Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, what has become clear is that the Conservatives are refusing to acknowledge that Bill C-71 would restore the rights of Canadians that were taken away from them unconstitutionally 15 years ago by the Conservatives. That is what we are talking about. These are not immigrants. They are Canadians. They were deemed to be a lower class of Canadians by the Conservatives. The Conservatives keep saying that the NDP and the Liberals voted with them on Bill C-37 15 years ago. Do members know why? It is because Stephen Harper, at that time, put out an edict and said that if the bill was not passed unanimously, it would mean that war veterans and war brides would go to their graves without citizenship, and that was wrong. I wonder if the Conservatives will just take a moment to understand the history and understand that by voting against Bill C-71, they are denying once again Canadians the right to citizenship, unconstitutionally.

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing Bill C-71 to the floor. The New Democrats have fought for this ever since John McCallum. It has been more than a decade, at least for me, in this fight. With Bill C-71, the minister touched on the issue around royal assent. In the bill, there is the commencement provision which confers discretion on the Governor in Council, meaning the cabinet, to determine when to proclaim the act into force, but does not set a specific date. Could the minister advise the House, and families that are waiting to have their rights restored, how long it will take for the bill to become law. Would it be a proclamation and royal assent?

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Conservatives actually filibustered Bill S-245 for 30 hours at committee. Even after it had gone through the committee and had been referred back to the House at third reading, they traded down that bill in the order of precedence eight times so that we would not get to debate it at third reading in the House and vote on it. The leader of the official opposition's office wrote to family members who were concerned about their rights being taken away and about their constitutional rights being violated stating, “Conservatives will...preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian. Please be assured we will continue to support and advocate for this legislation to reach its third reading in the House of Commons.” That is in reference to Bill S-245. This is blatantly false. If that is the case, why did the member for Calgary Forest Lawn trade the bill on the order of precedence eight times so that it cannot come to the House for a third reading debate?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his collaboration and co-operation at committee on Bill S-245. I was delighted to work with him and to see that he supported the NDP amendments. That is the right thing to do, to restore the rights of Canadians, the rights that the Conservatives took away. I want to ask the member a question. He may not have been elected at that time, and neither was I, but to my understanding and to the knowledge of Don Chapman, who is an extremely knowledgeable guy on the lost Canadian file, when the Harper government brought in Bill C-37, it actually put forward an edict for all the parties that, if they did not support it in its entirety, it would take away the bill. That meant that the Conservatives were able to put a poison pill in that bill with the first-generation cut-off rule. Would the member agree that is the wrong thing to do on an issue as important as people's basic fundamental rights?

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to enter this debate on Bill C-71. Because the House will be getting ready for statements and question period, I will be interrupted in my speech, so I am going to put a few things on the public record. To the member from the Bloc's point that this is not about partisanship, I think it is important to put on the public record the history of what happened with respect to lost Canadians. Members will know that, 15 years ago, the Conservatives brought in Bill C-37 for an act that was supposed to fix a lot of the lost Canadian issues. It did fix some of those issues, but in that process, the Conservatives also put a poisoned pill in the bill, which was the first-generation cut-off rule deeming those of the second generation who were born abroad would not be able to receive their citizenship from their parents. That was incorporated into Bill C-37. At the time, I was not here, but those who watched that debate saw what happened. The Harper government was clear to say that, unless Bill C-37 passed in its entirety, the bill would die. They would get rid of it and kill it. That is information from Don Chapman, who is the king of experts on lost Canadian issues because he has dedicated his life to addressing this injustice. That is the knowledge that he brings to this floor by sharing with me what happened. That is why the NDP and the Liberals had to vote for it. They voted for it because they had no choice. If they had not, what would it have meant? It would have meant that thousands upon thousands of Canadian World War II vets, along with tens of thousands of Canadian war brides and their children, would have gone to their graves disenfranchised from their own country. A 20-year-old war bride in 1946 would be 98 years old today. Most of the Canadian brides and their World War II soldier husbands are now dead. If they had not accepted the first generation cut-off limit under Bill C-37, all these folks would have died without citizenship, all because Harper would have killed Bill C-37. That is the reality. That is why people were jammed to do that. Despite that, the critic for the NDP at the time, Olivia Chow, put this on the public record: “We could get this bill done very quickly and accommodate this element by doing something very simple, by just amending subclause 2(2), or actually taking it out of the bill, because right now it limits citizenship to the first generation born to, or adopted by, Canadian parents.” The NDP tried to raise the issue, and Olivia said that we should get rid of the first-generation rule that the Conservatives brought in, but that was not allowed to take place because it was the poison pill that the Conservatives put in the bill. Otherwise, they would have taken away all of those rights for war veterans and the war brides. That is the reason, and that is the history. Is this partisan politics? No, it is not, but it is an important part of the history to know what happened, where the lost Canadian issue stems from, why we are here and why the Superior Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to take away those rights.

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the temporary public policy creating permanent resident pathways for Hong Kong residents since 2021, broken down by month and year: (a) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have immigrated to Canada, broken down by immigration stream; (b) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have applied for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds separate from the temporary public policy permanent residency pathways since 2021; (c) with regard to the figures in (a) and (b), how many have received permanent residency; (d) with regard to figures in (c), what was the average processing time; (e) what is the breakdown of the application numbers since 2021, broken down by Permanent Residency category for (i) Stream A, (ii) Stream B; (f) with regard to the figures in (e), how many applications have been (i) approved, (ii) rejected, (iii) are under review; (g) of the rejections in (f), what are the categorized reasons for rejecting the application, broken down by number; (h) of the cases under review in (f), how many of them are (i) individual applications, (ii) family applications; (i) of the approvals in (f), were any tied to existing departmental quotas for the temporary public policy or allocations made within annual immigration levels targets; (j) of applications for the open work permits for applicants of the Hong Kong permanent resident pathways, how many were made by individuals with “HKPPTR” inputted for the job title since the program was instituted in 2021; (k) of the applications in (j), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) under review; (l) of the rejections in (k), what is the breakdown of rejections by IRCC office or processing center; and (m) how many applications were rejected based, at least in part, on a labour market impact assessment?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter into debate on Bill C-71. What is this bill about? It is about a group of Canadians whose constitutional rights were stripped by the Conservatives 15 years ago. Bill C-37 was brought in by the Harper administration. Through that process, the government tried to fix some of the issues of lost Canadians, which Bill C-37 did in part. However, in that process, the Conservatives also created a brand-new class of lost Canadians. That is, they brought in a provision that took away the rights of first-generation Canadians born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who are also born abroad. By doing that, the Conservatives essentially indicated that some Canadians are more equal than others. Second-generation Canadians born abroad did not have the right to become citizens. This has caused untold harm, pain and suffering to Canadian families. I have met lost Canadian families whose children, as a result of this unconstitutional law, were born stateless. I have family members who have faced deportation as a result of this unconstitutional law. I have met families who were separated, the parent torn away from their children, as a result of this unconstitutional law. This law went on for 15 years. I joined the House of Commons back in 2015. One of the first things I did was to draft a private member's bill in an attempt to fix this problem. The then minister John McCallum was a minister who, while in opposition, said this needed to be fixed. Successive Liberal ministers have failed to do so until now. I will grant the minister some recognition for bringing this bill forward. It was not without a fight, because I do not think the government was going to do it. As the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I had to lobby, endlessly, successive Liberal ministers to get us where we are today. There was an opening to get this dealt with when Senator Yonah Martin brought in a private member's bill, Bill S-245, in the Senate. The bill would fix only a very small portion of the lost Canadians issue, what they call the age 28 rule. I will not go into all of the details around that, because most people already know what it is. That bill, in my view, and I said this to the senator at the time, was deficient because it did not deal with a variety of other lost Canadians resulting from the Harper Conservatives' punitive bill, Bill C-37. I had every intention to move amendments to her private member's bill to fix it. Most notably, I wanted it to ensure that the new class of lost Canadians the Conservatives created, the second-generation Canadians born abroad, would have the right to citizenship, albeit subject to a substantial connections test. They have the right to be recognized as Canadians and their children have that right. We went through this whole process at committee. Some 30 hours later, the vast majority of the NDP amendments I negotiated with the government were adopted. Where the government supported my amendments, they were passed. However, the Conservatives filibustered that committee for 30 hours over 12 committee meetings. I have to say that committee meetings are precious because we only get two a week. Sometimes we lose them, depending on the calendar day; it could be a stat holiday or whatever the case may be. It is precious time and an important time to get work done. The Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours. Even then, we persisted and managed to get it through. The amendments were adopted and the report was tabled in this House with a wrong recommendation. Then what happened? The sponsor of the bill from the House was a Conservative member, because Yonah Martin is a Conservative senator. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn was the sponsor of the private member's bill, Bill S-245, which was supposed to be brought back to the House of Commons for third reading debate more than a year ago. Then what happened? The Conservatives traded the order of precedence for the bill to be brought back into this House eight times. They traded it over and over again to delay the bill from coming back to the House for third reading debate and a vote. To this day, it has not been debated. When I saw that indication, it was as clear as day that the Conservatives had zero intention of doing what is right, despite the court ruling, by the way, that the provision was unconstitutional. Even then, they would not do the right thing. Then I approached the current Minister of Immigration to say that the government must bring forward a government bill because Bill S-245 would never come back to the House of Commons, as the Conservatives would continue to use delay tactics. After much discussion, the minister agreed and we worked together to bring Bill C-71 here. That is how we got here. Just to be clear, what did the courts say? I want to put this on the public record. The court decision by the Ontario Superior Court, in a 55-page ruling, found that the second-generation cut-off rule violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it "treats Canadians who became Canadians at birth because they were born in Canada differently from those Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent on their birth outside of Canada.” The ruling went on to say that “the latter group holds a lesser class of citizenship because, unlike Canadian-born citizens, they are unable to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent to their children born abroad.” The second-generation cut-off rule denies the first generation born abroad the ability to automatically pass on citizenship to their children if they are also born outside of Canada. In her decision, the judge accepted claims that women are particularly impacted because the second-generation cut-off rule discriminates on the basis of gender, forcing women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad or passing citizenship to their children. One family member, who was one of the appellants in the case, was actually told by officials that all she had to do was go back to Canada to give birth. That was during COVID, by the way, when travel was not safe, and she had no family doctor here to follow the pregnancy. She would have had no health insurance and, of course, no family support because her husband was abroad, continuing to work. That means she would have had to give birth by herself here. She would have had to seek an extended leave from work to facilitate that. It makes zero sense to even suggest such a thing, yet there we have it. Her child was born stateless. That is the reality of what we are talking about. Those are the impacts, real impacts, on the lives of Canadian families. I am so happy the court made this ruling and made things clear. I urged the government at the time not to appeal the ruling, and I am also grateful the government did not. We heard the Conservatives say earlier they would have appealed the court ruling. Of course they would have. They were the ones who brought in the unconstitutional law to begin with 15 years ago. We also heard from the Conservative member for Calgary Shepard, who said they would apply a criminality test to this issue. Are the Conservatives going to apply a criminality test to Canadians who are born here? It is absolutely absurd to make these suggestions and to hold true to the idea that some Canadians have more rights than others. This has been struck down by the courts. It is time to do not only what is morally right but also what is legally required by the courts. The amendments I put through in committee on Bill S-245 essentially call for a substantial connections test for parents who are the first generation born abroad to be in Canada for at least 1,095 days. That would mean the connections test would be extended to the second generation born abroad and subsequent generations. My amendments also restored those impacted since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009, and we would also apply the same amendment to adoptee families. It took some work, a lot of work, to negotiate and get to where we are today with this bill. It took at least 10 years of my time, but that is nothing in comparison with people like Don Chapman, who has dedicated his entire life to this. He was deemed a lost Canadian. He has fought for this and helped so many families regain their citizenship and other families who have suffered, those who have been lost because this law was never fixed. We have to do what is right, and I hope Conservative members will not filibuster. They said to the family members that they will support this provision, but actions speak louder than words, and all of the actions to date indicate otherwise. I am going to give them another chance now to do what is right, because we have to get this passed. We have to make this law, according to the courts, and because it is the morally right thing to do. At this juncture, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I am asking for this because it would expedite the bill, get it to committee so we can hear witnesses, make this law and do what is necessary and what is right for the people of Canada.

Madam Speaker, the heart of the question is this. Bill C-71 would effectively make Canada's immigration law, particularly for the class of what we call lost Canadians, charter-compliant. It would mean that family members who have not been able to pass their citizenship to their children because their children were second generation and born abroad would have those rights restored. These are not new rights. These are citizens who should never have lost those rights, per the Superior Court of Ontario. We are not creating a new class of citizens. We are restoring this class of citizens, who were unjustly and unconstitutionally penalized. It would mean that children would not be born stateless. It would mean that families would not be separated. It would mean that people would not face deportation because of this unconstitutional law.

Madam Speaker, the very member who said no to my motion has asked this question. This very member was part of the Conservatives who created this unconstitutional law, which said that some Canadians are less Canadian than others. They are the very same Conservatives who had been told by the courts that their law was unjust. It is time for the government and all parliamentarians to bring in a law that is charter-compliant. That is where I stand.

Madam Speaker, I think it is shameful, because justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 15 years already. Canadian families have suffered from this punitive, unconstitutional law created by the Conservatives, and now they want to delay it even further. We have debated this ad nauseam. I have lost count of how many times I have made speeches on lost Canadians. It is time to act, and it is shameful that the Conservatives will not do what is necessary and what is right.

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the Conservatives want to mislead families. In fact, the leader of the official opposition, in a reply to family members urging them to take action to fix this injustice, said that the Conservatives supported passing Bill S-245. However, what did they do? They did everything they could to delay and obstruct its passage, to the point that they are even refusing to have the bill come before the House for a third reading debate and vote. They are misleading Canadian families. They are pretending that they stand for justice. They are pretending that they stand for the rights of Canadians and treating all Canadians equally. They do not. It is the very opposite of what they say and who they claim they are.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge Don Chapman, and, of course, the family members who took the matter to court and the legal team that fought this issue so we can now have this rectified. The Conservatives, on eight occasions, moved the debate for third reading on Bill S-245. They did it in 2023 on October 16, October 25 and November 6, and then in 2024 on January 29, February 15, March 22, April 10 and May 1. That is their record. They moved it eight times. What does that tell us? It tells us that they do not support ensuring that Canada ends the practice of having two classes of citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this is also my first opportunity to make an intervention. I heard the member's speech. The reality is this: He can rattle off some dollars and then say that the government is doing something. The truth is that it is not doing enough. The truth is that the action is not yielding the results. In fact, there has been very little action. We already know that the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls for action is a failure. We also know that this is the case with the calls for justice for the missing, murdered and indigenous women and girls, to the point where people are now asking, “What is the point?” The government is not taking the necessary actions, and we see death, such as what we are seeing right now, in just two weeks, the last 15 days. This is the reality that indigenous people are faced with. My question for the member is this: Instead of saying that we should send this for study at a committee, can he tell us what the government is doing to implement all of the TRC's recommendations, and what timeline will it give for that implementation?

Mr. Speaker, I sent you a notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege related to the revelation contained in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions”. The committee reviewed over 4,000 documents, including over 1,000 intelligence products. The NSICOP report is an alarming wake-up call in terms of the depth and insidious nature of hostile foreign state actors' efforts to covertly undermine Canada's democratic processes and institutions. China and India are both identified as the most aggressive foreign states; they are deploying wide-ranging and multi-faceted tactics in foreign interference activities in Canada. The shocking allegations that some members of Parliament wittingly or semiwittingly worked with foreign state actors is not only unsettling, but it is also a betrayal of Canadians, who trusted them to act in Canada's best interests and not a foreign state's interests. The report did not provide any names, and as such, all 338 members of the House, including those who have since left this chamber, are under a cloud of suspicion for having intentionally or semi-intentionally worked with a foreign state to undermine Canada's democratic processes and institutions. My intervention today will not cover the national security aspect of this extremely concerning situation. Instead, it will focus on the damage to the reputations of all members of the House of Commons. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, outlines the rights and immunities of members of Parliament on page 107. There is a section on “Freedom from Obstruction, Interference, Intimidation and Molestation”. It states, “Members of Parliament, by the nature of their office and the variety of work they are called upon to perform, come into contact with a wide range of individuals and groups. Members can, therefore, be subject to all manner of interference, obstruction and influences.” On page 112, it goes on to say the following: The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction if the Member is prevented from performing his or her parliamentary functions. In 1987, Speaker Fraser stated: The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment. I would submit that what has been revealed in the NSICOP report constitutes such an impediment for all members of Parliament. Throughout the report, there are many references to how some parliamentarians are willing participants with foreign states. We can take, for example, paragraph 55 of the NSICOP report. It notes, “Some elected officials...began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election.” It goes on to say, “members of Parliament...worked to influence their colleagues on India’s behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.” Paragraph 56 states that there was “a textbook example of foreign interference that saw a foreign state support a witting politician.” Paragraph 59 states that “the PRC had established an informal foreign interference network”, where those in “the network...worked in loose coordination with one another and with guidance from the consulate...to covertly support or oppose candidates in the 2019 federal election.” Moreover, the “network had some contact with at least 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers, some of whom appeared to be wittingly working for the PRC.” The report also “described the network’s efforts to keep federal political candidates away from events that the PRC considered to be ‘anti-China,’ such as a pro-Hong Kong rally; noted similar activities by another network in the riding of Don Valley North; and identified specific individuals involved.” Paragraph 68 states, “an Indian proxy claims to have repeatedly transferred funds from India to politicians at all levels of government in return for political favours, including raising issues in Parliament at the proxy’s request.” Paragraph 72 states, “PRC officials allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada.” Following this, paragraph 73 “describe[s] India’s alleged interference in a Conservative Party of Canada leadership race.” Paragraph 164 states that “some Parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘semi-witting or witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.” Paragraph 57 even notes an example of a former MP, and the report refers to: ...a particularly concerning case of a then-member of Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. According to CSIS, the member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence. We do not know who the elected official associated with each allegation is. In the face of such alarming revelations, this means that all members are tainted and that the reputation of the whole House is put in question. Since China and India are the top two countries cited as being most aggressive in foreign interference activities, I would submit that those of us who are Chinese Canadians or Indo-Canadians are at a greater and heightened risk of unjust reputational damage. There are a few examples throughout the years of similar situations where a prima facie case of privilege was found because the reputation of the House was put in question. In March 1966, the House was gripped for several days with the Munsinger case when the then minister of justice, Mr. Cardin, alleged improper conduct on the part of ministers in the former Diefenbaker government. Mr. Cardin stated that certain members of the House were involved with Greta Munsinger, a “self-admitted espionage agent” in the employ of the “Russian intelligence service”. On March 10, four questions of privilege were raised by the members in relation to the statement made by former minister Cardin. Speaker Lamoureux ruled immediately that there was a prima facie case of privilege, even though all four motions were ultimately ruled out of order by the Chair for various reasons. One was disallowed immediately because the motion was too general and did not specify the charges against the minister. One requested that the minister substantiate his charges. The other two motions sought the resignation of Minister Cardin. In May 1976, a former member of Parliament, Mr. Choquette, was quoted as saying, while giving testimony in open court, that “if everyone who had ever taken or given $600 or $700 bribes in their life were arrested, 50 per cent of the MPs would no longer be sitting.... I know it because I was an MP for five years.” The matter was raised as a question of privilege. Speaker Jerome ruled immediately and stated that he had no difficulty in agreeing that there was indeed a question of privilege. We also had a situation in 1983, when several articles in the Montreal Gazette alleged that Mr. Mackasey, member for Lincoln, was a paid lobbyist. In her ruling of March 22, 1983, Speaker Sauvé said, “An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.” From selected decisions of Speaker Jeanne Sauvé, we can read about this case: Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule”. I fear that this is where we are under these circumstances. Without disclosure of the names of the parliamentarians who are “‘semi-witting or witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics”, we may subject all members of the House, including former and sitting MPs, to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Indeed, this is already happening. Outside this chamber, just yesterday, there were individuals shouting, questioning and jeering about who the traitors may be. Members of Parliament had to walk past these individuals on the members' way to the House to do their work. I believe we must find a way to disclose which MPs are knowingly, intentionally, wittingly or semi-wittingly engaging with foreign states or their proxies to undermine Canada's democratic processes and institutions. I believe this can be done in a way that does not compromise national security. If there are no consequences for MPs who knowingly help foreign governments act against Canadian interests, we will continue to be an easy target. This will further erode the trust and faith Canadians have in our democratic processes. If allowed to continue, it will further impugn the integrity of the House. Revealing any member of Parliament, former or present, who is a willing participant in foreign interference activities would have the effect of deterring this kind of behaviour. Moreover, it would send a clear message to those foreign states that this cannot continue and that they will not be able to continue to use parliamentarians in this way. This will further reassure the public of the integrity of the House. I strongly believe that the House should refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. A possible way to deal with the issue would be for committee members to undergo the necessary security screening to examine the unredacted report and look into the allegations about parliamentarians who were “‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.” We could allow the named parliamentarians to be informed and to come before the committee as witnesses; we could then explore options on how to disclose the named parliamentarians without compromising national security or police investigations of the matter. Madam Speaker, if you find a prima facie case of privilege in this case, this is the motion I would move: That the matter of reputational harm done to all members of Parliament as a consequence of the redaction of parliamentarians' names from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, report entitled “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions” be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

With regard to Rent-Geared-Income (RGI) subsidies and operating subsidies funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC): (a) how many housing projects and units are currently receiving RGI subsidies funded by the CMHC, broken down by municipality, province or territory; (b) how many are receiving operating subsidies funded by the CMHC, broken down by municipality, province and territory; (c) is there an end or expiration date for the CMHC-funded RGI subsidies and operating subsidies for these housing projects/units and, if so, (i) what is the end date, (ii) how many units will lose the CMHC RGI subsidies broken down by (iii) municipality, province and territory, (iv) year; (d) what is the CMHC’s annual budget allocation for RGI subsidies, broken down by (i) municipality, province and territory, (ii) year since 1990; and (e) what is the CMHC’s annual budget allocation for operating subsidies, broken down by (i) municipality, province and territory, (ii) year since 1990?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, An Act to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Hamilton Centre, who is a champion for human rights, for seconding this bill. While the act states that “the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right”, in reality, this is not happening. Without access to adequate housing, people are forced to live on the street. Canada's housing crisis is not just about building more, faster. It needs to take a human rights approach to housing and build housing that people can afford. Otherwise, encampments for the unhoused in communities across the country will only continue to grow. Forced decampments and evictions are not the answer. Often, these things lead to further destabilization, loss of community and safety for encampment residents, and exacerbation of trauma. The bill aims to amend the National Housing Strategy Act on recommendations of the federal housing advocate to prohibit forced decampments on federal land and to consult with other levels of government so that alternatives to forced decampments are put in place following meaningful engagement with encampment residents. I hope all members of the House will support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, An Act to establish the Office of the Ombud for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to establish an independent ombud's office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, with a mandate to examine the department's policies to ensure the principles of fairness and equity are upheld. I thank my friend and colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for seconding the bill. He is a champion for equality and justice. The bill aims to create a dedicated oversight body to ensure fairness and accountability within IRCC. The ombud's office would serve as an impartial entity to address complaints and concerns by providing an accessible platform for grievances. This office would help in examining concerns with differential treatment and discriminatory practices in IRCC's policies and programs and would be able to look at trends and patterns to identify systemic issues. The bill would enhance trust in Canada's immigration system by ensuring it operates justly, effectively and equitably for everyone. I hope all members of the House will support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over a thousand people across the country. They are calling on the government to take immediate action to address the humanitarian crisis faced by refugees from Gaza by treating them equitably and increasing refugee admissions to Canada. They call on the government to, one, accept applications from within and from outside Gaza, including from refugees who have made it to neighbouring countries; two, extend the same rights and protections to refugees from Gaza as it does to refugees from other conflict-affected regions, which would include providing access to asylum procedures, legal representation, health care and social services to ensure their safety and well-being; and, three, significantly increase the number of refugees admitted from Gaza to at least 10,000 individuals. This increase would be necessary to address the scale of the crisis and to provide for refugees in urgent need of protection and assistance. Finally, they call on the government to allow families in Canada to sponsor their relatives who are impacted by the conflict in Gaza through an expedited process. This would reunite families that have been torn apart by war and provide them with the support and care they need to rebuild their lives in safety.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House to enter into this debate. However, I must say that the debate before us is really a colossal waste of the House of Commons resources and the valuable time that we have in this chamber to debate urgent issues and situations. Why do I say that? The motion the Conservatives tabled is effectively calling for the government to table a set of data by June 17, 2024. What we do know is that the government did table a set of data. In fact, the Liberals tabled it today, albeit they should have made the information available right from the outset and should have been transparent with it. Notwithstanding that, that information is now before us. It begs the question why we are here debating a motion that is, frankly, not relevant anymore. It has already been addressed. In the meantime, what is happening in our communities? We have a situation in our communities, which is a housing crisis from coast to coast to coast. In fact, just today, I tabled a private member's bill to call on the government to use a human rights-based lens in addressing the housing crisis, something that the Liberals say they will honour under the National Housing Strategy Act. However, in reality, we know that is not being done. In fact, there are encampments all across the country where people cannot access the housing they need, adequate housing that they need. My private member's bill calls for the government to incorporate into the National Housing Strategy Act provisions that would disallow decampment on federal lands and to work collaboratively with other orders of government, other levels of government, to properly address the housing crisis. That is perhaps what we should be doing: focusing on how we can truly address the housing crisis, instead of having the Conservatives putting forward motions that are moot and have been made irrelevant already. I would also say that we have a situation with the immigration system, where there are a lot of issues. The government decided that it would bring in a cap on international students very suddenly, impacting international students who are now caught out in a very bad way. They would not be able to renew their work permit or their study permit because of the cap. Some of them are being exploited and taken advantage of. I just got an email from someone who told me that they were advised to go and marry someone, engage in marriage fraud, in order to find a path to stay here in Canada. That is not the path forward. We know that international students are struggling. They contribute, by the way, to Canada's economy, to our economic, social, cultural and educational communities. They should be valued instead of being blamed for the housing crisis that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have caused. It was the Conservatives who cancelled Canada's national co-op housing program in 1992. It was the Conservative leader who sat at the table and saw the Harper government lose 800,000 units of affordable housing for Canadians. Then it was the Liberals, in 1993, following the Conservatives, who cancelled the national affordable housing program. They also added to the loss of affordable housing in our communities. Therefore, instead of talking about a motion that is no longer relevant, we should be talking about how we are going to earnestly address the housing crisis, how we are going to ensure that those who are unhoused can live in dignity and how we can ensure that Canada will not only build more housing faster, but also build the kind of housing that Canadians can afford and can live in with dignity. We should be talking about how we should not allow decampment to take place, to further displace people who are unhoused in our communities, to marginalize them and to further put them at greater risks. If we want to, and we should, talk about the climate crisis, we should not talk about how we can enable the climate crisis to further escalate. I do not know if the Conservatives are blind to the fact that we have a climate crisis. They cannot continue to stick their heads in the sand and to deny this reality. In my community, in British Columbia, we had a weather-related crisis that happened in the heat wave that killed over 600 people. We had a fire that burned down an entire town, a flood that followed and a mudslide that continued to further escalate the climate crisis. We cannot pretend that this is not happening and that somehow the carbon tax is to blame. Let us just be clear about who is to blame and what action we need to take. Big oil needs to take responsibility, and those companies need to be held to account. The government, the Liberals, refuse to take the action that is necessary to deal with the climate crisis. The Liberals refuse to ensure that big oil pays its fair share. The Liberals refuse to stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry. Why are they doing that when the oil and gas industry is actually making record profit. It is to the detriment of everyday Canadians, to our collective detriment. When the earth is burning, and it literally is with the wildfires and the forest fires that are taking place, we cannot just sit in the House and blame the carbon tax. What planet are we from? If we continue to go down this track, we are not going to address the climate crisis, which is desperately in need of action. We should be saying to Suncor that we are sorry, but it has made over $2.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2023, and enough is enough; we are going to make sure that we stop the subsidies for the oil and gas industry and that the industry is made to do its part to address the climate crisis. Madam Speaker, let me say this. We also have a responsibility in the international community to address the climate crisis because there are more people being displaced as a result of weather-related situations. Therefore, we have a collective responsibility to do what is right. There are many issues we need to debate, and debate seriously, but not a motion to which the very data that the Conservatives want has already been tabled. With that, I welcome questions.

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear about the housing crisis and what has caused it. Successive Liberal governments and Conservative governments have helped to create the housing crisis we are in by allowing for the financialization of housing and for big developers to use renovictions to displace people so that they lose their homes. Under the Conservatives, we already know that Canada has lost more than 800,000 units of housing. The Conservative leader called community housing “Soviet-style” housing. That is shameful. The government could address the housing crisis by building housing that Canadians need and can afford.

Madam Speaker, the truth is that Conservatives are only focused on slogans. They somehow think that the slogan “axe the tax” will actually fix the housing crisis. It will not. What we need, to address the housing crisis, is for Canada to be, at the very minimum, on par with the G7 countries with respect to our community housing stock. Right now, at 3.5%, it is less than half of where they are. We will not address the housing crisis if we continue to go down this track. Significant investments need to be made. The kind of housing that needs to be built is the kind that Canadians can afford. That is at the core of the issue.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for her tremendous advocacy and for using a human rights-based lens with respect to everything she does. On addressing the situation of the housing crisis and how climate relates to it, people are being displaced. We had a heat wave in my community of Vancouver East, in British Columbia, and 600 people died. There are people who are unhoused or are living in tent cities because they do not have access to adequate—

Madam Speaker, Conservatives, of course, say that they are against the carbon tax. Last week, the NDP called on the big oil CEOs at committee to answer to Canadians for their corporate greed. Those CEOs told the committee that they support carbon pricing. The Conservatives spend so much time defending the oil and gas industry, so why are they fighting against a policy that even the CEOs say is good for Canada?

Madam Speaker, there is a question in my mind about why we even have to be here to debate the motion. Right now there is an inquiry on foreign interference. Commissioner Hogue has been given the mandate to do exactly that work. Should the government not just give all the documents, unredacted, both those within cabinet and what NSICOP received, to Madam Justice Hogue for review so we can have faith in the determination of the outcome of foreign interference activities related to Canada? As well, I would absolutely agree about the names of the people who are implicated, potentially, in the report under the allegation, who wittingly, knowingly and intentionally collaborated and worked with foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic institutions and processes. We should all be on board with that. Would the member like to comment?

Madam Speaker, the NSICOP report indicates that the Prime Minister already knows who these individuals are. When I say “individuals”, we are talking about elected officials, members of Parliament, who knowingly, intentionally, wittingly collaborated with and worked for foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic processes and democratic institutions. In light of that, we have not seen the Prime Minister take any action. The community, the public and members of Parliament have been entirely kept in the dark. Is it not time that information be shared with all parliamentarians and, most important, with all Canadians? When we run for office, is it not our job to serve Canadians and not foreign states?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc for putting the motion forward today. I think it is an important one. It needs to be done, and it needs to be supported. In the member's speech, she highlighted the point that there have been many failures of the government to act and to take foreign interference seriously. In fact, the NSICOP report raises a litany of examples of the government's failure to deliver. It has actually received information on the members of Parliament or elected officials who are alleged to have worked wittingly, knowingly and intentionally with foreign state actors. The Prime Minister knew that, but that information never came before the House. We never knew about it. To that end, is it not time now for the government to provide that information, not only to members of Parliament but to all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP report noted that the foreign interference actors, particularly those from China and India, are most pervasive. The implications are significant to Canadians, to our democratic institutions and to our processes. While the government knew about this, and has known about this for a long time, our system is deficient in addressing the issue. Paramount to the motion today and to ongoing efforts to counter foreign interference activities is to ensure that the commission has access to all unredacted documents, most certainly the ones that NSICOP received and, as well, the information from cabinet. Would the member support the call for the government to release all unredacted documents to the commission?

Madam Speaker, according to the NSICOP report, “foreign actors covertly supported or opposed candidates by exploiting vulnerabilities in political party governance and administration.” It goes on to say, “This included interfering with nomination processes or attempting to influence or control electoral district associations. CSIS considers the nomination process to be a particularly soft target”. Unlike Australia and the United Kingdom, Canada does not criminalize interfering in nominations, leaderships or any other political party processes. Would the member agree, would the Liberal government agree that it is time to do what our ally countries are doing to tackle foreign interference?

Madam Speaker, the NSICOP report noted that the government was aware of the extent of foreign interference activities since 2018. In fact, the unredacted information was received by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Therefore, it is not like the Prime Minister did not have the information. It is not like the Liberal government did not know the extent to which foreign interference activities were taking place in Canada. It has taken these many years and years, these many months for the government to take action. Why is it that the government is resisting ensuring that Commissioner Hogue gets access to all cabinet documents, unredacted, related to foreign interference?

Madam Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member that those who knowingly, intentionally, wittingly work with foreign states should not be sitting here as members of Parliament. They should not be running in the next election. There is no question about that. At this time, though, because the NSICOP report has exposed that there are elected officials sitting around this table who are collaborating and working with foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic processes and democratic institutions, that means all of us are in a shadow. We are operating in such a way that quite possibly my privilege is being breached, and all of our privilege is being breached, because of this situation. Unless we know who they are, the privilege of all of us would be compromised. Would the member agree with that?

Madam Speaker, one of the areas the member touched on is the timeline of the issue. Aside from the fact that the government, the Prime Minister, knew of foreign interference activities for a long time and did not take the necessary action to counter this threat to Canadian society, to our democratic system, the other issue that the NSICOP report highlighted was that a former member of Parliament engaged in foreign interference activities, allegedly. Supposedly, the individual also set up meetings and collaborated with foreign agents. To that end, would the member agree that we need to ensure that Commissioner Hogue has the full breadth and scope when looking into foreign interference activities and is not restricted to just the last two elections?

Madam Speaker, in the NSICOP report, the committee noted that NSICOP tabled its first report indicating concerns around foreign interference activities back in 2018. Of course, since then, there have been two other reports with this latest one. The government said that it would take action, but there was a huge gap when no action was taken. As a result, we saw leaks that surfaced in the media, which propelled the government to action. The NSICOP report actually noted that, because of the gap, we are sending all the wrong messages, that we are basically saying that there is no deterrent for foreign interference actors and that they can carry on with business as usual. Therefore, in light of this and the severity of foreign interference into Canada's democratic institutions and processes, would the member agree that Commissioner Hogue should be given unfettered access to all unredacted documents, both within cabinet and what was provided to NSICOP, so that we can get to the bottom of the situation?

Madam Speaker, the reality is this: The commissioner is not able to get access to unredacted documents. In my view, that is impeding the ability for the commission to do its work, to rebuild trust in the hearts and minds of Canadians and all parliamentarians. Again, is it not time for the government to do what is necessary and give the commissioner unfettered access to unredacted cabinet documents, as well as intelligence documents?

Mr. Speaker, today is the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. What is unfolding in Hong Kong is what many Hong Kongers call the “Tiananmen massacre 2.0”. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, given that, (i) the Hong Kong 47 stands for so many of the values shared by Canadians, most importantly democracy, respect for the rule of law, and standing up for what is right; (ii) the Hong Kong 47 participated in lawful election primaries in 2020; (iii) 14 pro-democracy figures from the Hong Kong 47 were found guilty of subversion under the National Security Law; the House call upon the Hong Kong authorities to release the Hong Kong 47 and cease prosecuting them and others charged under the National Security Law.

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, in relation to the consideration of Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference: (a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, (i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings, (ii) the committee shall meet for extended hours on Monday, June 3, Tuesday, June 4, Wednesday, June 5 and Thursday June 6, 2024, to gather evidence from witnesses, (iii) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the officials from the RCMP and CSIS, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, the officials from the Department of Public Safety, and other expert witnesses deemed relevant by the committee be invited to appear, (iv) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m., on Friday, June 7, 2024, (v) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, (vi) the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, June 10, 2024, to consider the bill at clause-by-clause consideration, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 6:30 p.m., each party shall be allotted no more than five minutes for each of the remaining amendments and clauses, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill, (vii) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1); and (b) the bill shall be ordered for consideration at report stage on Wednesday, June 12, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have heavily relied on migrant workers to support Canada's economy. They are often underpaid and racialized. They can easily fall through the cracks, leaving them undocumented through no fault of their own. They live here and contribute to our communities and they pay their taxes, yet without permanent status, they are often subject to exploitation and abuse. The Liberals have been saying that they want to regularize them since 2021, but empty words will not protect workers. Will the Prime Minister implement a broad, uncapped program to regularize undocumented workers so that their basic human rights are protected?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this question. Does she see a pattern of behaviour here where the Conservatives constantly want to roadblock programs Canadians desperately need, whether it be dental care, pharmacare or the hot lunch program, the food program for Canadians? I am also seeing a pattern of behaviour by the Conservatives of blocking the passage of important legislation at committee. We experienced that at the immigration committee when we tried to address the lost Canadian issue, whereby the Conservatives took away the right of Canadians born abroad to pass on their citizenship to the second generation, if their children were born abroad. From that perspective, I would like to ask the minister if she could comment. In order to move things forward, to get things done for Canadians, what options does the government have?

Madam Speaker, CMHC is going to end the rent-geared-to-income subsidies to some of the homes under the federal government’s bilateral agreement with the provinces. Non-profits are forced to jack up the rent to market rates after the existing tenants move out. That means thousands of affordable homes will be lost forever. This move is beyond stupid. It shows that the Liberals have learned nothing from the housing crisis they helped create. Already, between successive Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has lost more than a million affordable homes. For every home built, 11 are lost. Canada cannot continue down this track. Communities cannot afford to lose more affordable housing stock. This giving with the right and taking with the left sleight of hand will fool no one. The housing crisis will only get worse, and the Liberals will have no one to blame but themselves. The rent-geared-to-income subsidies must continue.

Mr. Speaker, first, on the legislation that was tabled, it needs to come into law before the next election and be implemented. That is a key piece of what needs to be done. Of course, there are many elements within that legislation that will be in regulation. We do not even know what the mandate for the commission looks like. Let us also keep in mind that this is not the be all and end all. That is only one tool to address foreign interference activities. I would also say this for PROC. The work that PROC needs to do is not done, because what came out in the inquiry was that there was contradictory information. On the one hand, Katie Telford told the committee that of course the Prime Minister read all the confidential documents. Then, at the hearing, the Prime Minister said that he did not read any of them. Who is not telling the truth? We need to get to the bottom of this. They do not get to sweep this under the rug. We need to get to the bottom of it, to hold people to account and, most important, to actually take the real actions that are necessary to address foreign interference.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. Throughout the entire hearing with the commissioner, all the parties that participated were working in a non-partisan fashion. We were being as helpful as we could in working in collaboration with the commission so that we could find the truth. The commissioner noted there is a real risk of politicians modifying their positions or messages as a result of foreign interference activities. Can the member comment on that?

Mr. Speaker, I am entering into this debate, and first of all I want to say I certainly support the privilege motion before us. The reality is that what we are learning and seeing is that foreign interference is real. It is happening right before our eyes. In fact, it has been happening for some time. Commissioner Hogue in her interim report indicated that in both the 2019 election and the 2021 election there had been foreign interference activities. What we learned as well is that those activities occur in a variety of formats. While I am shocked to learn that members of Parliament are being targeted this time through potential cyber-attacks, what we know is that foreign interference tactics have been used in a variety of ways. We know that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was one of the first individuals for whom we learned that his family had been targeted. He learned this not because the government informed him in the proper format, but we learned it through leaks in the media. It was only because of the escalation of the situation that we were informed that we were also being targeted. I learned much later I am a target of Chinese foreign interference activities and have been for some time. I learned that, in fact, I would be an evergreen target, meaning I will forever be targeted, as I understand the situation. Now we learn that 18 other members of Parliament have been targeted with cyber-attacks. That is the reality. The public hearing the NDP has pushed for is so important and so significant. In the interim report, what we learned from some of the testimony was shocking to me. Kenny Chiu, the former member of Parliament for Steveston—Richmond East, was subject to foreign interference activities. We will never know whether those activities would have altered the outcome of the election in that particular riding, but notwithstanding, foreign interference activities were occurring, and even the government's agencies were observing this. They had this information. In fact in my case, in the 2021 election it was noted that the incident related to Vancouver East during the campaign, that campaign activity, is believed to may well have been a foreign interference activity from China. However, none of that information was communicated, not to me, not to Kenny Chiu and not to anybody, really. One has to wonder, when the government says it has set up teams of communication, different agencies charged with this work, why not one of them informed the people who were impacted the most. This is exactly the case here with 18 members of Parliament who are being impacted by cyber-attacks from China. One wonders how this is even possible. How is it that the government has multiple agencies and that the people impacted the most are not even informed? What is the purpose of foreign interference activities from China and other countries? They want to disrupt our democratic system. They want to send a message to those being targeted in one way or another. The commissioner noted in her report that the diaspora community is particularly vulnerable and targeted in that way, and yet what work is being done to protect the diaspora community? I do not see a whole lot of activities from the government side. Its communication system is a colossal failure in addressing the issue. Foreign interference activities, as I was mentioning, happen in a variety of different formats. I have to raise a question, as well, with respect to the threshold that the government sets internally, to determine what would require action. The threshold is set so high that virtually nothing will occur. Ministers testified about how high the threshold ought to be. One of the bars, I think, is set at whether or not the interference would change an election. If the bar is set at that level, does that mean to say that all the other activities that were occurring, which may not have changed an election outcome, did not occur? Does that mean to say that there is no foreign interference? Of course not. The question becomes this for the government: What action will it take to address foreign interference activities and to take them seriously enough to curb those activities and to send a clear message to the actors that this will not be tolerated by Canada? What action will be taken to safeguard those people who are being impacted? I am a member of Parliament. In many ways, those of us who are members of Parliament are, I would say, privileged people. We have, to some extent, some level of protection, but everyday people do not. They definitely need and deserve protection. I was at an event just this last weekend with Hong Kongers. There were many people there. It was a cultural event, a celebration of Hong Kongers' culture, their practices, their business smarts and their entrepreneurship. There were people from high school who had crocheted cool little items that they were putting on a table to sell. There were a variety of artisans putting their items forward. There were also people there who wore masks because they were worried about being targeted. In Canada, the government had much pressure put on it. There was my request for it to have a special immigration measure, a lifeboat scheme for Hong Kongers who are trying to escape the prosecution, the draconian national security law. Most recently, article 23 has been passed in Hong Kong, where there are escalating arbitrary detentions and arrests. Hong Kongers need the government to take action on a special immigration measure. So many Hong Kongers came to Canada needing to be able to find safety. They applied, under the special measure, for permanent residence. Initially the government processed those applications within six months. It is now up to 21 months. For some of the applicants, their study permits and work permits have already expired. People are in such fear about having to return to Hong Kong and then be out of status. Thank goodness the government finally made an announcement this week to extend the program. The government could have actually been even more efficient in that process and just automatically renewed the expiring work permits and study permits. Instead, it decided to make everybody go through yet another round of applications, spending scarce resources within IRCC instead of directing those resources into processing permanent residence applications in an expeditious fashion. That is typical; the government always finds some other way to be less efficient. I wanted to raise that point because of how important it is to ensure that Hong Kongers are able to get to a place of safety and not be sent back to Hong Kong. I want to turn back to the issue around foreign interference. As I was mentioning, there are a variety of different ways it can happen. In my case, there was one particular event that occurred, that I am aware of, where I suspect that there were foreign interference activities, because the information that was provided does not add up. In this event, I made a complaint to Elections Canada. I informed CSIS. I reported it to the RCMP. I do not believe those agencies took the matter seriously. I do not think they investigated it seriously. Then, Elections Canada closed the case and deemed that there was no foreign interference, even though it did not follow the money and even though, in the background, I learned I am an evergreen target. We have learned in the media, and elsewhere, that there is a $250,000 slush fund that is put out there for foreign interference activities from China. How do the organizations know, without thoroughly investigating the matter, that there was no foreign interference in that instance? I know, most likely, that the incident in the 2021 election alone would not have altered the outcome of the election. I would still have been elected because I won by a very big margin. However, that is not the point, is it? The point is that I believe there were foreign interference activities, and we needed to thoroughly investigate the matter. The government has set up multiple agencies to look into these issues. When they learned of the issue, why did they not inform me, in real time, when it was happening? In the case of Kenny Chiu, a misinformation and disinformation campaign on WeChat was happening. He was not informed either. The agencies and the government were looking into foreign interference activities, and they knew. Did they do anything? Nope. If we juxtapose this to what was going on with the Prime Minister during that time, there was a disinformation campaign about him on Facebook. What did the government agencies do? They phoned Facebook about that disinformation campaign. What did Facebook do? It took it down. My point is this: Why should everybody not be treated equally? They are not, and that is the truth. We learned in the inquiry that perhaps in the case of WeChat, the government did not follow through on it because it was the Chinese Canadian community that was being impacted, as though somehow Chinese Canadians do not deserve the same protection against foreign interference activities. It is absolutely horrendous. I also want to raise a point for all members of Parliament in terms of potential impact. In her report, Justice Hogue indicated clearly that, with respect to foreign interference, there is a deep concern of the impact on elected officials. The report actually said that foreign interference actors undertake to target elected officials who speak out against certain foreign states such as China by deplatforming them, and there are also misinformation and disinformation campaigns. The goal, of course, is to undermine credibility, and that is what we saw in the last two elections. Of note, the commission said that part of the impact for elected officials, and part of the goal, is to potentially change behaviours and messages. I can not help but wonder this. In the House of Commons we know there are five poisons with China, one being the Uyghur genocide issue. The others are Taiwan and Falun Gong, and I could go on. However, let me focus on the Uyghur genocide issue for one minute. We had a vote in the House and some members of Parliament abstained from that vote. They were here prior to vote and participated, but when it came to the vote, they somehow magically disappeared. One of those actors is the member for Don Valley North. As it happens, on the matter related to the member for Don Valley North, the commissioner has some very damning findings with respect to that nomination. The Prime Minister said that he did not know about all of this. Let us pretend that is the case. Now that he does know, what action is he taking with respect to the finding of the commissioner, who said that foreign interference activities could have impacted its outcome of that nomination? If the Prime Minister believes there is nothing to see here, as he is continuing to say, then why is the member for Don Valley North not back in the Liberal caucus? Another thing that came out of the hearing that I found shocking is this. The Prime Minister was at the hearing and testified that he did not read documents that were classified top secret. What head of state does not read classified top secret documents that impact national security? That is weird. Let us put that aside for a minute. The Prime Minister said that he was not informed, with the exception that on that point he was contradicted by the director of CSIS, who said that, in fact, he and his staff were informed, that they were briefed. Magically, it seems like they do not know about it. There is much to be done. There is a big question, which is the premise of the inquiry, and that is, who knew what and when and what did the government do about it? I am still waiting for the final report to come out, and I am excited to receive it. The next phase of the inquiry will be very much focused on the impacts and issues related to that diaspora community, which did not get a chance to fully participate in phase one of the inquiry. Much work needs to be done, and there is no excuse for the government to not take the necessary actions to tackle foreign interference activities. We learned through the hearing that China is the most sophisticated country targeting us in Canada with foreign interference activities. We also learned through the hearing that all the other countries are onto it and are far more advanced in dealing with this issue, but Canada is not. For my colleagues, who have just learned they are being targeted, this is absolutely a question of privilege. We must study this issue, get to the bottom of it and be clear about what needs to be done and what actions need to be taken, because Canada's democratic process is in jeopardy. All 338 of us, and the work that we do, are in jeopardy. We cannot allow for any country to threaten us in that way. We must stand together, united in saying no to all foreign interference actors out there, that they will not be allowed to try to take us down. We must do that in the House of Commons.