Blaine Calkins
Ponoka—Didsbury, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in, and the Prime Minister is in way over his head. He is the only leader, not just in the G7 but also in the G20, who has led his country into a recession. What does this mean practically?”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Liberals' bill, where they say they are putting back mandatory minimum sentences, but they have this safeguard or whatever they want to call it where it is actually optional, I want to ask my colleague, the member for Bow River , is that not akin to putting seat belts in vehicles and then never requiring an…”
“That catering bill would have been enough to feed a Canadian family for 55 years. Every dollar spent on luxury catering is a dollar that cannot go towards lowering taxes, building homes, improving public safety or helping Canadians put food on their own tables. Conservatives are here and ready to get to work. Where is the Prime Minister ?”
“It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody. Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnership…”
“Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way.”
“It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle. We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions.”
The complete record
Every one of 294 lines we hold for Blaine Calkins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Madam Speaker, listening to the heckling from the other side, we get a sense of what is actually going on here. The issue is what I consider a mafia mentality from a Liberal government that does not let anything happen in the country. It blocks things with regulations and taxes people into oblivion because that makes people and businesses dependent on the government for an announcement where the Liberals get to stand up and say, “See how much we love the cultural sector.” They get to pick the winners and losers that way. I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is not just this sector that is run this way but virtually all sectors of our economy.”
“They have the largest deficit outside of COVID, the largest national debt on record, the highest youth unemployment in generations and the only shrinking economy in the G7. Our biggest accomplishment should be selling energy to our allies, not racking up half-a-million-dollar catering bills for the Prime Minister 's plane. It needs to be Canadian energy. He should end the illusions and export Canadian energy now.”
“Mr. Speaker, despite his illusions and phony promises, the Prime Minister is no different from the last guy. He is just another costly Liberal. The true diplomatic work on trade with Europe was done long ago by the Harper government. Canada signed trade deals with 48 European countries under the CETA. The Prime Minister has not signed a single new trade deal. His most recent EU tour was just another photo op. The real barrier to selling to the European market is the Liberal government. The Prime Minister said a new pipeline was more probable than possible, but there is no start date, no route and no plan. He then promised to build at speeds never seen before. They have not been seen before because there is nothing to see. In fairness, I will list the Liberal accomplishments over the last 11 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to matter what aspect of life in Canada we look at, but if someone had, at any point in time, a disagreement with the policy of the government in the last 11 years, they would be squarely in the crosshairs of the government's mean-spirited implementation of programs. For example, groups running summer camps for kids have to sign an attestation form to go against their own values, in order to access their very own tax dollars from the government. That is just one example of how the Liberals actually only govern for themselves and the people who agree with them, and they—”
“Mr. Speaker, there are some potentially groundbreaking and new precedent-setting provisions in this legislation, but we also have to have some of the tools in place that will allow police to operate in a digital environment. There are lots of laws in the Criminal Code about the things we can and cannot do in real life, in the real and tangible world that we are not allowed to do. We cannot harm each other. We cannot steal property. We cannot do many of those things, yet the online world seems to allow a greater opportunity for these things to happen. I am looking forward to this bill going to committee. I think that is the place where some of these questions will actually need to be addressed and where we get the proper experts. I think the member who asked me the question is right to have the questions he has.”
“Well, he is undoing his own mess. He is restoring things that Conservatives have done. One cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of consternation. The member actually did not list a single thing that I said as being untrue or wrong. Is that not funny? Not one thing that I actually said did he disagree with. He just spoke loud, yelled and made a big production, as if he was somehow offended by all of the facts that I presented here in the House today. Does the lawful access regime in this bill do some good things? Yes, it is going to do some good things. It is going to do some things that law enforcement needs. As a former law enforcement officer, I know that we actually need to give tools to the men and women who protect us and keep us safe every day. The problem is the Liberals never get it right the first time. Every piece of legislation that he talked about has to do with undoing things or restoring them.”
“The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again. The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their—”
“Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast. It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different.”
“There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians. There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5 . Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information.”
“It is all about control, about central control by the central banker. Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information. We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience.”
“It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May. The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control. Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament?”
“Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2 ? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong. Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this?”
“They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election. Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power. Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers?”
“We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers. (1740) There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way. Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today.”
“The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight. Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not?”
“Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2 , the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public.”
“The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime. The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right.”
“The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it. Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day.”
“If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it. Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time. The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against.”
“The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2 , but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation. The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way. It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22 , the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government.”
“We are going to keep the pressure up because it is only Conservatives who actually care about the integrity of this institution and care about the values and the traditions Canada has. We are going to fight every day to maintain that here in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is asking me to explain Liberal logic, and that is going to take a lot more than 45 seconds. To circle that square is an amazing thing. My colleague is exactly right. The Prime Minister said that the greatest threat to Canada and its democracy was the PRC regime in China. However, we have seen him take the candidate from Markham—Unionville , immediately enter into this agreement, and call it a new world order, while at the same time the Liberals were dragging their heels on appointing the foreign registry commissioner. The commissioner has come before the committee and basically said that all he is going to do is put names on a list and watch them. I do not think that is going to do all the things we had hoped for, but it is a step in the right direction.”
“I do not think anybody disagrees with that, but if someone cannot find 100 people to sign their form and give them $10 each, there is a problem.”
“They think this is good fun and good sport. Eventually, I think, we are going to have to come back to deal with this in a way that makes it so we protect the integrity of our system, but the Liberals are not there yet. They are going to run up costs and try to find every way possible to avoid recognizing the fact that they made a mistake in not appealing the court decision. Eventually we are going to have to get back to a place where something like that is looked at in order to prevent frivolous candidates from being involved, because that actually undermines the integrity of the system. Every member of the House agrees that there should be as few barriers as possible to entering into the debate and to running for elected office in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very common-sense question. Unfortunately the answer is that the window for the government to appeal the decision has already come and gone. Now we would have to use other mechanisms that would require us to basically say that Parliament is not going to listen to the courts, and we all know that this does not happen very often in Canada. Instead we are going to look at other methods, such as making sure that nominees cannot sign more than one form for a candidate. We heard lots of different proposals, such as that a financial agent could not be the agent for more than one person in a particular constituency. I expect we are going to be in a tit-for-tat with the longest ballot committee for quite some time. As I mentioned in my comments, it is limelight seekers who are doing this.”
“In this country, if the only influence one has is to take a firm stand on principles, the Prime Minister has let us down and has let the good people under the thumb of the PRC down. It is actually shameful.”
“Mr. Speaker, I represent a lot of farmers in central Alberta. There are people who grow pork, canola and so on. We are all in favour of trading commodities, and we understand that we have to trade and have to find markets to access. That does not mean we have to give access back. It took a long time just to get the government to keep Huawei out of our network systems. We were way behind all our Five Eyes partners. There is something in the Liberal Party of Canada that means that it cannot and will not bring itself to stand up to the Communist regime, a regime that uses forced labour and slave labour, has human rights violations and steals organs from its citizens.”
“Canadians are now more aware of it. I also think that the whole process put more pressure on the task forces responsible for monitoring and reporting. There were reports, finally, in the last election, for which they went to the public instead of just running around gathering all the information and intelligence and sharing it with nobody. We have gotten to the step now where we have a bit of public reporting, at least. I still think it is not enough, but we are making progress, and the member can hold her head high. She had something to do with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from the Bloc. I have to say that very carefully as an Alberta MP. We worked very hard in the previous Parliament on the foreign interference study. I will say this at risk of our friendship: She was a very good advocate in defending Canada and the interests of our electoral system. I did not talk about this in my speech, but it is another proof point about why it is always so hard to get the government to do the right thing. The Conservatives, the Bloc and others were calling for the public inquiry, and we literally had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to do it. Madam Justice Hogue gave her findings, there was a lot of examination and cross-examination, and we raised the issue in the public conscience of the nation. This does good things for Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep asking this question and getting the same answer. The reality is that the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition has had the security clearance. It is not that he cannot get the security clearance. He has been a minister of the Crown and bears the title of “honourable”. He could certainly get the security clearance if he wanted to, but getting it also comes with the condition that one cannot talk about certain things. It is not in our nation's best interest nor in the best interest of our democratic system for the government to release information to its political adversary and know that the political adversary cannot talk about those things that the government provides to the leader of the opposition. It runs counterintuitive to the nature of the system we have designed.”
“In conclusion, I will just say this: It has been too long since we have had responsible decisions made in this place to protect the integrity of our institutions and the Canada Elections Act, to make sure that not only the overall results of the election are valid but also that the results, in every single constituency, every single electoral district, are accurate and that, without interference, the voters' will is manifest in that process. The nominations cannot be suspect; the leadership cannot be suspect, and the elections cannot be suspect. (1625) I look forward to the bill's coming to the procedure and House affairs committee.”
“This is just another example of Liberals not understanding the consequences of the decisions, or lack of decisions, that they make. Now we are scrambling to find ways to circumvent the longest ballot committee's protest using the ballot itself as the protest. Those changes are now in this piece of legislation, requiring more poll workers, more scrutineering, more effort and more expense. It is all of the above. All the government had to do was appeal that decision and explain to Canadians why a responsible government would protect the integrity of our electoral system, yet here we are again.”
“This has been a well-thought-out, orchestrated attempt to make a mockery of our electoral process. It is fine for a protester to run in an election and put their name on a ballot, but it is not right to turn the ballot itself into the protest. This is a ridiculous set of logic. What is disheartening about it is that the government of the day had every opportunity to appeal that decision and protect the integrity of our electoral system, but it did not. It is amazing, the things that the government will actually fight in courts and the things it lets slide. On opening up access to medical assistance in dying, the government said it would not challenge that in court. On an unlawful use or invocation of the Emergencies Act, the government said it was going to take that all the way to the Supreme Court.”
“Its members cannot claim to be defenders of democracy when they frustrate voters and poll workers, making a mockery of our electoral system to benefit themselves. It is interesting. I have been here for seven elections. This is the seventh term that I have served in the House of Commons. For the first three or four, I had to come up with a $1,000 deposit that was refunded to me if I acted in accordance with the Canada Elections Act, behaved as a responsible candidate and earned a reasonable number of votes. This is to prevent frivolous candidacies. It was put in place for a reason. The individual who challenged that in court in 2017 just happens to be the same person who is now the head of the longest ballot committee. This shows us that this is not some spontaneous thing that has happened.”
“Liberals' standing on the sideline, watching as the Conservatives lead the charge on strengthening our elections, does not stop with foreign interference; it also speaks to the lead we have taken on dealing with the longest ballot committee, whose members are nothing more than self-indulgent limelight seekers. The Conservative Party has long called for amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deter the actions of the longest ballot committee. We welcome the amendments made by the government, but I still question why it has taken so long. We have called for actions to counter the disruptions of this group, which seeks not only to disrupt but also to manipulate and harm our elections by seemingly targeting very specific ridings.”
“As the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published this past January, “When Chinese interference operations in Canada go unaddressed, regional partners draw conclusions about whether Canada can be counted on as a serious security partner”. (1620) That means our allies are no longer taking us seriously, and it means they are going to be reluctant to share information and intelligence with us. That puts Canadians at risk. This is not behaviour conducive to a responsible government. If the government does not take this issue seriously, how can we expect our allies or, for that matter, even our adversaries to take us seriously? That is not all.”
“We warned of issues arising because of its inability or unwillingness to act, but here we are speaking to the legislation on the same issues we have been talking about over and over again for years. Why has it taken so long? The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to condemn, much less punish, a candidate who encourages the kidnapping and deportation of the political candidate of his political adversary or a new MP who defends China's use of forced and slave labour. The Liberals are allowing IRGC terrorists to enter, stay in and live freely in our country. They will not expel them. However, they expect the opposition to believe they are serious about foreign interference now. Come on, Mr. Speaker; give me a break. Foreign interference and the government's response to it are eroding Canadian democracy.”
“I cannot believe that I have to say that common sense would suggest that foreign terrorists should not be allowed to live freely and openly and do their business in our country. I cannot believe that there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that. It is absurd. The government has a mandate to protect the people of Canada, and it will not take the first step forward in doing so. It is shameful. Conservatives have been here from the beginning, advocating in this very chamber and in committee for stronger safeguards and concrete action to prevent these very issues from happening. The government lauded its talking points and communication lines.”
“Global News reported, on April 2, that an IRGC official lied to get into Canada by using false names. He even sued to have his mother allowed to immigrate to Canada. Why is he still here? These are foreign operatives here in our country to do harm, to influence, to manipulate, to raise money illegally and to intimidate diaspora communities. They are not here to contribute to Canadian society. This is a national security threat and a serious violation of foreign interference principles. Conservatives have proposed that all IRGC terrorists be expelled from Canada, but the Liberals do not agree and simply refuse to act. I am sorry, but I cannot even believe this is a debate. I cannot believe I have to utter these words here in the House of Commons.”
“It took the same Liberal government over four years to list the IRGC as a terrorist group, and to date, it has deported only one of the 700 operatives living in Canada. There are foreign terrorists conducting illegal terrorist business in Canada at a time when thousands of Persian Canadians are protesting for freedom and the fall of the ayatollah. The Liberal government has shown, through the deportation of only one IRGC operative, not only that it cannot keep Canadians safe from foreign interference and terrorism but also that it is shockingly late to the serious issue of foreign interference. Why are these terrorist operatives still here? Why are they allowed to enter the country in the first place? These are questions Conservatives have asked the government time and again, and we have never been given a compelling response.”
“Kenny Chiu, lost his seat in 2021 and immediately brought up concerns around foreign interference from the government of the People's Republic of China. Our leader at the time, immediately after the 2021 election, went public with concerns around foreign interference. No one, and many of them are still here on the government benches, took us seriously, but look at us now. Some six or seven years later, we are still talking about this. The buck does not stop with the PRC regime in China. Unfortunately, it carries on with Iran. There are currently up to 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members living in Canada right now. These are people who belong to the same Iranian government that killed 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents in January 2020.”
“That is not what we are talking about. What I am talking about is the fact that the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister refused to disclose how many Paul Chiang- and Joe Tay-type incidents there have actually been. Were other candidates targeted? Were other volunteers, candidates or families stopped, watched or intimidated? (1615) We do not know, because the person entrusted to be the watchdog will not say, and I guess now we will never know as she has been made the ambassador to France, a political position offered to a bureaucrat, which is nice work if one can get it. This is very concerning. We know that this has happened in the past. My former colleague for Steveston—Richmond East, Mr.”
“The Liberals have done nothing, and their track record suggests that they are completely indifferent to this issue. At the procedure and House affairs committee, we also heard from Nathalie Drouin, the intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and a member of the critical election incident public protocol panel, as a witness on our foreign interference study. She emphasized time and again that the 45th general election was not compromised and that the election was carried out securely and with confidence. That is what we would expect, but what Mrs. Drouin refused to answer is to what degree the election was interfered or tampered with. Canadians are still left guessing how deeply and how badly. Now, no one in this House doubts the overall outcome of the election results. The Liberals won a minority government.”
“They were Paul Chiang, who encouraged the kidnapping and potential deportation of a Canadian citizen who already had a bounty on him issued by a hostile foreign regime, and the current sitting member of that same riding, who defended China's human rights track record at committee. What has the Prime Minister done? Well, he has protected, defended, stood by and praised both of these individuals. Both were at his party's convention last weekend. He has cozied up to the Communist regime in China, indicating that this new relationship is part of his idea of a new world order, yet we expect him to lead the charge to protect Canada from foreign interference. He has had several chances, and he has blown them. Conservatives have been speaking out about this issue for years.”
“Canadians deserve to know his real position. We know the Prime Minister did not raise the issue of human rights on his trip to Beijing in January with his new MP for Markham—Unionville , and why not? By refusing to take a stand, the Prime Minister is abandoning Canada's human rights commitments and putting our people further at risk by tying us closer to a Communist government that seeks to harm our citizens and meddle in our elections. This is a threatening foreign government that has meddled in our elections and has sought to harm our people, even putting two of them in jail. Why has it taken so long to address this? One riding, that of Markham—Unionville, had two candidates.”
“Meanwhile, the current Liberal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville is fighting at committee with human rights advocates over whether the Chinese Communist Party uses forced labour, suggesting that if someone has not witnessed forced labour or slavery in China personally, then it must not exist. These are very strange comments. A few days after these strange and shocking comments, the Prime Minister attended a Liberal Party fundraiser that was co-hosted by the member for Markham—Unionville . The Prime Minister praised the “values” of that member, saying he is “a results-oriented individual” and is “choosing the path that creates opportunities for Canadians”. That is unbelievable. The Prime Minister not only praised that member, but he also refused to clarify his position on human rights and the People's Republic of China.”
“Paul Chiang eventually had to withdraw from the race after enough pressure was applied, but why did it take so long, and why was so much pressure needed to do the right thing? That should really alarm everyone in this chamber and, indeed, all Canadians. There were seemingly no repercussions. Not only did the Prime Minister fail to take the moral high ground, by wilfully and knowingly defending his candidate, but Paul Chiang was even welcomed back at the Liberal Party's recent policy convention in Montreal last weekend. Well, that is a little bit telling, is it not? Since this fiasco, the Prime Minister also cultivated deeper ties with the People's Republic of China, despite its many various violations of human rights at home and abroad, raising eyebrows everywhere.”
“What is even more concerning about this is the fact that the Prime Minister stood by Paul Chiang for several days and protected his candidate instead of doing the right thing. This was politics and party over principle and national security. At a press conference in Vaughan, the Prime Minister called Mr. Chiang a “person of integrity” who had served his community for 25 years. He also said that Chiang had his confidence and dismissed the error because Chiang himself had family in Hong Kong. He accepted Chiang's apology and was ready to move on. The Prime Minister was ready to move forward with Chiang on the ballot when Mr. Chiang was actively participating in foreign interference. That is not serious leadership.”