So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mar/22/24 12:00:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was ordered by Parliament to turn over the arrive scam receipts and to come up with a plan to get taxpayers their money back. What the Prime Minister tabled this week is nothing more than a whitewash. We still do not have the receipts, and the Liberals do not have a plan to get taxpayers their money back. Therefore I ask for just a number: How much money did the Liberals award fraudsters and scammers, and when will taxpayers get a refund?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 263 - Dec/6/23

Mar/19/24 9:37:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is a privilege to rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Canada's 18th Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. At the outset, I would like to extend my condolences to his wife, Mila, as well as to his children, his grandchildren and the entire Mulroney family. Although I did not have the privilege of personally knowing Brian Mulroney, I have always admired and appreciated the tremendous statesmanship and leadership he provided during the nine years he served as our prime minister. To understand the many achievements and accomplishments of Brian Mulroney, it is important to understand that, when he was elected in 1984 with the second largest majority government in Canadian history, save for John Diefenbaker's landslide win in 1958, he inherited very difficult circumstances. They were difficult economic circumstances, with double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and interest rates that were north of 20%. It was also a difficult fiscal situation, with the fiscal cupboard being bare. Notwithstanding those challenges, he got to work to implement many bold policies, some of which were controversial, many of which were transformational and, with the benefit of history, have proven to have been for the benefit of Canada on the whole. It should be further noted that, when Brian Mulroney was first elected, the unity of the country was very much imperiled. There was great division across the land. It was Brian Mulroney who spoke about bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold with honour and enthusiasm. Although he, in the end, did not succeed, he must be credited for the tremendous leadership and courage he demonstrated, at considerable political cost to himself and his party, but it was for the betterment of strengthening the unity of Canada. That was his objective, and he brought Canadians together. He brought Albertans and Quebeckers together in 1984, and again in 1988, when he made history by being the only Conservative to win a back-to-back majority government, save for Sir John A. Macdonald. When Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984, speaking as an Alberta MP, Alberta was reeling. Alberta had been devastated as a result of the national energy program, which had devastated Alberta's economy and had driven many Albertans to unemployment and bankruptcy. Brian Mulroney recognized the difficulty Alberta faced, and his government moved expeditiously, in difficult circumstances, to abolish the national energy program, as well as the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the PGRT, which was a punitive tax. However, it was not just in the context of energy policy that Alberta benefited from Brian Mulroney. His government also abolished the Foreign Investment Review Agency, a board whose decisions often imperiled the flow of investment to Alberta and the west. Brian Mulroney negotiated the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which was a win for Canada, but which was very much in Alberta's economic interest. Indeed, free trade continues to be in Alberta's economic interest. While Brian Mulroney was not always popular in Alberta, he demonstrated, or history has demonstrated, rather, that Brian Mulroney consistently had Albertans' backs. He delivered for Alberta. While much has been spoken this evening about some of his obvious important achievements, including negotiating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the acid rain treaty with the United States, standing up to apartheid and strengthening our most important bilateral relationship, that being with the United States, there are other areas he deserves great credit for that he often has not received credit for. One example is that it was the Mulroney government that restored fiscal responsibility to Ottawa. When Brian Mulroney was elected, he inherited a deficit that, in today's terms, would be approaching $100 billion. That is a large deficit even by the current Liberal government's standards. It has exceeded deficits on that scale, but I digress. The Mulroney government faced a bloated federal government and program spending that was being increased on an unsustainable basis annually. Does that sound familiar? The Mulroney government responded by initiating policies to reduce the size and scope of government to get spending under control. Indeed, on an incremental and responsible but significant basis, annual program spending growth was substantially reduced in the neighbourhood of 70%. Consequently, what was a very large operating deficit turned into an operating surplus. In short, the Mulroney government fixed Canada's budget. It is true that Jean Chrétien did inherit a deficit from the Mulroney government, but it was because of the costs associated with servicing that debt, debt that had been accumulated by the previous Trudeau government and not the Conservative Mulroney government. Of course, Brian Mulroney's government deserves significant credit for contributing in a major way to building Canada's modern economy through the policy of free trade, yes, but also through a series of free market policies, including a comprehensive program around privatization, deregulation and tax reform. Together, these policies contributed over the long term to growth and prosperity and to the enhancement of Canada's competitiveness. I could go on with a long list of the many other achievements of Brian Mulroney and his government over nine years, but time does not allow it. However, what these achievements I have highlighted and my colleagues have highlighted over this evening demonstrate is that Brian Mulroney was a transformative prime minister. He was a consequential prime minister. He will go down as one Canada's greatest prime ministers, and Canada is better off because of his leadership.

923 words

Context: House Hansard - 263 - Dec/6/23

Dec/6/23 6:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the motion in respect to the prima facie finding of a question of privilege in relation to the conduct of the Speaker of the House and to refer the matter immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The role of the Speaker is to be impartial and to demonstrate non-partisanship. There are many reasons why a Speaker must be impartial and non-partisan. The Speaker carries enormous powers over the House and the members who serve in the House. It is the Speaker who has the authority to make rulings that directly impact the rights and privileges of the members of the House. It is the Speaker who has the sole power to make decisions as significant to hon. members as expelling a member from the House. It is the Speaker who is the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees the very large budget of Parliament and decides how the resources of the House of Commons may be used by the members of the House. The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. He or she makes decisions, makes calls. When the Speaker makes a ruling, there is no appeal. The ruling is final and must be respected by members. I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, explains, “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. The Speaker, unfortunately, has failed to abide by the standard that is expected of him as Speaker. He did so last weekend when he was quoted in the Globe and Mail praising the outgoing leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, the sitting Liberal MPP for Ottawa South, in which he made such partisan comments as referring to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. I would submit that that demonstrated a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, but the real reason we are here on this prima facie finding of a question of privilege is what the Speaker did after that. A video message of the Speaker was played at the ultra-partisan venue, being the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, in which he paid tribute to Mr. Fraser. He said such partisan things as “We had a lot of fun together through The Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” Even worse is that the Speaker's video message was introduced to party delegates as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, as if he were speaking for the House. He shot the video on the parliamentary precinct in the Speaker's office and wore the Speaker's robes. This is more than a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker. It is a fundamental breach of trust to the House and all hon. members of the House. The Speaker has said that this is an issue of perception. I cannot think of anything more important than perception for the Speaker, who must not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. On that basis, the Speaker completely failed in his obligations to members of the House. I have to say that this is the same Speaker who, when he was running for the office of Speaker only weeks ago, spoke at great length about decorum and respect and how words matter. He even made a pronouncement for the House, in an unprecedented fashion before question period, for all intents and purposes lecturing members about decorum and respect in this place. Only weeks later, we see the Speaker has shown a lack of respect to the hon. members in this place and to the high office in which he serves. The Speaker, in dismissing this as a matter of perception, has offered no meaningful apology. It does not even appear that he takes the matter seriously. One would think he would demonstrate some level of humility in the face of an unprecedented situation. Never before in the history of our Westminster parliamentary system has a Speaker conducted him or herself in quite this way. We really are in uncharted territory. Instead of attending to the responsibilities he has to preside over the House, the Speaker, at taxpayers' expense, decided to go on a junket to Washington, D.C., where he is hanging out with a whole lot of elites. He did so during a sitting week. Not only that, but he spoke at an event, in which he recollected his days as president of the Young Liberals. This is another partisan statement on the part of the Speaker using, by the way, the Speaker's office budget. Once again, this demonstrates a complete lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, as well as his failure to understand his responsibilities not only to be impartial but also to be seen as impartial. We now find ourselves in the untenable situation where the House leaders of His Majesty's loyal opposition and the third party have called on the Speaker to resign. Those House leaders represent 150 members, or nearly half the members in the House. In the face of that and the need for the Speaker to retain the confidence and trust of all hon. members in all corners of the House, he should reflect very hard on whether he can continue in his role.

936 words

Context: House Hansard - 247 - Nov/6/23

Dec/6/23 2:17:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Speaker has lost the moral authority to preside over this House. The role of Speaker requires impartiality and non-partisanship. The Speaker betrayed the trust of this House when he gave greetings at the Ontario Liberal convention—

42 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Nov/6/23 1:50:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, in short, Conservatives fully supported that amendment around IP. It is an amendment that would have strengthened the bill but the Liberals did not support it. They did not support that amendment and they did not support our amendments. As far as the Bloc Québécois goes, I believe the Bloc opposed the amendment. I would say in regard to this bill that the Liberals have been soft on national security issues and standing up to the likes of hostile states such as Beijing. By contrast, the Bloc has not been much better. It has been all over the map and completely incoherent.

108 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 196 - May/12/23

Jun/15/23 10:08:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-343

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act respecting a framework to strengthen Canada-Taiwan relations. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to introduce the Canada-Taiwan relations framework act. Recognizing the important bilateral relationship between Canada and Taiwan, this bill provides a framework for the strengthening of economic, legal and cultural relations. It would make it a policy of the Government of Canada to support Taiwan's participation in international fora as well as membership in international agreements, including the CPTPP. It would appropriately permit the Government of Taiwan's office in Ottawa to be referred to as the Taiwan representative office and would provide opportunities for the enhancement of diplomacy. This bill is an important step in recognizing the reality of Taiwan, a vibrant democracy, leading global economy and important ally to Canada. I urge its passage.

145 words

Context: House Hansard - 196 - May/12/23

May/12/23 11:40:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that answer is an insult to Chinese Canadians. This government expelled one Beijing diplomat after they got caught doing nothing. It gets worse. According to national security sources, CSIS has provided this government with a list of other Beijing diplomats identified for expulsion because of the threat they pose to Chinese Canadians. How many names are on that list? How many more warnings from CSIS is this government ignoring?

71 words

May/12/23 11:39:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for three years, the current government knew that a diplomat in Beijing's Toronto consulate was spying on Chinese Canadians and sending information back to Beijing's secret police. At the same time, the government knew that the very same diplomat was targeting a sitting member of Parliament and for three long years it did nothing. Either the current Prime Minister is grossly incompetent or he just does not care about protecting Chinese Canadians from Beijing. Which is it?

81 words

May/8/23 6:12:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in short, the answer to my colleague's question is yes. Do members know who was intimidated? It is not the member for Winnipeg North. It is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and for two years the Prime Minister covered it up.

46 words

May/8/23 6:05:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. The diplomat should have been expelled immediately and the government had all the tools at its disposal. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention gives the government the unfettered discretion to expel any diplomat at any time for any reason. The government did not do that. In doing that, it sent a message to Beijing that Beijing effectively has a green light to interfere in our democracy and our sovereignty to the detriment of the safety and security of Chinese Canadians and all Canadians.

102 words

May/8/23 6:04:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member does raise a point, but I would submit that, under the government, the pendulum is way over on the other side: no transparency and no sunlight. The advice of CSIS to the Prime Minister has been that in order to combat foreign interference, there needs to be transparency and sunlight. We have a situation so serious that a member of Parliament was being intimidated because of a position they took in this House and how they voted, and that their family was being threatened and sanctioned, potentially in Hong Kong, by an accredited diplomat in Canada. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills should have been made aware of it, the Canadian public should have been made aware of it and the Beijing diplomat should have been sent back to Beijing then, not two years after the fact.

142 words

May/8/23 6:03:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we had a competent Prime Minister and a competent government that took national security seriously, two things would have happened following that July 21 CSIS assessment. First, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills would have been immediately informed that a Beijing diplomat was targeting the safety and security of his family and threatening his ability to do his job in this place on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of Canadians. Second, that diplomat would have been sent packing to Beijing immediately, and not two years after the fact.

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 191 - May/4/23

May/8/23 5:36:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, on the Speaker's ruling and prima facie determination that the member's privileges were breached as a result of tactics of intimidation employed by a diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate. This motion arises from a May 1 report in the Globe and Mail in which it was revealed that a July 20, 2021, CSIS intelligence assessment identified that a Beijing diplomat had sought to sanction and intimidate the family in Hong Kong of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as retribution for the member bringing forward a motion in this House to call out the Beijing regime for its gross human rights violations in East Turkestan and to call those gross human rights violations out for what they are, and that is genocide. It was an attempt by the Beijing regime to have a chill effect on a sitting member and to interfere in that member's ability to do his job and fulfill his duties as a member of Parliament to speak in this House, to put forward a motion, to stand in his place and to vote on that motion on the basis of principle on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of Canadians. This is about as serious as it gets. For two years, the Liberals sat on that information. They sat on the fact that a Beijing diplomat was seeking to undermine our democracy by interfering with the ability of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to perform his duties as a member of Parliament. Not only that, they sat on the fact that Beijing's Toronto consulate was also involved in other intimidation and interference activities affecting members of Parliament. The Prime Minister claimed that he knew nothing about it and that he learned about it in the Globe and Mail. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister tried to change the channel by blaming CSIS. He said, “CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed to be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern.” Then, on Thursday, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was informed by the Prime Minister's national security adviser, Jody Thomas, that the Prime Minister's assertion was not true and that, in fact, the July CSIS intelligence assessment had been sent to the national security adviser of the PCO as well as to all of the relevant departments. The Prime Minister's claim that he did not know anything about it just does not add up. It does not add up based upon what the Prime Minister's chief of staff told committee, namely that he is briefed regularly about national security matters, that he reads everything and that nothing is held back. The Prime Minister's denial does not add up based on what CSIS told the committee, which is that CSIS definitely briefs the government when hostile foreign governments target politicians, and the Prime Minister's denial that he knew anything does not add up based upon what the Prime Minister's own national security adviser told the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. No one believes the Prime Minister when he says that he did not know. No one believes him, so he should just stop the charade and come clean that he covered it up for the Beijing regime. Even though no one believes him, if I were to, for a minute, try to believe him, I would say that it is an equal indictment on the Prime Minister's complete lack of fitness to lead this country. This is a Prime Minister who is the leader of our country. He is responsible for the machinery of government. He is responsible for the broad organization and structure of government, and he has special responsibilities when it comes to national security. For the Prime Minister to say he did not know is no excuse at all. It is an admission on the part of the Prime Minister that he does not care, is asleep at the switch and is not doing his job protecting the safety and security of Canadians, including sitting members of Parliament, from being intimidated from doing their jobs seriously in the face of an unprecedented campaign of interference by the Beijing regime. This is all taking place under the Prime Minister's watch. Then the Prime Minister decided to change the channel instead of taking responsibility. In the last eight years, I cannot remember a time he has ever taken responsibility. He is never responsible. What did the Prime Minister do instead of acknowledging that, as the Prime Minister, he is responsible for the machinery of government and has special responsibilities for government? He then blamed the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The Prime Minister sent two of his parliamentary secretaries into the chamber on Thursday to falsely assert that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been briefed, knew his family was in harm's way, and knew so for two years, but did not tell his family or his colleagues. He essentially asserted that he was misleading Canadians now to make a big deal about what is certainly is a big deal. It was while I was speaking to my motion, to kick off the debate calling for, among other things, a public inquiry into foreign interference and expelling the Beijing diplomat involved in this intimidation campaign, which the Liberals voted against today, that it happened. In the course of that debate, the member for Kingston and the Islands asserted that. I have to admit that I was floored by what I was hearing. I could not believe what he was saying. Then the member for Winnipeg North doubled down on that misinformation to blame the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. In fairness, the member for Winnipeg North has stated that he did not have his facts straight, which is a start. He should apologize, but it is a start that he did not do the right thing that day. As well, the member for Kingston and the Islands has apologized, but not the Prime Minister. He has not shown some level of class, which the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kingston and the Islands have demonstrated. No, he has not. The Prime Minister has doubled down on his misinformation campaign. He directed those members to come into the House to spread misinformation. Then, the very next day, he continued to spread the misinformation and continued his attack on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Here is what the Prime Minister said on Friday: “I was reassured to see that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] had received multiple briefings following the information collected by CSIS to ensure that he and his family were kept safe or would at least know what was going on in the extent that they needed to and they could be briefed.” The Prime Minister knew on Friday that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been briefed once, but he had not been briefed about the particulars concerning Zhao Wei and the efforts to intimidate him by sanctioning his family because of how he had voted in the House. The Prime Minister was aware on Friday that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had received a briefing of a general nature that had nothing to do with the matter. However, in the face of that, we have a Prime Minister who was spreading this misinformation on Friday. Why would the Prime Minister do that? Is that a Prime Minister who is genuinely concerned about the well-being of the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in Hong Kong? Is that a Prime Minister who has the integrity to admit that his government did not get it right and that the member should have been briefed? No, it is not a Prime Minister with integrity. It is a Prime Minister who is using every tactic in the book to change the channel to avoid accountability, and in the most disgusting of ways, engage in victim blaming by trying to disgracefully impugn the integrity of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, a member who I have gotten to know over the last eight years and who many members, in all corners of the House, have gotten to know. If there is one thing that can be said of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it is that he is a member of principle and integrity. He does not deserve this. If the Prime Minister had any integrity, he would apologize and he would apologize now to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for spreading this kind of misinformation. This is part of a pattern that we have seen. The Prime Minister covers up issues of interference in our elections by Beijing and intimidation attempts by Beijing diplomats accredited in Canada. It gets reported on in the media, and then the Prime Minister tries to offer up excuses, blame others and say that there is nothing to see here at all. Nothing that we know about Beijing's interference in our elections or by Beijing diplomats is a result of anything that this Prime Minister has said. CSIS has advised the Prime Minister that the best approach to dealing with matters of foreign interference is sunshine and transparency, but there has been no sunshine. There has been no transparency. There has just been one cover-up after another. Only now, because the Prime Minister got caught covering up for this Beijing diplomat one week after The Globe and Mail first reported this, did the government, this afternoon, after voting against the official opposition motion, finally send Zhao Wei packing. It took the government and the Prime Minister two years. I can remember when the Minister of Foreign Affairs came before the procedure and House affairs committee a little over a month ago. This report in The Globe and Mail had not yet come to light, but there was plenty of evidence that Beijing diplomats, particularly at the Toronto consulate, as well as the Vancouver consulate, had been engaged in election interference activities. In the face of that, I asked the minister why it was that not a single Beijing diplomat had been expelled. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, incredibly, talked about a lack of evidence. Obviously, the minister and the government did have evidence. They had evidence with respect to Zhao Wei because they knew about it two years ago, but there she was, saying there was no evidence. Now, a week later, after it has been reported in The Globe and Mail, there was finally the evidence to send him packing. Why did it take two years? By the way, what is the minister talking about with respect to the need for evidence? What is the parliamentary secretary talking about with the need for due process with respect to these Beijing diplomats? There does not need to be due process. When there are findings of interference, article 9 gives the government the unfettered discretion to expel any diplomat, at any time, for any reason. Yes, it is true that making a decision to expel a diplomat could result in retaliatory measures being taken by the Beijing regime. I acknowledge that is something the Liberal government, and any government, would have to weigh. However, let me also say there is a cost of inaction. I would submit that that cost, in these circumstances, is far greater. It is simply intolerable that we have Beijing diplomats involved in facilitating the clandestine transfer of funding to candidates, targeting Conservative candidates in the 2021 election, and then bragging about the role they played in seeing that certain incumbent members of Parliament, whom they did not like, were defeated. It is intolerable that we have Beijing diplomats responsible for organizing illegal police stations to harass and intimate Chinese Canadians at what are effectively black sites. It is intolerable that we have Beijing diplomats intimidating members of Parliament and their families. It should not have taken two years. It should not have taken the Globe and Mail report, and it should not have taken a week of pressure from the official opposition for the government to finally send this Beijing diplomat home. When it comes to protecting our national security from Beijing, the Prime Minister is completely incompetent and unfit for office.

2104 words

Context: House Hansard - 191 - May/4/23

May/4/23 3:12:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, by allowing Zhao Wei to stay, the Liberals have given Beijing the green light to attack the safety and security of Chinese Canadians with impunity. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs the unfettered discretion to expel any diplomat at any time for any reason. There is no excuse for delay. What is she waiting for? Will she expel this Beijing thug today?

70 words

Context: House Hansard - 191 - May/4/23

May/4/23 2:53:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that she is assessing interests in determining whether to expel the Beijing diplomat who arranged to punish the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The minister has a choice to make, because the number one priority of the government ought to be the safety and security of Canadians, and by allowing this Beijing thug to remain in Canada, it is putting Chinese Canadians at risk. When will the government get its priorities straight and send him packing today?

90 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

May/4/23 10:07:26 a.m.
Watch

moved: That, given that intimidation tactics of the People's Republic of China are being deployed against many Canadians of Chinese descent in diaspora communities across the country, which are widely reported and well established through the House of Commons’ committee testimony and reports by Canada’s security establishment, including reports indicating that families of members of Parliament are subjected to an intimidation campaign orchestrated out of Beijing’s consulate in Toronto, the House call on the government to stop delaying and immediately: (a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America; (b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference; (c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada; and (d) expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy. He said: I rise to speak on our Conservative motion calling on the government to finally stand up to Beijing's interference in our democracy and our sovereignty. This motion could not be more timely. On May 1, The Globe and Mail revealed that, in a CSIS report, it is stated that Beijing “sees Canada as a ‘high-priority target’” and that Beijing is the “‘foremost perpetrator’ of foreign interference in Canada.” The same CSIS report states that Beijing agents are completely “unconcerned about repercussions” in Canada. It is no wonder. When it comes to Beijing's interference, the Liberal government's response has been one of weakness, incompetence and inaction. Under the Prime Minister's watch, Beijing has interfered in two federal elections. Beijing has set up illegal police stations to harass and intimidate Chinese Canadians. This week, we learned that a Beijing diplomat working at Beijing's Toronto consulate arranged to sanction and punish family members, in Hong Kong, of a sitting member of Parliament because that member voted in this place to stand up against Beijing's human rights violations. In other words, Beijing attempted to intimidate a sitting member of the House, a duly elected member. It attempted to interfere with that member's ability to do his job, which is to stand and vote in this place on behalf of his constituents and of Canadians, free from Beijing's coercion. This is about as serious as it gets. I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore. It is well documented that Beijing diplomats who are accredited here in Canada have been extensively involved in all these foreign interference activities. However, in the face of that, as well as substantial evidence, not one single Beijing diplomat has been expelled by the government. The government has pathetically cited the Vienna Convention as a basis upon which not to expel these diplomats. This is incredible, because article 9 of the Vienna Convention gives this government unfettered discretion to expel any diplomat at any time without having to provide a reason. Therefore, the government's excuse for its failure and refusal to expel Beijing diplomats is no excuse at all. The government has been so weak that, for two years, it has known the name of the Beijing diplomat who arranged to punish the family of a sitting member of Parliament. That diplomat continues to work at Beijing's Toronto consulate. Instead of doing what they should have done, which is to immediately expel that diplomat, the response of the government was to turn a blind eye, to effectively give the green light to this Beijing thug. Even worse, the government attempted to cover it up. The only reason Canadians know of this shocking incident is because of the May 1 report in The Globe and Mail. The government did not even have the courtesy to inform the sitting member whose family was in harm's way. That is truly disgusting behaviour on the part of the government. The Prime Minister has been caught covering up for Beijing once again. It is time for him to stand up to Beijing for once and do the right thing. He should send that diplomat packing today. It is truly alarming that, under the Liberal government's watch, the Beijing regime has operated at least eight illegal police stations. These police stations have been set up by the Beijing regime to monitor, track, harass and intimidate Chinese Canadian citizens. They have facilitated the forced repatriation of persons to China. Violations of human rights are taking place at these black sites. Not only are these police stations illegal, but they are also a violation of our sovereignty and international law. Even though it has been months since the first police station was discovered, not a single diplomat has been expelled, no arrests have been made and no charges have been laid. The Minister of Public Safety came before the procedure and House affairs committee last week. He repeatedly stated that the RCMP had shut down the illegal police stations. The Minister of Public Safety repeatedly told the committee something he knew, at the time, not to be true. That is not the first time this has happened for the Minister of Public Safety. As it turns out, at least two of these illegal police stations are operating in Montreal, and the RCMP has taken no action to shut them down. Therefore, what we saw at the procedure and House affairs committee from the Minister of Public Safety is another example of the government failing to act. It is another example of a minister, on behalf of the government, seeking to mislead Canadians about the failures of the government. This is all to the detriment of the safety and security of Chinese Canadian citizens in particular. Then there is the failure of the government to protect the sanctity of our elections from Beijing's interference. It is now well established that the Prime Minister has been repeatedly briefed about Beijing's vast campaign of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. The Prime Minister was briefed as early as February 2020 that Beijing's Toronto consulate coordinated a campaign involving 11 candidates and the clandestine transfer of funds. The advice that CSIS provided the Prime Minister was that the policy of the government, when it comes to foreign interference, should be grounded in sunlight and transparency. However, the Prime Minister's response has been anything but transparent. He kept Canadians in the dark, and when this interference became known, he downplayed it. He used carefully crafted language, and he misled Canadians about what he knew. One can only conclude that it was because that interference benefited the Liberal Party; he was content to let it happen. When it comes to standing up for our safety, security and democracy in the face of Beijing's interference, the Prime Minister and the government are completely unfit for office.

1157 words

Context: House Hansard - 181 - Apr/20/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23

Apr/20/23 4:14:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, to answer the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the bill is fundamentally flawed. It is unsupportable on that basis. If it were a matter of a few amendments, it would make sense to send the bill to committee on the basis that the bill was supportable on principle, but that is not the case with the bill. Indeed, with respect to the consent provisions of the bill, the bill arguably would take a step back from the completely inadequate measures that were provided in PIPEDA.

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 104 - Sep/28/22

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