative pressure, and the fact that we finally put a motion before the House to have a vote, that the Liberals capitulated; finally, the NDP capitulated, too. I guess the cover-up coalition finally recognized they could not—
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:18:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my hon. colleague.
He highlights to what degree the Liberal government has turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference, not only in our elections but also in other aspects. These include interference in our sovereignty, such as by opening up at least seven illegal police stations under the Liberal government's watch. Chinese Canadian citizens are being intimidated and harassed.
What has happened? What have the Liberals done? No charges have been laid. No diplomats have been expelled. The best that the foreign affairs minister could say is that one diplomat's visa was denied. That is it. That is not a government that takes Beijing's interference seriously.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, Conservatives have been very clear that Beijing's election interference did not impact the overall election result in 2019 or 2021, but Beijing's interference may have had an impact in some ridings. If it had an impact on any riding, that is alarming; it is a matter of national concern, and it needs to be addressed. However, the Prime Minister has been entirely unwilling to do this; instead, he is dodging, deflecting and covering up.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrence motion, which was strengthened considerably as a result of the Conservative amendment brought forward at the procedure and House affairs committee.
In the face of the alarming revelations of Beijing's interference in two elections that took place under the Prime Minister's watch, Canadians deserve answers. This interference has been characterized by Global News and The Globe and Mail based upon their review of CSIS documents as a vast campaign of interference in the 2019 election and an orchestrated machine in the 2021 election to help the Liberals secure a minority government and to defeat certain Conservative candidates. Canadians deserve to know about the scale of Beijing's election interference and what is really at the heart of this scandal, namely: What did the Prime Minister know, when did he know it and what did he do or fail to do about Beijing's attack on our democracy?
In order to get to the truth, two things need to happen. First, the procedure and House affairs committee, which is seized with a study on Beijing's election interference, must be able to do its work unimpeded. It must do its work without the obstruction that we have seen over the past several weeks, driven by the Liberals but often supported by the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP. It is important that an independent public inquiry be called. This is a position that Conservatives have consistently supported. Indeed, we strengthened the very weak NDP motion at the procedure and House affairs committee, which I will get into momentarily.
On both of these questions, what is the NDP's track record? Well, it is a pretty pathetic one. At the direction of their boss, the Prime Minister, NDP members joined with Liberal MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee to block the testimony of Katie Telford. They worked with the Liberals not once, not twice, but three times to block Katie Telford from coming to the committee. She is a key witness for getting to the bottom of what the Prime Minister knows and what he failed to do about Beijing's election interference. Again, it is what one would expect of the junior partner of the cover-up coalition.
Then NDP members, no doubt facing public pressure, suddenly flip-flopped and indicated that they were supporting my straightforward motion to have Katie Telford appear at the procedure and House affairs committee. One would think that if they were posturing their support that they would welcome the Conservative motion that was brought forward in the House. However, all of a sudden, they flip-flopped again and voted against that motion.
Now, in fairness to NDP members, they did ultimately support my motion when the Liberals finally ended their filibustering. Still, it took weeks of pressure from the public and Conservatives before they finally did the right thing and supported bringing Telford to committee. However, it must also be noted that they voted against a much stronger motion that Conservatives put forward in the House, which was voted on yesterday. The NDP, the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, sided with the Liberals and voted against a motion that had considerably more teeth than the PROC motion does.
In addition to that, as the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP has worked with the Liberals to cover up the production of documents at the procedure and House affairs committee, not once but twice. They voted against a Conservative motion proposing that the independent parliamentary inquiry review relevant documents, having regard for national security and other considerations. This independent review would have been instead of giving the government; the PMO; and the Prime Minister, who has so much to answer for, a veto over what is produced to the committee. The NDP voted against that. They joined the Liberals in blocking the production of documents.
The NDP talks a good game about a public inquiry, but the motion they put forward at the procedure and House affairs committee was considerably weak. It would have given the Prime Minister the unilateral power to appoint the commissioner of the inquiry. What Conservatives put forward as an amendment was to say no, that the Prime Minister should not have the only say. If there is to be a public inquiry, as we believe there should be, such an inquiry must be truly independent. Moreover, it must be perceived to be independent. Therefore, our amendment provided that all recognized parties in this House should agree upon the head of the public inquiry to ensure not only the independence of that inquiry but the perception of its independence.
In that regard, Conservatives considerably strengthened the very concurrence motion that this House is debating today. By contrast, the NDP were prepared to let the Prime Minister have a do-over of Rosenberg. There, the Prime Minister appointed a Liberal crony, someone who was the president of the Trudeau Foundation for several years. Not only was he the president of the Trudeau Foundation, but he also actually facilitated a $200,000 donation from a Beijing political operative to the Trudeau Foundation. We said that should not happen again. That individual was appointed to review the 2021 election, completely undermining the credibility of the findings of Rosenberg's report.
Again, there we have it: the NDP members playing games, talking out of both sides of their mouths, flip-flopping and putting forward weak motions at PROC. They say they want a public inquiry, but they were prepared to turn it over to the Prime Minister. What we have is a completely unserious NDP when it comes to getting to the bottom of foreign interference, specifically Beijing's election interference. The NDP has actually spent more time criticizing Conservatives, trying to hold us accountable, than they have the Liberal government. We know, based upon all the reports and the limited documents that have been produced to our committee, that the government has a lot to answer for given that the Liberal Party was a beneficiary or that, at least, Beijing's objective was to assist the Liberal Party.
Why would it take weeks for the NDP to get around to doing what should have happened weeks ago, which is for Telford to come to committee? After all, she is the Prime Minister's top political advisor. She is arguably the second most powerful person in the government, outside of the Prime Minister, and she was intimately involved in both the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 election campaigns.
I am glad the cover-up coalition's junior partner finally—
1116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:38:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no charges have been laid. No diplomats have been expelled. The Prime Minister kept Canadians in the dark, and it took a CSIS whistle-blower to make the public aware of Beijing's election interference. That is the record of the Prime Minister.
Either the Prime Minister was completely asleep at the switch or he allowed it to happen because it benefited the Liberal Party. Which is it?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:36:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister was frequently briefed about Beijing's election interference. In the face of that, this is what a CSIS whistle-blower wrote in The Globe and Mail: “Months passed, and then years. The threat grew in urgency; serious action remained unforthcoming.” That is an indictment of the record of the Prime Minister.
Beijing interfered in two elections under the Prime Minister's watch and he turned a blind eye to it. Why?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:51:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff is a critical witness to get to the heart of the scandal in terms of what the Prime Minister knows, when he knew about it and why he failed to respond to Beijing's election interference.
If, instead of doing the bidding of the corrupt Prime Minister, the NDP do an about-face to finally stand up for democracy, and the motion passes, will the Prime Minister respect the will of the House or double down on his obstruction and his cover-up?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:49:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three times, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partner blocked the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying about Beijing's election interference. Now, at the direction of the Prime Minister, Liberal MPs have been filibustering my straightforward motion for Telford to appear for nearly 24 hours.
Why have the Liberals gone to such lengths to shield Telford? What does she know that the Prime Minister wants hidden from Canadians?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:52:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister announced yesterday is nothing more than a smokescreen with no transparency. Indeed, the only thing that is transparent is the transparent attempt by the Liberals to cover up what the Prime Minister knows about Beijing's election interference.
Consistent with this, today at committee the Liberals are filibustering to block the Prime Minister's chief of staff from having to testify. Why? What is he so afraid of? What does he have to hide?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:50:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, instead of following the advice of CSIS to provide transparency and sunlight when it comes to Beijing's election interference, the Prime Minister announced what amounts to a cover-up: a secret committee with secret evidence and secret conclusions redacted by the PMO, all to bury the truth. There is no transparency, no sunlight and total secrecy. What does the Prime Minister have to hide?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have tried to bring the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee three times. The Liberals, with the support of the NDP, blocked that effort three times, despite scandalous reports that senior PMO officials had been briefed by CSIS about Beijing's interference and did nothing about it.
Is the Prime Minister shielding his chief of staff because he knows his PMO turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:45:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail reported, based upon a review of CSIS documents, that Beijing launched “an orchestrated machine” to help the Liberals in the 2021 election. In the face of these alarming revelations, Canadians deserve answers from the Prime Minister. What they do not deserve is a Prime Minister who obstructs, deflects and hides.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, will he let his chief of staff testify before a committee, or is he going to double down on his cover-up?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 6:50:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no one is contesting that the 2019 election was anything other than free and fair overall, but that does not take away the fact that there was a reported campaign of interference by Beijing. It does not take away the fact that the PCO intelligence assessment secretariat determined there to be an active foreign interference network involving Beijing in the 2019 election, and it does not take away the fact that candidates and riding associations are being targeted by foreign interference.
What is undermining Canadians' confidence in our elections and their integrity are the non-answers provided by the government. When is it going to be transparent?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
