Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant petition dealing with an issue that is very topical. It is that Canadian corporations based in Canada contribute to human rights abuses and environmental damage in other countries. The people who protest these abuses and defend their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed, and in this group are particularly indigenous peoples, women and marginalized groups who are under threat. We know the process set up for observing responsible enterprise of Canadian corporations lacks the tools to actually ensure Canadian corporations do support human rights and operate in ways that make us proud. These concerned citizens ask that the companies be prevented from adverse human right impacts and environmental damage through global operations and supply chains; require companies to do their due diligence, and Canada lacks compared to other countries in requiring companies to do due diligence; assess how their actions may be contributing to human rights abuses; have meaningful consequences for companies that fail to exercise this due diligence; and establish a legal right for people who have been harmed by Canadian corporations operating outside of Canada to seek justice in Canadian courts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to table a petition regarding the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. The petitioners bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Chinese government has waged a nationwide persecution campaign against Falun Gong practitioners. This has resulted in arrests, with many being imprisoned for up to 20 years. They add that this includes torture and abuse. They also indicate that investigators have concluded that tens of thousands of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience have been put to death and that their organs were seized involuntarily for sale at high prices. The petitioners call on this Parliament to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systemically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by constituents and others. They are objecting to medical assistance in dying being used for mental illness. The petitioners believe this is a very drastic step and that medical assistance in dying should not be used for mental health.

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1331, 1332, 1337 and 1341.

With regard to the Department of National Defense (DND): (a) what specific activities were conducted on the former DND site near Burnt Lands Road in Almonte, Ontario; (b) what chemicals were used on the site; (c) what tests were conducted on the site; and (d) what is DND's explanation for the high number of cases of (i) glioblastoma, (ii) other cancers, diagnosed in people who used to live in close proximity to the site? With regard to the Statistics Canada Biobank at the National Microbiology Laboratory: (a) how many Canadians' (i) blood, (ii) urine, (iii) DNA, samples are currently stored there; (b) of the samples in (a), how many have been there for (i) less than a year, (ii) one to three years, (iii) over three years; (c) what are the guidelines and methods used by the Biobank related to how the samples are (i) used, (ii) stored, (iii) disposed of, (iv) anonymized; and (d) what are the timelines for sample disposal? With regard to the Mission Cultural Fund (MCF) since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all spending from this fund, broken down by month, including, for each initiative funded, the (i) name of recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) description of related events; (b) what was the amount spent from the fund, broken down by month; (c) what is the current status of the fund; and (d) if the fund is no longer active, (i) what happened to the remaining money in the fund, (ii) has the government replaced or transitioned the fund with another similar type of program, and, if so, which one? With regard to the Expanded Canada-India Air Transport Agreement announced on November 15, 2022: (a) what was Canada's position regarding the inclusion of Amritsar as part of the list of cities that Canadian carriers would have access to; (b) did Canada advocate to include direct flights to and from the Punjab region as part of the agreement, and, if not, why not; and (c) why was Amritsar not included in the agreement?

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1328 to 1330, 1333 to 1336, 1338 to 1340 and 1342 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

With regard to the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan, broken down by province and territory since their respective agreements were announced: (a) how many new childcare spaces have been created, broken down by non-profit, public and for-profit child care spaces; (b) of the non-profit spaces created, how many are in family-based care; (c) how many early childhood educator (ECE) jobs have been created; (d) how much have average wages increased for ECEs and other child care workers and assistants; (e) how much of the federal investment has been delivered; (f) to date, what is the average fee reduction; and (g) which jurisdictions have submitted annual progress reports and have made these reports available to the public? With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) what was the total amount spent on airport screening; and (b) what was the total amount collected by the government from air travellers security charges? With regard to asylum claims received by the government since 2013, broken down by year: (a) how many asylum claims were received; (b) how many of the claimants arrived via (i) air, (ii) land, (iii) sea, (iv) other or unknown; and (c) of the claimants who arrived via land, how many entered Canada at an official port of entry versus an irregular border crossing? With regard to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) signed by government officials related to COVID-19 vaccine contracts: (a) how many officials were required to sign such agreements; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by job title; and (c) how many of these NDAs are time-limited and how many are indefinite? With regard to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, broken down by year for each of the last three years: (a) what was the number of employees or full time equivalents working at the secretariat, broken down by employee category; (b) what was the total amount spent on (i) salary and benefits, (ii) travel and hospitality; (c) how many meetings were booked; and (d) what are the details of all meetings, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) description, (iv) purpose? With regard to bonuses paid out at Crown corporations in the 2020-21 and the 2021-22 fiscal years, broken down by year and by Crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; and (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive (EX) level (or equivalent), (ii) below the EX level (or equivalent), received bonuses? With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between February 28, 2020, and February 2023: (a) what applications for funding have been approved and what are their details, including, for each, the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application and the amount applied for, (v) date on which the applicant was informed that funding was approved, (vi) date on which a press release was issued regarding the awarding of the funding, (vii) details of any press releases regarding the awarding of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require direct application for the applicant, including, for each, the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application and the amount applied for, (v) date on which the applicant was informed that funding was approved, (vi) date on which a press release was issued regarding the awarding of the funding, (vii) details of any press releases regarding the awarding of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with subgranting government funds (such as Community Foundations of Canada) and what are their details, including, for each, the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application and the amount applied for, (v) date on which the applicant was informed that funding was approved, (vi) date on which a press release was issued regarding the awarding of the funding, (vii) details of any press releases regarding the awarding of funding? With regard to the claim by the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance in the House on March 20, 2023 that, "The increase this year will be one cent per can of beer" in relation to the increase in the alcohol escalator tax: (a) what figures did the minister use to arrive at the one cent per can number; and (b) does the minister have any examples of brands of beer where a 6.3 percent tax increase would only increase the cost by one cent, and, if so, what are they? With regard to government advertising on TikTok: (a) which departments, agencies, Crown corporations or other government entities were advertising with TikTok when the government announced that it would ban TikTok on government devices as of February 28, 2023; (b) for each department that was advertising with TikTok, did they immediately stop all advertising on TikTok, and, if not, why not; (c) for each entity in (a) that did not immediately stop their TikTok advertising, on what date will they cease advertising on TikTok; and (d) how much was spent on advertising on TikTok (i) during the 2022 calendar year, (ii) between January 1, 2023, and February 28, 2023, (iii) since March 1, 2023? With regard to the decision issued by the Pest Management and Regulatory Agency (PMRA) on October 4, 2022, to phase-out the wood preservative Pentachlorophenol by October 4, 2023: (a) what is PMRA's rationale for having different Pentachlorophenol phase-out timelines than the regulators in the United States; (b) which industry stakeholders were consulted by PMRA prior to the decision; (c) what applications for oil-based wood preservative alternatives have been received, but not yet authorized, by Health Canada, including, for each, the (i) applicant, (ii) product description, (iii) stage of each application, (iv) date application was received, (v) expected timeline before a decision on approval is made; and (d) has the PMRA analysed the impact of making such a decision without having a viable oil-based wood preservative alternative, and, if so, what is the expected impact on the (i) supply of treated wood poles, (ii) supply of telecommunications and electricity services, (iii) manufacturers of pressure-treated wood products, (iv) workers of the manufacturers and their families? With regard to the issuing of passports: (a) how many passports were mailed to the wrong address, broken down by month since January 1, 2022; (b) how many reports of individuals receiving (i) a passport with errors, (ii) another individual's passport, has the government received; and (c) what is the protocol when an individual receives another individual's passport in error, including whether or not the Privacy Commissioner is notified?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 2 by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills concerning alleged acts of intimidation by the Government of the People's Republic of China. In his intervention, the member alleged that he was a victim of intimidation by Mr. Wei Zhao, a diplomat representing the People's Republic of China in Canada, who targeted him and his family. He noted that he was made aware of this information following a report by The Globe and Mail the previous day. According to the article, the attempts came in retaliation for a motion that the member moved in February 2021. He asserted that this constituted intimidation of a member in the context of their parliamentary duties and that it also constituted an interference in parliamentary proceedings. He concluded his remarks by suggesting that both these affronts were a breach of the privileges of the House. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby echoed these arguments. The government House leader, while recognizing that foreign interference is a very serious matter, countered that this question of privilege did not rise to the threshold needed to make a prima facie finding. In support of this assertion, the government House leader made the three following points. First, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills failed to raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity, noting that the member could have raised the question of privilege the day before. Second, the alleged intimidation occurred outside of Canada, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. Finally, he argued the claim referenced in The Globe and Mail article was uncorroborated. In an intervention earlier today, the House leader of the official opposition disputed these arguments. In considering this question of privilege, the Chair will address in reverse order both the points raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the government House leader. The timeliness criteria is an important principle of which all members should be mindful when raising a question of privilege. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 145 sets out: The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege. Speaker Milliken, on May 29, 2008, at page 6277 of the Debates, explained how the Chair operationalizes this important principle. In making a prima facie ruling on another question of privilege, he stated: The Chair has always exercised discretion on this point given the need to balance the need for timeliness with the important responsibility members have of marshalling facts and arguments before raising matters of such import in the House. Similar to that question of privilege, and given the gravity of the claims made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the Chair does not find the delay before the question of privilege was raised to be unreasonable. The Chair will now turn to the contention that the apparent intimidation occurred outside of Canada, and that it was not corroborated. It is not clear to the Chair, based on the information presented, where exactly the alleged events occurred or whether these alleged threats were indeed carried out. However, when the Speaker is making a prima facie finding, he is not making a finding of fact. At this stage the Chair is simply indicating that, on its face, the matter appears serious enough to warrant priority of debate. A former clerk of the House, when appearing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 19, 2002, echoed this understanding, and I quote: The Speaker's role ought to be explained, and it is that the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding of fact, it is simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the House warrants priority consideration over all other matters, all other orders of the day that are before the House. I will turn to the issues raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 57, describes the privilege and immunities of the House and its members in such way as to “allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded”. It further refers to, at the same page: “…the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. Threats to intimidate and interfere in a member’s actions can impede their ability to freely carry out their parliamentary duties to the benefit of their constituents and the House. In a past ruling on another matter of intimidation of a member, one of my predecessors noted on March 6, 2012, at page 5835 of the Debates, and I quote, “threats or attempts to influence a member's actions are considered to be breaches of privilege.” The Speaker went on to say, at the same page: These threats demonstrate a flagrant disregard of our traditions and a subversive attack on the most fundamental privileges of this House. On September 19, 1973, in response to a question of privilege regarding the intimidation of a member, Speaker Lamoureux noted one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary privilege at page 6709 of Debates. He stated: I have 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. The Chair will now to address the claim that the actions of Mr. Wei Zhao, directed towards the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, interfered with the proceedings of the House. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills argued that in the attempt to intimidate him, these actions, by extension, also sought to influence others in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. As I said earlier, it is not clear whether the alleged threats were carried out. Indeed, in the present case, the member only became aware of the threats through a newspaper article based on presumed leaks from intelligence authorities, which were subsequently confirmed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The member did not indicate how he was impeded in his parliamentary duties, but he nonetheless considered the threats as real. The Chair has no higher responsibility than to ensure that the rights and privileges of the members, and of the House, are respected. I considered the gravity of the information that has been put before the House, the origins of the information and the potential impact on our parliamentary duties. The Chair agrees that the matter raised by the member, that is that a foreign entity tried to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings through a retaliatory scheme targeting him and his family, squarely touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded. On the face of it, the Chair believes this matter to be serious enough to take priority of debate over all other parliamentary proceedings. Accordingly, the Chair finds this to be a prima facie question of privilege and invites the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to move his motion.

moved: That the prima facie contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your very detailed arguments and significant ruling. I am speaking entirely extemporaneously because I was not exactly certain how you would rule. Allow me to gather my thoughts by beginning to say that the fathers of Confederation in 1867 designed a Constitution that has endured for more than a century and a half. To be sure, it has had certain modifications over the years, the most recent and largest of which was the 1982 patriation and addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fundamental structure of the Constitution remains as it was written over a century and a half ago in 1867. That fundamental construct created a division of power between three different branches of the system: the executive branch, the judicial branch and the legislative branch. The essential balance of power in that system is between the legislative and executive branches of government. As members know, we do not directly elect our government in Canada. The government is appointed. It is appointed by the Crown based on the member of the House that has the majority support of the 338 members of the chamber, and because we do not directly elect our government, as it government is appointed, it becomes even more important that the legislative branch of the system provides for a sufficient accountability mechanism to ensure that Canadians are well governed in between elections. What has transpired here in recent weeks makes it clear that the executive branch of government has failed in its responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians, to protect the safety and security of members of the House and their families. In that context, it becomes even more important for the members of the House and its committees to uphold section 18 of the Constitution Act, which sets in place the rights, privileges and immunities of the legislative branch of our system. I am very comforted by the fact that Parliament has risen to the occasion to take on its role in defending members of the House when the executive branch of government has failed. I hope when the procedure and House affairs committee examines this matter they will look at the totality of evidence that got us to this place, which involves a person in Canada, accredited by the executive branch of government, with more rights than Canadian citizens because, as members know, diplomats are immune from criminal prosecution. We all remember the famous case several years ago under a previous Liberal government where a Russian diplomat tragically mowed down, in the streets of Ottawa, an innocent woman and her friend, leading to the death of that woman. We all remember that then foreign affairs minister John Manley, who, under the terms of the Vienna Convention, rightfully indicated that it was not possible for the diplomat to be arrested and charged in Canada with a criminal offence because the diplomat had more rights than ordinary Canadians, as diplomats do. They are afforded the immunities of diplomacy to do their work. What becomes even more important in that context is that the executive branch outside of law enforcement, outside of Crown prosecution, exercise its prerogatives under article 9 of the Vienna Convention, which makes it clear that the Crown has the right to declare persona non grata any person in Canada for no reason who is a diplomat accredited by the Government of Canada. The executive branch of our system failed in that regard when information came to light that this person in Canada, this person accredited by the executive branch, was targeting MPs by trying to gather information about their families in the PRC. Because the executive branch of government failed, it becomes important for the legislative branch to step up to the plate to defend MPs and their families. That is the wisdom of the constitutional structures that were put in place in 1867, and why I am so comforted, Mr. Speaker, that you have made a decision to find a prima facie case. I will finish by saying this: It is a serious thing to intimidate a member of the House directly or indirectly to affect the outcome of a debate or to affect the outcome of votes in this place. We know, in the last decade or so, that the rise of authoritarianism around the world has put democracies on their back heels, and in that context, it becomes even more important to make it clear that we, as one of the world's oldest, continuous democracies, set an example for all the world to see that we will not be intimidated, that we will not be cowed and that we will stand up for the democratic rights of Canadians as expressed in this place. We will ensure that members and their families are not subject to these foreign interference threat activities. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. I look forward to the deliberations and ultimately to the report and recommendation of the procedure and House affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a very serious issue that I am glad to see the government has finally acted on. However, my concern is that it took weeks of pressure from multiple parties. It took weeks of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills asking for action from the government, yet we did not see this diplomat expelled until just now. I am wondering if the member for Wellington—Halton Hills could talk about a concern that I have, which is how we would know if there were more diplomats. How do we have the transparency and the confidence that this has not been happening with other diplomats or happening in other circumstances to other members and other people within the House?

Mr. Speaker, I have asked myself that question many times in recent weeks. The Prime Minister alone is responsible for the machinery of government, for the organizational structure of the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister is primarily responsible, among all the ministers of the Crown, for national security. The Prime Minister is also primarily responsible for the government's relationship to Parliament. When we take into account the Prime Minister's two primary responsibilities, one for national security and one for the government's relationship to Parliament, and we take into account his sole responsibility for the machinery of government, it is confounding that the government, over recent months, has not come clean with parliamentarians about the threats to themselves and their families, particularly after the story broke in early November of the PRC's interference and threat activities against political candidates, political parties and subsequently against members of the House. It is inexplicable why, after six months, the government has not gotten a handle on the situation. It is very concerning what other information the government knows that it has not communicated to those who are being targeted, and what other information they are not aware of that could be a threat more broadly to the safety and security of this country. However, I think this is a much broader debate, which I hope will be taken up by other committees of the House and by the floor of the House because, as CSIS has indicated for many years, foreign interference threat activities are a national threat. They are a serious threat undermining fundamental rights and freedoms. They undermine our economy. They undermine long-term prosperity. These are not small things, and I think the House and the government needs to be seized with it. Clearly, the House is seized with it. I hope that the government begins to be seized with this matter and gets control over it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to take part in the discussion we are having. It is a good thing the member began his speech by saying that he had not really prepared anything and that he was a bit surprised and was speaking extemporaneously. Without any notes, he accurately quoted our Constitution and outlined the fundamental steps of how our country was created. More importantly, he spoke of the democratic protections we enjoy here in the House, precisely because we are protected by the fact that, in the House, we represent the people, and we must keep it that way. What we have seen over the last few days is proof of courage. This member has shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that even if we are the target of a foreign country, we have to stay on our feet. This is what the member has shown to us today and through the last weeks, if not for the last couple of years. He has shown us courage. This member, who has been a parliamentarian for nearly 20 years, has clearly demonstrated the courage that can and should inspire us in the exercise of our duties. On a more personal note, we know that this member is a serious, rigorous and hard-working man, but he is also a family man. What has this experience been like for his family?

Mr. Speaker, my immediate family here in Canada is okay. We are fine, but, as I have said previously, I cut off communications with my family in the PRC out of an abundance of caution. Clearly, these events are very public. Like other cases involving Canadians who have family in the PRC, or Canadian consular cases in the PRC, these are difficult things to address and deal with. With that all said, I know one thing: We cannot be cowed. We cannot be intimidated by these threats. We have to stand up for the fundamental principles and values that underpin this country and its institutions. As difficult as it may be to stand up for those fundamental principles in the face of intimidation threats, we cannot but take that course. To do otherwise is to undermine these foundational principles, undermine our democracy and hand to our children and grandchildren much weaker institutions that are subject to these subversive and coercive forces. Generations past made very difficult decisions to stand up for these principles. It is our generation's task to do the same thing in the face of a very different threat than previous generations faced.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute the courage of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has demonstrated a great deal of dignity given the situation he has been placed in. As we know, he raised a question of privilege. As a representative of the NDP, I supported his question of privilege. Both of us cited several cases that indicate that this is undoubtedly a question of privilege that should be raised and debated in the House. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills described a situation that clearly demonstrated the importance of this debate. I would like to ask my colleague a question, in addition to thanking him for raising this point in the House of Commons. Does he believe that this now merits a public inquiry as quickly as possible so we can get to the bottom of this?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a public inquiry into the general problem of foreign interference is needed. However, I also know and believe one second thing, which is that we cannot allow the process, whether matters have been referred to NSIRA, NSICOP or a special rapporteur, which could lead to a public inquiry, to prevent us, prevent this chamber or its committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, or prevent the Government of Canada, the executive branch of our system, from taking immediate action in regard to threats that are directed to members and their families or directed to Canadians who are members of diaspora ethnocultural communities. We have to be able to do both: take immediate action and, at the same time, look at some of the systemic problems that have been brought to light over the last number of months, as reports about foreign interference threat activities have surfaced. I say “yes” to a public inquiry, but also “yes” to immediate action, and not delay as a way to prevent action by deflecting to the process of NSIRA, NSICOP or a potential public inquiry.