Kevin Vuong

[Democratic Institutions, November 20th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been instructed not to answer the question regarding the release of names. That is fine.

Instead, I would like to ask the government about the New Oriental International College Academy in Markham. If she followed the Hogue inquiry, she would be familiar with the school, as the inquiry was told that this private high school bused in students from Markham to vote for the member for Don Valley North in his nomination campaign.

This school is endorsed by the Chinese consulate, and last year, this high-powered school's CEO partied it up with the Prime Minister on Parliament Hill. Not only that, but this same Chinese consulate approved school students who were offered a summer leadership program to work in the Prime Minister's Office. This must be investigated. If this were the United States, a special prosecutor would have already been appointed. No matter what the party is or who the person of interest is, no one is above the law, not even the Prime Minister.

Will the government appoint a special justice to look into the Prime Minister's actions for working with a school flagged by CSIS?

[Democratic Institutions, November 20th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we are back this evening to debate a question that I asked the Prime Minister, a question that arose from constant media coverage and from a parliamentary intelligence committee report that provided insight on the infamous 11 parliamentarians who were in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party.

I asked the Prime Minister if he had trouble sitting at the cabinet table, as he must have wittingly known that at least one of his ministers may not have been working in the service of Canada. The Prime Minister knew he could not defend the indefensible, so instead of answering the question, he attacked my question by theatrically stating that I was displaying “irreverence and unseriousness in a place that deserves a serious contemplation of issues of national security”. What is disgraceful, very serious and irresponsible is the continuous refusal of the Prime Minister to name those individuals and provide information that he sat on for several months to the appropriate authorities so that a badly needed investigation can be launched, charges can be laid and our courts can determine the guilt or innocence of those who remain kept in seclusion.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister is in denial or completely unaware that he is not above the law. Moreover, he is equally clued out in understanding that nowhere is it written that a prime minister has the power to obstruct justice and override the Criminal Code of Canada. It is unconscionable that the Prime Minister has ignored all efforts for these 11 individuals to be identified and for the laws of Canada to be applied.

The Criminal Code is clear on the issue of treason, and unlike the Prime Minister, most Canadians believe that the Criminal Code is the law of the land and that laws are there to protect Canadians, not to protect Liberals or anyone else who sells out their country for political or financial gain. The code is not some plaything of a prime minister. It is incumbent on a prime minister to act to protect Canadians and our democracy from those who are out to subvert our institutions. That is the duty of a prime minister.

I find it passing strange that the Prime Minister is concerned about the opposition leader's security clearance when the Prime Minister is shielding the investigation and prosecution of those who are in league with agents of foreign interference, including at least one cabinet minister. As long as those 11 traitors remain unnamed and uninvestigated, the Prime Minister is in fact abetting foreign interference and protecting those in the pocket of Beijing. Why?

There is no defending the indefensible. No matter what is in the parliamentary secretary's talking points, for the leader of the Liberal Party to cover for 11 traitors who are in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party and who are escaping justice is an affront to Parliament and to all Canadians. Those 11 individuals remain in the protected custody of the Prime Minister, who, by his own actions, is in contempt of our laws and of the administration of justice. What is the Prime Minister so afraid of? Is the Prime Minister afraid to release the 11 names because of who they are or the roles they hold in the government, in his own caucus or in the Liberal Party?

I will ask once again a very simple question of the government: Will it release the names, yes or no?

[Veterans Affairs, November 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will soon pause to remember the brave men and women of Canada's armed forces who served our country and made the ultimate sacrifice.

Whether in Flanders, on Juno Beach, the hills of Korea or the sands of Afghanistan, they fought for Canada, for our democracy and the freedoms we all enjoy today.

I am proud to wear this country's uniform. I believe in our democratic institutions. I believe all members of the House are duty-bound to accept and hold high the torch passed from those fallen in the defence of Canada.

I respectfully ask government members if they all can say the same.

[Democratic Institutions, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about national security, so let us do it. On New Year's Eve, Canadians will be ushering in the Hogue commission's final report on foreign interference, but meanwhile, the media continues to provide insight as to who the infamous 11 parliamentarians in the pocket of China are.

Does the Prime Minister have trouble sitting at the cabinet table when he must wittingly know that at least one of his ministers is not working in the service of Canada, or is he entirely witless?

[Public Safety, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, when I raised concerns about the government's failed drug strategy, I was slammed for giving a voice to Canadians living with the consequences of its failure. This is what happens when we speak truth to the regressive left, so intent is it on protecting policies that sound good but are harmful in practice. It vilifies anyone who challenges its radical ideology.

This included parents concerned about their children's safety, seniors tired of thefts and break-ins, and business owners fed up with staff being assaulted. We were called NIMBYs, or “not in my backyards”, when the truth is our yards are full of crime, needles and drugs. However, we have persevered in our fight for safer communities, and the Ontario government acted to protect children by closing drug sites within 200 metres of schools and day cares.

Ontario has taken the first step; it is time for the government to finish the job and to do so now. We can all read the polls. We know the Liberals are going to lose the next election, so they should leave with some dignity, do the right thing, listen to experts and reform safe supply before even more Canadians are hurt.

[Democratic Institutions, October 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to wear my country's uniform, and I take my oath of allegiance to Canada seriously. Does the parliamentary secretary?

Let us be clear: If foreign interference had permeated elected officials in the U.S. Congress and Senate, there would be a special prosecutor appointed within minutes. However, the government is dragging its feet on getting to the bottom of this. Why is that? Reluctance is abetting. Why is the government protecting individuals who are out to harm our country, our democracy and the Canadian people?

I call upon the Liberal government to tell Canadians why. I for one am fed up with paying for it.

[Democratic Institutions, October 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we are back this evening to try to get to the truth behind why the Prime Minister, who once held NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, in such high esteem, has suddenly changed his tune. The Prime Minister had once said he thought NSICOP was well-suited to examine foreign interference in Canada's democracy and our democratic institutions, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. What was the reason for the change in the Prime Minister's glowing support for NSICOP? What brought about this change? Could it have been a release of an NSICOP report that shed some light on the willingness of some members of the Liberal Party to accept political and financial benefits from foreign sources, most notably from agents of the Chinese government?

I had asked the Prime Minister if he still felt that “Canadians need to have faith in their institutions and deserve answers and transparency”, his words; or, had his party's Beijing masters intervened and indicated a need for a reversal in that faith?

In the reply to my question the Minister of Public Safety had the audacity to suggest I was making things up. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not me saying these things. The minister notes that NSICOP, the Hogue commission and even national media have done some deep digging to get to the bottom of foreign interference. The truth is that the Liberal government does not want what has been uncovered to come to light and, perhaps most important, it does not want Canadians to know about it. After all, if everything is going so well in the government's eyes, why is it that the Canadian people are still in the dark about the so-called “11”? Why are these people not arrested and why are they not before a court?

There are laws in the Criminal Code that address treasonous acts. Subsection 46(2), paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to be precise, sets out what constitutes the act of treason and it is quite clear. Subsection 46(2) states:

Every one commits treason who, in Canada,...

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Additionally, subsection 46(4) notes:

Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

Therefore, how is it that those unnamed 11 people are able to evade our laws, our courts and our justice system? Who are these special 11 people benefiting from the Liberal government's tacit if not implicit protection? Why does Canada even have treason laws if the government of the day decides by itself to suspend the use of these laws?

For some time now, Canada's democracy has been under attack by authoritarian regimes and chief among these is the People's Republic of China. I hosted a press conference earlier today where I was joined by three leading experts on foreign interference. We wanted to address a question that many Canadians have been asking: Who are the parliamentarians who have been identified in that confidential NSICOP report? How can Canada have an election if Canadians do not know whether the people they are voting for have their best interests at heart? Some observers may also wonder if the current government is serving another master.

Now, nearly every opposition party leader has called for release of the names of the parliamentarians identified in the NSICOP report, but the Liberal government still refuses to do so. Why is that? Why will the government not come clean to Canadians, and defend our democracy?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, October 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, October 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration who intervened to stop a deportation order issued by his own department and upheld by a federal court to protect a five-time criminally convicted foreign national. Is it his latest scheme to protect the IRGC is by allowing them to falsely claim they are refugees?

Global News reported that refugee privacy is being exploited to hide behind closed-door proceedings. Why is the government continuing to make a mockery of Canada's legal and immigration systems? Is he the Minister of IRCC or the minister for the IRGC?

[Foreign Affairs, October 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, like the Prime Minister and the minister, the parliamentary secretary believes her talking points and eagerly adopts the “ignorance is bliss” mantra of the government. This “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” position will no doubt be reinforced on November 7, with the visit to Toronto by United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese. Ms. Albanese is known for her open support of Hamas and other terror groups. She knows her rigged reports and comments are used to justify attacks on Israelis and Jews. In fact, in November 2022, Ms. Albanese participated in an official terrorist conference of Hamas.

Section 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits support for terrorism, so I have two simple questions for the parliamentary secretary. Will the Minister of International Development be adding the not-so-special rapporteur to his list of most trusted people? Most importantly, will the government stop Ms. Albanese from bringing her hatred and support for terrorists to Canada?