Debates of May 8th, 2023

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of Parliament

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

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a different point of order.

The Speaker, prior to question period, made it clear that doing indirectly what we cannot do directly, which is accusing someone of lying or calling someone a liar, is a violation of the rules. The member just got up and said that what had been said by the member was not true. I think he should be forced to apologize and withdraw that comment or be prevented from speaking henceforth.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am literally stating what happened earlier. If that happens to be contrary to what the member is saying right now, what can I do? I am not saying that he is lying; I am just saying that he is factually incorrect.

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

We are definitely getting into a grey area.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hope is that tomorrow, when people have had some more time maybe on the government side to think about what we are debating today, we will see some Liberal speakers stand up and share their own thoughts and share what they are hearing from constituents on the specifics of the motion.

Again, I will remind the House that we had the motion today, and the Liberals voted against it. The Liberals voted against creating a foreign agent registry, establishing a national public inquiry, closing down the People's Republic of China-run police stations operating in Canada and expelling all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible. They voted against that today.

Now we are discussing something very specific to the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills: “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.” I hope that when it comes to the debate on that issue tomorrow, we will get a chance to hear what Liberal members of Parliament think about this violation of parliamentary privilege.

I will remind Liberal members, all members of the House and Canadians that when we are talking about parliamentary privilege, when we are talking about the privileges of a member being contravened in the way we are talking about here, we are not just talking about a member of Parliament from one political party, or even members of Parliament from all political parties. When the privileges of members of Parliament are contravened in that way, we are talking about the roots of our democracy. We are talking about the ability of that particular member of Parliament to serve his constituents.

We can all, obviously, understand the importance of our constituents and our ability to serve democracy, serve our country, by coming here and debating important issues like this on behalf of our constituents. For doing that, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was clearly threatened and intimidated and had his family threatened and intimidated. I would hope that all members of the House, regardless of party affiliation, can understand that, come to the House and debate that passionately, and hopefully vote in favour of ensuring that this gets a proper hearing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my heckle, the member indicated how he is not well informed about what has been happening in this House. As a matter of fact, I did not just remove a couple of words; I actually went on to explain what I had said and how I understood it was a misrepresentation of what had actually happened, and then I apologized to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all Conservatives and the Speaker. This was all on a point that had been raised by the whip for the Conservatives. Then, today, when answering a question of mine, she actually got up and thanked me for doing that unreservedly. So it seems like everybody can accept it except this member, who keeps getting up and saying it over and over again.

Nonetheless, my question for him is this. If we are to give all members in this House the benefit of the doubt when they say something and to accept their word for it, as I think he would agree, why do we not lend that same luxury to the member for Papineau, who comes before this House and says that he just learned of this last Monday? Why does Conservative after Conservative get up—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the floor right now, just so the member knows.

Why does Conservative after Conservative continue to get up and insist that the government has known about this for two years, when that is just not the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just curious if the Liberals are done chirping over there. Okay—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is rising on a point of order.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was a matter brought up by the Speaker at multiple times. The hon. member was standing and staring at the hon. member, trying to intimidate him, just as he is doing right now. One is supposed to sit when other members have the floor. The other members are supposed to sit, and this is unacceptable.

This is something that we have heard from the Speaker, and I hope that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I want to speak to the point of order. It is correct that the Speaker has brought it to our attention that many people will just stay standing. We would rather that they sit down, so as not to intimidate the member they are asking a question of or receiving a question from.

The parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is addressing you and talking directly to you about the point of order, we are getting Conservatives members yelling at us to sit down.

I think you would agree that it is extremely unparliamentary for the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to do that, and to say that, while somebody is addressing you.

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

I am standing, so let us follow that rule for tonight.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. I would really like to get the next member started, but we need to finish up these questions and comments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. We are done. Order.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, I will point out, just because this summarizes exactly what the situation has been today, that an hon. Liberal member just said, in his heckle to the group about his colleague from Kingston and the Islands, that he is doing a good job, that he is doing a good job because he is pissing all of us off. That is what he just said in his heckle across the way. This is the dynamic we have seen in the House for the last few days of debate.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will forgive me if I do not take the time to read every single word that he says, every single point of order that he has raised over the last few days. I have got other things to do in serving my constituents.

I will point this out, in regard to the Prime Minister. The defence has been that the Prime Minister did not know. I think it is relevant to ask why the Prime Minister did not know. What kind of government is the Prime Minister leading, where a foreign diplomat can be running around the country for two years, and the public service all knows, but the Prime Minister and nobody in his government knows?

What kind of government is that Prime Minister leading?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping we can elevate the debate a little bit back to privileges. I am on chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”, and it says:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

Although, I do feel that we are being impeded tonight by not being able to stand and ask questions in a timely manner. I will just say that because it is interesting how things are going back and forth tonight on such an important topic.

Part of the privileges is really not necessarily for a specific member. It is for members to be able to represent their constituents in a secure and safe manner. I just wanted to know if the member could expand on, for people who might be watching this late night debate, why it matters so much that we do get this piece of investigation to PROC to get something done about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that, while I very much agree with the member on this, we do not always agree on everything. I am very thankful for a thoughtful question in this debate.

She makes a very good point for all of us. We may not agree on the choices that the people in one riding or another make about who they send to debate on their behalf here, but we do have to respect that our democracy functions on the basis of those decisions made in the 338 ridings across the country, and the functioning of our democracy depends on the freedom of all 338 members, regardless of where they are from and what party they are from. Our democracy depends on us being free to come here to debate without any fear of intimidation or risk to family members, wherever they might live. That is critical, and I think that, on this, most members from most parties in the House agree. It will be interesting to see how members of the Liberal Party vote on this important issue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that important question, because I do think this is critical.

One of the four elements in the motion from last week that we voted on today was the idea of having a public inquiry. There is a real power to transparency. There is a real power to us coming together as 338 members of the House and agreeing on behalf of our constituents across the country, all of our constituents, that this type of intimidation is not okay. We were elected to stand up for the interests of all of our constituents, and we need to be free to do that. The only answer right now is to have a full public inquiry, something that members of the Conservative Party, members of the Bloc, members of the NDP and members of the Green Party support. I hope we will soon see the government come around to that as well.