SoVote

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

May/9/23 1:13:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, the question was this: Why should we care? We should care because we have something to lose. We have a delicately crafted democracy. It is not perfect, but we are proud of it and it is a democracy that we built together and one that we are proud of as Canadians. However, it is fragile. Threats to our democracy are real and they need to be treated as such. We have heard stories over the last number of weeks about the intimidation tactics that Canadians from China and Canadians with family in China faced in the last election. We have had a member of the Liberal caucus leave the party among allegations that he was part of foreign interference by the Chinese Communist government. He stands accused of having a hand in delaying the return of Canadians held in China because it was politically valuable to the Liberal Party. Now, we have the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills reveal that he and his family were targets for the Chinese state interference in 2021. Why, though, did the Government of China want to ensure that the Liberals won the last election and, in fact, the last two elections? Here is why. The Conservative stance on the Chinese Communist government was too principles-based and the resolve of our party was too strong to be advantageous to foreign interference. The Conservative position was in line with 53% of what Canadians believe, which is that the government's response to China in recent years has not been strong enough and that more needs to be done. In fact, a recent poll from the Angus Reid Institute shows that 69% of Canadians believe that the government is scared of standing up to China, including 91% of past Conservative voters, 62% of past NDP voters and 46% of those who have mistakenly voted for the Liberal Party at some point in their life. Let us not overlook the recent activity with spy balloons that are in Canadian airspace and how our Prime Minister has little to say about the ongoing situation. We know that foreign interference can undermine the integrity of democratic processes, such as elections, by attempting to sway voters or influence political outcomes. We live in a country where corporations cannot legally provide any funding to political candidates. Individuals are limited to contributing $1,700 annually. The reason for this is to prevent our politicians from being bought off by the big money of special interest groups and wealthy individuals. Canadians themselves can only contribute $5,000 to their own campaigns and yet Liberals think that it is okay for the Trudeau Foundation to receive $200,000 from two businessmen identified as being linked to the Communist government in China. That is utter, absolute nonsense. For those listening at home, the House ethics committee is probing a $200,000 donation given to the charity by two men with links to the Chinese Communist government. The committee is deciding whether the donation was an attempt by Beijing to curry favour with the Prime Minister. If we can just for one minute cut through the political rhetoric and admit to ourselves, like all Canadians already have, that we know this money was intended to buy favour with the Prime Minister, ignoring the reality would be willful blindness on all of our parts. We are sent here to represent our constituents, Canadians, but also to defend our Canadian democracy. If the members opposite need to wonder why they are here or why they cannot stand in their places and say that, when a foreign government that the Prime Minister admires so openly donates a six-figure sum to a foundation in the name of his father and run by his brother, it is at best inappropriate and at worst foreign interference. This is not just any country getting uncomfortably close with our Prime Minister. It is among the worst in the world for a government's treatment of ethnic minorities, shown by its treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners. If at any point we want to see how far the Prime Minister's admiration of the Beijing leadership goes, we can just ask him to stand up for Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners in a meaningful way when meeting with Chinese leadership. He will not. He is afraid. He is afraid that he will offend the country he so admires. The ruling of the Speaker of the House is an important first step, but now the committee needs to be allowed to do its job, which is a tall order with this government. It seems that whenever a committee is trying to do its duty for Canadians and thoroughly investigate or review bills, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners find a way to strangle the committee and steamroll democracy. Here is an example of that: I sit on the public safety committee, and we are currently reviewing Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. It has been in front of us for quite some time. When Canadians hear that we have been at this for months, it may seem slow, but in fact, we are simply doing a job of government. The government put the bill forward as a handgun bill and then, in a move that can only be seen as averting democratic process, stuffed the bill full of other unrelated amendments, completely changing the scope. What happened when we brought this it up? It was steamrolled by the Chair in a unilateral decision that it was in order when, in fact, we know it was not. That was upheld again by the Liberal alliance when we challenged the Chair. The Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on that bill and limit the opposition on each of their amendments to five minutes per amendment and then force votes. Over in the PMO, there is—

990 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:21:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/23 1:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is proving, by the statements he is making, that more and more of his debate is not about the motion. The member is talking about other legislation. He is not talking about the motion at hand. He is either attacking the Prime Minister or talking about issues that are not relevant. Some hon. members: Debate.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:21:29 p.m.
Watch

I am able to make my rulings. The hon. parliamentary secretary knows full well that there is some latitude during discussions in the House and that other matters get brought into the debates. I would say that this is what is happening, and the hon. parliamentary secretary has raised more a point of debate than a point of order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner has the floor.

72 words

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:22:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling on this. As I said before, the Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on Bill C-21, limit opposition to only five minutes per amendment and then force votes. As I said, over in the PMO, there is a Prime Minister proud of the basic dictatorship that he has created for himself. When the Speaker of the House made his ruling, and in that ruling supported a prima facie case of contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it gave me hope and it ought to give Canadians hope. The Speaker of the House and I are no different. We are two MPs, elected by our constituents to represent them here in Ottawa. We are both doing our best with the skills and experiences we have. We know that we have to go back to our constituents, face them and account for the decisions that we make in this place. I speak here today with some hesitancy, as we are not immune to the intimidation that was faced by the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of the House. I know that speaking on this important topic opens the possibility of being put in the sight of the Communist government in Beijing, much in the same way that I can imagine the Speaker of the House had and was possibly thinking about when he drafted this decision. For me and those in law enforcement, we have faced these decisions before. Back in the years I was in policing, I faced threats and intimidation, but I always knew that my brothers in blue had my back. There was a sense of being protected from those who wished me harm because we were a team, a family. In this place we are a family too, but recently the trust that is needed to rely on each other as a family has been eroding. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and its cross-party membership is now in a unique position to rebuild that trust. It will need to look past party differences, just as the Speaker of House did and has been able to do. It will need to take the required time, debate openly and review the situation. It will have a chance to send back a decision that shows support to the MP for Wellington-Halton Hills and other members of the House who have faced the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao on behalf of the Communist government of China, as well as the others who could possibly could face that, moving forward. This committee can show Canadians and the Beijing Communist government that, although we disagree on a lot, and I mean a lot, when it comes to protecting Canadian democracy, we are all unwavering. That would send a clear message to Beijing to stay out of our politics, and a strong message to all members of the House that we have each others' backs. Will we admit that we are susceptible to foreign interference, or will the Prime Minister instruct his coalition to continue to cover this up, to steamroll the committee, as they seem eager to do when it comes to domestic policy such as the example I gave with Bill C-21? Will the committee show the world that we are fractionalized with a system of government that can be influenced from the outside? Will the Prime Minister utilize his control through the basic dictatorship he has been building in China's likeness? I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have the same sense of honour and good conscious that the Speaker of this House showed in the prima facie decision he made.

639 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

May/9/23 1:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, with whom I serve on the public safety committee. He reflected on his career in law enforcement and his profound shock and disappointment at the foreign interference and the intimidation of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We all share that concern. I also note that the member opposite spent a considerable amount of time talking about how much he supported the convoy that occupied Ottawa and how much time he spent with the organizers of that convoy. I would like to know if he is as concerned about the Russian foreign interference that took place during the support of the convoy—

114 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:27:33 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

19 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

May/9/23 1:27:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is certainly over the top for the member to impugn the integrity of another member on this side with that question. He should take back that comment. I think that would be appropriate in this case.

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/23 1:27:49 p.m.
Watch

This is another point of debate. The hon. member for Vancouver Granville has the floor.

15 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

May/9/23 1:27:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite, having supported the convoy, and having met with the organizers of the convoy, if he is equally concerned about Russia's interference in amplifying the message of the convoy. If so, what does he propose to do about Russia's interference in that situation?

55 words

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:28:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find the question odd. Distraction seems to be the common theme here. Those involved in the “freedom convoy” were disgusted with the current government and their ability to continue to earn a living based on its vaccine mandates. The statement that the member made about the Russian influence in the “freedom convoy” has no basis in truth, and the evidence is suspect at best, so I do not know where he is getting this information from. I will say that the foreign interference before the House, which we are seized with now with regard to the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, is significant and needs to be given the full attention of this House. What I am disgusted with is the delay by the government. It knew for two years and did nothing about it.

145 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/9/23 1:29:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to find out that the member has a seat on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, because I have some questions. What would make a Prime Minister ignore recommendations and special security intelligence concerning Canada? It all seems very alarming. I mean, is it not essential to listen to what CSIS has to say? How are we supposed to perform our duties as members if the recommendations made by the agencies created to protect us and keep us safe are ignored? As a member of this committee, is my colleague not tempted to ask questions and make sure that the integrity of the role of member of Parliament is protected?

118 words

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:30:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, “willful blindness” is the term I would use to describe this. I trust implicitly the skill and ability of our national security apparatus, CSIS and others, to ensure that it gathers the information in an appropriate way. There is no doubt in my mind that CSIS provided the information to the national security adviser, who has admitted that it did, and others, in a timely way with exactly what was going on as it was happening. For the Prime Minister and his office to suggest to Canadians that he did not know about it until Monday of last week, and I struggle with the right word to use so it is not unparliamentary, but I find it difficult to believe. The Prime Minister has a serious credibility problem, and this just amplifies what we have seen over the last seven and a half years with the Prime Minister.

152 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

May/9/23 1:31:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad the convoy issue was raised because Americans came to my riding to be part of the illegal blockade along Huron Church Road at the Ambassador Bridge. There is certainly a record of those individuals. I am wondering whether the hon. member thinks those people should now be barred from coming into Canada. Similarly, and to our embarrassment, the Proud Boys went to Washington as part of the civil issue that is now quite public. Does the member think they should be banned from going into the United States, especially because our democracies are affected by the actions of those individuals?

105 words

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:32:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again the question is somewhat unrelated to our debate, but I will answer that any extremist group, left-wing or right-wing, that undermines our democracy needs to be dealt with and should have the full support of the House to deal with that in an appropriate way.

50 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/9/23 1:32:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there it is. We see members of the Liberal Party and the NDP focused on the freedom movement, which really stood up for freedom and what the current government was doing. My question for the member is related to this, because it shows the Liberals' level of disregard. Instead of looking at Chinese Communist foreign interference and dealing with that issue, they were attacking their own citizens at that time. I was just at PROC, where we had two witnesses who testified three times. Every time they attempted to testify and speak, there was a broadcast interruption. I talked to one of the witnesses, who said that when she said she was going to testify, her computer went down. If the current government would have taken foreign interference seriously, as the party across the way does, we would not be in this situation. Is the member confident that the current Prime Minister and the Liberal government have the backs of Canadians with respect to foreign interference?

168 words

Interference

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:34:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say this: It is a sad day when the fine ladies and gentlemen of our national security apparatus find it necessary to go contrary to their oath of secrecy to get matters before the public's attention. They do so because the current Prime Minister and the government refuse to deal with the matters that come before them that impact them, make them look bad or mean that they are seen as having the advantage they have. Therefore, no, I do not have confidence in the government to properly deal with some of the issues, because of its own thirst for power and its inability to do anything that is beyond its own self-interest.

119 words

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

May/9/23 1:35:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of the speeches we have heard in the House on this topic centre on the idea of a public inquiry, and the member mentioned that. If a public inquiry were held and it upheld what has been said by the members on this side with respect to who knew what, heard what or participated in what and when, would the members opposite accept that ruling or would they say that there was something wrong with the public inquiry?

82 words

Mr. Glen Motz

May/9/23 1:35:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a unique question, and I thank the member for it. The issue is this: The evidence that has been presented is non-partisan, and it is pretty clear. Yes, I support a public inquiry. Therefore, my question back would be this: Would the current government actually act on the findings of a public inquiry to improve our country's ability to reduce, limit and stop foreign interference?

71 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/9/23 1:36:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw this to the attention of my colleague: Was it not our government's decision to not allow the U.S. to open NEXUS stations in Canada because they would basically be American soil, yet we have allowed police stations from China to open up?

51 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 193