It appears as if our prime minister has been complicit in the illegal interference by China in Canada’s recent federal elections. Certainly, he doesn't seem to care. His past flaunting of parliamentary rules has been well documented, but never has any prime minister been so cavalier about our basic electoral process. Trudeau has now doubled down on defending the reputation of the badly compromised Liberal MP who was elected with illegal foreign help..Justin Trudeau is defending Liberal MP Han Dong even though the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warned Liberals in 2019 that Dong was part of a Chinese foreign interference network. In my view, the law was broken. The Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act says a foreign third party shall not incur partisan activity expenses concerning a partisan activity that is carried out during an election period; election advertising expenses in relation to an election advertising message that is transmitted during that period; and election survey expenses with an election survey that is conducted during that period.. Han Dong O PHan Dong MP, Liberal Don Valley North .It has been widely reported that there was illegal activity by the Chinese government in at least 11 riding campaigns. Conservatives were defeated because of this activity. Moreover, the most notable Liberal, Han Dong, had foreign help all along the way from his community nomination process to the election itself. It is an outrage that our prime minister defends this MP. He claims MP Dong is a loyal Canadian but he carefully skated around the evidence that Han Dong is now an MP as the result of an electoral crime..In Canada, all citizens are subject to ordinary law, both criminal and civil. There is no exemption for parliamentarians, nor is there any immunity or special rights related to their parliamentary function. Whenever a Member of the Senate or the House of Commons is charged with or convicted of a criminal offence, questions invariably arise as to the effect of such charges or convictions on the person's right to continue as a Member of the Senate or the House..In general, the laying of criminal charges against a Member of the Senate or the House of Commons has no immediate legal implications for their right to remain in office. However, in the case of a conviction for a criminal offence, the legal implications are more serious. Both Houses of Parliament retain the power to expel members, whether or not they have been convicted of a criminal offence..Although the legislation does not provide for an automatic consequence following the laying of criminal charges against an MP, both houses of Parliament may take preventive disciplinary action to protect the dignity and integrity of the institution. They have the authority and duty to order a leave of absence or to suspend a Member for a period that may extend to the life of a parliamentary session. Criminal charges need not be laid for a Member to be placed on leave or suspended. Since its creation, the Senate has ordered two leaves of absence and four suspensions. In the House of Commons, no Member has ever been suspended because of criminal charges laid against them..The Senate has a procedure in place that is automatically followed if a Senator is charged with a criminal offence for which they may be prosecuted by indictment. There is no procedure for an automatic leave of absence for Members of the House of Commons..Section 750(1) of the Criminal Code, applies to Members of both the Senate and the House and stipulates that where a person is convicted of an indictable offence and is sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, and holds at the time that person is convicted, an office under the Crown or other public employment, the office or employment forthwith becomes vacant..It is important to note that section 750 of the Criminal Code applies only in cases where a Member of the House of Commons or the Senate is convicted of an indictable offence, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more. If a parliamentarian is sentenced to less than two years, section 750 does not apply. If a parliamentarian is charged with a hybrid offence (where the Crown can choose whether to proceed summarily or by indictment) and the decision is made to proceed by indictment, it is the actual sentence imposed that is relevant, not the potential penalty. This standard is incredibly low, as it permits convicted criminals sentenced to two years less a day, to retain their Parliamentary Membership. In practice, we could only hope that a public outcry and media frenzy would cause the Member to resign..Section 502 of the Canada Elections Act sets out other situations in which a conviction automatically results in the loss of the right to sit in the House of Commons. Under section 502(3), any person who is convicted of an illegal practice listed in section 502(1) (e.g., knowingly exceeding the election expenses limit) or a corrupt practice listed in section 502(2) (e.g., making a false statement to have a person deleted from the Register of Electors) becomes ineligible to sit in the House of Commons for five years (in the case of an illegal practice) or seven years (in the case of a corrupt practice)..Although the rights and immunities of parliamentarians under parliamentary privilege include freedom from arrest in civil actions for the performance of public duties, they offer no protection against the laying of criminal charges. On the other hand, the doctrine of parliamentary privilege includes disciplinary powers that give the Members of Parliament the ability to expel one of their Members, whether or not they have been convicted of a criminal offence. To do so, the Chamber must pass a clear direct resolution to this effect..The power to expel Members was described by the Supreme Court of Canada, in reasons in Harvey v. New Brunswick, which was a case involving a Member of the provincial legislature who was expelled after being found guilty of corruption under the New Brunswick Elections Act..If our democracy is to survive, the Commons must insist upon the integrity of those who seek and hold public office. They cannot tolerate corrupt practices, nor can they tolerate electoral fraud. If they do, grave consequences follow. The functioning of the legislature becomes impaired, and public confidence in the legitimacy of the legislature and government is undermined..When faced with behaviour that undermines their fundamental integrity, elected Members are required to act to defend Parliament. The action may range from discipline for minor irregularities to expulsion and disqualification. Expulsion assures the public that those who have corruptly abused office will be removed, and that standards will be defended. However, the general atmosphere that Trudeau has created since first being elected, is that he has debased Parliament and many now question basic legitimacy..To suggest that an election is being rigged is about as serious an allegation as one can level at a sitting government. It is the sort of thing that conjures thoughts of stuffed ballot boxes and gerrymandered electoral districts. However, in the cyber age of social media, and specialized foreign language programming, secret funding of election influencers is hard to trace. Fortunately, CSIS has the evidence, and it remains to be seen if there will be any action. Fake news and foreign interference have created declining confidence in our historical democratic process..Polls find that a majority of Canadians have fallen for fake news at some point. Politics is often conducted as if it's a sport, but in reality, it is no game. Canadians now observe the Liberals dragging their feet on foreign interference. Trudeau is defending his ill-gotten political gain. The government does not reflect the urgency and significance of how serious are the transgressions. Liberals have known of this wrongdoing for some time. Also, the legacy media diverts public attention by mulling over the question of whether there should be a formal Public Enquiry, while claiming that a Parliamentary Committee examination is incapable of functioning because it would be too partisan..As long as the NDP continues their verbal charade and feigns disgust while continuing to vote support for the Liberals at all Committees and in the House against every Conservative accountability measure, justice will never be done.
