Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2023

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always love it when the people I am talking to appear to be listening, at least.

What I was saying is that it is essential. I challenge anyone here to accept the same working conditions as those people. Rain in the summer brings us down because we cannot go for motorcycle rides or head to the beach. What do they do when it rains? They do building maintenance. They go place orders. They do their paperwork because they do not have time for that when it is nice out. They have to be in the field 14 hours a day because they have no workers. Why do they have no workers? Because the government is so slow at processing foreign worker applications and because governments failed to see the current labour shortage coming.

I would like to say a thing or two about the labour shortage. I was a high school teacher. I was not an internationally renowned scientist. I was a high school geography teacher and, in the early 1990s, I taught my students that we would have a labour shortage now. Nobody did anything to avert that, and now people are stuck in this situation. They have no workers. Locals do not want to get their hands dirty, so people have to find other workers.

These folks are facing a labour shortage. They have to mechanize a lot of the production, and that means thousands if not millions in investments that generate debt. These people are heavily in debt. They called for help in spring and early summer, when torrential rains just about wiped out their harvest. Why did they call for help? They called for help because the crop insurance programs we have, the ones currently in place, the ones that the good old ministers refer us to whenever we ask them a question, do not work. Growers are not being adequately insured because the programs were designed 30 years ago in a more stable climate.

Yes, global warming exists. At the very least, I can tell the House that there is so much climate disruption that the last three years have been a disaster for produce growers. First, there was a drought. Then there were aphids. Why aphids? Because the hot season lasts much longer. The aphids moved further north. As they ran out of soybeans to eat, they moved on to fruits and vegetables. That happened last year. This year, there has been non-stop rain. We broke all-time records, particularly in the Eastern Townships, but just about everywhere in Quebec. It is all over the board. During the same period, there was a drought in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and northern Quebec as we tried to navigate our way through the smoke from the forest fires.

All these things are real. As a society, we are going to have to sit down with these people and discuss how to share the risk factor. We cannot just keep asking growers to put $2 million, $3 million or $4 million into their fields in the spring and get nothing back but us thanking them for feeding us and telling them that if they run into issues, they will need to figure it out on their own. We cannot do that.

I am digressing a bit from the subject of the bill to illustrate the fragility of this sector. I am a bit tired of hearing politicians talk about food sovereignty and how important it is to buy local. For 10 years now, we have been talking about this kind of simple, free measure that will not cost the government a thing, and yet it still has not been done.

I wish there could have been unanimous consent to send the bill to the Senate this evening. I am angry and upset because people who are celebrating and congratulating the member for York—Simcoe on his outstanding leadership, who say they are so happy to be voting this way for farmers, did not give unanimous consent. That means we will have to spend who knows how much more time on this in the House before sending it to the Senate. We also have to hope that place will deal with this efficiently so it can come back here and be made law.

Bills like this can be hard to implement. There are jurisdictional challenges that mean negotiations with other levels of government. That is important. We have to move quickly. Our fresh fruit and vegetable farmers are looking to us. They feed us now, but for how much longer? I think they are going to get sick of it and go find something else to do. Maybe grow field crops. Maybe sell their land. That is what we are up against. Let us pass this bill pronto.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to be standing in the House on behalf of the fruit and vegetable farmers in my region of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. My region and the Cowichan region have a long and storied history in agriculture. I would like to remind all members that the Cowichan Valley is in fact Canada's only Mediterranean climatic zone. The Halkomelem language is the language of the Quw'utsun; the Cowichan name is the anglicized version of that, and it roughly translates into the “warm lands”.

We are an agricultural powerhouse in the Cowichan region. I have been proud to call that area my home for over 30 years, and I am proud to be standing in this House in support of Bill C-280. This is a measure that has long been talked about in this very chamber, and we now have an opportunity to actually change the law. As many colleagues have pointed out, this is going to be of no cost but of huge benefit to the people it directly concerns.

I want to thank the people who have spoken before me: the sponsor, the member for York—Simcoe; the member for Kings—Hants; and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I have the pleasure of serving with two of those colleagues on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I have been the proud agricultural critic for the NDP since January 2018, so I know this subject very well. This is my third Parliament on the agriculture committee, and this subject has come up time and time again.

I do not want to delve too much into the details. We know that this issue matters because of the nature of the product we are talking about. Fruits and vegetables only have a tiny bit of shelf life before they have no more value. This is a unique product, and that is why we need to have this kind of a deemed trust.

It is not as though farmers, who are taking all the risk, can recoup losses by taking the product back; it is perishable in nature. We know that farmers deal with high costs. They have high input costs. It is expensive to buy machinery and erect greenhouses. In fact, almost all farmers' money is tied up in infrastructure, whether that is machinery or land. They are, in other words, land rich but cash poor.

This is a business model that is based on the tightest of margins, and anything the Parliament can do to ease up and make the payment process more guaranteed is something we should look at seriously. I am happy to say Bill C-280 would do that.

I would argue that, instead of this being just a Conservative bill, this bill is expressly non-partisan. I know the NDP has been fighting for this, as part of our electoral promise to Canadians, since 2015. Moreover, it is non-partisan by virtue of the fact that the second reading of this bill was unanimous. It sailed through committee. We had three meetings; we heard from a variety of witnesses. However, we decided as a committee to report this bill back to the House without amendments. It has the committee's stamp of approval, and I hope members in this chamber take note of that and seek to give it rapid passage.

This bill has been the subject of many committee studies. I have almost lost count of how many times, at different committees and different parliaments, we have seen a recommendation for this type of measure to be enacted by the House of Commons.

The time is now. I would like to see this bill pass through third reading, get to the Senate and start getting the traction it needs. The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the thousands of people they represent are watching us. They are waiting for action.

I will conclude my remarks by proudly saying that I will be supporting this bill, along with the NDP caucus. We look forward to its speedy passage to the other place; hopefully, it will eventually find its way to the Governor General's desk and receive the royal assent it deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from York—Simcoe for putting Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act, forward. It is a very important bill, and it has been a long time coming. I was elected nearly four years ago and we have been talking about this through the last two Parliaments, and I know it was talked about long before then. It is great to see all parties come together to support something that will help our Canadian produce growers, packers and shippers immensely.

During a Zoom call with The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, I heard that 52% of perishable product sales to U.S. customers from Canadian suppliers await payment from the United States. California producers and suppliers have a similar problem with their Canadian customers. On October 1, 2014, the United States Department of Agriculture revoked preferred treatment for Canadian shippers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. This was taken in retaliation for an action on the part of Canada with regard to establishing some type of trust protection from bankruptcy for all fresh produce shipped into the U.S. Under that status, Canadian companies did not have to post surety bonds when trying to collect payments from delinquent buyers. No other nation had such status.

Without the special status, a Canadian shipper must now post a bond for twice the amount they are seeking to collect. Taking action to recover $100,000 would require the purchase of a $200,000 bond. Current rules severely limit the ability of produce growers and sellers to collect payment in the event that their buyer declares bankruptcy.

While products like electronics can be reclaimed by the seller, highly perishable produce is lost because of the obvious. It spoils and rots very quickly, costing Canadian and U.S. firms that operate in Canada an average of $19 million per year, but there is a policy solution to this. In 1984, the United States Congress established “deemed trust” provisions through the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, also known as PACA, and that protected shippers in the event their buyer became insolvent. The PACA trust helps suppliers of perishable products ensure prompt payment by buyers.

The trust gives suppliers interest in a debtor's assets. Creating a reciprocal legal framework in Canada by federal statute for a PACA-like “deemed trust” would not draw on federal or provincial public treasuries but would offer Canadian producers and suppliers the means to collect on accounts payable from U.S. customers and give U.S. producers and suppliers the means to collect on accounts payable from Canadian customers.

My colleagues have gone into a lot of the details of this bill and I would like to take a bit of a different approach. I would like to give some personal perspective and a little history of my experience in the fresh produce sector to provide some personal context on how this legislation would benefit growers and shippers.

I grew up on a produce farm. I am a third-generation farmer and my grandparents on both sides of my family were essentially pioneers in the produce industry in the area that I grew up in, which is my hometown of Grand Bend, Ontario. My dad's parents, my Oma and Opa, immigrated from Holland and were one of the first five families to start farming in what is called the Klondike marsh. My mom's parents immigrated to Canada from Poland via Germany and moved to Grand Bend after living in the Chatham area where they first started growing vegetables.

They cleared their land and began farming in the Grand Bend bog, which used to be a shallow lake that was drained to become rich farmland. They grew potatoes, onions, carrots, lettuce and onion sets over the years. Eventually, my dad's parents retired and the family farm that my grandparents started, which now involved two families, took over growing some of the vegetables that my Oma and Opa used to grow. Farmers are innovators, and I would like to give one example from personal experience.

When I was growing up, it would be time to harvest our potatoes and my dad would go out to the field and hand-dig potatoes to see what stage of growth they were at. There are many things that farmers can automate, but this is not one that can be automated. This is still done by farmers putting their hands in the dirt and digging those little nuggets out of the ground by hand. When my dad would do test digs, he would bring all these little potato nuggets home, and we would never waste them. We would cook them up and eat them for supper. I can tell everyone that those were the most absolutely delicious potatoes.

To provide some context, back in the 1980s when I grew up, the CFIA regulations stipulated that undersized potatoes could not be packaged, and so all of those small undersized potatoes that we harvested would either be discarded for cattle feed or put in a compost pile. There was an enormous amount of perfectly good eating potatoes that became food waste because of packaging regulations. There came a point where my mom thought, “Well, jeez, we're always throwing these undersized potatoes out and they're the most delicious thing ever. Why are we doing this when they taste so good?” These little mini nuggets were so delicious that we wanted to share them with everybody else. Our farm made an application to the CFIA asking that we be able to bag these mini potatoes and sell them. So, the mini gourmet potato bag was born, and our family farm became the first farm in Canada to bring mini potatoes to market.

Now, members are probably wondering why the short history lesson on my family farm. Well, I wanted to provide context from the unique perspective that I hold as the only parliamentarian who is still involved in the fresh produce industry and produce farming.

Before my parents retired from farming, their farm was growing over 1,000 acres of potatoes in southwestern Ontario for grocery retailers. To meet grocery store expectations, we also relied on local smaller farms as well as smaller farms from across Canada in different provinces to supply us with Canadian product in our season. If we could not supply the grocery stores with the product they wanted when they wanted it, then they would not even consider us as a farm to be a supplier. However, the grocery stores had to supply year-round, and so we had to grow potatoes around North America in order to keep the supply going to supply grocery stores. We had farms contracted to custom grow for us in California, Florida, Idaho, North Carolina and Michigan. Our packing facility in Grand Bend used to process anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 acres through it per year.

Members can imagine the coordination that it would take to keep everything going when we have farms across North America supplying us. There would be a constant flow of trucks coming back and forth from all over the United States into Canada and from Canada into the States. The potatoes would be coming for us to process and package in our plant so that we could then give Canadians fresh potatoes on the grocery store shelves. We had to do this year round. With bringing upwards of 4,000 acres of fresh potatoes across the border to Canada from the United States every year, members can imagine the dollar value that would be for that product.

However, not only did we pack potatoes from the U.S., we also exported our excess crop during harvest season to the United States. The growing season in the United States is different from Canada's growing season in many parts. Being neighbours, we rely on each other to ensure a fresh food supply year-round. Canadians grow an abundance of fresh, perishable food, far greater than what we consume, and we are blessed to live in a country to be able to do so, but with that comes a huge amount of risk.

In this industry, it is standard practice to be paid 30 to 45 days from the time a product is received. As members can imagine, the shelf life of fresh produce is far less than the payment terms that sellers are working with. The intricacies of our supply chain for fresh food are far greater than anyone could ever imagine. When farmers are exporting millions of dollars in perishable food from the United States without a reciprocal agreement to ensure that they have a mechanism to be paid in the event of a dispute or a bankruptcy, it becomes a risky business. One bad deal or one dispute could literally bankrupt a family farm, especially since most companies could not afford to put up a bond worth double what they are disputing. Produce farmers work on such tight margins that one sale of a quarter of a million dollars or a half million dollars could be three to five tractor-trailer loads of goods to one customer in the States, which they might not get paid for. This could bankrupt a smaller farmer. While this might sound extreme, I have seen this happen to a young farmer first-hand.

In Canada, when there is a dispute between growers and sellers in this country, we have a mechanism to resolve those disputes, but without the deemed trust, we have no mechanism to resolve disputes between growers and sellers in the United States and Canada that is affordable for growers to access.

I am very passionate about this industry, because it has literally been my family's bread and butter my entire life. I have friends across the industry who would welcome this important change, because it would help protect the livelihoods of families, their farms and their businesses. Creating this deemed trust and having that reciprocal agreement with the U.S. would protect farms from having to bear those losses in the event of a dispute.

This will save family farms. I will always fight for Canadian farmers, their livelihoods and their legacies. At a time when food security and food sovereignty are top of mind, this is needed to protect this industry in Canada, and that is why I support this bill on behalf of my constituents and consumers.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about Bill C-280, a private member's bill introduced by the member for York—Simcoe. Allow me to extend my congratulations to the bill's sponsor on this important work as it aims to protect our fresh produce farmers and sellers who provide Canadians with access to fresh produce for their families.

Bill C-280, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust – perishable fruits and vegetables), addresses the need for payment protection in the fresh produce industry through insolvency law amendments in cases of buyer bankruptcy, receivership and large commercial restructuring.

The bill would create a special legal mechanism known as a “deemed trust” to pay the unpaid bills of fresh fruit and vegetable sellers ahead of all creditors if a buyer becomes insolvent. The deemed trust would provide important protection in insolvency proceedings to the sellers of fresh fruits and vegetables against unique payment risks faced by the fresh produce industry, such as the perishable nature of fresh produce.

Members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the bill with the assistance of testimony from representatives of the fresh produce industry and the bill was reported back to the House with unanimous support. With our support of Bill C-280, we hope to increase the likelihood that the United States will restore Canada's preferential access to the formal—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I am rising to ensure the safety of the interpreters. They have just indicated that there is a telephone too close to the microphone. I am thinking of them. We know that this can sometimes cause acoustic shocks, so it is important to be careful.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not know if the hon. member's phone is perhaps on her desk.

I will ask the hon. member to move her phone. It may be vibrating at some point, I do not know. There may be some static there.

The hon. member has 30 to 40 seconds before I interrupt her.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we hope to increase the likelihood that the United States will restore Canada's preferential access to the formal dispute resolution process under the United States' Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, PACA, which regulates the fresh produce sector and provides financial protection for sellers.

I know I am about to be cut off, but PACA is a U.S. legislative and regulatory regime that regulates the fresh produce industry. I will continue at a later time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Democratic Institutions

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have seen a very tumultuous year when they look at the cornerstone of our democratic system, Canada's Parliament. I found myself going back over the questions that I had put to the government that needed more exposition, further review and another opportunity for the government to answer.

I was speaking with two great members of our team: Leah Young and Jordan Johnston. They do a great job. They are great Canadians. We were a little disappointed when we looked at the series of issues that Canadians had to witness in the news on a daily basis with respect to foreign interference and with respect to a failure to act by the government to address the real and present threats that our country has faced.

The question of the Trudeau Foundation and the foreign influence operation that targeted the Prime Minister through the foundation that bears his family's name is incredibly concerning. It gave rise, of course, to calls and demonstrated the necessity for Canada to have a foreign agent registry. This is a tool that is used by our allies and it is very effective, but there is no tool like it in Canada's tool box right now.

What happened in this particular case? We saw cut-outs acting on behalf of the dictatorship in Beijing give $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation in an attempt to influence or gain influence with Canada's Prime Minister. This is obviously incredibly concerning. What we saw in that same time period were two occasions where these individuals acting on behalf of the dictatorship in Beijing did get access to the Prime Minister, raising a question for Canadians: Is that the price it is going to cost foreign regimes to get access to our head of government?

The individuals pulled in the Prime Minister's brother. It was the first time in his involvement with that foundation that he was directly linked to donor activity like this, taking in this large six-figure donation. The question about whether or not the influence was effective and whether or not this operation by a foreign government was effective is what undermines Canadians' confidence and creates concern about the health of our democratic institutions.

Therefore, Canadians want to know this from the government, and I am looking to the parliamentary secretary for a response: On what date can Canadians expect to see the foreign agent registry, which is one of the critical tools necessary to help restore Canadians' confidence in our democratic institutions?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to, for the sake of accuracy, remind the House of a few things in response to the hon. member's question.

First, I want to point out that the agreement for the donation in question, to the Trudeau Foundation, which he raises, was made in 2014, prior to the 2015 election. Let us remember that at that time, the Liberals were the third party in standing.

Second, I will remind my hon. colleague of Mr. Alexandre Trudeau's testimony at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on May 3 of this year, in which he stated:

I must insist that there was no foreign interference, no possibility of interference and no intention or means of interference at or through the Trudeau Foundation.

No state or individual ever attempted to influence the Canadian government through the foundation.

We know that foreign interference and attempts by foreign actors to influence Canada's democracy are not new phenomena. That is why combatting potential threats to our democratic systems has been at the heart of our government's priorities, and we have maintained a clear and ongoing commitment to protecting Canadians democracy.

We are aware that threat actors have sought to erode trust in our democratic institutions and stoke tensions about government policies and decisions by targeting politicians, political parties and media outlets. Threat actors do this to influence public opinion and ultimately advance their interests, and that is why our security and intelligence agencies continue to support an integrated government response to those threats. Every day, Canada's security agencies, including the RCMP, undertake the work Canadians expect of them in order to ensure continued protection of Canadians and our democracy. Attempts to interfere in Canada's domestic affairs should not and will not be tolerated. We will continue to protect our sovereignty and our democracy.

On September 7, 2023, the government announced a public inquiry into foreign interference in the federal electoral processes and democratic institutions. This announcement followed extensive consultations and agreements with all political parties represented in the House of Commons. The hon. Justice Marie-Josée Hogue was given a mandate to examine and address foreign interference by China, Russia and other foreign state actors or non-state actors, including any potential impacts on the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. Justice Hogue is also mandated to assess the capacity of federal entities to detect, deter and counter foreign interference targeting Canada's democratic processes, and to make any recommendations she deems appropriate to better protect Canada's democratic processes from foreign interference.

I would like to note that the government has, in addition, announced that it supports, as the member has raised, moving forward with a foreign agent registry.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the saying goes that one eats an elephant one bite at a time, and I am happy to hear from the parliamentary secretary that we have convinced the government to take a small bite, but what we need to know is when. When is it going to implement that foreign agent registry?

One needs to be registered in this country to lobby for the food bank, but we do not register, or require registration of, people who are paid by foreign governments and are operating on our soil with the interests of their foreign government, like the dictatorship in Beijing. It took the Liberals the better part of a year, with all kinds of time wasted on their special rapporteur process, to actually name the justice who is going to be responsible for the inquiry into foreign interference.

What I would like from the parliamentary secretary this evening is for her to reassure Canadians. On what date will they introduce legislation for the foreign agent registry?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again on this important issue. We have already identified that we will be moving forward with a foreign agent registry. We have mentioned many steps we are taking to protect our democracy, as it is incredibly important to us. It is not new to Canada.

What I find interesting about the member opposite's speech is that just some weeks ago, we had a very serious presentation by the Prime Minister on very serious allegations about questions of democracy and about the murder of a Canadian taking place on Canadian soil. We had a take-note debate, and on those grounds of an attempted foreign interference in our democracy, why were Conservatives silent in that debate? Why has the member opposite not even mentioned what has happened here or the potential impacts of India's involvement in that murder?

Electoral Reform

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually this evening to pursue a question I initially asked on May 8, 2023. That question related to electoral reform, and specifically, I was picking up on the fact that, just in the previous weekend, at the Liberal Party policy convention, the Liberals had adopted a resolution very close to a motion that had been put forward by my Green colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. Now the NDP has put forward another motion that is very similar, from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, calling for a citizens' assembly.

The Liberal Party gathered in Ottawa and voted for holding a citizens' assembly to investigate electoral reform. The Prime Minister's initial response to the media was that there was “no consensus”, in his language, to pursue a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. When the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions, the member of Parliament for Beauséjour, responded to me on that day back in May, he reiterated this notion that there was no consensus for a citizens' assembly, so let us just frame tonight's debate around this central point.

I do want to stop and thank the grassroots campaigners, who are non-partisan citizen activists of Fair Vote Canada, for pursuing this matter and demonstrating that the majority of Canadians want to see a citizens' assembly.

To say there is no consensus around getting rid of first past the post, as the Prime Minister says, I think is debatable, but it is a move to a different voting system. To say there is no consensus and that therefore we will not pursue a method to find consensus is absurd. A citizens' assembly, a non-partisan citizens' assembly, on electoral reform is for the very purpose of finding consensus.

Bringing Canadians together who are chosen randomly, citizens' assemblies are a really fascinating tool in democracies. Canada has used them on this topic but only at the provincial level. There is great support for moving to a citizens' assembly on electoral reform.

By the way, eight times since 1921, this House or various law commissions have studied first past the post, and in every instance since 1921 no body, as in a group of people, a House of Commons committee and so on, has ever found that first past the post is an appropriate system for Canada. That is because ever since the early 1920s, we have not been a two-party system. We have had three, four and, now in this House, five parties. Therefore, in an electoral system with a first-past-the-post system, inevitably and invariably the vote is distorted between the popular vote and the seat count.

Especially, as I said, since 1921, every authority that has studied the matter has said that first past the post does not work for Canada. However, to find the new system, to develop consensus, a citizens' assembly is an excellent tool. I found it bizarre to be told in question period that we did not have consensus on the tool to find consensus. I note parenthetically that it appears to me the Prime Minister will not think there is consensus on anything until everyone agrees with him, and that is not a tool for consensus. We absolutely must have fair voting so that Canadians have confidence that the way they cast their vote has an impact on the result.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague is incredibly passionate about this topic, and I enjoy listening to her. I take her feedback very seriously. I also wish her well.

We are committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions. Our electoral system, along with the fundamental rules that determine how votes are translated into seats in the House of Commons, is one of the most foundational pieces of our democracy. Among many things, it provides Canadians with a direct connection to their members of Parliament, who must work with each other to develop national policy and make political decisions, while engaging with and remaining accountable to their constituents in an increasingly digital and connected Canada.

Our current first-past-the-post system is not perfect, as the member acknowledges. She raises crucial points. However, no system is perfect. Ours has served Canada well for over 150 years, and it continues to advance the democratic values that Canadians want reflected in their system of government. This includes strong local representation, stability and accountability. How Canadians vote and how we govern ourselves are fundamentally important points that impact us all. Given that, the government's view has been very clear: Any major reforms to the electoral system should not be made without the broad support of Canadians. We consulted very broadly with Canadians, and a clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, did not emerge. Therefore, the government decided not to proceed.

However, the government has continued to work to improve Canada's federal electoral process. Notably, in 2018, the government introduced the Elections Modernization Act, which represented a significant reform of the Canada Elections Act. Parliament passed this important legislation, which modernized the electoral process, making it easier for Canadians to participate in elections and further bolstering Canadians' trust and confidence in Canada's world-class and independently administered electoral system.

For example, these changes made the federal electoral process more accessible by reducing barriers for persons with all types of disabilities, Canadians living abroad and Canadian Armed Forces members, so they can vote and participate more fully in the electoral process. It has also made it easier for Canadians to vote by giving the chief electoral officer additional flexibility to run elections more efficiently, thereby reducing wait times, and to extend the hours for advanced polls and use mobile polls to better serve remote and isolated communities.

I would also note that the supply and confidence agreement established in March 2022 between the leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister included several commitments aimed at maintaining the health of Canada's democracy and removing potential barriers to voting and participation.

We will continue to work with Elections Canada to explore ways to expand people's ability to vote, including by improving the mail-in ballot process. These are just some of the important issues that the government is focused on to deliver for Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary claimed that first past the post has served Canada well. I had the honour to serve on the all-party select committee that studied the matter of electoral reform, and we heard from many experts that first past the post has not served Canada well. These experts included a former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and a professor emeritus from the University of Toronto, Peter Russell. First past the post distorts results and leaves frustrated, unhappy voters.

When the parliamentary secretary says that they are committed to strengthening democracy, I would urge her to reflect on how that contributes to public cynicism and hurts Canada's democracy. When the Liberals leapt from third place to win a majority in 2015, it was largely because they promised 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. I note they have resurrected the 2015 election promise to get rid of GST on rentals. It is time to bring back the promise to fix our voting system.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, I appreciate my colleague's input.

During the time when Canadians were being consulted, I too held consultations in my riding. Those meetings were very difficult, as everybody has very different opinions and is passionate about what is the best electoral process for Canada. As I stated in my earlier remarks, the government felt very strongly that unless we had widespread consensus, changing such a significant tool of our democracy would not be able to move forward.

We are deeply committed to making the electoral process better and fairer. I know the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is also looking at this, and we welcome additional comments and conversations on how we can make improvements to our electoral system.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, on June 9, 2023, I asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship if Canada was operating an apartheid era visa process in our high commission in South Africa. Canadians are proud of our country's role in contributing to the end of apartheid, and I think they would be shocked to know there are high commission staff who are perpetuating the racial injustices of apartheid in our name.

Canada's immigration system has been facing challenges in recent years and has been overwhelmed with visa applicants experiencing really long processing times. While there has been improvement in some countries, it seems it has worsened in South Africa. My office has been inundated with calls from family and friends of South Africans who have faced visa wait times well beyond what applicants elsewhere face.

In India, a very busy mission, Canadian officials can turnaround a visa request in a month. In the Philippines, it is done in only 29 days. However, the current processing time for a visitor visa in South Africa now stands at 115 days, or nearly four months. There is something clearly wrong. Weddings and funerals are being missed. Children are fighting illnesses without their parents. This is unacceptable to me and the diverse constituents I represent.

There are also real economic consequences, as visa delays and denials impact work and study permits. Canadian employers are losing critically needed South African talent. A health authority with a long backlog for surgeries lost a new surgeon it had vetted and wanted to hire and is being forced to transfer patients for treatment to the United States.

Immigration insiders have referred to this as Canada's Africa problem. Indeed, accusations of systemic racism have been levied at various visa posts around the world, including in Pretoria. Sadly, systemic racism among Canadian institutions is real, and IRCC is not immune to this often invisible disease.

In May 2022, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration released a parliamentary report that revealed “systemic racism” within IRCC that actually resulted in discriminatory results against people of colour. That is unacceptable. Immigration, like everything else, should be merit-based. It should not matter what the colour of one's skin is.

Canadian media has widely reported on visa issues vis-à-vis South Africa, and the Government of Canada has undertaken anti-racism training, which is great. However, we do not know the impact of the new training. One inconvenient truth is that some Canadian missions will delegate visa decision-making to locally engaged staff at non-priority visa posts. In the case of South Africa, I was told Canada relies predominantly on white local staff to accept or refuse applications from predominantly Black and Indian South Africans.

On September 12, 2023, on my own personal expense, I met with Chris Cooter, Canada's high commissioner, in Pretoria, South Africa, to ascertain the reason for abnormally high visa refusal rates among Black and Indian South Africans. Unbelievably, the high commissioner informed me that he was not aware of racism issues.

Understandably, I was disappointed by his response. Indeed, why would there be global anti-racism training, including in South Africa, if such training was not needed? Why would a parliamentary report talk about systemic racism within IRCC if it did not exist?

The Canadian government must get to the bottom of this. Canada stood up for Africa during the dark days of apartheid, and as a son of refugees, I feel a duty to ensure that future generations of new Canadians receive the same warmth, compassion and equity that my family did.

Who am I to believe, the government, an IRCC committee report or an out-of-touch high commissioner?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

I want to make it clear that any instance of racism or discrimination at IRCC is absolutely unacceptable.

Following the hon. member's question in June, we investigated the selection practices within the South African High Commission and determined that discrimination and racism should not be taking place as the filtering of visa applications by race does not occur. IRCC neither requests nor collects information on the race of applicants. These protocols were established to ensure maximum oversight and minimal risk of systemic discrimination in all operations.

Indeed, the team in Pretoria has approved nearly nine out of 10 temporary resident applications filed by South African nationals since 2018, with the exception of the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. Approval rates in Pretoria are higher in 2023 across all temporary resident lines of business compared to 2019.

We recognize that addressing systemic racism and discrimination, whether overt or covert, requires constant and ongoing vigilance. We have a moral obligation to address institutional racism and end discrimination across government. Though we continue to make progress on this front, there is more work to be done. IRCC hired the independent research firm Pollara in 2021 and 2023 to examine the department's anti-racism efforts and how we can do better to serve clients of all backgrounds. While the results from Pollara's latest study published in August show progress, there is still more we can do to prevent discrimination and promote equity and inclusion in our staffing and procedures worldwide.

We have also created action plans for each area of programming to help identify and eliminate racism in program and service delivery. We are currently analyzing disaggregated data on race and racism in our workforce collected through our surveys. We have created new impact assessment tools, bias identification methodologies, guidance and training to address racial disparities across our programs and procedures.

We also announced in August the creation of an equity secretariat, with an ombudsman's office that will support safe and independent channels to report instances of racism and discrimination. This will be an accessible, neutral and respected resource for our employees worldwide.

Finally, all IRCC employees receive training on inclusion and diversity. Our staff in Pretoria completed not only this comprehensive training, but also training adapted to include a specific focus on their clientele in April. The migration program manager in Pretoria additionally participated in workshops in Canada in January that included training on anti-racism.

As outlined, we are taking various steps to address systemic racism within IRCC and ensure that we are promoting diversity and inclusion in all our efforts. Though there is more work to be done, IRCC takes seriously our responsibility to our employees, clients and everyone we serve.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about training. That is great. The issue is this. What is the result? I will tell him what the result is.

In May of 2022, Canada was host to the world AIDS summit. There were African delegates invited to our country on Canadian government letterhead who could not get visas, which were immensely delayed or outright rejected.

In October of 2022, Toronto, my home city, was supposed to host the Gabon-Canada trade investment forum. Not a single delegate from Africa who had been invited on Canadian government letterhead was able to secure a visa. How does the parliamentary secretary reconcile these two?

There is a clear problem and if the government does not act it is going to be escalated. We as a country cannot afford any more international embarrassment. More importantly, what is happening is not living up to our standards or values.

What is the government going to do to address this issue before it gets worse?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, recent investigations of the Pretoria office determined that visa applications are not and cannot be filtered by race. Its diverse selection team has, in fact, been approving nearly nine in 10 temporary resident applications filed by South African nationals since 2018, with the exception of the pandemic years of 2020-21. Approval rates are now higher across all temporary resident lines of business compared to 2019.

However, IRCC is constantly working to eliminate systemic discrimination and racism and promote equity in our staffing and procedures worldwide. It is doing this through independent research, training, a newly created equity secretariat and other measures. This work remains ongoing. We will continue to address systemic racism within our institutions and ensure transparency in our progress.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:01 p.m.)