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 2:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is because we want to protect democracy here in Canada.
The Prime Minister was not courageous enough to answer the questions. His minister said that the government will never tolerate foreign interference, but that is exactly what the government is doing right now. If the government and the Prime Minister want to protect our democracy, then they need to throw out the agent responsible for the threats against a member of Parliament here in Canada.
Will the Prime Minister show some courage and kick this agent out today?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:00:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my immediate family here in Canada is okay. We are fine, but, as I have said previously, I cut off communications with my family in the PRC out of an abundance of caution. Clearly, these events are very public. Like other cases involving Canadians who have family in the PRC, or Canadian consular cases in the PRC, these are difficult things to address and deal with.
With that all said, I know one thing: We cannot be cowed. We cannot be intimidated by these threats. We have to stand up for the fundamental principles and values that underpin this country and its institutions. As difficult as it may be to stand up for those fundamental principles in the face of intimidation threats, we cannot but take that course. To do otherwise is to undermine these foundational principles, undermine our democracy and hand to our children and grandchildren much weaker institutions that are subject to these subversive and coercive forces.
Generations past made very difficult decisions to stand up for these principles. It is our generation's task to do the same thing in the face of a very different threat than previous generations faced.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:04:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a public inquiry into the general problem of foreign interference is needed.
However, I also know and believe one second thing, which is that we cannot allow the process, whether matters have been referred to NSIRA, NSICOP or a special rapporteur, which could lead to a public inquiry, to prevent us, prevent this chamber or its committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, or prevent the Government of Canada, the executive branch of our system, from taking immediate action in regard to threats that are directed to members and their families or directed to Canadians who are members of diaspora ethnocultural communities. We have to be able to do both: take immediate action and, at the same time, look at some of the systemic problems that have been brought to light over the last number of months, as reports about foreign interference threat activities have surfaced.
I say “yes” to a public inquiry, but also “yes” to immediate action, and not delay as a way to prevent action by deflecting to the process of NSIRA, NSICOP or a potential public inquiry.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 5:08:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Megantic—L'Érable on his speech.
I have a short preamble before I ask my question. The Bloc Québécois's objective is not to form the government. That would be like inviting a vegetarian friend to a pig roast; it makes no sense.
That said, I want to address the subject at hand today, namely, Chinese interference. This is very important. Today, the government took action because of pressure from the media and pressure from the public. Thanks to CSIS, it has known for almost two years now that there has been Chinese interference and even threats from China against a member of Parliament. The government did not take any action for two years.
Now the government is waking up, seeing that this is dangerous, that its image is being tarnished, and wondering what it is going to do. Today, the government is trying to make us believe that everything is under control. As a good Quebec Liberal used to say, everything is fine with both hands on the wheel.
Two years have gone by and nothing. How do we restore confidence? The people I meet every day ask me how this government can build back confidence in our democratic institutions.
What does my colleague suggest the government do to restore once and for all public confidence in democracy, which is fundamental, and in our institutions?
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the last time the member stood up on this issue and commented on it, I raised it and then he walked across the floor and threatened me. The member said to me that he was going to continue to rise on this issue until I apologized for something I do not believe I have to apologize for. I do not believe a member crossing the floor and making those types of verbal threats is appropriate. I would ask that the Speaker look into the matter, as I indicated earlier, about what actions members are taking to try to intimidate members of the government.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:12:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge the total hell that the family of our foreign affairs critic, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has been through. I also want to highlight and salute the courage he has shown in the face of threats from a foreign dictatorship. This should never have happened to any MP of any party. All Canadians are with him and his family. We wish them happiness and complete safety.
Unfortunately, a member, with the privileges of a member, told me something. I believe he will allow me to share it with my colleagues. How many families remain silent when faced with similar threats by this dictatorship? We have heard stories about this. Families of Chinese descent here in Canada, patriotic people who care about our country, tearfully asked our candidates, during the election, to go into their backyard, without their telephones, because they thought the regime was eavesdropping on them. Families are threatened by the police stations of a foreign dictatorship that exist across the country. We know that there are still at least two of them in Montreal.
The government has known about these threats for years. The Prime Minister and his government were aware that families were being threatened and that propaganda from a foreign dictatorship was being posted on social media. They knew that Canadians were being threatened. These individuals were being told not to vote for the Conservative Party in elections. Their families abroad were being threatened. The Liberals have known about all of these instances of interference for years. The government did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Instead, if any journalists asked about this, the government said they were racist in order to shut them down and avoid these kinds of questions. Our intelligence services had to leak it to the media. It is inconceivable that our intelligence services felt the need to give this confidential information to the media to inform the public of the Prime Minister's dangerous inaction. Why has the Prime Minister done nothing—and that is being generous—about this threat?
Allow me to list some possible explanations. We now know, thanks to our security intelligence services, that Beijing helped the Prime Minister win two elections. Is he happy to let this go on because the regime is helping the Liberal Party? Is he pleased to see it happen again in future elections because it would give him an edge? Are these the reasons he is doing nothing? Is it because he still admires the “basic dictatorship” of Communist China, to quote his words? Is it because Beijing donated $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation, the same foundation whose donors funded the Prime Minister's lavish vacations? Is it because he supports the regime's ideology? As he said himself, he admired Fidel Castro, another communist dictator.
Is it because the Liberal Party has corporate ties, financial ties, that have made members of the Liberal Party, including former prime minister Jean Chrétien, very rich?
We do not know why.
What we do know is that after he became Prime Minister of Canada, he went to Beijing. The dictatorship nicknamed him “little potato”. He was very proud of it. His foreign minister announced it to everyone and translated it from Mandarin to English to broadcast the fact that Beijing refers to our Prime Minister as the “little potato”. He is happy to be their “little potato” instead of our prime minister who protects our national security.
What we do know is that nothing has changed. After each and every Canadian learned that a member of Parliament had been threatened, it took one week for the Beijing agent who was responsible for those very threats to finally be expelled.
Then there was a motion in the House—
648 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:34:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know what he would have had us do when we learned that a member of Parliament had been targeted with threats against his family by a foreign dictatorship. Would he have had us just stay silent? Would he have had us just sit on our hands? Would he have had us praise the Prime Minister for having done absolutely nothing about it? Would he have had us just take the word of the Prime Minister that he knew nothing, despite all the now publicly available evidence?
We did not politicize it. We stood up for a member of Parliament whose family had been targeted. What is politicization is the fact that the Prime Minister has known about this and other interference and did absolutely nothing about it because he thought it was in his electoral interest to keep it going.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:14:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to start off by indicating very clearly that an attack of foreign interference in any fashion on one member is an attack on all members of the House. I said this last week too. Maybe not in those exact same words, but I said it last week, and I have reinforced it.
As a parliamentarian, I do very much understand the issue we are debating today. I understand the importance of dealing with the issue at hand. I want to cover a few different areas that I have been listening to and highlight some of the things I also said last week.
The issue of foreign interference is something that is not new in Canada. This is something that has been going on for many years. There are a couple of things people should recognize. Number one, when we talk about foreign interference, influence and intimidation in any fashion, it is important to recognize that it is not just one country causing the problems. There are a number of countries that have been causing the issues we should all be concerned about. It is not one country causing the problem, and it is not one country receiving the intimidation. I would like to think that countries within the Commonwealth, allied countries, countries that have the same sort of values we have here in Canada, would be equally upset and would want to deal with the issue in a very significant and tangible way.
On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to highlight a report that came out for 2022 from CSIS. The report highlighted some very interesting issues. One page talks about the intimidation of members of Parliament, and I have made reference to the numbers. What we are talking about is CSIS briefings to elected officials in 2022. In that year alone, CSIS made the determination that it would give what I believe to be general briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I was not one of those members of Parliament, but what I do know is that there were 49 in 2022.
The content and the degree to which information is released to those individual members of Parliament are determined by CSIS. CSIS is the authority that ultimately makes the decision as to the seriousness of the potential threat and the circumstances around why there is a need to meet with the member of Parliament.
It is not just members of Parliament. The same report states that there were 26 provincial briefings. I assume “provincial” means members of a provincial legislature. Not only did it hit provincial, but it also went municipal. That could be anyone from a councillor to a mayor or a reeve. There were 17 of those, and again, that was in 2022 alone.
The report from CSIS states:
In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security.
In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference—
I underline “foreign interference”.
—terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
The next part is what I would like members to appreciate:
In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports. In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence products.
There are 2,500 reports. We know there were 49 members of Parliament, 26 members of provincial legislatures and 17 mayors, councillors or reeves, based on the report. What we do not know is the context of what was conveyed to those individuals. To that end, we have to respect what we are being told.
We often say that all members are honourable members. There does seem to be a double standard that comes from the opposition. They feel that they can say anything they want and they can mislead all they want and there is no consequence because, after all, they are in opposition. How many times have I used the words “character assassination”, coming from Conservatives toward government members? We never ever hear apologies from the other side when they make these bogus claims of misinformation, even when they know there is no merit to what has been said. They do not have qualms about doing that.
We have been very clear that the official opposition has chosen to make this a political issue. All one needs to do is look at the questions the official opposition has been asking and some of the statements that have been made today. There is no problem at all in terms of attacking the integrity of members on this side of the House, but when practical issues are raised about members on the other side, how defensive they get. Talk about a double standard.
As I said to one member, sometimes it is not advisable to throw a stone in glass houses, and that really needs to be applied.
Mr. John Brassard: You made that up.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, I did not make it up. It came from the Manitoba legislature, and I thought it was a very good point. I was in opposition at the time. I can say that, at the end of the day, there are a lot of Conservatives throwing rocks in glass houses. I suggest that they need to dial it down, that there are alternative ways.
We were the only country out of the Five Eyes countries that did not have a parliamentary review standing committee. One of the first things we did was establish that committee. There are parliamentarians on each side, all political parties, who get to participate in that group. This is a group of MPs who can listen and hold accountable organizations like CSIS. We do not know what is being said at that committee, but every party has representation on that committee and I suggest that they too, as a committee, are looking at this issue.
One member stood and said that PROC is a wonderful committee. Yes, it is a wonderful committee. I sat on it for a number of years. Nothing prevents the opposition parties and the government from saying that, at the procedure and House affairs committee, they would like to look at foreign interference and study x, y and z.
Today we saw that there is a great deal of support to have studies of that nature occur at standing committees. In particular, PROC has all sorts of mechanisms with which it can ensure a study takes place. We could be looking at the broader picture there because an attack on one is an attack on all, and it even goes beyond this chamber. I understand the dynamics of the large communities and the foreign interference that takes place within them.
Not that long ago, I was at a local restaurant where some members from one community were so fearful of being caught meeting with me that they did not want to see anyone taking pictures because they were scared for their family members at home. We are not only talking about this country with respect to this issue. We need to realize that it is more than one country. We need to understand and appreciate that there is not one member in the House who would, in any fashion whatsoever, tolerate international interference, whether it were the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the NDP or any other member. I believe that to try to imply that is not the case would be dishonest.
The Prime Minister found out about this for the very first time last week. Conservatives would know that if they listened to the questions and answers. Imagine the misinformation some are putting out there trying to give the false impression that he knew about it. Then they say that, if he did not know about it, he should have. It is as though they are somehow trying to justify it that way. They will say that it is a failure of the government to protect us. There were 49 cases just last year. Are they that naive to believe that 2021 and 2022 were the only years this happened?
My colleagues raised the issue of what took place while the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservatives were told about it. They knew about it. Could any members on the Conservative side stand up today, with their integrity intact, to tell the House that, under no circumstances whatsoever, was there any intimidation or interference respecting a member of Parliament during the Stephen Harper era? I suspect not.
Does that mean that Harper was an absolute failure? Does it mean that he was dishonest? I am attributing some of the incredible comments that have been coming from the official opposition toward the Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. As the prime minister at the time, he decided to not do anything. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to heckle or raise those types of comments toward the Prime Minister, especially given the actions we have taken to date. As a government, we have moved on a number of files to recognize this issue, so the Conservatives should not try to give the impression that there is a member inside this chamber who is not sympathetic to the impact that foreign influence has had on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are all concerned about it, each and every one of us. I would like to see this as a possible agenda item so we can think about it and talk about it.
Members can think about what the purpose of foreign interference is, at least in part. It is to cast a shadow of doubt to make it look as though we have lost control of the issue.
We can take a look at the Conservative Party's contribution to making a lot of those foreign actors happy when they see what is taking place in the chamber and in the media. There is a phenomenal amount of false information and misinformation being espoused by members of the House on such an important issue. We have recognized that.
I will point out a few of the things the government has done. I made reference to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. As I indicated, members of all political stripes sit on that committee. They get to hear everything, and I understand foreign interference is one of those things they are hearing about. Are members saying that those members of Parliament do not know how to do their jobs? Are they going to reflect on that?
Maybe they want to reflect on CSIS as an organization that has the decision authority. The Conservatives say that they do not know what it is doing when it has those general briefings by not explaining more. We do not know what they are saying because we have confidence in those general briefings. They are giving a general briefing because there is a need. Something has happened to cause them to provide that general briefing. We are all afforded the ability to ask questions, I suspect. I do not know for sure because I have not had one, and I am grateful that I have not.
Reinforcing confidence in CSIS is also important. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, made up of the top independent experts, strengthens independent scrutiny and accountability of the national security agencies in Canada. These are incredible individuals who are there to ensure that the best interests of not only members of Parliament, but also all Canadians, are being taken into consideration and, in fact, acted upon.
This government established the critical election incident public protocol, a protocol that is administered by a panel of the most senior federal public servants. They work with national security agencies and are responsible for communicating with Canadians in the event of an incident, or a series of incidents, that threatens the integrity of a federal election.
We created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, which is composed of officials from the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada. The SITE task force works to identify and prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities from influencing or interfering with the electoral process in Canada. Because of a lot of the work we have done in the last number of years on this issue of foreign interference, we established a rapid response mechanism, the RRM, at the G7 summit to help G7 countries identify and respond to diverse and evolving foreign threats to democracy.
In his speech, the leader of the Conservative Party was critical, saying that we do not care about a foreign influence transparency register. On March 12 of this year we announced the launch of a consultation to guide the creation of a foreign influence transparency registry in Canada to ensure transparency and accountability from people who advocate on behalf of a foreign government.
At the end of the day, this is a government that has acted on the issue. We are suggesting that it impacts each and every one of us, and it is time to dial it down to make it less political in its partisanship. Let us wait until we get the report from the former governor general, and then we can follow the recommendations, even if it means having that public inquiry.
2349 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:36:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a critical point for me in the development of this discussion was when we had the foreign affairs minister before committee on Thursday last week. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills was asking her about the expulsion of diplomats. What she said back is that we have to weigh the possibility of countermeasures, retaliation, economic measures and other things.
To me, that just underlined the fundamental problem with the government's mentality that keeping Canadians safe from foreign interference is being weighed in the calculus against other things, when it should be the fundamental point. The Prime Minister has repeated those comments. They project a kind of weakness by saying we might not act against foreign interference because there might be some retaliation.
The bottom line for us should always be protecting Canadians full stop and standing up against those kinds of threats of intimidation. This demonstrates the weakness and flaw in the government's mentality and how it responds to these kinds of situations.
I wonder if the member has a response to that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
