44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 12:02:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the question of privilege that was raised by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, last week.
To put it bluntly, I was flabbergasted. I am responding in particular to the government House leader's intervention on this point. I was completely flabbergasted when I heard the arguments he advanced, Madam Speaker, appealing to you to reject standing up for a colleague who had been threatened.
The government House leader had two main themes, which I will take in turn. First, he asserted that the Globe and Mail report last Monday constituted “uncorroborated statements”. That is just not so.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister convened a briefing for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills with the national security and intelligence adviser and the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or CSIS. As we heard from my colleague that afternoon, he was able to confirm, at that briefing, the details of the Globe's reporting. That very confirmation came from those senior national security officials and was relayed to the House by the hon. member. The Globe's reporting was, therefore, corroborated before the question of privilege was raised.
Many questions were asked, last week, about when the Prime Minister and the public safety minister, among others, received that CSIS report. However, we might have reason to be skeptical, as the House was told it was last week. To be clear, no one in the government, other than the government House leader, has denied the existence of this report. To my knowledge, Beijing's embassy and the government House leader are the only ones denying Robert Fife and Steven Chase's reporting from last Monday. That fact alone is astonishing.
That also contrasts markedly with the outrageous claims the government House leader's own parliamentary secretaries tried to make on Thursday morning. They claimed that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills had actually been briefed about these threats two years ago.
The level of gaslighting from this government and from the government House leader's own team is, quite frankly, disgusting. Nonetheless, if my counterpart insists that it would be impossible to establish the existence of the CSIS report, despite his government's statements, I would refer him to the words of Speaker Milliken on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the Debates:
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.
The motion that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills set out in his notice to you, Madam Speaker, proposes to refer the matter to that very committee for investigation. Of course, as we know, it is not up to the Chair to make a final ruling on the actual question itself but only to say whether there is enough evidence put before the House.
Ultimately, it will be the House making that decision. If the House decides to proceed with it, then, of course, the standing committee would do all the investigation work. In other words, it is not up to the Speaker to do all that but just to choose to give this question the priority that we believe it deserves. Perhaps the government House leader is afraid of what answers might come tumbling out when officials and others start getting cross-examined at committee.
Let us not lose sight of the burden that my colleague has to establish here, that is, a prima facie case. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 142, refers to such a case as being “on the first impression or at first glance”.
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 221, says:
A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House
On November 9, 1990, Speaker Fraser, at page 15177 of the Debates, favourably cited the definition of prima facie as “evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence”. This is found at page 1071 of Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition. The Globe and Mail report has neither been contradicted nor overcome. It has, in fact, been established by the subsequent and widespread acknowledgement of the CSIS report's existence, including by members of the government.
Next, I want to answer the other argument advanced by my counterpart that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills failed to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. First, we take members at their word. That is an age-old principle in this House, so if the member says that Tuesday afternoon was the first opportunity he had to raise the matter, then we must accept that fact. I can say from experience, Madam Speaker, that a submission for a question of privilege does not just pop into one's brain. Researching precedents, establishing the facts of the case and putting it together to submit it all take time.
The fact that my colleague was able to do all that within 24 hours, from the time he first learned of the existence of the CSIS report to the time he rose to raise this question, is remarkable. Rather than being used as a flimsy justification to dismiss the question of privilege on a technicality, the timeline is in fact evidence of the seriousness of the situation and the haste with which my colleague brought it to the attention of the Chair.
Second, the fact that the matter was raised the following day is, I would argue, perfectly reasonable in any event, and especially so when we think about the context. For starters, over the course of that 24 hours, the hon. member was able to secure a briefing from senior national security officials. Had he made his intervention on Monday, as the government House leader seems to prefer, it would have been on the basis of uncorroborated allegations, the very other thing that the government House leader claimed distress about. In other words, my colleague did not receive official confirmation that the report existed until he was briefed by the Prime Minister and his security officials on Tuesday; he raised the question of privilege the very same day.
However, speaking of distress, put yourself in the shoes of our colleague, Madam Speaker. You get a phone call from a reporter asking you to provide comment on an article that is about to run concerning a two-year-old intelligence report on the targeting of you and your family by a brutal Communist dictatorship. You go on to read about the details on the front page of a national newspaper. I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but my mind would be reeling. The dignity and composure with which our colleague reacted to this news through a measured and thoughtful approach should be commended, not disparaged as the government House leader sought to do.
Last fall, the government House leader urged the procedure and House affairs committee to consider making Parliament a more humane place, where we show compassion for one another. There was, sadly, nothing humane or compassionate about the comments he or his parliamentary secretaries put forward last week about a dictatorship's targeted threats of a colleague.
Third, the interpretation of raising a matter at the earliest opportunity should be, and has been, viewed contextually. It has never been held to require a same-day complaint. There are lots of examples, so let me offer two precedents to bear in mind.
On February 6, 2004, Speaker Milliken, at page 244 of the Debates, made a prima facie finding in an immediate response to a question of privilege raised that morning, the fourth sitting day following the opening of the session. It sought to revive a privilege reference to the procedure and House affairs committee, which prorogation had extinguished. Despite plenty of forewarning and a week to raise it, the delay was not held against the member.
On March 12, 1996, Speaker Parent was asked to rule on a question of privilege regarding a member's October 26, 1995, press release appealing to members of the Canadian Armed Forces to desert in the event of Quebec voting to secede from Canada. In ruling on the matter, which was raised over four months after the press release was issued, the Chair held, at page 562 of the Debates, “The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament. As a matter of fact, in my view it is so serious that the matter’s being raised at the first opportunity, which I have brought up in passing, is moot.”
I dare say that the matter of Beijing's meddling in the Canadian state and democracy, now including votes in the House of Commons, is also one of the most serious matters, if not the most serious matter, discussed in the current Parliament. Indeed, the conversation has stretched across Parliaments when one considers the landmark ruling that the current Speaker made in the last days of the previous Parliament relating to the Winnipeg lab documents concerning fired scientists with links to the Communist regime.
The government's argument about delay is equally specious and infuriating, but should it constitute grounds for you, Madam Speaker, to dismiss my colleague's question of privilege, it will surely give the House a lot to think about. Those arguments are almost demeaning to your intelligence, frankly, and it is disturbing to think that ministers even believe they could try to convince you to provide cover for them over one of the most serious threats to come before this House on the flimsiest of technical grounds.
Although I have confidence in you, Madam Speaker, being able to see through the government House leader's representations, I simply could not allow them to go unanswered.
1806 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 2:35:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague across the aisle knows full well, both the Prime Minister and I directly reached out to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to share the concerns with regard to the reports around foreign interference and his family. We offered him a briefing, and we will continue to provide that support going forward.
What is also important is that while the Conservatives talk tough when it comes to national security, they never back it up. They cut nearly a billion dollars out of the national security apparatus. They stood in the way of the additional tools to our national security apparatus, which are there to defend the members of this chamber. If they are serious about uniting behind the cause of defending democracy, they will start doing it today.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated in my speech that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had ultimately known about the report, which gave the impression that it was the same report the Prime Minister received. At least that was the indication. Shortly after that, I stood up and apologized, saying that was not my intent. He had received a general briefing and not the special report.
Members opposite should also have the same principles applied. For example, when the Prime Minister indicates that he first found out about it last week, should the same sort of principles not apply to opposition parties? In other words, if I am to believe one member, we should believe all members and we should be acting as one on this issue, because, after all, it is more than one member of Parliament. There were 49 who received a general briefing in 2022.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:36:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was in the House in the debate last week. I did hear the comments that I thought insinuated wrongfully that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had some advance knowledge. The confusion around a general briefing and a specific briefing is one that the government should have cleared up and chose not to. I find that unfortunate.
The question has been asked, a number of times now, how many members of Parliament who have been directly impacted have been advised of that. I am not talking about general briefings. I am talking about specific cases that the government may be aware of and that it then ensured the member was informed of. I would respectfully suggest that the government needs to be transparent about that and let us know if all members have been impacted directly or indirectly by this foreign interference, either targeting their families or any other thing.
Will the government come forward and let us know who has been advised, and if members of Parliament have not been advised, will it move to do that immediately?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:38:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to allow the NDP House leader to build upon this. I think he even asked the same question during question period today. It is about this lack of information being shared with all parliamentarians, including senators, especially considering this is something that was in the NSICOP 2019 annual report as a recommendation to the government: to regularly brief, at the appropriate level, all parliamentarians on the risk of foreign interference.
I would like the member's opinion. Why does he think the current government has refused to do this? This is something it has known about and has been briefed upon twice. It actually goes back to the very first report NSICOP produced in 2018, based on the Prime Minister's trip to India and all the failures that occurred during that trip, for all parliamentarians to have a briefing about foreign interference so that we can do our job as parliamentarians. It would prevent situations like this if everybody knew the risk.
What does the member think of that?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:39:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very learned on national security issues and brings that wealth of knowledge to this debate today.
There is no doubt that there are a number of things the government should be doing proactively, including informing and briefing members of Parliament. I have not seen the government act with the alacrity that is necessary in this case. This has been a slow-motion—
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 5:06:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the member were to take the time to read the speech I gave on Thursday, he would find that I stood up for every individual member of Parliament.
My question is more looking at it from the perspective of foreign interference, which has been taking place for many years now. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact, if we looked at the 2022 report, we would find 49 members of Parliament, a couple dozen MLAs and even local councillors or reeves.
What might the Conservative Party's policy be in regard to CSIS? We know there were some general briefings provided. Does the member believe that all 49 members of Parliament and those who were in the report should have been better informed? Does he believe that CSIS did not do a proper job of ensuring that each of those members were more aware of why they were being given the general briefing?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:34:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite keeps on invoking article 5 of the Washington treaty, but refuses to pay the dues. How is it that 49 people supposedly getting a CSIS briefing in 2022 absolves the Prime Minister of refusing to have CSIS act on a report, which he knew of, that a member of the House had been intimidated and the family back home had been threatened? How is that family in a restaurant the member talked about afraid of talking because of what might happen in the old country?
The Prime Minister is using willful ignorance to justify his executive deniability. We did try to pass a bill, the foreign lobbyist registration act, that would have taken care of this, but the member voted against it.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:01:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate tonight, although it is somewhat sad to have to talk about this topic.
I find that the Liberals' reaction to the situation with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is quite disturbing. First, a couple of days ago, the Liberals had two of their members attack the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, saying that he should have acted more quickly because he had been briefed two years ago. Second, at the Liberal convention this weekend, the public safety minister was attacking CSIS, saying that CSIS should have directly reported to the Prime Minister, briefing him on the situation.
It is not the job of CSIS to read the report to the Prime Minister. Even his top security adviser said that the report went to Privy Council, but they did not read it.
My question to my hon. colleague is as follows: When are the Liberals going to run out of people to blame? What does the member think happened?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
