Debates of Dec. 13th, 2022

(Return tabled)

Question No.933—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

With regard to purchases of vehicles by the government since January 1, 2020, excluding vehicles used by either the RCMP or the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what was the total number and value of vehicles purchased; and (b) what are the details of each purchase, including (i) the make, (ii) the model, (iii) the price, (iv) the number of vehicles, (v) whether the vehicle was a traditional, hybrid, or electric?

(Return tabled)

Question No.934—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

With regard to collective agreements of the public service signed by the government since January 1, 2019, broken down by each collective agreement and by year between 2020 and 2023: what is the (i) detailed cost breakdown, (ii) overall cost increase for the government, of each added benefit or pay increase included in the agreement?

(Return tabled)

Question No.936—

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

With regard to Indigenous Services Canada and long-term drinking water advisories: (a) of the 136 advisories lifted between November 2015 and October 2022, how many have been re-issued, and what are the locations of the advisories that were re-issued; (b) have any advisories been lifted and later re-issued multiple times, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) location, (ii) dates lifted, (iii) dates issued or re-issued; (c) on what date was each advisory in (a) (i) lifted, (ii) re-issued; (d) of the 67 drinking water advisories issued between November 2015 and October 2022, what are the details of each, including the (i) location, (ii) date added, (iii) reason for the advisory, (iv) date the advisory was lifted, if applicable; and (e) of the 31 advisories still in effect, what are the locations of each and on what date is each advisory expected to be lifted?

(Return tabled)

Question No.937—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

With regard to government interactions with and expenditures related to Canada 2020, since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, including the volume, (iv) details of related events, if applicable, including the dates, locations, and the title of events; (b) what are the details of all sponsorships the government has provided to Canada 2020, including the event (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) sponsorship amount, (iv) title, and the purpose of sponsoring the event; and (c) what are the details of all gifts, including free event tickets, received by ministers, ministerial staff or other government officials from Canada 2020, including the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) value, (iv) description of the gift, including the volume and the event date, if applicable?

(Return tabled)

Question No.938—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to the government's approach to the transferring of prospective technology from Canada to the People's Republic of China: (a) what assessments has the government made of the possibility that technologies developed in Canada in partnership with Huawei could be used to aid human rights violations in China or anywhere else, and what were the results of such assessments; (b) what plans does the government have to ensure that technologies being developed in Canada will not be used by the People's Republic of China for surveillance purposes that would hinder the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Hong Kong; (c) what assessments has the government made of Huawei's ability to gain access to Canada's technology through joint ventures and labs located in Canada; (d) what assessments has the government made of the possibility of unwarranted cross-border data transfer to the People's Republic of China through products and services provided by firms like Hikvision, Huawei and other Chinese companies, and what were the results of such assessments; (e) what assessments has the government made of the possibility of the People's Republic of China arbitrarily cutting off access to technology required to maintain systems in Canada, and what was the result of that assessment; (f) what assessments has the government made of the possibility of Chinese companies changing routing conditions or using network shaping tactics to increase the likelihood that traffic will move across connections where China has the ability to monitor it, and what were the results of such assessments; (g) what assessments has the government made of the risk to national security associated with hosting one of the stations of the Beidou satellite, and what were the results of such assessments; and (h) what policies and plans does the government have in place for the protection of data transferred via the subsea systems connecting Canada, the east coast of the United States, and England that was updated by Huawei in 2007?

(Return tabled)

Question No.939—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

With regard to the details of certain contracts being withheld from disclosure, since January 1, 2016: (a) what was the total (i) number, (ii) value, of contracts which had their details withheld due a national security exemption, broken down by year; (b) what is the total (i) number, (ii) value, of contracts which had their details withheld for a reason other than national security, broken down by year and reason for withholding the details; and (c) what is the total (i) number, (ii) value, of contracts related to the government's response to COVID-19 which had their details withheld, broken down by year and reason for withholding the details?

(Return tabled)

Question No.941—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With regard to the Tourism Relief Fund (TRF): (a) how much of the minimum $50 million of the TRF's regional priorities funding has been disbursed to the indigenous tourism sector as of October 26 and 27, 2022; (b) what are the details of all funding provided through the TRF for indigenous tourism initiatives, including, for each instance, the (i) indigenous ownership status of each recipient, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) amount provided; (c) how did the federal government verify applicants who claimed indigenous ownership; (d) how much indigenous funding has been distributed in each province or territory, in total, and broken down by type of indigenous tourism related business; (e) how many total indigenous applications have been received by the federal government; (f) how many indigenous applications did the federal government receive for each month since the TRF became available; (g) how many indigenous applications have been rejected or denied by the federal government; (h) how many indigenous applications are still being reviewed; and (i) how much money remains available in the TRF for eligible indigenous tourism applicants?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Situation in Children's Hospitals

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

The Chair has received notice of a request for an emergency debate.

I invite the hon. member for Burnaby South to rise and make a brief intervention.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an emergency debate concerning the state of children's hospitals and health care as it relates to children in our country.

We have heard the serious news that in Ottawa, the nation's capital, the Red Cross had to be called in to assist at the children's hospital. The Red Cross is called when there is a disaster.

In Alberta, trailers have been set up in front of children's hospitals because of the demand and over-crowding in children's hospitals. Children are dying because of respiratory illnesses. We have heard heartbreaking stories from health care professionals about how bad the system is.

We need a debate to lay out how serious the crisis is, to hear the stories and the experiences of health care workers and patients, and to chart a course to protect our health care system. We need to keep it publicly administered and ensure that everyone gets the care they need, particularly children, as they are being impacted hard right now.

That is why I am requesting an emergency debate in the House today.

Speaker's Ruling

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

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby South for his intervention. However, the Chair is not satisfied that his request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Alleged Misleading Statement by the Member for Burlington

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48. I would like to speak on that matter at this time.

In order for a question of privilege to be accorded precedence over the orders of the day, two conditions must be met. First, the matter must be brought at the earliest opportunity. Second, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

With respect to the first condition, the matter arises out of a point of order by the member for Burlington on Thursday, December 8, 2022. In her statement, the member for Burlington said that she heard the member for Haldimand—Norfolk call another member, a Liberal member, an anti-Semite. As the Speaker was not aware of this, the matter was left with the promise that the Hansard would be consulted and the matter would return to the House if necessary. Today, Tuesday, December 13, 2022, is the earliest opportunity for me to bring forth this matter of privilege.

The second condition is that there must be a prima facie breach of privilege. The House found that the unjust damaging of a member's good name may constitute a form of breach if it affects the performance of parliamentary duties. In 1987, Speaker Fraser found that the privileges of a member “are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions”. That is found at page 112 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

In April 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled that the reputation of a member was unjustly damaged by misleading bulk mail that was mailed into the member's riding.

Also in 2005, a prima facie breach of privilege was found with respect to comments made by the Ethics Commissioner to a journalist about the member for Calgary East.

Most profoundly, the misleading statements of the members and ministers are taken very seriously by this House. On December 6, 1978, Speaker Jerome found that a prima facie contempt of the House existed when a government official deliberately misled the minister, which impeded the member in his performance of his duties.

Last week, on December 8, after Oral Questions, the member for Burlington raised an issue that impugns my reputation and hinders my credibility in this House and as a member of Parliament. The member for Burlington actually waited until I had left the chamber after Oral Questions, and I was unable to hear the point of order to defend myself against this very serious accusation made against me.

I was preparing to leave the building when I heard my constituency name and the misinformation that this member raised against me. The member accused me of calling the member for Fredericton, whom I do not know personally and have never met, an anti-Semite while she was asking a question to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

This incident shocked me greatly and has shattered my perception of the House as a place of parliamentary decorum and respect. It brings me great concern about how such a divided House can have the capacity to act in the best interests of Canadians. This is the gravity of the situation that compels me to interrupt this House's very important business to raise this question of privilege today.

After the member for Burlington brought the false accusation against me, I returned to my seat and was able to rise to state unequivocally that it did not happen. I believe I was unfairly targeted and harmed by this baseless accusation. Let me explain.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022, the night before this incident happened, I relaunched the Canadian Parliamentary Israel Allies Caucus, a caucus that was formed 15 years ago with the Hon. Stockwell Day, then leader of the Canadian Alliance party, as its founding chairman. I have been honoured to take the helm as chair of this important caucus that is focused on fighting anti-Semitism.

As chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Israel Allies Caucus, I take this allegation very seriously, because it is my duty to foster respectful dialogue. Indeed, I have had very respectful and productive conversations about Israel and anti-Semitism with members of the House, such as the Green Party member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We do not always agree, but we have always been respectful and had productive conversations.

Curiously, the next day, after the launch of this caucus, I was falsely accused of calling a Liberal member of the House an anti-Semite. I had no idea why anybody would spew that phrase against another member of the House. In fact, I was not aware of any reason until after this incident occurred. I later learned that the member for Fredericton had left the Green Party, which was led by a Black Jewish woman, and had joined the Liberal caucus. That is my current understanding. I was not aware of this context, who she was, or her history before this incident happened. It therefore would have been impossible for me to have called the member for Fredericton an anti-Semite.

Rather, it has been my personal conviction and value to honour and show respect to all my colleagues in the House at all times. I believe it is vital for constructive debate, for the integrity of the House and for the broader unity of this country. However, what I fear is that this incident highlights the toxic environment the Liberals have brought to this Parliament. It also highlights the level of pomposity that is inherent in their style of government.

It is a tone set from the very top. The government has made the politics of division its playbook. I remind members of the House that it was the Prime Minister who laid the foundation for this kind of unacceptable behaviour by implying that the member for Thornhill, a proud Jewish woman, was standing with Nazis during the trucker convoy protest earlier this year.

The toxic environment fuelled by the Prime Minister is in danger of bringing the House into contempt. We are all required to treat our colleagues in the House with respect, because we are all hon. members. There is nothing honourable about misleading the House and hurling false accusations against its members, and I fear that the member for Burlington deliberately misled this House and knowingly brought forward false information against me.

She chose her words very carefully. She said she specifically heard me say something that it was impossible to have heard, because I did not say it. In fact, I did not utter one word when the member for Fredericton asked her question. I was silent, yet the member for Burlington misled the House by stating that I called the member for Fredericton an anti-Semite, and that she heard me say it.

Therefore, I find it very difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the member for Burlington misled the House deliberately, and if this action goes unpunished, any member of the House could falsely hurl an accusation at another member and say they said something they did not say. This is very serious and poses the risk of bringing the entire House into disrepute.

Consequently, I am going to ask that the member for Burlington be found in contempt of the House. I also ask for, and expect, an apology from the member for falsely accusing me.

If you review the statement made by the member, Mr. Speaker, you will clearly hear her say that if she was mistaken, she would apologize. The question is this. If she heard me say what she said I said, how could she have been mistaken?

It was during that same day that my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, was penalized and asked to leave the House just minutes before I was accused. I expect equal treatment in the House toward the member for Burlington.

The House is in danger of losing the confidence of the Canadian people, one-third of whom chose not to vote in the last election. Many Canadians are choosing not to even be involved in politics because of the pettiness they see in the House. Its behaviour, as was displayed by the member for Burlington, has fostered the decline of confidence in our democratic institutions.

We must be accountable to the public for the falsehoods that we spread in the House as elected officials and the powerful and negative impact that our statements have not only on the reputations of our members and colleagues in the House, but with respect to the integrity of the entire House of Commons.

That is why this incident rises to the level of justifying a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. I am asking that you allow the House, Mr. Speaker, to consider further making determinations as to whether that member, the member for Burlington, should be held in contempt of the House.

Should you find that there is a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion. As a member of the House, I view as my primary duty the duty to safeguard the integrity of the House by challenging acts that compromise its reputation. Misleading the House is a serious act and if it is left unpunished, it will bring the entire House and its members into disrepute.

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

I thank the member for her intervention.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry if words were said that offended people on either side. I agree with my colleague that people have lost confidence because of the kind of bickering that goes on. However, I do not know if what has been raised meets the test. I say that because it is not clear what was said. We know that a lot of dumb comments were being made that day on both sides, and that is certainly a question of the confidence that people have, but I do not know if that means we are losing confidence with respect to the ability to govern. This does not meet the test that we are now a divided House that is unable to govern; rather, this is a partisan House.

I am not questioning whether this was or was not said. The member certainly feels that her reputation has been impinged. However, she raised three examples of why this meets the test, and I do not think they do meet it.

The first example was about using bulk mailings to attack someone else. That is using parliamentary resources to deliberately target someone in a riding. That would be an abuse of parliamentary rights, because the resources of the House are being used to attack.

Second, if someone makes comments on the record to a journalist, that is an official statement, which is different than someone heckling. A heckle is something that is ethereal; it may or may not have happened. However, if someone puts something on the record to a journalist, that can be brought back to the House if it is false.

The third example she gave was of a minister deliberately misleading the House when answering a question, because what has been asked in question period is on the record. When it is on the record, a minister must speak truthfully. We have had a number of examples over the years where ministers have misled the House, but we have also had examples where ministers were clearly not telling the truth and the Speaker deferred based on the issue that it may or may not have been a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Therefore, the standard we have for meeting the test for contempt, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, is very high. However, I remember the other day when this unfortunate incident came to light that the Speaker said he would go back and check the record to clarify if this was said. If it was, then my colleague has a right to go forward. If it was not said or was not picked up, then it is a matter of opinion of what happened back and forth with respect to the heckling. I leave that to the Speaker.

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

I thank the member. Normally with a question of privilege, there is not necessarily a debate; however, I will allow the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk to speak.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.