Debates of May 8th, 2023

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Foreign Interference and Alleged Intimidation of Member—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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.

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of Parliament

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

moved:

That the prima facie contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your very detailed arguments and significant ruling. I am speaking entirely extemporaneously because I was not exactly certain how you would rule.

Allow me to gather my thoughts by beginning to say that the fathers of Confederation in 1867 designed a Constitution that has endured for more than a century and a half. To be sure, it has had certain modifications over the years, the most recent and largest of which was the 1982 patriation and addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The fundamental structure of the Constitution remains as it was written over a century and a half ago in 1867. That fundamental construct created a division of power between three different branches of the system: the executive branch, the judicial branch and the legislative branch. The essential balance of power in that system is between the legislative and executive branches of government.

As members know, we do not directly elect our government in Canada. The government is appointed. It is appointed by the Crown based on the member of the House that has the majority support of the 338 members of the chamber, and because we do not directly elect our government, as it government is appointed, it becomes even more important that the legislative branch of the system provides for a sufficient accountability mechanism to ensure that Canadians are well governed in between elections.

What has transpired here in recent weeks makes it clear that the executive branch of government has failed in its responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians, to protect the safety and security of members of the House and their families. In that context, it becomes even more important for the members of the House and its committees to uphold section 18 of the Constitution Act, which sets in place the rights, privileges and immunities of the legislative branch of our system.

I am very comforted by the fact that Parliament has risen to the occasion to take on its role in defending members of the House when the executive branch of government has failed. I hope when the procedure and House affairs committee examines this matter they will look at the totality of evidence that got us to this place, which involves a person in Canada, accredited by the executive branch of government, with more rights than Canadian citizens because, as members know, diplomats are immune from criminal prosecution.

We all remember the famous case several years ago under a previous Liberal government where a Russian diplomat tragically mowed down, in the streets of Ottawa, an innocent woman and her friend, leading to the death of that woman. We all remember that then foreign affairs minister John Manley, who, under the terms of the Vienna Convention, rightfully indicated that it was not possible for the diplomat to be arrested and charged in Canada with a criminal offence because the diplomat had more rights than ordinary Canadians, as diplomats do. They are afforded the immunities of diplomacy to do their work.

What becomes even more important in that context is that the executive branch outside of law enforcement, outside of Crown prosecution, exercise its prerogatives under article 9 of the Vienna Convention, which makes it clear that the Crown has the right to declare persona non grata any person in Canada for no reason who is a diplomat accredited by the Government of Canada. The executive branch of our system failed in that regard when information came to light that this person in Canada, this person accredited by the executive branch, was targeting MPs by trying to gather information about their families in the PRC. Because the executive branch of government failed, it becomes important for the legislative branch to step up to the plate to defend MPs and their families.

That is the wisdom of the constitutional structures that were put in place in 1867, and why I am so comforted, Mr. Speaker, that you have made a decision to find a prima facie case.

I will finish by saying this: It is a serious thing to intimidate a member of the House directly or indirectly to affect the outcome of a debate or to affect the outcome of votes in this place. We know, in the last decade or so, that the rise of authoritarianism around the world has put democracies on their back heels, and in that context, it becomes even more important to make it clear that we, as one of the world's oldest, continuous democracies, set an example for all the world to see that we will not be intimidated, that we will not be cowed and that we will stand up for the democratic rights of Canadians as expressed in this place. We will ensure that members and their families are not subject to these foreign interference threat activities.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. I look forward to the deliberations and ultimately to the report and recommendation of the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a very serious issue that I am glad to see the government has finally acted on. However, my concern is that it took weeks of pressure from multiple parties. It took weeks of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills asking for action from the government, yet we did not see this diplomat expelled until just now.

I am wondering if the member for Wellington—Halton Hills could talk about a concern that I have, which is how we would know if there were more diplomats. How do we have the transparency and the confidence that this has not been happening with other diplomats or happening in other circumstances to other members and other people within the House?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked myself that question many times in recent weeks.

The Prime Minister alone is responsible for the machinery of government, for the organizational structure of the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister is primarily responsible, among all the ministers of the Crown, for national security. The Prime Minister is also primarily responsible for the government's relationship to Parliament.

When we take into account the Prime Minister's two primary responsibilities, one for national security and one for the government's relationship to Parliament, and we take into account his sole responsibility for the machinery of government, it is confounding that the government, over recent months, has not come clean with parliamentarians about the threats to themselves and their families, particularly after the story broke in early November of the PRC's interference and threat activities against political candidates, political parties and subsequently against members of the House. It is inexplicable why, after six months, the government has not gotten a handle on the situation.

It is very concerning what other information the government knows that it has not communicated to those who are being targeted, and what other information they are not aware of that could be a threat more broadly to the safety and security of this country. However, I think this is a much broader debate, which I hope will be taken up by other committees of the House and by the floor of the House because, as CSIS has indicated for many years, foreign interference threat activities are a national threat. They are a serious threat undermining fundamental rights and freedoms. They undermine our economy. They undermine long-term prosperity. These are not small things, and I think the House and the government needs to be seized with it. Clearly, the House is seized with it. I hope that the government begins to be seized with this matter and gets control over it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to take part in the discussion we are having.

It is a good thing the member began his speech by saying that he had not really prepared anything and that he was a bit surprised and was speaking extemporaneously. Without any notes, he accurately quoted our Constitution and outlined the fundamental steps of how our country was created. More importantly, he spoke of the democratic protections we enjoy here in the House, precisely because we are protected by the fact that, in the House, we represent the people, and we must keep it that way.

What we have seen over the last few days is proof of courage. This member has shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that even if we are the target of a foreign country, we have to stay on our feet. This is what the member has shown to us today and through the last weeks, if not for the last couple of years. He has shown us courage.

This member, who has been a parliamentarian for nearly 20 years, has clearly demonstrated the courage that can and should inspire us in the exercise of our duties.

On a more personal note, we know that this member is a serious, rigorous and hard-working man, but he is also a family man.

What has this experience been like for his family?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

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.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague and the Speaker's ruling that this is a serious matter.

What we have seen over the course of the last several months is a real disconnect between the executive branch and our institutions. Many of these stories have come to light as a result of CSIS and The Globe and Mail. I know my hon. colleague is a staunch defender of our institutions; I have seen it in this place. As a result of the security establishment now having to put this information out there, in the absence of any government or executive branch of government dealing with this matter, how concerning is this to him?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important question. I am very concerned about the weakening of Canada's national security and intelligence system, the intelligence community, because of what has taken place over the last several months.

I would add that it is not primarily the decision of CSIS whether or not to inform members of foreign interference threat activities. It is primarily the responsibility of the Prime Minister; an open and accountable government is clear. The Prime Minister has primary responsibility among all ministers for national security. The Prime Minister is primarily responsible for the government's relationship to Parliament.

What has clearly broken down here is the direction from the Prime Minister to direct his intelligence community, departments and central agencies to inform members of Parliament and their families, in an appropriate manner, about foreign interference threat activities. He has indicated that this will now happen going forward, but it should have happened as soon as he was appointed to office, in early November 2015.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are at the point where we have to request a special decision from the House to recognize that a sitting member of the House has been intimidated. That is something. We are talking about a direct attack on democracy. That is where we are.

When did this start? The friends I meet on the street in Trois-Rivières on the weekend often tell me that we have been talking about this for weeks. It has not been weeks. The Liberal government has been totally oblivious to what is going on in foreign affairs since 2015.

The government is not particularly interested in foreign affairs, and has no clear idea of the direction it should take. The government has had four ministers of foreign affairs in seven or eight years, which is not a sign of strong diplomacy, as diplomacy requires continuity. One of my colleagues is telling me that there have been five. Five ministers in seven years is not continuity. It suggests that the government is not concerned about diplomacy. What is diplomacy? It is a form of dialogue between nations intended to ensure peace.

Right now, there is no dialogue between Canada and China. China tells us what to do and we do it. That is unacceptable. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am a member, has been working on the issue of Chinese interference for months now.

It does not stop there. Universities, research centres and the business community often fear that if they look too closely into interference they will lose funding or market shares. Losing our democracy is worse than that, however. This makes no sense. A line has been crossed that I did not even think it possible to approach in the House.

Let us talk about academia. In 2017, the French government conducted a survey that showed that the Chinese regime was courting former politicians to obtain information and derive benefits. That is called elite capture. They can be former politicians who are now sitting on boards of directors, or former faculty deans who hold other chairs in China or who receive various research grants. That is elite capture, and it is a phenomenon that we do not talk about here.

We are hearing a lot of talk these days about the Volkswagen factory that will be opening in Ontario. That company also has a factory in China. Does anyone think that Volkswagen really owns that factory? Volkswagen does whatever the Chinese government tells it to do. The company cannot pull out of China, and it does not control the prices of its cars.

The Chinese regime is philosophically and ideologically diametrically opposed to what we stand for here. It does not recognize the value of democracy and would prefer to do without it.

China has always tried to sow chaos among its trade partners. What is chaos? Obviously, it is when things go off in different directions, but let us look at what has been going on in the House over the past three months or so. Every day during question period, we ask the government whether it is going to do something about what we are seeing and whether it will continue to justify the unjustifiable for much longer. It is chaos here. Meanwhile, Beijing is jumping for joy.

The same cannot be said of our government. This is terrible. The Chinese regime is bent on destroying all other social systems. We are not on the same page.

I think that the government would be better off learning to play Go rather than trying to play Risk because, right now, it is not working. We need to think in terms of generations.

I will give an example. Around 2013, when Xi Jinping came to power, I was in Paris with the then ambassador of China. One of my colleagues asked the ambassador why the President of China is appointed rather than elected in free and fair elections like in this country. The ambassador carefully explained that, in China, all the children are screened at a very young age, and the ones with potential are singled out to be educated in the best schools, evaluated again and sent to study abroad. Eventually, based on the challenges of the day, the best person is chosen to achieve a given goal. It was very difficult for me to hear, but he told me that what we do basically amounts to a beauty contest. We were approaching 2015 at the time. I could not really argue with him. While we hold beauty contests, people make sure they have the means to achieve their ends.

I think that we are being taught an important lesson in foreign affairs as a result of our lack of interest in recent years, and it hurts.

Today's expulsion of the Chinese diplomat sends the message that we are not the only ones who will be facing consequences. The Chinese government will also have to face certain consequences.

There was an obvious lack of courage in everything leading up to that decision, which was the right decision. It was about time, but the government made the decision with a gun to its head. The government did not really make a decision, it simply no longer had any choice. Its credibility with its partners was at stake. However, this decision sends the message that we are prepared to face the consequences of our choice, because yours was unacceptable.

I do not think we should tolerate the intolerable. We need to stand up, appreciate the value of our system and our democracy and protect it.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the ethics committee with my hon. colleague. He is quite right that we have been studying the issue of foreign interference for some time, and the pathways it is leading us down are quite interesting.

My question to him is one of confidence in our institutions. We heard the previous member, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, speak about the executive branch of government and the responsibility of the executive branch to keep its citizens, and in fact MPs, safe. What we have seen is a structural failure in that. It was only because of CSIS and The Globe and Mail that we found out that the member's family and perhaps some other MPs' families had been threatened.

Does my hon. colleague agree with me that there is a structural breakdown in the institutions and the executive branch of government that is allowing this foreign interference to propagate within Canada?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I am pleased to be working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Yes, the machine is broken. It cannot see beyond its immediate surroundings. The machine is stuck and cannot think beyond its narrow confines. What happens outside its immediate surroundings does not appear to be taken into consideration.

The issue here is trust. Trust is a very fragile thing. It is the ability to rely on something without having to examine it closely. Today we have to examine everything. We cannot close our eyes for an instant and think that things will be done properly.

The opposite of trust, what happens when trust is broken, is distrust. What does distrust lead to? It leads to defiance, which itself often leads to revolt, revolution or, at least, some undesirable action. I think that everything we do today must be aimed at restoring trust in the government, the machinery of government and the House of Commons, because with broken trust, all we will have is distrust and defiance.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an act of aggression against our democracy. As the member so aptly put it, we are all targeted. If one member is targeted, we are all targeted by these actions. We are now getting into an extremely important debate.

Last week, I was disappointed with certain members who tried to say or to suggest that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills was aware of his situation before it was made public.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question: Is it important to stand together, whether we are with the government or the opposition, to send the message that we stand together and united against foreign interference, whether it comes from China or any other country?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we stand together.

Solidarity is an interesting word. It comes from the word “solid”, so it has to be strong. Solidarity means standing united to achieve a common goal. I think that we need to determine what this common goal is, what protecting democracy means. When one person is targeted, everyone is targeted.

Last week, a shiver went down my spine when I read the word “MPs” in The Globe and Mail. That cannot be tolerated. I think that the initial reaction reported here, that of not believing the victim, at the time the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, is not only hurtful, but an assassination of his character.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard through a CSIS report that this is about not only one but a number of MPs. In fact, in 2022, there were 49 members of Parliament, many members of provincial legislatures and even city council members. We also understand that it is not only one country; it is a number of different countries.

Would my colleague across the way agree that it is the broader picture of foreign interference that we need to look at, that it is not just one isolated case and that this is indeed what the priority should be?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly seeing a fundamental shift when it comes to foreign interference. China, Russia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates are involved. A number of countries today have new tools that they are using for nefarious purposes.

However, today's debate is about China. We have reason to believe that it has a slightly different strategy. Russia tends to carry out brutal attacks, but China thinks in terms of generations. China has had a presence in Canada for some time. The Chinese police stations have been operating for some time. They did not just materialize overnight.

I think we need to start trying to understand. Experts on China tell us that it is a bit like erosion. Say I see a river when I am young. Fifteen years later, it will have eroded, yet I walked by it every day and did not see the erosion happening. Erosion is a silent transformation.

Right now we are seeing the result of the silent transformation that we failed to see, failed to monitor or did not want to see, as the case may be. There has been a transformation, and we need to acknowledge it. The global landscape has changed.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. He is inspiring. He has a lot to teach us, and he is an excellent teacher. I hope that the government will be inspired by his constructive comments.

China's interference is in the spotlight. Last week, we found out that a member was threatened almost three years ago. It took three years for the government to make a decision.

I would like to hear the opinion of my colleague from Trois-Rivières. What should the government do to secure public trust in our institutions and in a healthy democracy in our society?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and congratulate him for his work on French-language science.

Raphaël Glucksmann, chair of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics the other day and told us that the special committee held 300 meetings on foreign interference, that it put forward numerous options, and that it did nothing. He warned us not to make the same mistake.

I think that it is important to take note of this, to start working in the House and in committee and to do something, because doing nothing is not an option.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, we had a debate on this important issue. Of course, we had a vote today and the vote passed. However, what was most striking was not the vote. It was actually the first 15 minutes of the debate on Thursday, when it was very clear that Liberal members were going to mock and condescend their way through that debate to discredit the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Specifically, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the member for Winnipeg North, made a comment when heckling. He said the member is not credible when talking about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We heard the member for Kingston and the Islands reference—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the Speaker in the chair at the time indicated that she would look into this and report back to the House. To continue with misinformation on such a sensitive issue does a disservice. The member should be waiting until the Speaker comes back with his ruling on the very issue the member raises.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

On the same point of order, we have the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.