- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy House leader of the New Democratic Party
- NDP
- London—Fanshawe
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,911.16
- Government Page
- Sep/19/23 9:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, earlier today in the debate, it was mentioned that there are those in this place who are putting trade policy before human rights. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's reaction to that and thoughts on it.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 9:27:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I know a lot of us, and I mentioned this before, have probably been reaching out to those in our community who are greatly impacted by this, members of the Sikh community.
I was having a conversation tonight, and one of the community members asked me, “What will it take for us to be considered as first-class citizens in this country?” It really just broke my heart, and I did not know what to say to him. I said it is about solidarity. It is about that non-partisan coming together and speaking out against what we know is wrong.
As a member of the government, could she speak to my constituents as well on how we are all working together, for the most part, to do just that and to make their lives safer and better, as much as we can?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:33:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech and commitment tonight to this take-note debate. As so many of us have, I am sure, I have been trying to reach out to folks in our own communities, our own ridings, from the Sikh community.
I had a really moving conversation with one fellow who was very specific, and he spoke to the fact that he has felt threatened. He tries to brush it off and say that it is not about him, that it is about a bigger community. Throughout my community in London, the London Sikh Society gurdwara works so hard and contributes so positively to the community. He does so as well, but he said he feels threatened.
Some of the things that we are calling for are additional supports and protections from the RCMP going forward for those community members who also feel threatened. Could she talk about that and whether the government will support that?
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 5:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the majority of my speech today, and I hope that this was recognized, was about us all coming together, doing what is best for democracy, putting that first above all the bickering and squabbling, and delivering what Canadians have asked for and what the will of this Parliament has asked for.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 5:02:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for allowing me to bring forward one of the points that my brilliant colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke raised earlier. We are asking for the government and for a committee of this Parliament to do the work that is necessary. If we were to call an election right now, we would be going in with the exact same rules that we have now and potentially the exact same problems that we have now. Therefore, if we are able to come together to do the work necessary to ensure our institutions are protected and those democratic processes are protected, then we can have the faith of Canadians in this place to go forward with an election free from interference.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 5:00:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the last point in our motion is to instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to report back to this House, to create recommendations on who should lead the commission and to put forward the terms of reference that need to be included in that study.
Members of this House who have, unfortunately, been subjected to a lot of foreign interference calls should be able to do that in this House. There are ways we can do this safely and securely. That has been proven repeatedly. I do not think there is anything in this motion that sacrifices any of what the member is talking about.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:51:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.
I want to thank members of the House for providing me with the opportunity to talk today about this motion.
The New Democrats, of course, are disappointed by the recommendations from the special rapporteur. In order to move forward in a proactive and productive way, we are calling for the House of Commons to support our motion for a public inquiry.
Canadians deserve better than a process that raises doubts about the independence and impartiality of its conclusions. The integrity of our democratic institutions and protection of the diaspora communities are of paramount importance. It is essential that we address the allegations and concerns and restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic processes. That is what the New Democrats are trying to do through this motion today.
The NDP leader was the first leader to call for a public inquiry on foreign interference. The NDP moved the motion at PROC calling for the inquiry and forced debate and a vote in the House in March. The NDP has now put forward this motion and will continue to use every tool we have as parliamentarians on this issue. I am proud that we are not afraid to do the real work and dig into this issue, unlike past consecutive governments.
Unfortunately, the Liberals have rejected our calls from the very beginning. They had an opportunity to show that they take this issue seriously at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the NDP was pushing for a public inquiry. Instead, they decided to filibuster our motion.
The Liberals' failed to call a public inquiry and are now hiding behind the recommendations of the special rapporteur they appointed. It undermines public confidence in the electoral process. This is part of a bigger pattern and one that worries me greatly.
My colleagues and I have a great deal of respect for the former governor general. We have been very clear about that today, a lot, but on this report we disagree. Again, I reference that the majority of members of the House disagree with him. I know that some folks have forgotten this in this place, but it is possible to disagree with someone, still respect them and still treat them with respect.
I disagree with Mr. Johnston's findings and the report, and I reference the fact that when he was investigating whether the leak that China preferred a minority Liberal government was true or not, he wrote, “I asked the Prime Minister and ministers if they were aware of any orchestrated effort to elect a Liberal Party of Canada minority. They were not.” Mr. Johnston dismissed this allegation simply because the Prime Minister and members of cabinet told him it was not true. I do not believe this is a sufficient reason.
Mr. Johnston also retained a lawyer to assist in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing the materials for interviews. The same lawyer was a donor to the Liberal Party of Canada between 2006 and 2022. Why was this not flagged as a conflict of interest?
Years of entitlement have skewed the government's perspective, and at a time when we need the Liberals to step up for the health of our democracy, they seem to want to say instead that everything is fine and there is nothing to see here. The longer they refuse to step up and the longer they refuse to call for a full public inquiry, the more Canadians are losing trust in the Liberals. More worrisome is that Canadians are losing faith in the institutions that are in place to serve them. More and more Canadians are disenfranchised and divided. We need all parliamentarians to come together to protect our democratic institutions and our diaspora communities.
While the Liberals are focusing on avoiding the headlines, the Conservatives are only interested in flinging mud and scoring political points. They are not interested in finding solutions. At committee, they filibustered and used bad faith tactics against the NDP motion on a public inquiry. They have used divisive rhetoric to divide Canadians and, sadly, to fundraise.
There was expert testimony at committee around the scope of foreign interference, not just by China but from Russia, India and Iran. They refused to talk about it. We have heard about the oppressive regimes harassing and targeting activists in diaspora communities. We have heard reports about foreigners financing the “freedom convoy”. However, the Conservatives are not talking about that.
At the Standing Committee on National Defence, we just concluded a study on cyber-defence. We heard a lot of expert testimony on the threats of foreign interference and how states like Russia interfered during the convoy. I want to quote one of the expert witnesses we had, Marcus Kolga. He is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He said:
The broad goal of Russian information warfare is to undermine public trust in our democracies and the cohesion of our societies. They do this by weaponizing issues and narratives that have the greatest potential to polarize us. They inject and amplify narratives that exploit both Conservative and Liberal biases and any issues that have the potential to drive wedges between Canadians.
We have seen this type of foreign interference through disinformation campaigns in action, and we know the tool box for foreign disinformation campaigns has only grown bigger with the emergence of technology.
I will give a few examples. First, we are seeing the rapid expansion of deepfake videos. As artificial intelligence technology advances, it is becoming easier and easier to produce video content that looks incredibly real. They can create videos of politicians, newsmakers making announcements, news anchors breaking stories on major world events. These videos are completely fake and generated by a computer, but will be a powerful tool for disinformation campaigns.
Second, artificial intelligence is driving massive innovations in social media bots. Bad-faith actors will be able to create fake social media accounts, which they already do, but they will be able to engage with real Canadians and have full conversations. It will become increasingly difficult for everyday Canadians to tell the difference.
Third, the social media algorithms and data mining are always innovating. Big tech executives are finding new ways to get Canadians to increase their social media activity, and that has led to the proliferation of divisive content. These will be the new tools for foreign actors to drive wedges between Canadians, and if we do not get over the partisan and political games and mudslinging, if we do not get to the bottom of foreign interference through this public inquiry, those divisions and polarizations for Canadians will get worse. We want to work together to find a solution, a well-informed, facts-based solution.
In closing, I want to remind members on all sides of this House why foreign interference is occurring. Oppressive regimes are harassing, intimidating and silencing Canadians who are speaking out. I will quote my colleague from Vancouver East, who spoke this morning quite passionately about this issue. She said, “For people like me, who are outspoken against human rights violations, the genocide of the Uyghurs, the erosion of basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the National Security Law, we must be vigilant of attempts by foreign influence actors working to coerce, co-op, re-orient, neutralize, or even silence our voices.”
This motion is not about Liberals avoiding another scandal or Conservatives making the evening news. This motion is about protecting human rights and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and creating a path forward that is reasonable and abides by the will of the majority of parliamentarians. That is what New Democrats put forward in this House in March and that is what we are putting forward in this House today. I hope the government will see that and respect the will of Parliament.
1343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:21:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, I would really like to hear from my hon. colleague, who brings a great deal of information and wealth of knowledge to this debate, about doing that work.
The NDP has clearly put forward a path here. As my colleague has mentioned, it is consistent with being the adults in the room, being committed to doing the work and ensuring that a path is laid out and that there is a plan. As a result, Canadians will know that the will of Parliament is being followed here, as the government has unfortunately not done, and that we are the ones putting forward the plan and laying out the procedure.
The is much like the leader, the member for Burnaby South, has done in terms of demanding a briefing, taking that briefing and then going forward with a plan if needed. Again, this is unlike what the Leader of the Opposition has done. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
