SoVote

May/2/23 3:14:11 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

The Speaker

May/2/23 3:15:06 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent to the motion for second reading of Bill C‑31. Call in the members. And the bells having rung:

61 words

The Speaker

May/2/23 3:16:41 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House]

20 words

Dispense

The Speaker

May/2/23 3:29:32 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

53 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/23 3:30:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Speaker

May/2/23 3:41:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

16 words

All Topics

The Speaker

May/2/23 3:42:28 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes. We have a question of privilege. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

35 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

May/2/23 3:42:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, further to the notice that I gave earlier today concerning revelations published in The Globe and Mail yesterday. These concern efforts by a diplomat of the People's Republic of China, accredited by the Government of Canada, to target me and my family as a consequence of my February 22, 2021 vote on the Conservative opposition day motion, which I moved, condemning the government of the People's Republic of China and its treatment of the Uyghur minority as a genocide. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at pages 107 to 108, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member’s actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.” This is long-standing and well-established procedure and principle of the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to an April 12, 1733 resolution of the British House of Commons, which states, “That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing of any member of this House in his coming to or going from the House or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.” To be clear, this privilege is not being asserted, nor do I assert it today, against any Canadian who exercises his or her fundamental democratic right to enter into political debate and criticize elected members of the House for the stands they take. Joseph Maingot, at page 235 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, articulates the appropriate balance between free debate and intimidation and coercion. He states: All interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege, even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case. Here are the facts of the present case. Yesterday's Globe and Mail reported that the government of the People's Republic of China “sees Canada as a ‘high-priority target’ and employs ‘incentives and punishment’ as part of a vast influence network directed at legislators, business executives and diaspora communities in this country, according to a top secret intelligence assessment from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service”. Later on in the report, Robert Fife and Steven Chase write: The report, People's Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat, lists several examples of Chinese influence operations aimed at the opposition Conservative Party. It says CSIS reporting from 2021 indicates that China's intelligence agency, the Ministry of State Security (MSS), ‘has taken specific actions to target Canadian MPs’ who are linked to the February 2021 parliamentary motion condemning Beijing's oppression of Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities. The motion, which passed, declared China's conduct to amount to genocide. The spy agency said an MSS officer sought information on an unnamed Canadian MP's relatives ‘who may be located in the PRC, for further potential sanctions.’ This effort, the CSIS report said, ‘is almost certainly meant to make an example of this MP and deter others from taking anti-PRC positions.’ A national-security source, whom the Globe is not naming because they risk prosecution under the Security of Information Act, said the MP targeted was Conservative MP [my name] and that Zhao Wei, a Chinese diplomat in Canada, was working on this matter. The motion in question was a Conservative motion that I introduced and moved in the House and that was adopted on February 22, 2021. Despite knowing about this intimidation operation involving a diplomat approved by the Government of Canada for two years, the government did not inform me that a diplomat was targeting my family, nor did the government take any action to expel the diplomat responsible for orchestrating this intimidation campaign. In fact, Mr. Wei Zhao continues to have the government's authorization to be and work in Canada with immunity, on behalf of Beijing's government. Frankly, I think this demonstrates a complete lack of common decency and leadership. Indeed, not a single Beijing diplomat has been expelled by the government since the news of Beijing's foreign interference threat activities started to be reported a couple of years ago. Nonetheless, the fact remains that this intimidation operation was launched and was in direct consequence of my motion in the House concerning the treatment of Uyghurs. These are the facts. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 109, observe that, “In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.” A “proceeding in Parliament” is a technical term for which Bosc and Gagnon, at page 90, refer to two definitions, one from the United Kingdom's Erskine May and the other from Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987. May's definition, taken from page 235 of the 24th edition of A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, states that “An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.” The Australian statutory definition, meanwhile, contains the expression “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee”. A long line of precedents affirm the right of members to go about their parliamentary duties free of intimidation. Speaker Lamoureux, on September 19, 1973, said, at page 6709 of the Debates, that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.” On May 1, 1986, Speaker Bosley held, at page 12847 of the Debates, “If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.” Subsequently, Speaker Parent, on March 24, 1994, commented, at page 2706 of the Debates, “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.” More recently, on March 6, 2012, a prima facie contempt was found, arising from an intimidation campaign of YouTube videos from the Internet, by hacking collective Anonymous, largely targeting a former colleague and his family members as a consequence of legislation this colleague tabled in the House. In so ruling, the Speaker said, at page 5834 of the Debates: Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate. In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters. However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously. I would echo those words, “this House must take the matter very seriously.” While I am speaking of my own situation today, I am far from alone in experiencing Beijing's foreign interference threat activities. Debates inside and outside of this House since November have been dominated by a succession of breathtaking disclosures from our national security experts, revealed by multiple media outlets. These have shown a concerted and organized campaign by Beijing's Communist government to manipulate Canadian politics and the proceedings of this House in favour of that government's positions. Equally concerning has been the Canadian government's failure to do anything to curb it. The latest report in The Globe and Mail demonstrates that this scourge of foreign interference threat activities directed at members of this House is not limited to elections, party nominations or diaspora communities. This nefarious campaign's reach into parliamentary proceedings is a new fact, but it is one that we should not be too surprised about. Just as it is a novel concern in this recently surfaced story, which is still unravelling, and for this House generally to consider interference and intimidation by foreign state actors, that is not a procedural impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of contempt here. On this particular point, Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.... This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations. They add, at page 112: It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. Before closing, I would like to add one final point. Our authorities refer to the need for questions of privilege to be raised at the earliest opportunity in the House. While the Globe and Mail report was published yesterday morning, this afternoon is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of privilege. In fact, this afternoon is the first time I have been up in the House since the report was published in The Globe and Mail. In addition, I had to reflect on, and seek counsel about, the best way to move forward regarding these concerns, as the Speaker is aware. In addition, I confirmed the serious, grave details in The Globe and Mail report, including that an individual in Canada, Mr. Wei Zhao, who is accredited by the Government of Canada, was involved in conducting these intimidation operations. I trust that, under the circumstances, the Speaker would not impose the narrowest possible interpretation to “the earliest opportunity to raise this in the House” so as to deny me the opportunity to raise this very important matter of foreign intimidation operations directed at elected members of Parliament. That is because it has become even clearer in the last 24 hours that members of Parliament, certainly opposition members, and Canadians at large cannot rely upon the Government of Canada, the executive branch of our system, to discharge its role as the defender of the realm. That is why Parliament, and this House in particular, must vindicate its own authority and protect our interests and those of the members of this place when those interests are under threat, as we now see them to be. Mr. Speaker, I plead to you to see that it now falls to you, as the guardian of our rights and privileges, to send a clear and unambiguous signal that this sort of conduct on the part of the People's Republic of China is simply unacceptable. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion at the appropriate time.

2106 words

The Speaker

May/2/23 3:57:59 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I will return with a ruling as soon as possible. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on the same point of order.

40 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/2/23 3:58:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the government has clearly indicated, any form of foreign interference or intimidation is completely unacceptable. I will reserve the opportunity to return to you or your offices as to whether there is going to be any further comment coming from the government.

45 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/2/23 3:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel very sad that this has happened to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is shocking. I think all of us in the House are shocked, and I think we can all agree that this is something that, while affecting one member of this House, also affects many Chinese Canadian citizens across the country. This has been raised time and time again. We would like to come forward with further discussion and debate on this at a later date.

84 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/2/23 3:59:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I pledge our wholehearted support for our colleague and his family, who are currently going through a very difficult situation. I believe that all members of the House must support our colleague. The Bloc Québécois will be doing so. I believe that is what each and every one of us would want to see if we were in his position. He can count on our support. We will be there to debate with him. We must get to the bottom of this.

98 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/2/23 3:59:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to say just a few words, not many. In case Canadians watching this do not know the quality and the integrity of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I want to attest to it here in a non-partisan fashion. This is an exemplary member of Parliament. It is an outrage that any foreign government would target him and his family. I have had the honour of serving here for exactly 12 years today from when I was elected; since then, I have known no finer parliamentarian than the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. For any member to be treated in this way is offensive. Partisanship obviously happens here, but in a non-partisan way, I want to attest to the integrity, character and extraordinary ethical framework of that member and ask that his concerns be addressed with diligence.

148 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/2/23 4:01:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to get back to what we are talking about today, which, of course, is the opposition day motion. I am going to take a moment to recognize Beatrice Weaver. Beatrice lives in Elmsdale, Nova Scotia, and this past weekend, she turned 109 years old. I had the opportunity to visit Beatrice. While recognizing and celebrating her birthday, I promised her that I would make sure her name and her accomplishment of reaching 109 are in Hansard forever. She is still spry. I am going to have this clip recorded and make sure she and her family can see it. Congratulations to Beatrice. I hear some colleagues clapping. To go back to the matter before us right now, the opposition day motion, I actually agree with provision (b) in the fact that any time we can align all three governments with regard to investment and line this up with residential development, that makes a lot of smart public policy sense. I was surprised to see the motion include these words: “so that young and middle-class people don't need to use cars”. I know the Conservatives have been against the government's effort to help renew the Canadian auto sector. The leader of the official opposition spoke against the partnership with Volkswagen to create 3,000 jobs in St. Thomas. However, I was surprised they did not say something along the lines of the following: “so that individuals can more easily access public transit”. I thought that the fact that they talked about not using cars was a little off brand for the official opposition, and I was quite surprised to see it. I want to make sure that it is there. I also agree with provision (c); in principle, there is merit in being able to use federal resources, in terms of surplus lands. I would note that any time the government can create a more efficient process to deem federal lands surplus, where appropriate, it makes a lot of public policy sense. The lands could then be used for the type of purpose the motion talks about, which is affordable housing. As I have said from the outset, for the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for my remarks before question period, there are merits in this motion that are, frankly, good public policy. There are other areas where I think there are real, considerable gaps. One of these is how to constitute what a reasonable delay is and whether we should be punishing Canadians who live in municipalities that, according to the official opposition, are not necessarily meeting the outcomes that they are arbitrarily putting in place. I want to talk about one element that was not included in the motion, and that is skilled trades and access to labour. I have before me a CTV article from Talisman Gate, a housing project in the Gravenhurst area in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, which is that of the shadow minister for the Conservative Party. There is no mention whatsoever about access to labour. Developers talk about the challenge they have, which is that they are finding it more and more difficult to find the people who are able to build the housing. I can appreciate the hon. member raising this concern around how we can expedite processes. I have some legitimate concerns about the simplification and how they framed this in the opposition day motion. It does not talk about having the men and women to build the houses. This particular project in Gravenhurst has been delayed by over a year because the developer was struggling to find the available labour. Why would the member not have included that? That is a really important point that could have helped round out this dynamic. I will summarize my remarks by saying that there are elements within this opposition day motion that have merit. I thank the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, because I think he is better than others at public policy framing in terms of what he can accomplish. I said earlier in my remarks that it is too bad he did not win the leadership. I think the opposition party would have been in better hands, although this is not to create grenades on that side. However, there are some real issues, particularly around what constitutes a reasonable delay and how we would go about even establishing rewarding municipalities that are doing good work on developing and building housing. There are not a whole lot of answers there. There are a lot of problems identified and simplistic solutions, but there is not a whole lot of nuanced public policy that is going to solve the issue.

795 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

May/2/23 4:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not planning on asking a question, but I will tell the member how the town of Gravenhurst is pronounced. Many times in this House I have talked about the importance of the federal immigration system working directly with the provinces to make sure we are attracting the right skills to build the homes Canadians need. I wonder if he can speak to that. Are we actually doing enough to attract skilled trades to this country?

79 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the good people of the Gravenhurst community in the member opposite's riding. The point remains that I wish that was something the party opposite had put in the motion today. The Minister of Immigration is developing skilled pathways that are specific to regional outcomes, whereby the provinces are able to identify gaps in particular types of labour positions. They can help identify ways we can create skilled pathways for immigrants who might want to come here and bring their trades and the opportunities to build the housing the member talks about. Also, the government is putting a lot of investment in working with provinces, institutions, universities and the skilled trades to get the folks who have the skills to build the houses we need.

130 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/2/23 4:07:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that the Quebec government wants full powers over immigration. Part of the housing crisis can be attributed to the fact that the construction of new housing has not kept up with population growth. Can my colleague not face the facts and recognize that it would be more efficient and more productive to give Quebec full control over its immigration and, at the same time, that it makes sense to transfer the money to Quebec so that it can plan its supply of new housing for the long term, taking immigration into account, if only to ensure that the housing crisis does not get worse? Since 2016, we should have had 100,000 more new homes than we do now. Does my colleague not realize that the Liberal national housing strategy is a complete failure and that there are human consequences to that?

152 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:08:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, there are already significant devolved and delegated powers for the Government of Quebec in relation to selecting the immigrants who come to Quebec. Our government has been very clear regarding our desire to increase, on the federal side, the amount of immigration that is francophone-based. We know that is extremely important from a linguistic perspective, not only across the country but indeed in Quebec as well. Therefore, I think there is already a lot of devolved power going to the Legault government, the Quebec government, to help it choose. We are working on a regional basis as well to make that happen. I think there are a lot of good existing programs. If the member has concerns about the immigration pathways in Quebec, he should raise that with the Quebec government, which has significant power to choose the immigrants in question.

148 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/2/23 4:09:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, part of the immigration problem is that the government has decided to continue to use temporary foreign workers to address our skilled labour shortage, including in the construction sector. What the government should do is regularize people so they have the status to come to Canada, and ensure that those who are already in Canada have full status. Would the member support the regularization of those without status or those with temporary status who are already in Canada so they can fully contribute to every aspect of Canada's development?

92 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:10:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad my remarks at the end of the intervention have bled into a really important conversation about immigration. Of course, I will remind listeners at home that this is about housing, but I agree that we have to help folks who want to come to Canada to make a difference. My view, given my local experience in Kings—Hants, where we welcome almost 2,000 seasonal agriculture workers, is perhaps a bit different from the member opposite's. It is not that I do not support long-term access to pathways for citizenship in this country. I absolutely do. However, if we talk to some of the workers, they do not want to come to Canada and become full-time citizens. They find that the opportunity—

132 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 189