So V ote

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/6/24 3:26:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are definitely fighting against having this motion carried and having the production of papers. There are $123 million that the Auditor General has identified that did not follow the rules under the conflict of interest declarations. The SDTC actually continued to use funds to benefit themselves and their friends, and the Liberals stuffed this board with their colleagues. We are talking about patronage, and we are talking about pork-barrelling. Are the Liberals voting against this because it is another Liberal cover-up? Is it Liberal incompetence? Is it Liberal corruption? Is it Liberal complicity in what could be under an RCMP investigation that ends in charges under the Criminal Code? Is it all of the above?

121 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/6/24 3:16:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the tremendous sacrifice, valour and victory of Canadians Soldiers, Sailors and Air Crew at Juno Beach as part of the D-Day invasion and subsequent liberation of Europe.

59 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/6/24 1:47:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a former Crown prosecutor, my colleague understands the Criminal Code better than anyone. One of the reasons we want to ensure we get to the bottom of this is to ensure there was an accountability based upon the misappropriation of these funds, $123 million, that failed to observe our conflict-of-interest rules. We have an Ethics Commissioner, and public servants and those who are appointed to serve on boards like the SDTC have a responsibility, a fiduciary duty, to ensure the proper use of taxpayer money. Therefore, I ask my colleague, as a former Crown prosecutor, to talk about the violations under the Criminal Code that could be applicable through this RCMP investigation, whether it be fraud or breach of trust.

125 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/6/24 1:13:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the member spoke almost the entire time and never even mentioned the Auditor General's report, which found that 123 million dollars' worth of contracts violated the conflict of interest rules at the green slush fund, the SDTC. We are talking about 76 million dollars' worth of projects that were given to Liberal friends and insiders. We also know that 12 million dollars' worth were actually ineligible for funding and were in violation of conflict of interest policies. I have been here a long time, 20 years, and I was here at the tail end of the adscam under the Chrétien Liberals. We have now witnessed, since the Prime Minister came to power, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE scam, arrive scam and now the green slush fund scandal, just to name a few. Is this Liberal incompetence? Is it Liberal corruption? Is it Liberal complicity? We are calling for a RCMP investigation because the current issue is a breach of trust as well as fraudulent behaviour. Would he agree that we have to call the RCMP in here? Is it the responsibility of, and does it falls on the head of and under the accountability of, the Minister of Industry, or is it, again, Scott Brison's problem?

217 words

Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/3/24 2:08:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on Canadian Armed Forces Day, we express our gratitude for the bravery of those Canadians who serve our great nation and protect each and every one of us. We thank them and their families for the sacrifices they make for Canada. The efforts of the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Navy have been recognized from Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach in the Atlantic to Kapyong and Panjwaii in the Indo-Pacific. Our soldiers, sailors and aircrew have always distinguished themselves through their courage, grit and integrity when deployed to conflicts around the world and during times of crisis right here at home. This year, we commemorate the Royal Canadian Air Force's 100th anniversary and celebrate the incredible contribution its members make to our safety every day. We thank them for their service and sacrifice over the past century. Today the forces are in a recruitment and retention crisis. The chief of the defence staff said that if we cannot attract the talent, we will not be able to protect Canada into the future. We must ensure that our forces are ready to meet any situation that threatens our peace, prosperity and security, by investing in the equipment they need and streamlining the recruitment process for today, tomorrow and our future.

219 words

May/28/24 12:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatchewan that the Prime Minister himself, as Prime Minister, as well as before, when he was in the third party, had numerous violations and was called to account for the use of unparliamentary language, for breaching privilege in this House, for elbowing a female NDP member of Parliament and for trying to push a vote more quickly than what should have been taking place. Instead of respecting this place, the Prime Minister has always shown contempt, and that is being emulated by our Speaker in the House of Commons, and it has to end now.

103 words

May/28/24 12:07:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about sincerity of actions, the NDP actually promised, after the last prima facie case against the Speaker's malfeasance, to ensure that they would never support the Speaker again, after his violations of participating in the Ontario Liberal leadership convention. Yet, here we are. The New Democrats said one thing, that they would never support the Speaker again as he continues to violate our privileges in this House, and they are supporting the Liberals and the Speaker in helping cover up this egregious violation of rights and privileges here in the House of Commons.

101 words

May/28/24 12:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is again up here deflecting and misleading Canadians, especially his own constituents, on the seriousness of the issue that we are grasped with. He is contemptuous in his comments, saying that there is nothing to see here, that it is all make-believe and it is all fake, which we have heard from the other side and the Liberals throughout the day. We are seized with a ruling by the Deputy Speaker that someone in this place violated our privilege, and that takes precedence over anything else that we are debating in this House. For the member to say, “Ha, look the other way, nothing to see here, folks” is wrong and misleading. He should be more honest when he is dealing with his own constituents, never mind the rest of Canada.

141 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/28/24 11:54:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I usually say I am honoured to be able to rise in this place and participate in debate, but I am discouraged and disappointed with the rhetoric and the deflection coming from members of the Liberal caucus, as well as from the NDP, their coalition cover-up partners, on this debate. We are dealing with a prima facie case of the violation of privilege in the House. I have been here for almost 20 years. I love this institution. I am incredibly honoured and still overwhelmed that the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman have sent me here on seven different occasions. We see the government trying to deflect and protect the Speaker, who has now been found in a prima facie case of privilege on multiple occasions, and defend that behaviour. To me, that is disappointing to say the least. I am disgusted by it. I am such a parliamentary nerd. I read the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. We are on the third edition. I started off reading when it was O'Brien and Bosc, and now I am reading Bosc and Gagnon. I make sure that I read through the book at least once every session. At the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, in the fall, I reread chapter 20 in particular, but always chapter 3 as well because of committee operations and the work that we do. I am a vice-chair and I have to sit in committees. In chapter 3, which is on parliamentary privileges and immunity, the very first page says, “The rights accorded to the House and its Members to allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded are referred to as privileges or immunities.” The Deputy Speaker found in the case of the Speaker that he has violated members' privileges, a prima facie case that he violated our privileges. What did he violate? His impartiality. In chapter 7 titled, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”, under “Impartiality of the Chair”, on page 323, it states, “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.” That is why the Speaker is now in trouble, because he has not been able to maintain that impartiality. In fact, we have seen, on multiple occasions, we are talking six or seven times now, that the Speaker has been called out, caught and charged for not acting impartial. When it comes down to it, the Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of all of us as members of the House of Commons, so that we can enjoy our free speech and other privileges that we have. On page 317, it says, “It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.” It goes on to say the following: Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. When we talk about impartiality and when we talk about preserving our freedom of speech, we have the case we are dealing with right now. The Speaker held a fundraiser. It is not that he held a fundraiser that was in error because all of us, as parliamentarians, have to raise money to be able to fight elections. The Speaker has that right. The previous Speaker that the Liberals always refer to, the House leader of the Conservative Party, had that right as well. However, what was wrong in this case is that the Speaker's electoral district association advertised this as a meeting with the Speaker and used inflammatory, partisan language against the leader of the official opposition. It said that Conservatives would propose reckless policy, and would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks. That is where the prima facie case of privilege was violated, because they used inflammatory language. Again, that undermines the Speaker in his ability to maintain impartiality. We know also that he, in the issue of freedom of speech, not that long ago, threw out, first, the member for Lethbridge, who used unparliamentary language but withdrew that comment. It was in the blues. They may want to talk about it but it was in the blues and then it was edited out. We still need to get that ruling on who made that edit. The second thing is that, following that, he then threw out the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, the member of Parliament for Carleton, because of inflammatory language, but did not apply that fairly, because even though the word “wacko” was used to describe the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister also, before that, had used inflammatory language, calling the leader “spineless”. There was no action, no withdrawal, no apology sought, no ejection from the chamber by the Speaker, again undermining and proving that our Speaker is not impartial. On those occasions, we talk about freedom of speech but we also have to talk about the maintenance of being non-partisan, of being impartial. It says, again, in chapter 7, under the roles of the Speaker, on page 324, that “in order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. This includes not going to caucus meetings, never mind attending Liberal fundraisers. The first time the Speaker got caught, he attended a fundraising dinner for a neighbouring Liberal. That is not allowed. He can attend his own, but he is not allowed to attend other Liberal fundraisers. He then, by video, addressed, in his robes, in full Speaker garb, the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention. I filed a complaint with the procedure and House affairs committee, of misuse of government resources, of House resources, to further partisan activities, of which the Speaker was found guilty, and ordered to pay a fine. Again, here we go. He is supposed to be impartial. He was not. We also know that the Speaker went down to Washington on the taxpayer dime and gave a speech about being a young Liberal down in D.C.. The Speaker continues to do partisan activities, behaves from a partisan position when occupying the Chair, and undermines the individual rights, freedoms and immunities that all of us are supposed to enjoy. Instead of being the guardian of our rights, he has ejected Conservative members. He has given a pass to the Prime Minister. His overall, and I do not know what the appropriate term here would be, as I do not want to be unparliamentary, ongoing loyalty to the Liberal Party and not to this chamber is what has caused the situation we find ourselves in. Any other members in this House, from the Liberals or their coalition cover-up partners in the NDP, who stand here and say that this Speaker is impartial are sadly mistaken. I am so disappointed in the NDP. It has always stood on the grounds that they protect this institution. It is actually helping to undermine our democratic principles, the respect and honour that this chamber is supposed to hold, by continuing to support the Liberals in their ongoing reckless spending, as well as protect the Speaker, who is not up to the job. The House is seized with a question. The government has moved the motion to limit debate. The House, under the rules, is supposed to be seized with a question of privilege and rise here and discuss this and debate it and try to convince one another that we are right or wrong. It is unfortunate that the NDP and the Liberals are working together to protect the Speaker and his unparliamentary behaviour. I beg the Speaker: will he do the right thing and resign?

1406 words

May/28/24 10:39:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the comments just made by the government House leader, the member for Gatineau, are contemptuous at best. What we are debating here right now is closure on a decision made by the Deputy Speaker that the Speaker has a prima facie case of violating the privilege of the House. Just to remind the government House leader, “The rights accorded to the House and its Members to allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded are referred to as privileges or immunities.” On page 323 of the procedure and House affairs book, it says, “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He...must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.” The Speaker has lost the goodwill and trust of the House, and that is why the Deputy Speaker found him in contempt of Parliament and found it to be a prima facie case at that.

176 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/28/24 10:18:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the comments by the government House leader are so disappointing. He is not protecting the sanctity of this place. The House of Commons is our House of Commons, and that is our chair; however, the current chair occupant has proven that he is not fit to be in that chair. We had a decision by the Deputy Speaker about the partisan activities of the Speaker. I do not know what type of baseball the Liberals play when empowered by their NDP coalition to shut down debate on a privilege motion, but the last time I looked, in baseball, it is three strikes and a player is out. On three different occasions, the Speaker has been involved in partisan activities and given partisan speeches. This is the fourth occasion. It has been found each and every time that he has violated the rules of this place. We have a question of privilege in front of us. Turning to chapter 3 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 150, it says: Once the motion is properly moved, seconded, and proposed to the House, it is subject to all the procedures and practices relating to debate on a substantive motion. The speeches are limited... The House has considered all the conduct of the member, in this case, the Speaker. It goes on to say: A privilege motion once under debate has priority over all Orders of the Day including Government Orders and Private Members’ Business. However, the debate does not interfere with Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members, Question Period, Royal Assent, deferred recorded divisions or the adjournment of the House [or other] scheduled...Private Members’ Business... We have done our orders of the day, but now we have the Liberals, empowered by their NDP coalition partners, shutting down debate and moving closure on a question of privilege that relates to the very confidence that all of us in the House of Commons have in the Speaker. The Speaker should do the honourable thing and resign. The House Leader should do that instead of forcing us to—

354 words

May/27/24 7:16:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I just have to express my sympathies to the family that lost its loved ones in that murder. The government has never put victims first. It has always stood up for the criminal, and it is trying to reduce the number of incarcerations. We know that those who work at Corrections Canada do great work in making sure that we are kept safe and that people who are incarcerated are getting the support and help they need to reintegrate into society when they have served their sentence. However, the government continues to do bail instead of jail, and that has undermined our country. It has made us more unsafe, and our communities are being terrorized by repeat violent offenders whom the Liberal-NDP coalition continues to put on our streets instead of behind bars.

139 words

May/27/24 7:15:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see Kapyong barracks under the control of Treaty No. 1, because I know the first nation will get houses built. It will be doing it on its own without any assistance from the federal government. It can do it under its own rules and regulations and build the homes. That is what we are seeing right across this country, including in places like Vancouver. The government continues to reward gatekeepers rather than get them out of the way. Despite all of the announcements the government has made, and it makes great announcements, the government has not built one single home. I actually used one of the government's announcements to build a really nice paper home, and that is about the only home that the government has been able to build, thanks to my hard work and its piece of paper.

147 words

May/27/24 7:13:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that everything the Liberals have done on housing has been a joke. They have not built any new homes. We have seen that housing starts across this country have failed. They continue to reward gatekeepers rather than getting them out of the way. They refuse to work with provinces, and they continue to tread on provincial jurisdiction. The one place where they can actually make investments is in military housing on military bases, which is on federal land. They have not done that. In the budget that we have before us right now, the government says that we are short 6,700 houses. The government has built only 38 military homes in the last two years, and the budget has zero dollars for military homes. In the forecast for the next budget, under the DPU, there are zero dollars for building military housing. We know that, going forward in the next five years, the government has only $8 million to build houses. How would $8 million over five years build 6,700 homes? We will be lucky if it builds 20 houses. It is a joke.

193 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/27/24 7:02:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise tonight to talk about the fall economic statement. I came in here actually prepared to talk about the question of privilege. I am shocked that the government would shut down debate in the House on a question of privilege over the partisan activities of the Speaker. Our House of Commons, our institution, is being discredited and undermined by the Chair, the Speaker of the House of Commons. We have to continue to have a fulsome discussion on that, so I am disappointed that the government would use its power to force debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Last time I looked, it was May 27, and here we are talking in the summer about the fall economic statement from 2023. I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. As Conservatives, we have said all along that we want to make sure that we build the homes, axe the tax, fix the budget and stop the crime. The government has no intention of doing any of that. We know that housing in this country is in a desperate situation, that in the nine years under the Liberal-NDP coalition, the cost of rent has doubled, the cost of mortgages has doubled and the number of housing starts is below that of what we did in 1976. We say we want to axe the tax, and that is very important to my riding. I was just meeting with some cattle producers from Manitoba, including from my riding, and they were telling me over and over again that every time they have to pay the carbon tax, every time the carbon tax is hidden in all the supplies they buy, it all trickles down, and that means that they are getting less and paying to the government more. Of course when they sell their cattle, for which right now, thankfully, the price is at record highs, people are complaining about the price of beef on the store shelf. One has to remember that the coolers that store shelves have their beef in are often powered through thermal electricity or natural gas, We know that this adds an extra cost to the price of beef. We know that in the transportation of that beef from the farm to the packer and from the processor to the retailer, it all gets added in and consumers are paying more. Of course, they cannot afford it. We are going to fix the budget because the government continues to run up huge national debt and larger-than-ever deficits that are actually going to hurt each and every one of us. We know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this has not been helpful in controlling inflation. It has not been helpful in its being able to bring down interest rates. Of course every time we have a Trudeau as prime minister, we pay record-high interest rates. With my first farm, which I bought back in 1984 under the former Trudeau, the interest rate on my mortgage was 21%, which was pretty high and pretty impossible, almost, for a 19-year-old young farmer to get going. I had to eat that at the bank because of the out-of-control spending by the Liberal government at the time, from 1980 to 1984. Our young people today are paying the cost because of out-of-control spending and little care for the economic performance of the country under the Liberal-NDP coalition. Of course, we have to stop the crime. The government has, for nine years, ignored the plight of Canadians who are dealing with increasing criminal activity, including violent crime, which has gone up by over 32% across the country, including in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and including in the city of Winnipeg, where the member for Winnipeg North resides. We see, over and over again, repeat offenders generating 90% of the crimes that are being committed against Canadians. We want safer communities, and that is why as Conservatives under the leadership of our leader, the member for Carleton, we will implement jail, not bail, and keep violent repeat offenders, those who are perpetrating crimes, behind bars and actually reduce crime across the country. As members know, I am the shadow minister for national defence. I am very concerned by the way the government has ignored our Canadian Armed Forces and how it has gone from a proud, honoured institution to where it is now, again, in a decade of darkness, which occurred, of course, under the Chrétien era. We are living that again. Members and veterans of the armed forces have told me that they are actually in a decade of disaster because of the dithering and delays being carried out by the current government. We know for a fact that the world has gotten much more dangerous. We know, and it is not just because of Russia's invasion in Ukraine, that we are seeing increased sabre-rattling by the Kremlin with NATO members in the Baltic region, which we just witnessed this past week with its redrawing of boundaries along Estonia and Russia and between Finland, Sweden and other Baltic nations with Russia. That type of aggression and provocation by President Vladimir Putin and his kleptocrats in Moscow continues to undermine our security. We know that the Communist regime in Beijing and the People's Liberation Army continue to sabre-rattle with Taiwan. The rhetoric coming out of Beijing this past week after the inauguration of Taiwan's new president was deplorable. We know that its ongoing aggression against the Philippines in the South China Sea and around the Second Thomas Shoal continues to undermine security co-operation and peace and prosperity within that region. We know that Japan, South Korea and other Indo-Pacific countries are more and more concerned about China's growing disturbances in the region. We know that the government has failed to make the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO target, and the Washington Summit is coming up. There has been a lot of concern expressed by our allies, especially since the defence policy update came out, that there is no plan to meet the NATO target. The Minister of National Defence has said that the Canadian Armed Forces is in a death spiral. He has said that our equipment is worn out and unsustainable. At committee today, the Minister of National Defence said that our Victoria-class submarines are no longer serviceable. We know that the greatest proliferation of weapons systems in this country outside of air-breathing missiles, which are hypersonic; intercontinental ballistic missiles; and the advancement of more cruise missiles and drones, outside of that domain, the next biggest growing proliferation of weapons is submarines. The best way to defend against a submarine is to have a submarine, and the minister is saying today, essentially, that we no longer have serviceable submarines to defend Canada in our maritime approaches. We have to make sure that we are standing up for our troops. The minister said that we are short 6,700 housing units. We hear stories of members of our Canadian Armed Forces living rough. They are living in cars, tents and campers. They are couch-surfing in places like Halifax, Esquimalt and Toronto. We know that they need to have proper housing. We cannot recruit because the government, under the NDP-Liberal coalition, has not put the troops first and foremost in its minds, making sure they get the kit they need. The government will say that it gave a recent raise, but in giving that raise it also increased the rent of military housing. We actually passed a motion here just two weeks ago calling on the government to reverse that decision. Of course, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberals voted against it. This has affected our recruitment capabilities, and that is why we are still short 16,000 troops. We know that readiness continues to be undermined. All of us remember Gen. Andrew Leslie, a former army commander who was also the whip for the Liberals for some time. He has come out and stated that he is “not aware of any other [NATO] army, which will be deploying troops to the front line of a possible confrontation with Russia, who are not 100 per cent trained according to a variety of battle test standards.” He is saying that the defence policy update, the most recent budget by the Liberals and the main estimates that we are dealing with at committee have undermined our overall readiness. We are now at only 61% standing ready. We are not training our troops like we are supposed to be at CFB Wainwright in Alberta before we deploy to places like Latvia. We are no longer doing fighter pilot training in this country. We have farmed that out to places like the United States and Italy. We do not have base training here. We do not even have enough pilots in the Canadian Air Force to fly our current fleet of fighter jets. I would just say that based upon the comments we heard just this past week from multiple U.S. senators and from the ambassador, Canada is an outlier in NATO. Eighteen percent of the countries will meet the 2%, and 13% have a plan to get to 2% within the next couple of years. Canada is the only country that will never make it, and that is because we have a Prime Minister who actually said that we will never be at 2%.

1632 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/21/24 2:14:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, May is Skin Cancer Awareness Month, and with summer under way, the Save Your Skin Foundation is using this time to increase awareness and promote the treatment and prevention of skin cancer. My wife, Kelly, is a melanoma skin cancer survivor. Unfortunately, too many people have lost their lives to the disease, while others continue to fight. It was projected that in 2023, 9,700 Canadians would be diagnosed with melanoma and 1,250 would die from it. Sadly, the numbers continue to rise year after year. Skin cancer is caused by overexposure to UV radiation from the sun and the use of artificial tanning equipment. In the past, I tabled a private member's bill that strengthened warning labels on artificial tanning equipment, which was enacted by our previous Conservative government. This summer I encourage all Canadians to enjoy the great outdoors and be skin-safe. The good news is that prevention is easy: wear sunscreen, cover up when outside, seek shade and avoid tanning beds. Of course, have lots of fun.

175 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/9/24 10:12:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was also one of the 18 parliamentarians targeted by APT31. What is really disturbing in all this is that not only were we targeted because we are part of the IPAC, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, but some were also involved in diaspora communities and, in my case, as the shadow minister for national defence, dealing with sensitive information. Often, people in diaspora communities come to us or send us emails talking about certain issues they are concerned about, whether they are things happening in the Communist regime in Beijing; issues surrounding the corruption and human rights abuses that we are witnessing in Ukraine by the Russian Federation, as in my case, or the kleptocrats in the Kremlin; or, of course, having to do with the theocracy and human rights abusers in Tehran. Those in diaspora communities send us emails, and if this APT31 hack had been successful, sensitive information about the identities of individuals who came to Canada seeking asylum and now call Canada home could have been jeopardized. They could have been targeted even more than what we currently see reported by the foreign interference commission and Justice Hogue. We have dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, such as the People's Republic of China, that are trying to undermine our democratic institutions and target Chinese nationals right here in Canada. Could my colleague talk to the fact that this is not just an attack on our parliamentary privilege or on us as parliamentarians but on all Canadians and our democratic institutions?

256 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

May/8/24 10:39:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the proper term to describe what has happened here is that the Liberal government is willfully neglecting its responsibilities and duties to make sure that we, as parliamentarians, and all Canadians are protected from foreign interference.

40 words