44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is indeed with great satisfaction that we finally reach the end of debate before passing Bill S-227, an act to establish Food Day in Canada.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for his assistance in helping me to accelerate the process, so we could pass this bill today. I would also like to thank all hon. members from all parties, senators and staff who have supported this bill and helped us to reach this final stage today. I particularly want to thank the hon. Senator Rob Black, who first introduced Bill S-227 in the Senate.
I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Stewart family members, who are making a strong legacy in their mother's memory in passing this bill, as well as Crystal Mackay from Food Day Canada and her family for their support. I would also like to thank and acknowledge my own family, including my wife, Justine, and our three ABCs, Ainsley, Bennett and Caroline, for their support as well. They tell me that they have heard more than enough about Bill S-227 at the dinner table and that they could give speeches on it themselves.
This summer, 20 years after Anita Stewart organized the first Food Day in response to a national crisis that devastated our beef industry, Food Day Canada will be officially recognized across Canada. This bill is particularly important as we focus on such issues as food sovereignty and food security. What is more, we could use Food Day to promote food literacy for both the young and the young at heart.
Coming to know where our food comes from and how it is produced, processed and prepared could be a learning process for all Canadians. This summer, and for every year to follow, we will, together, recognize the work of farmers, fishers, processors, chefs and everyone along the food supply chain; they not only feed us but also enrich our vast and diverse national culture.
I will close with the advice left to us by the late Anita Stewart, who founded Food Day in Canada almost 20 years ago and is, indeed, the inspiration for this bill. She wrote:
We need to have at least one day when no living Canadian can ignore the fact that Canada has some of the finest ingredients and culinary talent—from researchers and producers to home cooks and...chefs—on the planet.... [A]bove and beyond all else, Canadian cuisine is about celebrating our magnificent differences, our roots and our ethnicity. It’s about possibilities, and how we as a people continue to welcome immigrants from all over.... It’s about branding ourselves “Canadian” and giving our producers an unmistakable edge that no other nation can emulate.
473 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think you will find it is the will of this House to pass the bill unanimously.
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:43:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Mark Twain is rumoured to have said this: “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” With this Liberal government, it is no surprise that what we are hearing today is much more of the repetition that we have seen from a tired, out-of-touch Liberal government.
However, talking of history, in 1970, former prime minister John Diefenbaker made some very prescient comments in this very place. He said in debates, at page 208 of Hansard, that:
All over the world, Canada has a black eye. And now what is the government doing? It has recognized a communist China. Well, I can just imagine the deluge of communist spies who will come in here attached to the Chinese embassy, when it opens. They will all masquerade as diplomatic representatives.
Frankly, I wish that Diefenbaker had not been so forward-looking in his comments, because that is what we saw here today.
Earlier today, after far too long of a delay, the government finally declared Zhao Wei persona non grata. However, it should not have taken this long. It should have been done as soon as these allegations came to light. I do not mean last week when it was reported in The Globe and Mail; I mean two years ago when the government was informed of these allegations by CSIS. The moment the government knew from CSIS that a diplomatic representative was using influence and intimidation tactics against a member of the House and his family, two years ago, that diplomat should have been expelled and made persona non grata on the spot.
What we have heard in the last week and a half is this: First, the government denied ever having received the report; then it came to light that, in fact, the government did receive the report. The national security adviser to the Prime Minister received the report; the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, received the report and then sat on it for two years while a member of the House and his family were being intimidated. It is, quite frankly, shameful and disgusting.
The debate at hand today is on a motion of privilege. Now, many Canadians out there may not know the history or the background of what privilege means in today's context, but at its core, the constitutional principle of privilege goes to the heart of our role as parliamentarians and the voice of the people we represent. I want to talk a little bit about the history of parliamentary privilege. More importantly, I want to talk about why that history is important, why that dusty old history matters today, why that concept of privilege that came about in the era of wig-wearing was more common and why that is important today.
Most parliamentarians have their favourite books, and mine is Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition. I want to quote the definition of “privilege” at page 11, paragraph 24. It reads:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.” They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
That is from Sir Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, as quoted in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
The history that got us to this place is not linear. For centuries, Parliament and parliamentarians have used their authority in this place to assert their ability to do the work on behalf of the people they are called here to represent. Indeed, we can reflect back to 1621, when King James I refused to recognize Parliament's authority; in retaliation, the House of Commons said this:
[E]very Member of the House of Commons hath and of right ought to have freedom of speech…and…like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment and molestation (other than by censure of the House itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or parliament business.
That is quoted from the third edition of Bosc and Gagnon.
Instead of recognizing Parliament's privileges, James I retaliated, ordering that the journals of the House of Commons be sent to him. Out of protest, he tore out the offending pages and dissolved Parliament. Therefore, when we talk about parliamentary privilege, we are talking about a history that has long been fraught with challenges from the executive branch of government.
Why does this stodgy old history matter? It matters because parliamentarians need to be able to do their job. We need to speak in this place without fear for our families, without fear of retribution, without fear of foreign entities coming after us.
In fact, let us reflect on the retribution that was targeted at the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Why was he being targeted? It was because he was standing up for human rights around the world. He was standing up against the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. He was standing up against forced labour camps and the persecution, forced sterilization and forced migration of the Uyghur population in China. That was what he was standing up for.
He was standing up to protect the members of the diaspora community here in Canada as well. For this strong, straightforward talk from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, he and his family were targeted. What is worse, the government knew about it. The government knew about it for two years.
It goes against everything that we as parliamentarians ought to stand for. It goes against the principles that we ought to stand for, to see intimidation from a foreign dictatorship.
What is the next step that we need to take as parliamentarians? First, we need a full public inquiry that is independent and has access to all the information that it needs, with a commissioner who is fully independent and is acceptable to all parties in the House of Commons. That is what is needed next. We need to take this and send it to an authority who can get to the bottom of it. Second, we need new legislation in this place that would create a foreign influence transparency registry. Despite such a proposal having been floated for several years, the government has not done this. In fact, its most recent announcement on this was that it is going to hold consultations. It is going to talk about this and maybe, sometime, perhaps get to the point where it could get a foreign influence registry.
This has been talked about already in this House, so I do not need to repeat it, but it makes sense. If domestic entities are required to register in order to lobby government officials, does it not also make sense that a foreign dictatorship ought to do the same? A foreign dictatorship should register to ensure that the people in this place have the opportunity to know who was there, rather than, as we have seen in the past with an entity attached to the Beijing consulate, waiting more than two years before action is taken.
We have known that democracy can only do its work if the people in this place are free and secure to pursue policies and direct the government to take actions that are in the interests of the Canadian people. Erskine May, at chapter 4, reads:
Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature. It is so necessary for the making of laws, that if it had never been expressly confirmed, it must still have been acknowledged as inseparable from Parliament, and inherent in its constitution.
This is about the freedom of speech of members and the freedom of speech employed by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in condemning and calling to task the dictatorship in Beijing regarding its persecution of the Uyghur population.
I draw the House's attention to July 12, 1976, when the Speaker presented the first report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members. In that report, he stated, “The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to allow Members of the House of Commons to carry out their duties as representatives of the electorate without undue interference.”
The next year, on October 29, 1977, the committee presented another report, which stated:
The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.
As the member for Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned earlier today, we need this motion because of the failure of the executive branch of government. The executive branch of government failed to protect members of the House of Commons from foreign influence. By extension, the government has failed to protect all Canadians from the threat of foreign influence.
Indeed, as both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned, within this place, we have a platform that we can raise these issues from. However, who does not have that platform? It is the thousands upon thousands of Canadians of Chinese descent who are being intimidated on a daily basis and facing repercussions from a dictatorship, Beijing, that is intimidating them here on Canadian soil. They are being intimidated by the presence of police stations of a foreign entity that have been allowed to pop up in at least two separate cities and that, in fact, continue to exist after the Minister of Public Safety claimed they had been shut down.
The government has failed to ensure that members of this House were actively and effectively briefed on the intimidation efforts against them. We know that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was one such person, but the reports indicate that more than one member and more than one member's family may have been subject to these negative repercussions. One is too many, but more than one is an absolute indictment of the failure of the government to take seriously the threat of foreign influence in Canada.
This should go without saying, but I am going to say it anyway: The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is an individual of the absolute highest integrity. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has more integrity in his little finger than the entire Liberal cabinet. I do not say that lightly. The fact that members on the side opposite, that government bureaucrats and that entities at the very highest level of government knew and sat on information of such an explosive nature for two years and did nothing is an indictment of the government and of the systems and apparatuses it has set up. They have failed to protect Canadians.
This morning, I was able to bring my children to Parliament Hill. As we did a quick tour, we ran into the Sergeant-at-Arms and the mace. The mace sits at this table in the middle of the House of Commons to show the ability of Parliament to pass laws and conduct its business. Parliament and this House, as one of three constituent parts of Parliament, must be free to undertake their work. It is that freedom, that privilege guaranteed to us by section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that allows us to undertake our work, with the mace being a symbolic representation of that authority.
Individual members must be, as is stated, “free from obstruction, interference, and intimidation”. That has not happened. The executive branch of government has not fulfilled its obligation to ensure that parliamentarians, but more important all Canadians, are protected from the foreign influence we have seen in recent years.
As I begin to wind down my comments, I want to talk about what happens next.
I have the great honour and privilege to serve as the vice-chair of the procedure and House affairs committee. Should this motion pass, it would be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What I want to see at that committee is a full accounting of the government's actions to date. What is more, in addition to a full accounting of what has happened, I want to know what action it has taken to ensure that this will never happen again. What changes have been made, both in the Privy Council Office and with the national security and intelligence adviser, to ensure that nothing like this happens again? I also want to see a full accounting of all information related to any individual member of this House who may have been targeted, and want individual members to receive a full briefing from CSIS on what threats were made against them and who was involved. Each and every diplomat who has been involved in nefarious intimidation tactics on Canadian soil must be held to account and, like Zhao Wei, must be declared persona non grata immediately upon that information coming to light.
Let me be very clear. This motion today is of the utmost importance. It is about the ability of parliamentarians to do our job, to speak out on human rights abuses internationally and to speak out on behalf of Canadian citizens who are being threatened and targeted by a foreign power. We are here today to stand on behalf of each and every one of those Canadians and each every one of those people of Chinese descent being targeted here in Canada by operatives of the Beijing consulate.
2422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite not wanting to revert to my old days as a professor and lecturer in political science, I will explain to the member for Kingston and the Islands that the executive branch of government includes the bureaucratic arm of the government. It includes the national security adviser to—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:05:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I look forward to a follow-up question from the member for Kingston and the Islands.
The fact remains that the Privy Council Office, which is the most senior department in government, a central agency and the Prime Minister's own department, was provided this information. The national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister was provided this information. Katie Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, testified at committee that nothing is kept from the Prime Minister on security matters.
All this taken together means that there has been a clear and, quite frankly, disgusting failure of the government to hold to account those who are trying to influence Canadians.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:06:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know. I do not know why the Prime Minister is not choosing to do the right thing and launch a public inquiry. That is what he needs to do, but he is not doing it. We need a public inquiry to check the information and to ensure that Canadians and parliamentarians will not be targeted.
This is where we need to go. We need to ensure there is a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of the challenges we see today.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:08:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will never apologize for the Conservative Party standing up for all Canadians. We will not apologize for the Conservatives standing up against the threats to our democracy from a foreign regime.
Our leader and our party are standing up on behalf of thousands upon thousands of members of the diaspora community in Canada who are feeling threatened. We are standing up on behalf of former colleagues, former members and candidates who felt intimidation from China, like Kenny Chiu and Bob Saroya. They felt intimidated by foreign influence from Beijing in Toronto and from the dictatorship in Beijing.
We will always stand up for the people being threatened in Canada to make their lives better here in Canada.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:09:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we have an independent, non-partisan inquiry into foreign influence in Canadian elections. The member raised the Trudeau Foundation. The fact is that the Trudeau Foundation accepted a $140,000 gift from the Communist Party in Beijing. It accepted $140,000 in a contribution agreement signed by the Prime Minister's brother. We found out from testimony that the only contribution agreement he signed during his time there was the one linked to the Communist Party in China.
It is high time for a public inquiry. It needs to happen now and the Prime Minister needs to make it happen.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:11:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would never use unparliamentary language. I would say that, on so many occasions, the Prime Minister has been a stranger to the truth.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:11:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I withdraw that.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:12:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, not to put too fine a point on it, but the member's privileges were violated by the Communist dictatorship in China. This is a privilege motion that is focused on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his rights and privileges as a parliamentarian being impacted by the Communist regime in Beijing. That is why we are debating this today. That is why we are here today and that is why this matter takes precedence over all other business of the House.
A question of privilege rises to a level where all parliamentarians focus their minds on the issue. In this case, it is the privileges of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who was targeted by the Communist Party in Beijing.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:13:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it goes back to the fact that this has been a breakdown of the entire executive branch of government. The Minister of Public Safety is just one aspect of the Liberal government, after eight years, not putting measures in place to keep Canadians safe, not being able to get the information to where it needs to go and sitting on information for up to two years when members of this House and Canadians are being threatened.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
