- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Conservative
- St. Albert—Edmonton
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $119,185.60
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference. My colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has done a good job outlining some of the key measures provided for in the bill, which I will not repeat. Needless to say, on the whole, the measures and safeguards provided in the bill, including establishing new foreign interference-specific offences, as well as a foreign influence registry, are welcomed and, frankly, long overdue.
It is on that basis that Conservatives are committed to seeing the bill move through the legislative process expeditiously. It is disappointing to see that, in our efforts to do this, we were blocked by the NDP members, who seem to want to hold up the legislation. It is imperative that the bill move forward as quickly as possible; officials have indicated that it may take up to one year to fully implement the bill upon it receiving royal assent. We need to have these measures. We need to have these safeguards in place for the next election. Time is of the essence.
While the bill is welcomed, I must ask why it has taken the government so long to introduce legislation to counter foreign interference. For years, the Prime Minister has been warned by CSIS and other agencies about the threat of foreign interference. The fact is that foreign interference is on the rise; it threatens our sovereignty, our democracy, and the safety and security of Canadians, particularly those in diaspora communities.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly and very specifically been briefed about the most significant foreign interference state threat, namely, the Beijing-based Communist regime. As far back as 2017, the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser briefed the Prime Minister that agents of Beijing were assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices. That was eight years ago; it has taken the government eight long years to finally come around to introducing legislation to counter that type of foreign interference.
In the 2019 election, four top Liberals who were closely connected to the Prime Minister received a classified CSIS briefing, warning them that one of the Liberal candidates, now the member for Don Valley North, was assisted by Beijing in winning the Liberal nomination in Don Valley North. One of the top Liberals who was briefed, who had the requisite security clearance, informed the Prime Minister of the contents of that brief immediately, which was quite appropriate.
What did the Prime Minister do with that information? Let us think about it.
The Prime Minister is informed that there is CSIS intelligence that one of his candidates was being assisted by Beijing, presumably because Beijing viewed that individual as someone who would best advance Beijing's interests in Ottawa. Did the Prime Minister seek to inquire with CSIS to learn more about the situation and what intelligence it had? Did he ask any questions? No, the Prime Minister turned a blind eye, allowing that individual to stand as a candidate and to be elected to the House of Commons.
In her first report, Madam Justice Hogue concluded that there was no evidence that the Prime Minister asked any questions or provided for any follow-up. Even worse than that is the conclusion that Madam Justice Hogue drew, which is that the Prime Minister decided against disallowing that candidate on the basis of direct electoral consequences.
In other words, the Prime Minister put his political interests and the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of countering Beijing's interference in our elections and in our democracy. I would submit that this is a damning indictment of the Prime Minister by Madam Justice Hogue.
However, there is more. Following the 2019 election, the Prime Minister was repeatedly told by CSIS that Beijing interfered in the 2019 and 2021 elections. What did the Prime Minister do upon being briefed? Once again, the Prime Minister turned a blind eye, doing nothing. Worse than that, the Prime Minister sought to hide Beijing's interference, to cover it up. In contrast to the very advice that he had received from CSIS, that the policy of the Government of Canada to counter foreign interference ought to be based on sunlight and transparency and that the government should make foreign interference activities known to the public, the Prime Minister's policy was one of cover-up.
The degree of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections ought not be minimized, but the Prime Minister has repeatedly attempted to do so. Members need not take my word for it. They can take the words of Madam Justice Hogue in her first report from the foreign interference inquiry. She concluded unequivocally that there was interference in the last two federal elections and that such interference was serious insofar as it “diminished the ability of some voters to cast an informed vote”. Although foreign interference did not change the overall result of the election, Madam Justice Hogue noted that it may have impacted the results in certain ridings and that this interference had a negative impact on the “broader electoral ecosystem”.
Those are very concerning findings. The fact is that the Prime Minister had been repeatedly briefed before the 2019 election, after the 2019 election and after the 2021 election but took no action and downplayed Beijing's interference after it was revealed, thanks to reports from The Globe and Mail and Global News. This demonstrates that the Prime Minister bears some level of responsibility for Beijing's attack on our democracy in the last two federal elections.
That brings us back to the timing of the proposed bill: Why have the Liberals finally seen fit to introduce legislation to counter foreign interference now? There is only one reason. It is that the Prime Minister got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference and attempting to cover it up. Had he not been caught, the legislation would never have seen the light of day. This is demonstrated by the fact that the bill was introduced on the first sitting day following the issuance of Madam Justice Hogue's report. The Liberals knew that the report was going to be incredibly damaging to the government, which it most certainly was, and this was their way of providing political cover for themselves.
Therefore, while the bill is welcome, the government deserves absolutely no credit for having been dragged, kicking and screaming, to introduce it after the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference in our elections. Under the Prime Minister's watch, foreign interference has increased, and it is part of the sad record of a failed Prime Minister.
1118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 12:37:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a survey released two weeks ago from the Ontario Psychiatric Association indicates that 78% of Ontario's psychiatrists oppose the expansion and do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards.
Can the hon. member speak to the government's decision not to add additional safeguards, and would he support additional legislative safeguards pursuant to the Criminal Code if in fact we move ahead with this in three years?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 5:01:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely disgusting that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader would stick his head in the sand and deny well-documented cases of abuse and non-compliance with respect to so-called safeguards that are supposedly in place and are to be enforced. It is just disgusting, when speaking of some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society.
With respect to the member and her speech, she talked about Conservative obstruction. I would remind her that every member of Parliament, from all recognized parties, on the committee, which I served in, said to put a pause on this expansion, so did chairs of psychiatry, and so did the Province of Quebec in the national assembly, when the committee determined that mental illness as a sole underlying condition was not appropriate in the context of MAID.
I will tell members that when I hear evidence that clinicians could get it wrong 50% of the time, in other words like the flip of a coin, I will obstruct that expansion.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 4:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our dissenting report.
Conservatives completely reject the committee's endorsement of the Liberal government's new arbitrary deadline to expand MAID in cases of mental illness in one year. The evidence from experts, including leading psychiatrists, is clear. This radical expansion cannot be implemented safely, and there is no evidence to indicate that it will be any different a year from now.
We are also disappointed that the committee failed to undertake a meaningful study on the effectiveness and enforcement of existing safeguards, this at a time when there are multiple alarming reports of abuse, non-compliance and Canadians falling through the cracks under the Liberals' MAID regime.
Finally, we reject the committee's irresponsible recommendation to expand MAID for mature minors, especially having regard for significant knowledge gaps and a complete lack of consultation with impacted groups, including young Canadians.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my friend, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, was absolutely right when she said that there is no science and no evidence to support this expansion. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence at the special joint committee, of which I am a co-vice-chair, was precisely the opposite.
The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne asked the member about whether it is appropriate to extend the deadline to essentially get it right, but evidence before the committee from a leading psychiatrist was that the medical error rate on the question of irremediability could be anywhere from 2% to 95%. In the face of that, it would seem to me that there are no safeguards to get this right. The only thing to do to get it right would be to scrap this ill-conceived—
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 10:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite empty words of concern, the government has simply washed its hands clean of issues of noncompliance with the so-called safeguards that were brought in by the government.
These are matters under the Criminal Code. They fall within the jurisdiction of the government, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that safeguards are adequate and that vulnerable Canadians are not falling through the cracks under the MAID regime.
Instead, the government has ploughed full steam ahead, seeking to rapidly expand MAID as vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks. I would submit that if anyone is wrapped up in ideology, it is the government, at the expense of vulnerable Canadians. I listed a series of cases of noncompliance, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to acknowledge that there are instances of noncompliance and to provide a better answer than—
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/22 11:56:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, several horrific cases have recently been reported of vulnerable Canadians who have ended their lives by medical assistance in dying for reasons such as inadequate housing and lack of access to care. That is precisely what the Liberals claimed would never happen.
When will the Liberals acknowledge that so-called MAID safeguards are not being enforced, putting the lives of vulnerable Canadians at risk?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
