SoVote

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

May/8/23 2:27:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, if he were paying attention, would have heard that my colleague, the Minister of Global Affairs, convened last week with the Chinese ambassador to make it abundantly clear that we will never tolerate foreign interference. This is consistent with the strong position that Canada has taken when it comes to the conventions around what is legitimate diplomatic activity and what is not. We will continue to put in place the authorities, the people, the resources and the transparency to defend our democratic institutions. I just wonder why it is the leader of the Conservative Party continues to politicize an issue that is a Canadian issue.

112 words

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/8/23 5:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his role as chair of the national defence committee. I appreciate his support for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and for the ruling that was made earlier today. This situation was originally brought to the attention of the government two years ago, and the government failed to act. We know that the national security adviser at the time in the Prime Minister's Office received this report. We know that the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was targeted by a diplomat in the PRC consulate in Toronto. However, I would like to get the member's opinion on why the intelligence was not acted upon by the government side of the House, where he sits, to address this very scary situation for the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and, more importantly, the attack on democracy. How was Zhao Wei allowed to continue to operate here for the last 48 months unimpeded with his diplomatic immunity? How many other Canadians was he able to intimidate over that time?

184 words

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

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

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Ms. Heather McPherson

May/8/23 10:43:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member, which again, does not happen very often. I am also very concerned about some of the levels of diplomatic corps we have within this country. I will say that our diplomatic corps was absolutely decimated under the Harper Conservatives. We never built back after the number of embassies that were closed under the Harper Conservatives and the selling of our embassy in the U.K. People wonder why we do not have the same number of diplomatic staff in the U.K., but we sold the building. The fact that it was decimated under Harper, and the Conservatives are standing up to say that they wish we had more diplomatic corps for some of these countries, is a little rich. That said, I do agree with the member. I do not understand the numbers that we see for China, Russia and some of these countries. Really, we should have serious concerns about their interference in our democratic institutions.

165 words

Context: House Hansard - 192 - May/8/23

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/8/23 11:41:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I join this debate tonight with a bit of a heavy heart. I look back at being elected in 2019 and wanting the full opportunity to represent the people of Regina—Lewvan. This is the second debate where we are talking about the foundation of our democracy and what the people of Canada sent us here to do. The first debate was around the Emergencies Act in February of 2022. The second one is this evening, where we are talking about the fact that a member of Parliament and his family, because of a vote in this place, have been harassed by a foreign diplomat, who tried to create foreign interference by the Communist Party in Beijing. We need to look back to see how we got here, first of all. I was always told as a young kid growing up is that if one does not learn from one's history, one is bound to repeat it. On the very important debate we had on the Emergencies Act, the NDP supported it and the Liberals invoked it on Canadians. On this one, it is about an MP being harassed, but it is not just about an MP. Throughout the Chinese diaspora in Canada, lots of people have faced the same things the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills has. He is not just standing up for himself, he is standing up for all Canadians who have gone through harassment. I started to talk about learning from our history. My friend from Perth—Wellington started down this path a little. I also brought up some of the debate from the House of Commons when the War Measures Act was invoked on October 16, 1970. There are some words by the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker I would like to put on the record that run parallel to the discussion we are having this evening. Mr. Diefenbaker said: All over the world, Canada has a black eye. And now what is the government doing? It has recognized 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. With the United States alongside us, we have not yet seen anything of what will happen when this group comes to Canada and begins its active responsibility which is to destroy Canada from within and, as well, undermine the United States. Mr. Diefenbaker goes on to say: The minister said yesterday that what Canada has done will have great influence in the United Nations. Well, and I think this expression is to be ascribed to Mao, for anyone to suggest that communism and the western world can coexist side by side is as ridiculous as endeavouring to fry an iceberg. And that is the situation. They are coming and we have seen happening up to now will be as nothing. This was a speech given in this very chamber in 1970. The discussion we are having now as parliamentarians is how we can expel foreign influence not only on our elections but on our government as well. It is something every Canadian should be taking very seriously because it is affecting our lives on a daily basis. This particular motion, which my colleagues have been talking about all evening, is part and parcel of our opposition day motion delivered a few days ago. This House voted to pass our opposition day motion and had support from the other opposition parties. The motion talked about four things: (a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America; (b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference; (c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada; and (d) expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy. Lord only knows what the reason was, but it took until this afternoon after question period for the government to finally make the Chinese diplomat from Beijing persona non grata for the harassment of a member of Parliament because of a vote he made in this House. That vote was on the motion that we brought forward on the Uyghurs in China and the genocide happening to the Uyghurs in that country. All of us voted in favour of that motion to make sure that that was recognized, and that those human atrocities could be talked about on the floor of the House of Commons, where they should be talked about. The disappointing thing about that was that the Liberal front benches did not even pick a side or even get in the game. They abstained from the vote, which is shameful. We should always be on the side of right when it comes to human rights. That is something Conservatives have always been proud supporters of. It is one of the principles we extol across the country and around the world, making sure that we support people in their time of need. Another thing I would like to put on the record is the fact that this is not just about the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is about so many people in the 2019 and 2021 campaigns who felt bullied into not being able to vote for the person they wanted to vote for, which is fundamental to our Westminster system of democracy. It is one person, one vote, and the freedom to chose who governs them. That is something we should all stand up for and continue to push for. When we ask for a foreign agent registry, it is so that we can have a free and open democratic process. As a member of Parliament and as a former MLA, it is something that is close to my heart. That is what we do; we try to earn support. I remember our leader talking to a lady at one of his rallies. She was just amazed, because in the country she came from, people never got that close to a politician. People never got close to the people who were elected. In other countries, politicians are insulated from the people they represent. A great thing about Canada is that we are not insulated from the people we represent. It is a point of pride for us. We do not need a big security detail to go out in our riding. We do not need to have security systems installed in all of our homes, because this is the House of Commons. It is for the common people to come and make decisions on behalf of everyone else in our country. It is a point of pride for us to not be seen as above everyone else. On our side of the House, Conservatives take this to heart each and every day. We make sure we stay grounded, not out of touch. We believe the Liberal government has fallen out of touch with everyday, hard-working Canadians, whether it be in the oil and gas sector or the agricultural sector. It is because we stay in touch with the people we represent that we are able to bring their concerns to the chamber. So many different times today, I heard the member for Kingston and the Islands say that people take it for granted that every person in this place is going to be telling the truth. We said that people should take the member for Wellington—Halton Hills at his word when he said that he was never briefed on the specifics of what was happening to him through the Beijing diplomat who was harassing him and his family. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that if we take the member for Wellington—Halton Hills at his word, we should expect the truth from the member for Papineau. I served with a lovely lady in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Her name is Doreen Eagles, and she was a long-serving member for Estevan. She had one of the best quotes I have ever heard, either here or in the Saskatchewan chamber. She said, to the Speaker in the Saskatchewan legislature, that the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour. We can be forgiven, on this side, if we sometimes do not take the member for Papineau at his word, because we have heard, time and time again, that a reporter experienced it differently, that he did not mean to elbow the NDP member during a ruckus in the House of Commons, that there was nothing to see with SNC-Lavalin, that Jody Wilson-Raybould got it wrong, or that Celina Caesar-Chavannes did not understand the conversation they had together. There are so many situations that we could put forward from the member for Papineau's past behaviour that would perhaps indicate that his future behaviour may not be on par with what we think likely happened in this situation. Over the last week, we have seen the government change its story several times. First of all, we had a couple of members say that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew what happened and should have brought it forward sooner, over the last two years, which we know is categorically false. Second of all, at the Liberal convention this past weekend, we saw the current Minister of Public Safety say that CSIS should have brought it forward, and it is not the government's fault that CSIS did not bring it forward to them. I say “current” because I think he is in some trouble. That, once again, came to be categorically false; the security adviser to the PMO said that they got the briefing. I wonder if the Minister of Public Safety thinks it is actually CSIS's job to go and read the briefing to the Prime Minister or to him. Yes, it is story time. We know because we have experienced this. We saw that the government hired storytellers a couple of years ago to actually tell Canadians a story about how well they are doing. Perhaps the Liberals thought CSIS was supposed to tell them the story of what happened with the national security breach, because they did not have time to read their briefings. The Toronto Sun, which I do not quote often, has an article that brings up some questions. Every Canadian should think about this over the next couple of days when we are discussing the foundation of democracy and whether people can make free choices without harassment from foreign governments. The reporter ends with this: The report was sent to the government as they were gearing up for the 2021 election, making this issue public at that time could have created sympathy for the Conservatives. It’s easy to imagine Canadians being outraged at China targeting a Canadian MP for voting to condemn China’s genocide of the Uighurs, a clear stand for human rights. Did the Liberals opt not to deal with this report for partisan reasons? Were they so focused on beating the Conservatives that they ignored attacks by a foreign government on our democracy? These questions should be unthinkable. We should expect that all politicians would put country over party. It’s not clear, given what we’ve learned over the last week, that we can assume that anymore. Asking whether the lack of action was partisan in nature is entirely acceptable given the circumstances. Canadians should take that and mull it over for a bit. What if a government had a harassment claim with respect to a member of Parliament because of a position he took on the side of human rights, and it sat on that for another couple of years for partisan reasons? I hope that would never happen in this country. However, it is an interesting question that the reporter from the Toronto Sun puts forward in his article today. For this, we really have to understand how far we have come in the divisiveness of politics in this country. I started by saying that there are two times when I stood in this chamber thinking about what our democracy would look like not 10 or 15 years from now but in two or three years. We have had people come to Ottawa asking for their voices to be heard only to have the other side actually create a division, where it treated them as second-class citizens and then invoked the Emergencies Act to make sure it could deal with them swiftly. Is that the right word? I am not quite sure. I remember standing in this House giving a speech about Tommy Douglas. I know the NDP supported invoking the Emergencies Act, and I remembered something Tommy Douglas said in 1960. When the elder Trudeau invoked the act in 1960, Tommy Douglas said it was like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. I would suggest that many New Democrats would have felt the same way, but the group that they have in the chamber today decided to support it. Then the government went on to freeze people's bank accounts as well, which is something I never thought I would see in this country. If we fast forward to now, I do not think we have learned many lessons on how to perhaps cradle democracy and keep it a bit safer. We are talking about a ruling by the Speaker that a prima facie case was found that a member of Parliament was harassed to the point that his family overseas was threatened because he was doing his job. Many Canadians have gone through this, from B.C. and across the country, in Toronto and Quebec. What has happened in 2023 in this country is really unimaginable. Another item in the Conservative motion that was passed by the opposition parties talks about Beijing-run police stations in Canada. I remember when the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood stood up to talk about there being one close to his riding as well. We asked him if he had brought that forward to the minister. Obviously, he said yes. The minister stood up and said that these Beijing-run Communist police stations in Canada were going to be closed immediately. The member for Kingston and the Islands stood up and said that the government was going to close them immediately. I asked him if he knew what the definition of “immediately” was, because the government seems to move a bit slower than some Canadians would like. The fact there is a foreign country running police stations in Canada is unacceptable, full stop. They should be shut down immediately. Not one person should be detained in these police stations because they should have no authority in our country. I remember one of the first emails I got on this was a couple of years ago. At first, I thought people were joking because, from my standpoint, being a provincial politician, policing is a big part of provincial jurisdiction. Then, when moving into the public service federally, I did not understand how a foreign country could even, first of all, start and then operate a police station on Canadian soil. What kind of jurisdiction would it even have? Then we learned more about certain people with origins in different countries being targeted and harassed to make sure they are doing what their home country thinks they should be doing. What I would say to people now is that we need to stand up for democracy in our country. We need to make sure that the things that happened to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills never happen again. That starts with going forward with our motion, having a public inquiry to get to the bottom of everything that happened over the last couple of years, and making sure that we have this motion go to PROC, which I hope the Liberals will vote for. If the Speaker has found a prima facie case, it would be unheard of for the government to vote against it and, quite frankly, ridiculous. We need to make sure this goes to PROC so it can be fully studied. We especially need a public inquiry into foreign interference in our elections so Canadians can have faith in our democratic system.

2757 words