44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 3:48:06 p.m.
- Watch
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.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 10:44:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week The Globe and Mail uncovered a 2021 report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service outlining how Canada had become a high priority for interference by the Chinese Communist government. It highlighted how my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, had had his family in Hong Kong targeted in retaliation for his vote on a motion in the House that recognized Beijing's genocide of Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province.
Since that time, the Speaker has ruled that a prima facie case of contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by a now expelled diplomat against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills indeed took place. That is what brings us here tonight.
Thinking back to that vote on the Uyghur Muslims, the Minister of International Trade, the member for Markham—Thornhill, was so concerned about voting against the Conservative motion, which outlined the genocidal acts of China, that she called into the Speaker's chair remotely to change her vote. I remember fondly and sadly that the entire Liberal cabinet refused to stand up for Uyghur Muslims and abstained from the vote.
Opposition motions have consequences. I think if we were to think of one that has had a major consequence, it is this one. Since that vote, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has had his family targeted for standing up for what he believes in. As a Canadian, it pains me to think that a member of this chamber was intimidated by a foreign government for taking a stand in our country. That is shameful.
As I mentioned in the House of Commons last week, I believe some of the challenges we have faced with respect to foreign interference could have been better handled by the current government, which has been in power for seven and a half years. Indeed, the member for Kingston and the Islands has repeatedly stated throughout the debates over the last week that if only the leader of the official opposition had acted in 2013, if only Stephen Harper would have done more, we would not find ourselves where we are today. The fact of the matter is that it was the current government that created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
In 2019, it released a report which outlined a number of concerning facts in “Chapter 2: The Government Response to Foreign Interference”. It notes, that while “Canada's allies have identified interference as a significant threat and have initiated various countermeasures...foreign interference in Canada has received minimal media and academic coverage, and is not part of wider public discourse.”
I will note that since the release of this report in March of 2020, things have changed quite substantially in Canada, but it bears repeating that this non-partisan committee, which only issues statements if all members of the committee agree with it, was able to outline a number of serious threats which completely relate to the prima facie case against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when his family was threatened by a foreign government.
Finding eight specifically in the report states, “Some foreign states conduct sophisticated and pervasive foreign interference activities against Canada.” Two countries that were repeatedly referenced were China and Russia. The report goes on to note, “Those activities pose a significant risk to national security, principally by undermining Canada's fundamental institutions and eroding the rights and freedoms of Canadians.”
Finding nine in the report states, “CSIS has consistently conducted investigations and provided advice to government on foreign interference.” Finding 10 states, “Throughout the period under review, the interdepartmental coordination and collaboration on foreign interference was case-specific and ad hoc. Canada's ability to address foreign interference is limited by the absence of a holistic approach to consider relevant risks, appropriate tools and possible implications of responses to state behaviours.”
The issuance of this report was really not too far off from when we had the vote condemning the genocide in China against Uyghur Muslims. Finding 11 in the report states, “Foreign interference has received historically less attention in Canada than other national security threats.”
Finding 12 states:
Government engagement on foreign interference has been limited.
With the exception of CSIS outreach activities, the government's interaction with sub-national levels of government and civil society on foreign interference is minimal.
Paragraphs 256 and 267 state this directly.
Finding 12 continues:
Engagement is limited in part by the lack of security-cleared individuals at the sub-national level.
There is no public foreign interference strategy or public report similar to those developed for terrorism or cyber security.
Those points can be found at paragraphs 289-291.
Finding 13 in the report states, “Canada is working increasingly with its closest allies and partners to address foreign interference.” This, of course, is essential, but in the case that we are debating here tonight, it did not come soon enough. The committee made a number of recommendations on actions the government could take to combat foreign interference; however, not a single one of them has been comprehensively addressed since this report was tabled in 2020.
The fifth recommendation suggests that:
The Government of Canada develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign interference and build institutional and public resiliency. Drawing from the Committee's review and findings, such a strategy should:
a) identify the short- and long-term risks and harms to Canadian institutions and rights and freedoms posed by the threat of foreign interference;
b) examine and address the full range of institutional vulnerabilities targeted by hostile foreign states, including areas expressly omitted in the Committee's review;
c) assess the adequacy of existing legislation that deals with foreign interference, such as the Security of Information Act or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and make proposals for changes if required;
d) develop practical, whole-of-government operational and policy mechanisms to identify and respond to the activities of hostile states;
e) establish regular mechanisms to work with sub-national levels of government and law enforcement organizations, including to provide necessary security clearances;
f) include an approach for ministers and senior officials to engage with fundamental institutions and the public; and
g) guide cooperation with allies on foreign interference.
The sixth recommendation suggests that:
The Government of Canada support this comprehensive strategy through sustained central leadership and coordination. As an example of a centralized coordinating entity to address foreign interference, the Committee refers to the appointment and mandate of the Australian National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator.
This is an example of what Canada could be doing.
I will note as a side point that the committee even found it necessary to re-highlight the egregious actions of the Prime Minister during his visit to India in 2018, calling on cabinet ministers to be reminded of the expectations described in the government's own “Open and Accountable Government” document that it tabled in 2015.
In conclusion, the government spent the entire week blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and peddling a false narrative that the member knew what took place and that he was somehow guilty for what happened. I am glad that Parliament has ruled in favour of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and found that, indeed, his privileges as a member of Parliament, which I know all of us in this chamber hold sacred, were challenged.
NSICOP has outlined comprehensive steps, as I have tried to remind the chamber tonight. We have a lot to do, but until the government seriously considers taking these steps, we will not see comprehensive action or have the abilities, as legislators in society as a whole, to combat foreign actors when they try to intervene in Canada's personal affairs.
1312 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:06:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate tonight. I will start, as I did on Thursday, with an expression of solidarity with and admiration for our colleague in the House. I say “our colleague” and not “our Conservative colleague”. Our colleague is a member of Parliament, the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, who has done great work representing his constituents and standing up for our country in the House for almost 20 years, so it is important to start there.
Right now, and it might be lost on folks tuning in and wondering what we are talking about at this late hour, we are debating a motion that states, “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.” The Speaker ruled today, in his ruling on parliamentary privilege, that there was a contempt of Parliament.
Now we are debating whether the House committee that studies these things would take this up. That is what we are debating today. I find it really interesting that almost no Liberals have actually spoken in the debate today, and when they have spoken, we have not known what their position is. No one has signalled what their individual position is or what the party position is. For the most part, when Liberals have gotten up and spoken, it has been to sow chaos, quite frankly, to raise random points of order and to weigh in in that way, not to contribute to the conversation in any way or to stand up for the privileges of a member, and therefore for the privileges of all members of the House of Commons.
Today, as has been referenced several times in the House, we voted on a Conservative motion that we debated last Thursday. Interestingly, in a rare show of agreement, Conservative, Bloc, NDP and Green members voted together on what seemed like a very straightforward motion; it was very much common sense if people have been following what is going on. There is some preamble that lays out the situation. It is not overly political, and there are four main points.
The motion is calling on the government to “(a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America”. That seems pretty reasonable right now. It continues with “(b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference”. We have been talking about foreign election interference for some time, for months now, in the House. Next, it states, “(c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada”. For most Canadians, hearing me say that will be alarming, because they would wonder how in the world any government would allow that to happen. The motion ends with “d) expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy”. That is something that most Canadians would think would be common sense, and most Canadians, again, would be surprised to understand that the first such diplomat was expelled only today. That is what has led us to this point in the House.
Thursday was interesting, because, as I mentioned, it would be surprising to most people that those were the four points that we passionately debated in the House. The government, like all members, was given notice that there was going to be a debate, so parties and individual members could get prepared for that debate and understand what their individual and party positions might be. I certainly came to the House expecting to have a passionate debate about something really important, but I expected that all members would rally together to understand the gravity of what we were talking about. Then we got to the House, and it was very clear that most of the members from most of the parties of the House came expecting to have that reasonable debate in the interest of Canadians, understanding the gravity of the situation. However, Liberal members came to the House with what seemed to be a coordinated strategy. There is no other explanation, because it seemed like a deliberate strategy to just cause chaos in the House.
The Liberals have two parliamentary secretaries to the House leader. They are both very well known to members of the House, and both of them undertook a strategy, and it was a very clear strategy, to actually call into question the credibility of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
790 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hope is that tomorrow, when people have had some more time maybe on the government side to think about what we are debating today, we will see some Liberal speakers stand up and share their own thoughts and share what they are hearing from constituents on the specifics of the motion.
Again, I will remind the House that we had the motion today, and the Liberals voted against it. The Liberals voted against creating a foreign agent registry, establishing a national public inquiry, closing down the People's Republic of China-run police stations operating in Canada and expelling all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible. They voted against that today.
Now we are discussing something very specific to the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills: “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.” I hope that when it comes to the debate on that issue tomorrow, we will get a chance to hear what Liberal members of Parliament think about this violation of parliamentary privilege.
I will remind Liberal members, all members of the House and Canadians that when we are talking about parliamentary privilege, when we are talking about the privileges of a member being contravened in the way we are talking about here, we are not just talking about a member of Parliament from one political party, or even members of Parliament from all political parties. When the privileges of members of Parliament are contravened in that way, we are talking about the roots of our democracy. We are talking about the ability of that particular member of Parliament to serve his constituents.
We can all, obviously, understand the importance of our constituents and our ability to serve democracy, serve our country, by coming here and debating important issues like this on behalf of our constituents. For doing that, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was clearly threatened and intimidated and had his family threatened and intimidated. I would hope that all members of the House, regardless of party affiliation, can understand that, come to the House and debate that passionately, and hopefully vote in favour of ensuring that this gets a proper hearing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:34:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am hoping we can elevate the debate a little bit back to privileges. I am on chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”, and it says:
Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.
Although, I do feel that we are being impeded tonight by not being able to stand and ask questions in a timely manner. I will just say that because it is interesting how things are going back and forth tonight on such an important topic.
Part of the privileges is really not necessarily for a specific member. It is for members to be able to represent their constituents in a secure and safe manner. I just wanted to know if the member could expand on, for people who might be watching this late night debate, why it matters so much that we do get this piece of investigation to PROC to get something done about it.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
