44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2023 10:00AM
- May/2/23 3:42:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, further to the notice that I gave earlier today concerning revelations published in The Globe and Mail yesterday. These concern efforts by a diplomat of the People's Republic of China, accredited by the Government of Canada, to target me and my family as a consequence of my February 22, 2021 vote on the Conservative opposition day motion, which I moved, condemning the government of the People's Republic of China and its treatment of the Uyghur minority as a genocide.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at pages 107 to 108, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member’s actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.” This is long-standing and well-established procedure and principle of the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to an April 12, 1733 resolution of the British House of Commons, which states, “That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing of any member of this House in his coming to or going from the House or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.”
To be clear, this privilege is not being asserted, nor do I assert it today, against any Canadian who exercises his or her fundamental democratic right to enter into political debate and criticize elected members of the House for the stands they take. Joseph Maingot, at page 235 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, articulates the appropriate balance between free debate and intimidation and coercion. He states:
All interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege, even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case.
Here are the facts of the present case. Yesterday's Globe and Mail reported that the government of the People's Republic of China “sees Canada as a ‘high-priority target’ and employs ‘incentives and punishment’ as part of a vast influence network directed at legislators, business executives and diaspora communities in this country, according to a top secret intelligence assessment from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service”. Later on in the report, Robert Fife and Steven Chase write:
The report, People's Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat, lists several examples of Chinese influence operations aimed at the opposition Conservative Party.
It says CSIS reporting from 2021 indicates that China's intelligence agency, the Ministry of State Security (MSS), ‘has taken specific actions to target Canadian MPs’ who are linked to the February 2021 parliamentary motion condemning Beijing's oppression of Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities. The motion, which passed, declared China's conduct to amount to genocide.
The spy agency said an MSS officer sought information on an unnamed Canadian MP's relatives ‘who may be located in the PRC, for further potential sanctions.’ This effort, the CSIS report said, ‘is almost certainly meant to make an example of this MP and deter others from taking anti-PRC positions.’
A national-security source, whom the Globe is not naming because they risk prosecution under the Security of Information Act, said the MP targeted was Conservative MP [my name] and that Zhao Wei, a Chinese diplomat in Canada, was working on this matter.
The motion in question was a Conservative motion that I introduced and moved in the House and that was adopted on February 22, 2021. Despite knowing about this intimidation operation involving a diplomat approved by the Government of Canada for two years, the government did not inform me that a diplomat was targeting my family, nor did the government take any action to expel the diplomat responsible for orchestrating this intimidation campaign. In fact, Mr. Wei Zhao continues to have the government's authorization to be and work in Canada with immunity, on behalf of Beijing's government. Frankly, I think this demonstrates a complete lack of common decency and leadership. Indeed, not a single Beijing diplomat has been expelled by the government since the news of Beijing's foreign interference threat activities started to be reported a couple of years ago. Nonetheless, the fact remains that this intimidation operation was launched and was in direct consequence of my motion in the House concerning the treatment of Uyghurs. These are the facts.
Bosc and Gagnon, at page 109, observe that, “In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.” A “proceeding in Parliament” is a technical term for which Bosc and Gagnon, at page 90, refer to two definitions, one from the United Kingdom's Erskine May and the other from Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987.
May's definition, taken from page 235 of the 24th edition of A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, states that “An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.” The Australian statutory definition, meanwhile, contains the expression “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee”.
A long line of precedents affirm the right of members to go about their parliamentary duties free of intimidation. Speaker Lamoureux, on September 19, 1973, said, at page 6709 of the Debates, that he had “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.” On May 1, 1986, Speaker Bosley held, at page 12847 of the Debates, “If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.” Subsequently, Speaker Parent, on March 24, 1994, commented, at page 2706 of the Debates, “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.”
More recently, on March 6, 2012, a prima facie contempt was found, arising from an intimidation campaign of YouTube videos from the Internet, by hacking collective Anonymous, largely targeting a former colleague and his family members as a consequence of legislation this colleague tabled in the House. In so ruling, the Speaker said, at page 5834 of the Debates:
Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate.
In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters.
However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously.
I would echo those words, “this House must take the matter very seriously.”
While I am speaking of my own situation today, I am far from alone in experiencing Beijing's foreign interference threat activities. Debates inside and outside of this House since November have been dominated by a succession of breathtaking disclosures from our national security experts, revealed by multiple media outlets. These have shown a concerted and organized campaign by Beijing's Communist government to manipulate Canadian politics and the proceedings of this House in favour of that government's positions. Equally concerning has been the Canadian government's failure to do anything to curb it.
The latest report in The Globe and Mail demonstrates that this scourge of foreign interference threat activities directed at members of this House is not limited to elections, party nominations or diaspora communities. This nefarious campaign's reach into parliamentary proceedings is a new fact, but it is one that we should not be too surprised about.
Just as it is a novel concern in this recently surfaced story, which is still unravelling, and for this House generally to consider interference and intimidation by foreign state actors, that is not a procedural impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of contempt here. On this particular point, Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81:
The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.... This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.
They add, at page 112:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege.
Before closing, I would like to add one final point. Our authorities refer to the need for questions of privilege to be raised at the earliest opportunity in the House. While the Globe and Mail report was published yesterday morning, this afternoon is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of privilege. In fact, this afternoon is the first time I have been up in the House since the report was published in The Globe and Mail.
In addition, I had to reflect on, and seek counsel about, the best way to move forward regarding these concerns, as the Speaker is aware. In addition, I confirmed the serious, grave details in The Globe and Mail report, including that an individual in Canada, Mr. Wei Zhao, who is accredited by the Government of Canada, was involved in conducting these intimidation operations.
I trust that, under the circumstances, the Speaker would not impose the narrowest possible interpretation to “the earliest opportunity to raise this in the House” so as to deny me the opportunity to raise this very important matter of foreign intimidation operations directed at elected members of Parliament. That is because it has become even clearer in the last 24 hours that members of Parliament, certainly opposition members, and Canadians at large cannot rely upon the Government of Canada, the executive branch of our system, to discharge its role as the defender of the realm.
That is why Parliament, and this House in particular, must vindicate its own authority and protect our interests and those of the members of this place when those interests are under threat, as we now see them to be.
Mr. Speaker, I plead to you to see that it now falls to you, as the guardian of our rights and privileges, to send a clear and unambiguous signal that this sort of conduct on the part of the People's Republic of China is simply unacceptable. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion at the appropriate time.
2106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑321 would amend existing provisions governing sentences for assault when the victim is a health care worker or first responder. The victim's profession would be considered an aggravating circumstance.
This bill is based on recommendation 3 from the Standing Committee on Health's report on violence facing health care workers in Canada, which was tabled in June 2019. The committee recommended that the government “amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing”.
A number of groups, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the British Columbia Nurses' Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Concerned Ontario Doctors and the Canadian Nurses Association, have said they support this measure.
The report was tabled in the House on June 19, 2019, so the Trudeau government did not respond to the study before the dissolution of the House and the election. That is why it is back before us now.
Where are we at now? Obviously, assaulting someone who is providing care to a sick or injured person is unacceptable. That goes without saying. The assailant must be punished severely, and the sentence must send an equally serious message. We all agree on that. However, there are already Criminal Code provisions that cover this.
Subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2) states that any offence committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services, must be considered to have aggravating circumstances. That applies to any offence, regardless of who the victim and the offender are.
This means that, if passed, Bill C‑321 will merely reiterate that assaults and threats of assault against these workers may be punished more severely.
That is commendable. However, that being said, we need to be careful when determining that one category of citizens should receive special protection. Obviously, we care a lot about making sure that all those who dedicate their lives to caring for, treating or saving their fellow human beings from some sort of danger are well treated themselves. We want them to know that their dedication does not go unnoticed, that it is recognized, and we want them to be able to do their job safely.
However, there are other members of our society who also deserve our respect and attention. I will not give an exhaustive list because I will likely forget someone, but what about our teachers? What about the support staff in our schools? What about day care workers? Many of us who worked in the field of education are well aware of the fact that teaching in 2023 is a far cry from teaching 50 years ago. I think my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who was a school principal not that long ago, could tell us all about that.
Should those who dedicate their lives to educating our children not be given the same consideration? What about those who spend their lives working in soup kitchens or shelters to help the most disadvantaged members of our society? Times are tough. Everything costs more. There is a labour shortage and a housing crisis. There are major problems, and the people working in those areas also need to be recognized and protected.
What message would we like to send to all those who work in a plant, at a courthouse, at a store, at a restaurant or in the public service? What would we say to them, that their work is not important enough? I am sure that is not what we want.
Let me remind this House that in 2015, Bill S‑221 introduced by Senator Bob Runciman was adopted and was rather similar to the current bill, but drafted to the benefit of public transit operators. It did not have a deterrent effect on the violence against bus drivers. Other than a momentary decline in 2016, the statistics on this have not moved, except during the COVID‑19 pandemic. In Quebec, work injury cases recognized by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail went from 21 in 2014 to 22 in 2022.
Finally, I would add that our priority must continue to be to assure everyone that we want to keep the workplace, and society in general, safe and healthy. Prevention, and healthy, rewarding living conditions, must never be sacrificed in favour of legislative deterrents. They must be complementary approaches.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that acts of violence against health care workers and first responders are concerning and that we need to discuss this. We need to find solutions that make it possible for these people to safely do their essential work.
Does Bill C-321 propose a perfect solution? Probably not, but it surely deserves our attention. For that reason, we will be supporting this bill so it can be studied in committee, ultimately improved and, if appropriate, passed.
868 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express, on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues, our support for Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against health care professionals and first responders. Once again, I would like to offer my gratitude and congratulations to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his constant attention and care to our frontline responders in this country. This is a continuation of his fine work in this area.
In brief, this legislation amends the Criminal Code to require courts to consider the fact that victims of an assault were at the time of the commission of the offence a health care professional or a first responder engaged in the performance of their duty as an aggravating circumstance when they are the victim of that offence.
I think it goes without saying that no health care worker or first responder, in this country or anywhere, should ever be subjected to violence in the workplace. Bullying, abuse, racial or sexual harassment, and physical assault should never and can never be considered just part of the job. These workers care for us at our most vulnerable, and I think we have a responsibility to care for them in return.
Violence against health care workers in specific is a pervasive and growing problem in the Canadian health care system. Both the number and intensity of attacks are increasing at an alarming rate. Assaulting a health care worker or a first responder not only harms the individual involved but also puts our entire health care system and first response system at risk. Workplace violence is a major factor driving Canada's dire health staffing shortage, and I am sure it is a dissuading and discouraging factor for people pursing this career.
Workplace violence is a pervasive problem in health care settings across Canada. Prior to COVID–19, health care workers had a fourfold higher rate of workplace violence than any other profession. Incidents of violence against health care workers and first responders escalated dramatically during the pandemic. I might say as well that first responders are often the first people on the scene when we are dealing with Canada's overdose crisis, and I do not think I need to point out how pervasive that is in every corner of the country and the danger it presents to them.
In a 2017 survey, 68% of registered practical nurses and personal support workers reported experiencing violence on the job at least once that year. Nearly, one in five said that they had been assaulted nine or more times that year. According to the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, violence-related lost-time claims for frontline health care workers have increased by almost 66% over the past decade. That is three times the rate of increase for police and correctional service officers combined. First responders, notably paramedics and firefighters, also experienced violence and threats on a shockingly frequent basis.
That is why on February 28, 2019, I introduced Bill C-434, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assault against a health care sector worker. That legislation would have amended the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker would also be an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing. I reintroduced that legislation in successive parliaments in February 2020 and December of 2021.
Although the present bill, Bill C-321, before the House today is very similar to Bill C-434, it does not define a health care worker as broadly. This bill is limited to an assault against “a health care professional or a first responder”, but does not define the terms. The bill I introduced was specifically drafted to ensure that, when we talk about a health care worker, we include not only professionals, but everybody who works in a health care setting, from the porter who greets people at the door, to the orderly and the admin clerk, many of whom experience bullying, abuse and violence. I know my colleague has already indicated that he is willing to look at a broadened definition, and I thank him for that because we want to make sure that this contemplated measure does not exclude any health care sector workers who are not members of professional bodies.
As has been pointed out by my colleague on the government side, in December of 2021, Bill C-3 was passed in the House, which amended the Criminal Code to enhance protections for health care workers, those who assist them and those accessing health care services, and it received royal assent at that time.
Among other measures, Bill C-3 amended the Criminal Code to make it an aggravating factor in sentencing for any offence when there is evidence that, one, “the offence was committed against a person who...was providing health services, including personal care services,” as a part of their duties or, two, where there is evidence that the offence “had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services, including personal care services”.
By the way, I also think it is important to point out that we ensure that this bill is broadly defined to include any setting in which a health care worker may perform health care services, including in the home, long-term care centres or any other non-conventional place other than a hospital.
Unlike Bill C-3, the bill before the House, Bill C-321, broadens that protection, I think very laudably, to apply to first responders who are engaged in their duties but not necessarily engaged in providing health services. This is a welcome improvement. Again, I thank my hon. colleague for broadening this important protection.
Assaulting a peace officer is already a stand-alone offence under section 270 of the Criminal Code. The punishment for assault of a peace officer is no more serious than the legislated sentence for common assault. However, the court is likely to consider that the victim, as a peace officer, is an aggravating factor at sentencing.
The Criminal Code offences in sections 129 and 270 do define public officer and peace officer, but case law on the interpretation of section 2 shows the varying occupations that have been counted as peace officers for the purposes of prosecutions under the Criminal Code in particular contexts. They have been included to define members of the Anishinabek Police Service and military police. However, despite the existence of cases which mention paramedics or firefighters that cite section 270 of the Criminal Code on peace officers, there are none that I am aware of where the person assaulted was a paramedic or firefighter. Therefore, current case law suggests that first responders are not considered peace officers under the Criminal Code. This omission must be rectified and would be rectified by this bill that is before the House.
I have already talked about Bill C-321 employing the term “health care professionals” and how that is not defined in this bill, so we are going to work, I hope collaboratively, to ensure that that definition is broadly expanded. It is similar with first responders, who are not defined in this bill because the Criminal Code does not define this term. Other federal statutes do not either, so it will be important for us to have a good, broad description of that to ensure that any person in this country who is providing first response services in our communities is covered by this legislation.
I want to just mention that this is an important step because the Criminal Code is an expression of society's values and priorities. I think sending a message to the Canadian public that these health care workers are taking care of us, that they deserve to be protected and are inviolate is an important message for Parliament to send.
I am not sure I understood completely the comments by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He did mention some important points about broadening this protection to many other kinds of workers, but there is one key difference. Health care workers and first responders do a job that we ask them to do. We ask them to be there for people when they are in trauma, and we are putting them in a situation that regular workers are not often in. They have no choice but to be there. They have to be there. That is why I think it is particularly important to send the message that they are inviolate and we must protect them. We have to send a message that under no circumstances is it ever acceptable to violate those people, either by word or deed.
Finally, I want to recognize that, as important as this bill is, it is only a first step. To keep health care workers and first responders safe, they need resources and tools. We want to prevent them from getting assaulted in the first place so they need proper security. They need proper physical barriers. They need sufficient staffing.
We all need greater mental health supports because we also have to recognize that many times the people who are doing the assaults are in some cases victims and are suffering from mental illness and trauma themselves. We have to recognize that we need a comprehensive holistic approach to this problem so we are doing everything we can to prevent the situations that often lead to assaults from happening in the first place instead of dealing with the sentencing after the assault occurs.
1614 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
