Debates of April 10th, 2024

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

[Chair read text of motion as amended to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion as amended be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should have a recorded division on this.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #684

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

The House resumed from April 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #685

Constitution Act, 1867

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion defeated.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Order.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 44 minutes.

Government Responses to Order Paper Questions

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the questions of privilege raised by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Lethbridge respecting the government's response to two similar Order Paper questions, Question Nos. 1425 and 1445.

The members alleged that the government's response to these two Order Paper questions deliberately misled the House. I submit that this is, in fact, not the case. The government stands by its responses to these Order Paper questions.

Question No. 1425 reads in part, “With regard to government requests to censor information, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies to censor information...?”

In the case of Question No. 1445, it reads, “With regard to the government requests to remove, edit, or alter information in the media, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies, including for any article, post or reply...?”

Both questions deal with whether the government initiated a request for action.

As part of the written submissions and testimony before the public inquiry on foreign interference, officials spoke about the Declaration on Electoral Integrity Online, to which social media platforms voluntarily signed on. In accordance with its terms, these social media companies would identify inauthentic activity on their platforms and consider taking down information they considered to be violations of their community standards.

In early 2019, platforms had signed on to a framework agreement, the Canada Declaration of Electoral Integrity Online. Under this framework, Facebook engaged the Privy Council Office on an article from The Buffalo Chronicle, which contained misinformation. As noted in the testimony, the Privy Council Office agreed with Facebook that, in their opinion, the article contained misinformation and agreed with their proposal to remove it, pursuant to the declaration. At this point, Facebook ultimately reached the conclusion that the article represented a violation of its community standard and took action of its own accord.

I submit that, at best, the matter raised by both members constitutes a debate as to the facts, which is a normal part of debate in this place.

The government stands by the accuracy of the responses to Order Paper Question Nos. 1425 and 1445; in no way did it seek to mislead the House on this matter. The facts stand: A social media company engaged PCO about a posting on its platform that violated its own policy regarding its community standards on misinformation, and after notifying PCO of the situation, removed the offending post. That is a key point for the Speaker to consider in making a determination on matters relating to the responses to both Order Paper Question No. 1425 and Order Paper Question No. 1445.

It is a long-standing practice of this place to take members at their word. Moreover, there are numerous precedents to demonstrate that the Speaker is not empowered to judge the quality of the answers provided, as you stated in your ruling of February 29.

Having said that, I want to assure the House that the government takes seriously its commitment to providing accurate and truthful information to ensure that members have the information they need to discharge their parliamentary duties.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege, and this is concerning false information contained in the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2340, which was filed by the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

While it may seem unusual for me, as a Conservative member, to be rising about a government response to a question filed by the NDP, this is not just about the member who filed the question but about all members of the House who suffer and whose rights are infringed upon when the government tables information which is clearly false and inaccurate in the House.

The response to Question No. 2340, which was tabled by the government on Monday, contains information that is clearly false, which is proven by the government's own records. The question asked was:

...since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?

The response, signed by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, says:

...since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys or Costco.

We know that this is not true. The government took a lot of pride in announcing millions of dollars for fridges for Loblaws. If one types the word “Loblaws” into the government's proactive disclosure portal, under grants and contributions, one will see that there are three separate listings for government grants and contributions to Loblaws between November 7, 2019, and April 26, 2021.

The most significant of these is a contribution for $12,019,723 on November 7, 2019, from Environment and Climate Change Canada for low global warming potential refrigerant conversions in supermarket systems. In other words, it was $12 million to Loblaws to buy new fridges. That one entry, by itself, listed in the proactive disclosure database, proves that the government's response to Question No. 2034 contains false information. In addition, a quick search on the government's own website will show us that on October 24, 2019, it gave $15,803,515 to Costco for “Energy Savings Rebate Program Funding Regarding Canadian Appliance Source”.

It is crystal clear, from the government's own data, that the response in the tabled document by the minister on Monday contains false information. This is not a matter of debate or opinion. This is proven by the government's own reporting on proactive disclosure.

I had wished that the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford had raised the question of privilege on his own, but as we all know, his party has an agreement with the government that stunts its ability to criticize the Liberals or to point out the hypocrisy of the NDP supporting a Liberal government that is giving handouts to Loblaws and Costco.

When the House of Commons is provided with untrue information or lies, all members of the House suffer and all members have the right to receive accurate information. What the government did here is a breach to all members' rights. On page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, it clearly states that it is a prima facie case of contempt when someone “deliberately attempts to mislead the House or a committee”. While the record will show that Speakers have been reluctant to intervene on the basis of a quality of an answer or a non-answer, this is a case of the government deliberately withholding the truth from the House.

On December 16, 1980, on page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker said:

While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member....

Should you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member, and it will be taken under advisement.

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

Madam Speaker, the tradition in the House has been to allow the opportunity for the member who has actually asked the question to raise the question of privilege. I find this a bit discourteous.

That being said, we are currently looking at this, and I would like to reserve the opportunity for the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to rise on this question of privilege a little later on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member's request is so noted.

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is rising on a point of order.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to change my vote on our opposition day motion from nay to yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to change his vote?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Superintendent of Financial Institutions

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

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions 2024-25 departmental plan.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, regarding the Canada disability benefit.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of PROC members, I would like to thank the witnesses who appeared. I would also like to mentioned how much we appreciate our clerk, Michael, as well as the analysts Andre, Isabelle and Laurence, who has returned. We also want to give a shout-out to everyone who supports the committee, including those in food services, tech, interpretation, cleaning services and so many more.

Today, I am very proud to present, in both official languages, the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Question of Privilege Related to the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members”.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present the supplemental report of the Conservative members on the procedure and House affairs committee.

Conservatives concur with the finding of the main report that Mr. Wei Zhao be held in contempt of Parliament for targeting the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family. However, it is our observation that the main report is incomplete in several respects.

For one, it does not fully account for the colossal breakdown in the machinery of government under the Prime Minister's watch that resulted in the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family having been kept in the dark for two years while they were being targeted by Beijing.

Second, the supplemental report outlines a campaign of obstruction by Liberal MPs to block the production of relevant documents to get to the bottom of how this breakdown in the machinery of government under the Prime Minister's watch occurred. It was clearly directed by the PMO as part of the continuation of the cover-up.

Finally, our supplemental report provides evidence that the now Minister of National Defence was not entirely forthcoming in his testimony before committee. It is our assessment that the false and misleading testimony of the Minister of National Defence may rise to a level of a contempt of Parliament. Consequently, I will forthwith be putting on notice a question of privilege. I will have more to say on that later today.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence presented on Monday, February 26, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

I am proud to stand to speak to the eighth report from the Standing Committee on National Defence. It is a report that reads:

Given that, rent for Canadian military personnel living on base is increasing this April, and at a time when the military is struggling to recruit and retain personnel, the committee report to the House, that the government immediately cancel all plans to increase rent on military accommodations used by the Department of National Defence....

I think all of us realize that on April 1, the Liberal government played a cruel joke on the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We saw the government jack up rent on military housing by 4.2%. On that very same day, the government also hiked up the carbon tax by 23%.

We are hearing all the time about the dire straits our members of the Canadian Armed Forces are facing. We are always discussing the retention and recruitment problems that we have in the Canadian Armed Forces today. We know that currently the Canadian Armed Forces is short over 6,700 military housing units. Those residential units are right across this country at a time when housing in every major urban centre is in desperate need.

There is not enough housing for the families out there, and that is why we have seen general public housing rent double in the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, mortgages have doubled, making it unaffordable for families, and that is impacting our Armed Forces members. When they cannot find a place to live on base in their own military housing because we do not have enough of them, being short 6,700, they are forced to go into the private property that is out there, and they cannot afford to buy or rent homes in communities.

We heard, just before Christmas, that the Nova Scotia legislature held hearings about the housing crisis for the Canadian Armed Forces in Halifax. Of course, we have the naval base, CFB Halifax, in Halifax. On the other side, we have CFB Shearwater. Military members there are living rough. The recount at the committee hearings in the Nova Scotia legislature pointed to the fact that the military members were living in one of the 30 tent cities that have sprouted up in Halifax. Military members were also living rough and having to live out of their cars. These are working members of the Canadian Armed Forces, working as either sailors or aircrew at either one of the two bases. We learned that a lot of them are couch surfing just to get by, and many of them are being forced to live in precarious situations, including having to live with domestic violence. They cannot afford to leave those situations and move to a safer accommodation.

I had, in particular, one military member and his spouse who were both serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and had been stationed at CFB Shilo in Manitoba. They sold their home in Manitoba because they were transferred to CFB Shearwater, and for the first while, they had to live in a camper. Then, when they were put into military housing, it was in such disrepair that they wrote to me and said that in the evening they would come home and just cry. They left this beautiful home in Manitoba and had to come to live in a shanty in Halifax because that is all that they could get from the Canadian Armed Forces.

We also know that things are tough in Esquimalt, and we often hear of the shortage of housing over there. I know for a fact that one of the members in the Royal Canadian Navy who is a master seaman from my riding, when he moved with his wife and small child to Esquimalt to serve, was put into a situation in which all they could afford with their salaries was a small one-bedroom apartment. It is so expensive that, on top of working full-time as a sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy, he has had to moonlight at night and work at a convenience store just to help make ends meet.

This has forced so many military families across this country to resort to other measures, including the use of food banks. I know we are going to hear from my colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, about how military families out of CFB Gagetown are now using the local food bank. We heard about how military families in Halifax are going to the food bank. That was part of the testimony that was presented at the Nova Scotia Legislature. Now, we just learned this week that military families at CFB Borden, those who are stationed there, are now also going to the food bank in the town of Borden.

This is no way to treat our military heroes. This is no way for them to have to live, and it was just reported last week that troops who had to come to Ottawa to train for cybersecurity at Willis College had to rely on food donations from the local college staff just so they could get by. This is an embarrassment, and this is a pox on the Liberal government for failing our troops.

The Liberals will talk about how great their defence policy update is, but if we look at what they are doing to military housing, in the past two years the government has only built 38 new homes for the Canadian Armed Forces. We are short 6,700, and all they could muster up was less than 20 homes a year over the last two years. In the defence policy update, they have promised, for the coming year of 2024-25, zero dollars. They promised, for 2025-26, zero dollars. The next year is only $1 million. The year after that is only $2 million, and in 2028-29, they finally get to $4 million.

That does not build enough homes when we are short 6,700 houses. That does not even build 20 homes, $7 million, with the price homes are at these days, and that is for the next five years. How are we going to fix this when there are not the dollars and resources to do it?

The Liberal government is failing our troops, and this has proven again that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

When we talk about the retention and recruitment crisis, there is no way that we can attract more people into the Canadian Armed Forces when we do not have proper housing to put them and their families in. We cannot attract them to come in to live in homes that are filled with black mould. We cannot put them in homes where they would be living in 1950s structures that have not been updated in the last 70 years.

When we are short 16,000 troops and we have 10,000 troops who are undertrained, they do not want to have to go for training where the barracks have frozen pipes or, even worse, are filled with rodents, which we are hearing about coming from Kingston.

I can tell members that as Conservatives we are going to go out there and help our forces. We are so proud of our military heroes and their families for stepping up and serving this nation. We are going to axe the carbon tax and make life more affordable for all Canadians, but especially for those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are going to build the homes, and that includes building the homes for our military families across this country on every base, making sure we can maximize the land and space they are located on to build homes that are going to benefit them and their local communities.

We are going to fix the budget, and that means we are going to make sure we find the dollars to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. When we fix the budget, there are going to be dollars available to go into the new kit that our troops need and into the equipment they require to do the difficult jobs we ask of them.

It is also about stopping the crime, whether it is sexual misconduct on base or crime in the communities people live in that are now just completely swamped in chaos because of the gangs that are out there, the car thefts that are happening and the violence that is on the rise because the Liberals continue to let violent offenders out over and over again.

We want to make sure that we are standing up for families and keeping our communities safe, because these are the greatest Canadians we have, those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. When they have a day of standing on the wall and keeping us safe here at home or when they are out on mission and they return from abroad, we need to make sure that they have a house they can afford and a home that is modern and comfortable, and that at the end of the day they can raise their families in safe communities and not worry about the cost of living crisis that they are dealing with right now because of the out-of-control spending and hyperinflation we have experienced because of the Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, the problem with the member's assertion is that he is assuming that all military personnel want to live on the base. I can tell him that, when I was mayor of Kingston, every summer I would get together with the mayor of Watertown, which is right next to Fort Drum in the United States. The one thing the mayor of Watertown always talked about was how jealous he was, because Fort Drum was its own base with people living on it outside of Watertown and not really connected to the city. He would come to CFB Kingston and see the way it integrated so well into the community.

When I was younger and in high school, all those in the military community lived around the base on the east side of Kingston. Now they live throughout the entire community. My kids quite often are coached on a team by a military spouse who has children on the same team. We get a certain level of integration when we encourage those in the military to live and participate in our community.

I am wondering if the member can comment on whether he sees the benefit in that or if he thinks all military members should exclusively live on the base.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member for Kingston and the Islands that he has not been mayor for over 10 years. For the last 10 years, he has been part of the Liberal government that has created the housing crisis we are seeing in every community across this country, including in his own.

I am not advocating that all military bases have enough housing for all members who currently live there. A lot of them want to live in communities. The problem is that, for those in Esquimalt, in Halifax, in Toronto and even here in Ottawa, they cannot find the homes they can afford to raise their families in. That is the problem. That is because of the government's inability to get homes built.

The number of houses getting built in this country continues to decline. We are building fewer homes this year than we did back in 1970 under the Liberals. That is because there is not the money, the regulation or the commitment to ensure that life can be more affordable and that houses can be more affordable for Canadian families, including those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Madam Speaker, I note that we were supposed to be debating pharmacare today, a pharmacare bill that would make a difference in the lives of millions of Canadians.

I also note, as I know the member is aware, that the national defence committee is meeting right now. The NDP proposed and members of the committee from all parties agreed to have a study that talks specifically about housing for our women and men in the service. I note that all of that is taking place and that we are putting aside a debate on pharmacare that will help millions of people.

My concern is that I lived through the Harper regime when there were massive cuts to veterans services and the closing of veterans services offices throughout Canada. Veterans were very badly mis-served by the Harper government. I would ask my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for, if he regrets now all of the actions, the cut-and-gut approach to funding for women and men in the service and our veterans that was done under the Harper regime. Does he regret that now, in retrospect?