SoVote

May/8/23 3:36:41 p.m.
Watch

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.

1283 words

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

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/8/23 4:02:40 p.m.
Watch

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?

143 words

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

Mr. John Nater

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

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

Hon. Mike Lake

May/8/23 7:46:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have a chance tonight, at the end of this debate, to right that wrong. Will the member support the motion to have PROC study this point of privilege from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?

39 words

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

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/8/23 7:47:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am certainly happy to rise, although three minutes late because of some of the shenanigans arising in this place this evening on this very important issue. Before I begin, I want to thank the Chair for the ruling today on the question of privilege from the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is an extremely important issue that we are debating here tonight. It has far-reaching consequences, not just for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but also for those Canadians in the Chinese diaspora who have felt the threats of intimidation, the harassment and the fear of the Communist regime in Beijing's interfering in almost every aspect of their lives. We are here tonight not just because of the question of privilege, but also because there are questions that need to be answered. The hope is that the motion presented by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, to have the PROC committee look into this, will find some of those answers. Some of those questions are these: Who knew, when did they know and what did they do about it? With recent reports in the media, particularly in The Globe and Mail with information that is seemingly being provided to it by the security establishment, there are many facts related to this case that are indisputable. First, we now know that the government knew about these threats almost two years ago. We know that there has been foreign intimidation of Chinese diaspora members for several elections now. We also know, according to the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, that the government did receive a report from CSIS saying that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family were facing threats. They were facing threats not just here in Canada, but were facing threats also, by extension, in Hong Kong. Those facts are indisputable. There is no amount of standing up and elevating our voices that will dispute those facts. Therefore, the question remains: What, if anything, did the government do about it? We found out today, and over the course of the last week, through lines of questioning, that it has done nothing about it. It has done nothing with this information over the course of the last two years. The impact of that is significant, not just for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He is a member of Parliament and enjoys certain privileges as a member of Parliament, not the least of which is the expectation of security being provided by the government. All Canadians should expect that. If this can happen to a member of Parliament because of a position they have taken with a vote or multiple votes, what about the members within the Chinese diaspora in Canada who come to this country to be free of intimidation, to be free of fear and to be free of harassment? We have heard that there are many members of the Chinese community, Chinese Canadians, who are being intimidated and harassed, and who, quite frankly, are afraid. We have also heard of the interference of the Chinese regime with respect to cultural associations within this country, infiltrating and setting up police stations within this country to keep track of those in the Chinese diaspora, to promote fear, to intimidate and to harass them. The consequences of what we are discussing today are far-reaching. Let us think about this: A member of Parliament, or any Canadian, for that matter, wakes up in the morning on a Monday and finds out through The Globe and Mail, through reports from our intelligence infrastructure, that the person's family, for over two years, has faced threats, intimidation and harassment. Think of the fear this instills in anyone, not just a member of Parliament. Think of the fact that the member has children. What if the Chinese consulate and this now-exiled Chinese diplomat had conducted a campaign of gathering information on his family and his children, having access, perhaps, to his Internet and his family's Internet? This is why this is so egregious and why we are seized with this issue tonight. The member's privileges have been breached. I hope that the procedure and House affairs committee can get to the bottom of this and find out exactly what is going on and what happened to this member and to his extended family in Hong Kong. As I mentioned earlier, it is not just a member of Parliament. There are countless stories, thousands within the Chinese diaspora, among those who came to the country to flee persecution and fear, to be able to practise their own faith and political freedom in this country. They are dealing with the same issues as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills; maybe they are not doing so as publicly, but they are dealing with them. One thing that we are doing at the ethics committee is studying the issue of foreign interference. One of the first panels of witnesses we had involved those within the Chinese diaspora who are facing this harassment, these fears and these intimidation tactics by the Chinese government. This is how we got to this point with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. If we recall, in February of 2021, there was a motion put before the House to declare the human rights abuse of the Uyghur Muslim community in China as a genocide. It received majority support in the House. In fact, some of the Liberals voted for it. However, can we say who did not vote for it and actually abstained? It was the entire cabinet of the government of this country. Marc Garneau sat in this place and abstained on behalf of the cabinet. I am going to call it for what it was. It was a gutless move. When the government had a chance to stand up for human rights and call out the Beijing Communist regime for the human rights abuses of the Muslim Uyghurs, it hightailed it out of this place. It did not even have the decency to vote. However, who voted for the motion? It was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and every other member of Parliament, with the exception of cabinet. For that, the member was targeted; he faced a campaign of harassment, fear and intimidation. Who carried out this campaign? It was the very person who got kicked out today. The government has known about this for two years. It had two years to act; however, with diplomatic immunity, this agent of the Chinese Communist regime was able to run amok around this country. We know about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, about the intimidation and the fear that he faced. How many other Canadians faced the same tactic by this diplomat over the course of the last two years? By extension, in other countries, such as Hong Kong, how many other family members were intimidated? When we had that panel come to the ethics committee, it was sobering. We heard a former colleague, Kenny Chiu, talk about this fear and intimidation tactic on the part of Chinese Beijing officials. He talked about this misinformation and disinformation campaign that was executed against members of this place during the last couple of elections. We heard from Mehmet Tohti, one of the foremost defenders of human rights of Uyghur Muslims in China. He lives in this country, and he told us a story of phoning his relatives in China and having Beijing Communist officials picking up the phone. They just wanted to intimidate him and to let him know that they were there, in case he wanted to continue this campaign of speaking out against human rights abuses toward the Muslim community in China. This is what we are dealing with. This is the reason for this debate tonight. It is why it is so important for the procedure and House affairs committee to deal with this issue. It is why the ethics committee is dealing with foreign interference. There is another committee of Parliament dealing with foreign interference, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the government will not launch an independent inquiry about this. I have sat through most of this debate today, since the point of privilege was read out by the Speaker. I have heard members from the government side talk about the politicization of this issue. However, one way to not politicize this issue is to have an independent public inquiry so that we can get information on the depths, the infiltration and the impact that foreign interference from the Beijing Communist regime is having on this country. This is something the government does not want to do. However, it is time for the truth to be known. We have put forward motions. They were approved of by opposition parties in this place. However, the government voted against them. I have the utmost respect for the former governor general, Mr. Johnston. In the eight years of my time here, I have gotten to know Mr. Johnston. I travelled to Vimy Ridge for the 100th anniversary of Vimy with him. He is a decent man, and I do not think anybody should be impugning his character. However, Mr. Johnston is too closely connected to the family and to the Trudeau Foundation to have any sort of independent view on whether a public inquiry should be had. It is not just opposition members who are speaking about this. A majority of Canadians are speaking about the same thing. We need an independent inquiry, and we need the Prime Minister to call it now. This pandering to the Chinese Communist regime on the part of the Canadian government seems to be a pattern. It effectively started, as we are finding out through our study in committee, when the Prime Minister won the leadership of the Liberal Party, well in advance of his becoming the prime minister. There was a $140,000 donation that was procured and negotiated by the brother of the Prime Minister, Alexandre Trudeau; he actually signed the cheque. We had him at committee last week, and it was the first time in the history of the Trudeau Foundation receiving a cheque that the Prime Minister's brother was actually involved in it. Therefore, he had a lot to do with it and a lot of say in the $140,000 donation. A question has arisen about the receipt that was issued. The receipt was issued to an individual in Beijing, yet the donation was made through a company located in China. We started seeing a pattern of influence and infiltration by the Chinese Communist regime at around the time the Prime Minister won the leadership of the Liberal Party. The donors of those cheques had access to the Prime Minister shortly after he became the Prime Minister. Therefore, a lot of questions are being raised about the connection between the Liberal Party and the Chinese Communist regime. Of course, it has been well documented that the Prime Minister said that he had a basic admiration for China and the Chinese regime. We started to see very early on, when he won the leadership of the Liberal Party, that the pattern of pandering and infiltration was starting to work its way through the Liberal Party. Therefore, it is not surprising to me when we see the evidence starting to mount about this. We have also seen some other things related to China. Members will recall the Winnipeg lab incident, the information related to that and how the government fought so hard to make sure that this information was kept under wraps. It required a court challenge on the part of the Speaker to get that information. I mentioned the Trudeau Foundation and the failure to recognize cabinet stepping away from its obligation to stand up in this place and be counted, actually abstaining from a vote on the Uyghur Muslim genocide. We have illegal police stations that are still operating in this country. We have donations to election candidates. We saw over $70,000 donated to one riding in this country within a 48-hour period. The donations came from right across the country; they were not even part of the riding. We have heard stories through CSIS and, again, through The Globe and Mail, where these donations were actually paid back by the Chinese consulate. We have CSIS documentation, CSIS reports, through The Globe and Mail, about involvement in choosing candidates. Of course, we have heard about what happened in the 2019 and 2021 elections. It was well documented in 2021. We have had former members of Parliament talk about their experiences during those campaigns and how difficult it was to get their message out. People who had traditionally supported them within the Chinese community were now not supporting candidates because of the level of disinformation and the misinformation campaign that has been directly attributed to those consulates. They were acting to undermine not only our democratic institutions but also the electoral process in this country. Today, and I would like to say as a result of the motion that we put forward, we saw the government act. Over a week after the news came out about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, we finally saw the government act and consider a Chinese consulate official persona non grata, expelling this official two years too late. When this information first came out two years ago and the government was made aware of it, as the national security adviser told the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, there should have been no question about what the government was going to do with this individual. He should have been expelled. As I said earlier, he has had two years now to continue this campaign of harassment, intimidation and inciting fear, not just in terms of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and perhaps other MPs in this place, but also in terms of the Chinese diaspora in this country. Those citizens of Canada who have come here from China do not have the platform that we do, as members of Parliament. They do not have the platform of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. They cannot stand up in this place and ask the Speaker to rule on a point of privilege based on newspaper and CSIS reports. From what we have heard at committee, many of them live in fear. They do not participate in the electoral process because of the fear of retribution by those agents who are acting in this country on behalf of the Beijing Communist regime. What kind of country have we descended to when we cannot even protect, not just our own citizens, but a sitting member of this House because he or she stands for what is right, standing up against human rights abuses in China? It is a sad indictment that we are actually at this point. It is sad that the government does not see the seriousness of this issue, where they would call an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. That is what is needed. We need somebody who is not connected in any way, shape or form, to either the family or the foundation to make that decision. We are seeing more stories, more accusations and more pathways that our committees could go down. We are going to see those things over the next little while. However, the only pathway that they lead to is an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this so that we can deal with the issue of foreign interference once and for all.

2634 words

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

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/8/23 8:09:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I have always admired his sense of public interest and his perspective on our debates, which is very helpful. All the examples he just gave, such as the police stations and the Trudeau Foundation, and everything he said in his speech, show that democracy is under attack. In his opinion, how did we get here? How did we get to the point that we have to vote on such an issue?

96 words

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

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/8/23 8:14:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues at play here with this privilege motion. One of the ones we need to talk about more is trust and the trust that Canadians should have but do not have in the government. Trust is declining in the institutions around Parliament and the government in general here in Canada. Can the member elaborate on how properly dealing with this motion here today can help rebuild trust in the institutions that Canadians have? It is because they know the opposition parties are working closely together to make sure we get the best possible outcome from a motion such as this today.

108 words

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

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/23 9:46:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Huron—Bruce makes an excellent point. This is exactly why the question of privilege was raised. This also affects every other member in the House. That is why we need a further thoughtful study at committee. I look forward to the results of that study and whatever comes from it. Tomorrow is another day, and we are sure to learn new information.

70 words

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

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

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