44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I have to say on a personal note that I do greatly miss the member at public safety. As the NDP lead, I found him to be more reasonable. He was strong in his own convictions, but he was reasonable to work with. I am just learning how to work with the new member, and I am hoping for the best. However, from the rhetoric, I have some concerns about what he said about Conservatives so far, because these things are not factual or true. However, I will get to that in a second.
In terms of what the member said on rural communities and the RCMP, I agree that we have to talk about oversight. However, the member has to send that question over to the Liberals. How dare they put the committee at a standstill for months? That is not on us; that is on the Liberals. They did this, and I know that he agrees, because he said as much. Again, the member's question needs to be directed to the Liberals on why they made this situation at committee on Bill C-21.
Overall, on the idea that Conservatives have voted down the new NDP member's efforts to extend sitting, and there have been two times that he has done that, when the Liberals delayed this, the minister made us wait six weeks to get started, and there were shenanigans. Again, we could have been done this probably before Christmas actually, because we were going quite well throughout Bill C-21, even though we did not all agree. We would have been done before Christmas. That is on the Liberals.
However, now that the bill is back, he was suggesting that we have to go all the way to midnight today, tomorrow and then Thursday. Why would the committee members and the interpreters and everything else that goes into it have to do nine hours straight three nights in a row because the Liberals held this up, because the Liberals blew this up? That is on them. All those questions need to be directed to the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal parliamentary secretary.
362 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:46:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.
I always thought that it is a positive thing when a government is prepared to entertain and bring forward amendments, in the sense that this often reflects concerns that have been raised by MPs, other stakeholders or people who make representations at committees.
Would the hon. member not agree that it is a good thing when government listens, brings forward amendments and supports even opposition amendments?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:51:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of the committee, but I can say from my time there and through close consultations with my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre, that many women raised concerns with the red flag provisions because many women right now have an incredibly difficult time trying to access basic protection from their local police service. I have heard those same arguments from many women's organizations. Their argument is a solid one. Their main question is this: If police services are inadequate and not living up to a standard that we all expect, why would someone in a domestic violence situation, under fear of their own life or fear of a loved one's life, be forced to go through an already overburdened court process to apply for a protection order?
During my time at committee, with many of the amendments that I put forward, which I cannot speak about in detail because they still have not been dealt with by the committee, my focus was very much on the yellow flag provisions, strengthening licensing requirements and empowering authorities to remove licences when there were definite examples of domestic violence and threats of violence. I want to particularly thank the National Association of Women and the Law because its submissions to our committee were extremely helpful in guiding many of our amendments.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 9:59:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start off with an excerpt from a Globe and Mail article from February 2019. It reads, “The allegations reported in the story are false. At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney-general to make any particular decision in this matter”.
This is, I think, what starts our debate here and takes us into a concern for many Canadians, which I am hearing from across all party lines, about where we are with China and the information that is slowly coming out from the PMO. If we are trying to compare this to something like SNC-Lavalin, we truly cannot. It is one of those pinnacles, one of those things that is so high. This is about democracy, integrity and the work we can do as parliamentarians without fear for our families.
I started reading these stories once I heard about the allegation about the foreign interference with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I came to this very simple point: How can we do our jobs when we do not feel safe or when our families are threatened, whether here in Canada or in China? This is something that the government must take seriously.
I am looking at all the members who are here tonight, and there things that are important, but when it comes to our families, for many of us, that is the bottom line, and it changes everything. It is the fear and the love for our loved ones. How do we ensure that they are safe?
I look at what the Prime Minister said back in 2019, just sloughing it off, and months later, we find out that everything he had said was inaccurate. This is what concerns me today as we are having this debate. I fear that these same issues of “I didn't know” and “everything is false” may be the same situation here today. I think that is the big concern here.
I will go back to some information on this, but I would like to start with the fact that our Conservative critic for foreign affairs has done such an exemplary job. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is extraordinarily respected in the House by not only members of his own caucus but also the individuals he comes across, whether stakeholders meeting with him on key issues, somebody chairing a committee or a minister being asked hard questions by the member. There is a respect because of the way he proceeds, holds himself and shows the value of what democracy really is.
The member shared with us the reason his family came to Canada, why they wanted to come and why his father chose to have a better life here in Canada. It is like so many other fathers and mothers who are descendants, and why so many people came to Canada to find a better life. Unfortunately, some of these bad actors and some of these things follow people. When we look at what happened to this member, we have to understand that it did not just happen to this member, but to the rest of the 337 of us as well.
I spoke to one of my colleagues who happened to be one of the 49 members who were also briefed on this defence and what was happening. He shared with me that, if he were to rate it, it was a one out of 10 when it came to security and safety and making him feel that it was a great threat. I think if someone had maybe provided more information to let people know who was being targeted, they would understand that this really was not a one out of 10. Perhaps for that member who had a similar briefing it was a one out of 10, but for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I do not think that is the case.
We have to look at the fact that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills stood up against Chinese influence on Canadian institutions. He has criticized the Prime Minister for cash-for-access fundraisers, which had been done with Chinese-Canadian businessmen. He has fought against the ties of the government, and the Prime Minister specifically, to the Chinese Communist Party. He has called for a stronger stance on human rights, trade violations and cybersecurity concerns, which are all related to China. When we start looking at this, it seems pretty clear why the member was targeted. It is because he is a man of principle, and he is a man who will stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
This leads me to a concern, because one of the things he was bringing forward was genocide and things that are happening in China. From just a few months ago, I remember a member from the Liberal Party who was clearly so cheerful because his private member's bill had also gone through, and it targeted that. I do not know if that member of Parliament has been or is being targeted, but when we know this is happening to good people who are working for vulnerable people, we should assume it may be. This is where I am hoping the Prime Minister, the national security advisers and the cabinet will not just worry about politics, but about the people within their own caucus.
I do not know the situation there, but I really do fear what is going to happen to that member. Knowing that our own member was targeted, what is happening to the Liberal members in their own benches?
Let us go back to the questions and this timeline. Every day there are new questions about the federal government and how it handled the Chinese government's plot to target MPs. All of this came out, and we talk about the security briefing received by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the information that was provided by the Prime Minister just two days apart. It is very concerning. We have a Prime Minister who is saying he knew nothing, that CSIS did not release the document and that they did not see it as a big issue. Of course, I am not quoting right now, but that is the overall essence of it. However, we then have somebody, who came to give our member an intelligence report, who is saying the exact opposite the next day.
I am not indicating necessarily that the Prime Minister had read it. Although, as everybody has said in here, and as we have heard his chief of staff, Katie Telford, say, the Prime Minister reads everything. We have heard her say that. We must understand that, if there had been a briefing, he must have read it, because that is his job. This is not just because Katie Telford said so, but because his job as the Prime Minister is to read security briefings, not only because this is a democracy and he should be sure everybody is safe, but also because it is his job to ensure Canada is safe. If there is a security briefing that is coming in, he needs to take the time to read it.
All that was said last week continues to be contradicted, and I think we have to look at where this conversation started. Last Monday, I was watching everybody debate this, and we saw members of Parliament get up and not answer the questions. The minister for the government was not answering specific questions, and we could see that intensity. We know the government had to make a choice on what it was going to do, but two days later we actually saw its members double down.
I saw the compassion from some of those members on Monday, who recognized that one of their own colleagues in the House was targeted, but we watched the government members, two days later, double down, and all of its members and parliamentary secretaries were providing the same answer. That means they are working together to try to redirect this conversation, and the good work promised by some of the members over there had to be halted because it was against their political agenda. Those are things that concern me.
When we know that a person has been here and has targeted members of Parliament, why have they not been immediately removed? It took the government over a week, and as we have heard, it was not just a week, but two years and a week, because the government knew beforehand. However, we have to look at things that were also said in here, and if we are talking about democracy and coverups, we had the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House of Commons, Senate, state:
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had a defence briefing on this two years ago, so he knew about this when it actually happened.
My question for the member is this. When did he find out about it? Did the member for Wellington—Halton Hills bring it to his attention at any time prior to the media doing so?
I am going back to a simple comment that was made by my colleague, who said that they were briefed, and it was like a one out of 10. If people are giving general information, that is a problem, and I think, when I hear from one member that it was just such an overlay, I understand. However, I know this person did not go forward and ask, but if the government was worried, why did it not do something about it? If it knew there was more, why did it not press go to try to start on foreign interference by looking into this?
I think it comes down to the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is so entangled with the Chinese government because of his admiration for that country that sometimes he cannot see right from wrong, because it is more about popularity and polling than it is about leading this great country. I feel sorry for some of the members I see over there who are having to applaud a Prime Minister who will not stand up for members of Parliament and will continue to wipe things away.
However, we have a Prime Minister who was part of cash-for-access fundraisers back in 2016. That all ties into the Trudeau Foundation and the money that was given from members of the Communist Chinese government via conduits so that the money could get in there and a statue of the Prime Minister's father. Those are all wonderful things. They are everything that is great to make an ego shine. That is what we are selling off. We are selling things off such as Canadian democracy for egos.
That is why I have a problem with this. I feel that we have not taken the Chinese government seriously for the last eight years. Throughout these question periods the government members have asked repeatedly, multiple times what our government did about it, and they have said that it did nothing about it. They and I know that, like Facebook since I joined in 2007, things have changed and things progress with IT and all of the things that are available to us in this world. Of course we have to narrow and change the ways that we are doing things.
Canada had a different relationship with China prior to the current government. Prior to the government's coming in, we always tried to work, but we were trying to build strong relationships where we both were separate and we had a sovereign democratic country for Canada. However, we do not see that with the Chinese government anymore.
With respect to the Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, when somebody had said something bad, the Canadian ambassador to China made an inappropriate comment, and he was accused of being too cozy with the country's authoritarian government. We saw the firing of the ambassador to China happen because the Chinese government spoke up. When the Chinese government is not happy with what Canada does, it calls the Prime Minister and fires the Canadian ambassador. However, when this is happening with our own Canadian member of Parliament, we do not see the same thing occurring. These have to be discussed.
I want to continue, as we are discussing this, looking at the connection between this Prime Minister and the judgment that he is using throughout these cases. We have talked about the seriousness of these allegations and we have already talked about how people are not taking this seriously. That is so concerning. We saw fewer voters from the Chinese community come out in the last election because their democracy was stolen from them by foreign agents coming to their doors, knocking on their doors and advising them on whom they had to vote for. We know that people were targeted through group chats. It is not just our members of Parliament who are targeted, but it is Canadians who were being targeted in the last election.
We have people who were fearful of voting. That should never happen here in Canada. We understand that some countries tell people what to do. Here in Canada, we are supposed to be a country that has freedom of expression, freedom of speech and a democratic process. We know that in the last election that was not the case.
I appreciate this time. I will continue to fight for democracy. I will continue to fight for transparency and accountability from the current government, specifically on the case of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but I will fight for every Canadian who should be free of any interference from abroad.
2328 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:19:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing the story of what is happening at those universities. These are exactly the types of things we are hearing. People are being muzzled and they are not able to speak because they are fearful.
I think of all the students who go to Western University. We have a very large population of international students. I fear for their safety as well. These are things where it becomes a distrust. For Chinese Canadians, it has been one heck of a difficult time under the government. It has been made worse, and that is what I am hearing from the people I represent.
I have heard from a really wonderful man I have always been involved with, who has worked as part of the Chinese community. He shared with me his concerns, like COVID and the lack of us knowing, all those different things. There are a lot of trust issues with China and I think we had better open our eyes.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:45:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question is whether the government should take this issue seriously. Very much so, it should take this seriously. It concerns me, as a member of Parliament, that as this debate continues, we see members on the government side smirking and chuckling about the debate that is happening here. It is shameful that Canadians and parliamentarians have to find out the truth through media stories and not be informed by the government.
Information was provided to the government about members who have had their families threatened, and yet the government withheld that information for almost two years, until it came out publicly and, finally, the government was caught once again trying to hide its corruption.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
