Debates of Oct. 18th, 2023

Criminal Code

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

I declare the motion defeated.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-320 under Private Members' Business.

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

Vote #426

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

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to change my vote on Bill C-325 from yea to nay.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 77 minutes.

Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That,

(a) the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying;

(b) five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co-Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c) in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d) the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e) the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f) changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g) membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(h) where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions relating to hybrid committee proceedings contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall also apply to the committee;

(i) the committee have the power to:

(i) sit during sittings and adjournments of the House,

(ii) report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee,

(iii) retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel,

(iv) appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons,

(v) authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada's websites;

(j) the committee submit a final report of its review, including any recommendations, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024; and

(k) following the presentation of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall expire; and

that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, entitled “Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)”.

This piece of legislation was brought forward in the name of the member for Foothills. The bill will be up for third reading at some point, I am sure. I would like to thank all those involved, including the witnesses we had before the committee.

It is being reported back with amendment, but I wanted to offer my sincere congratulations to the member for Foothills.

Feeds Act

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act (provisional registration and approval).

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up again to introduce this private member's bill. As you mentioned, the title of the bill is an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act on provisional registration and approval.

I have had the opportunity in this House, over the last six to eight months, to talk about the ways that we could drive competitiveness in the agricultural sector. If members talk to farmers across the country, farmers will talk about the important tools, whether they be new seeds, new feeds or crop protection products, and how we could find ways to leverage the science and trusted jurisdictions elsewhere as part of the regulatory process.

The legislation proposes a 90-day provisional registration, where an applicant arriving at Health Canada, CFIA or PMRA would be able to show the science of jurisdictions elsewhere in the world where there is approval. It would allow those regulatory agencies to define what a trusted jurisdiction is. It would allow for provisional registration to ensure farmers have access to these tools in a more timely manner, without compromising public safety or the scientific process that we expect our Canadian regulators to undertake.

For the regulatory model that would follow, I envision a moment where there could be a pause on the provisional registration if necessary. However, this bill is supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a variety of stakeholders groups across the country.

I would encourage any member of the House to second it. I would encourage any member to perhaps take their name to it if they are higher up on the bid. I will be calling on the government to introduce this legislation in budget 2024.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

International Trade

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the prosecutor, the member of Parliament for Brantford—Brant, who will probably do a much better job prosecuting this issue than I will.

I want to start by talking about recommendation number 1 from the committee, with respect to looking into the arrive scam app. The first recommendation that the committee put together, in part, is this:

That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders, including through the use of appropriate digital and non-digital tools....

When we talk about digital tools, what we have learned is that there was some extraordinarily nefarious activity going on with the development of the “arrive scam”, “arrive can't”, app. We call it the “arrive can't” app, because every member in this chamber knows that the app was actually an unmitigated disaster for travellers. It did not work well. It caused enormous delays at the borders. Seniors were unable to use it. People had all kinds of trouble going back and forth across the border as a result of this app.

The international trade committee studied this over a series of meetings—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will just interrupt the member. I hear conversations going on in the House.

I would ask people who want to have conversations to go out into the lobby.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is what is important to look at: The arrive scam app was not just studied at the international trade committee, which is the subject of the report in the motion we are debating today. This was actually studied several times. It was studied at OGGO, which had a bunch of meetings, on October 20, November 14, November 17 and December 8, 2022. This is in addition to all the meetings that we had at the international trade committee.

I am sure members and all Canadians are wondering where I am going with this and why I am bringing these dates and other things up. It is because government officials came and testified at committee about this app on many occasions. They came to the OGGO committee on November 14 and October 20, 2022. We also had government officials from CBSA at the international trade committee.

Why is that relevant? It is relevant because it looks as though there was some pretty nefarious business going on with the development of this app. This was first reported to CBSA in September 2021 by the founders of a small, Montreal-based software company, who said that there was something rotten in Denmark.

At all these meetings, we had government officials who came to testify from public works, CBSA, Shared Services, Public Safety, customs and immigration, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. At all these meetings, the nefarious goings-on with the contract for the arrive scam app was never raised. It is unbelievable. Everyone knew there was a problem.

One may say that this was September 2021, so that maybe did not apply. It was a long time ago. They forgot about it and did not take it seriously, but they then submitted another report to the government with their concerns in November 2022. These meetings kept going on, and not once did the government raise this. In fact, we now know that when the Auditor General was looking into this, the government did not even let the Auditor General know that the contracting surrounding this app was not being looked into.

This is a typical Liberal cover-up. What is terrible is that this is not the first time. We could say that the first time the Liberal government made a mistake and did not disclose something, we could perhaps give it a pass. However, the Liberal government has engaged in this kind of corruption on a repeated and continual basis. We can go all the way back to the adscam, where there were bags of money being exchanged, and there was a public inquiry into it.

I would think that the Liberal Party and Liberal governments had learned that this is not the way to conduct business. However, in fact, this corruption continued. We only have to look at what has come up with McKinsey, SNC-Lavalin and the WE Charity.

We now have an extraordinarily long and wide track record of the Liberal government engaging in purchasing the agreements to develop this app in a way that appears to be criminal in nature. This is extraordinarily damning for the government. Once again, it chose not to follow the proper path but to go down a road of corruption. What makes it worse is that, in the course of studying this app, we heard a litany of witnesses at the international trade committee who said how terribly the app worked.

Even when it engaged in this kind of corrupt activity in the procurement of this technology, it did it in such an incompetent way that the app was way over budget. We heard that there were app developers who said they could develop it for a couple of million dollars. The government paid $54 million for an app that did not even work.

The backups at the border were unbelievable as people tried to use this app, and this happened over and over again with absolutely no compassion from the government. People who could not fill it in were given no compassion from the government. They were sometimes sent to quarantine hotels. We know what the bills for those quarantine hotels were. We know how people were treated in those quarantine hotels.

The arrive scam app is an unmitigated disaster from corrupt conception all the way through implementation to where we are today. It would appear that the government has not learned a single lesson about that because it failed to disclose an ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP with respect to this app. The Liberals did not disclose it ever at committee. They did not disclose it to the Auditor General. Why was that? It is because the government has a track record and a history of trying to not disclose things.

This has also been published in a story by The Globe and Mail on October 3 or 4. What I am waiting for is for the Prime Minister to say once again that the story in The Globe and Mail is false.

Members can remember when that happened when we were dealing with the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the story broke about how badly Jody Wilson-Raybould was treated by the Liberal government as she tried to do the honourable thing and be a whistle-blower. The Prime Minister said that the story in The Globe and Mail was false, except it turned out that the story in The Globe and Mail was one hundred per cent true.

Therefore, I would suggest that the story we have in The Globe and Mail about more Liberal corruption and more Liberal cover-ups is absolutely true. What a disappointing day this is for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I am not completely surprised. I was a little bit taken aback that the Conservatives would bring forward yet another concurrence motion on a Wednesday. We have had these discussions in the past where the Conservative Party likes to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is it that the Conservative Party always chooses to use concurrence motions on government business days? The Conservatives never feel that they can use it on opposition days.

Today, we were supposed to be debating jobs, and the Conservative Party wants to talk about what I would classify as old, political, biased news, which it wants to try to highlight instead of the important issue of jobs. Why is that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know some members are wondering about the noise. I did motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms, and he is taking care of it.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is okay. I do not mind a little noise.

I am going to talk about this question in a couple of parts.

First of all, the government always thinks that debate is inconvenient, which is of no surprise because its leader said that he admired the basic dictatorship of China. Of course, in China, there would not be debate on a piece of legislation. Therefore, when the member gets up and asks why we are debating things, it is because, from the top down, debate is inconvenient and the Liberals would rather have things work more like a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy. This is the House of Commons, and we debate pieces of legislation.

Second, the member suggests that this is old news. This report just came out two weeks ago. That is not old. It is new. The Liberals are trying to cover it up, and we are not going to let them. The prosecutor is going to prosecute it, and they are going to pay the price.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the current scandal involving ArriveCAN, which is being investigated by the RCMP, there is also the whole issue of its implementation and the fact that, once again, consultants were called in who called in more consultants, who called in even more consultants. This was done without using the internal workforce, without recognizing the expertise and skills of our public servants.

Does my colleague have anything to add about the importance of using internal staff before calling in consultants, more consultants, and even more consultants?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. A huge problem for the government has been its use of consultants. We only have to look at how it used McKinsey for all kinds of things. McKinsey was responsible for the opioid crisis. The Liberals keep giving McKinsey more and more money, and this is what they do. They do not use the public service to get things done; they hire these consultants, their friends and buddies, and it is just corruption upon corruption. It has to stop. I hope the Bloc will be with us on this.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's speech I did not hear any mention about a bunch of other Canadians who tried on a weekend to see if they could build the app, and I think they were capable of it. I am not exactly sure of the details. I was wondering if he could talk a bit about that as well.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, only a Liberal government could design an app for $54 million that some people could design in their homes on a weekend, because the Liberals are so incompetent. What makes it worse is that their incompetence also comes with an incredible amount of corruption. A common-sense Conservative government working for the people would never let that happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been looking through this report. Albeit not in its entirety, I certainly see that the government agrees with a number of the recommendations that are in it, and my question to the member is this: Why was this particular concurrence motion so incredibly important, rather than talking about jobs, which Conservatives are always talking about?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, for a Liberal government whose leader admires the basic dictatorship of China, debate is inconvenient, and when the opposition picks the debate it is even more inconvenient, because the Liberals want to run the country like a dictatorship. We are not going to let them.