Skip to content

QUESTION PERIOD — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Permanent Resident Status

April 10, 2024

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition)

Leader, Global News reports a man now living in Winnipeg taught for many years at Beijing’s military academy for cyber and electronic warfare. The Canada Border Services Agency said this man’s work supported an organization responsible for numerous instances of espionage against Canada. Yet somehow, leader, he managed to obtain permanent residence here three years ago. Leader, a permanent resident is inadmissible to Canada on security grounds for engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada and our country’s interests.

I have two questions, Senator Gold. Please answer them. Why was this man allowed to obtain a permanent resident visa? And what is the government doing about this?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) [ - ]

I don’t know the answer to the first one. It’s an individual case, the details of which I’m not aware. Nor am I aware of what measures may be taken if, in fact, the allegations which you’ve referred to have been substantiated.

You’re questioning whether they are? Journalist Terry Glavin recently said:

Every shocking thing we heard this week at the Hogue inquiry Trudeau knew nearly five years ago. CSIS told him. He said nothing. He did nothing.

He refuses to answer, even now.

As do you. Leader, do you commit to providing an answer — a real answer — and tell us how this man in Winnipeg could have received a permanent resident visa? Or is this going to be swept under the rug as well?

Senator Gold [ - ]

Senator, thank you for your question. Notwithstanding the statements of the journalist, both officials who have testified before the inquiry and the Prime Minister who will be testifying later today are in the best position to answer that. My understanding is that it has already been stated by officials — and the Prime Minister will have an opportunity to respond to — whether some of those allegations are, in fact, correct.

Back to top