Debates of Feb. 9th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

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

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 2, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Sector Integrity Act

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to take a brief look at the summary of Bill C-290. It proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any supervisor, add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers and repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set out the standard of serious wrongdoings.

I want to highlight for members the importance of whistle-blower legislation. I had an opportunity here in Ottawa in the past and in the Manitoba legislature to talk about the importance of enabling whistle-blowing and enhancing legislation where we can. We know that the government has been working with stakeholders regarding how we can improve legislation, which is a process that has been under way for a while now. I do not necessarily know all of the details of it, but I do know how important it is that we recognize this particular process and, at the very least, acknowledge those who have put in so much effort to bring us to the point where we are today.

The legislation we are talking about, I would suggest, has a number of concerns within it. At the very least, if the legislation were to go to the next stage, no doubt it would require a number of amendments.

Our civil service puts in a phenomenal effort in many different respects. It was not that long ago that we turned to our civil servants and said, when going into the pandemic, that we needed to ensure we could develop the types of programs that would be there for Canadians. I want to acknowledge the types of efforts that were put in, and then at the tail end, I will talk about why it is important that we have whistle-blower legislation at the provincial and national levels. I will start by giving credit where credit is due.

When we went into the pandemic, there was no such thing as a CERB payment or a program that would provide hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars to Canadians. Virtually from ground zero, civil servants stepped up on a program of that nature. Earlier today, we talked at great length about the wage subsidy program. Again, it was civil servants who stepped up to provide that program. In general, the vast majority of things that take place within our civil service support Canadians seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

If one wanted to illustrate how effective our civil servants were, and still are obviously, in the creation of the programs I just referenced, we can put it into perspective: Nine million-plus Canadians received benefits, and none of that would have been possible if not for our civil service. It provided the financial resources that were necessary for people to sustain themselves. We can talk about the tens of thousands of businesses, some of which were highlighted earlier today and the CRA will follow through on, that benefited from the efforts of civil servants providing the programs and processes necessary to sustain companies and protect jobs so that Canada would be in a much better position.

The speaker before me on this legislation made reference to the issue of immigration. We have civil servants around the world who are there every day to ensure that we continue to grow and prosper as a nation through immigration policies. As immigration grows, the demands on those civil servants continue to grow and we provide the finances.

It is not all perfect, as we know. There are ways in which we can look at improving the system. I want to relay some statistics in regard to issues. For example, from 2007-08 to 2021-22, there were 161 internal disclosures that led to a finding of wrongdoing and 443 internal disclosures that led ultimately to corrective measures. PSIC had 17 cases that led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures, along with two cases that led to corrective measures without finding any wrongdoing. In fact, eight cases were referred to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. There have been no findings of reprisal. I think that is really important.

This is the reason why we look at whistle-blower legislation and how we can improve upon the civil service. This is how I ultimately view it: How do we enhance what we already have as a world-class civil service? One of the ways we do that is by protecting those civil servants who are put into positions where there is a moral obligation or, at times, some form of quasi-legal aspect of having to report on something, so that there are no reprisals as a direct result of having to make that claim.

From 2016 to 2021-22, there were 505 reprisal complaints received by PSIC, leading to 62 investigations that were launched, with 22 of them being resolved through conciliation. I think it is important to note that data was not reported from 2007-08 and 2015. Over the last five years, the number of new allegations of wrongdoing made internally has averaged around 269 per year. Over the last five years, PSIC received an average of 145 disclosures of wrongdoing and 48 reprisal complaints.

I could go on with some of the stats, but I want to emphasize that we believe public servants who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected. We recognize that. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the federal public sector.

As I started off my comments, I would like to conclude them by saying that I have witnessed first-hand, for many years as a parliamentarian, the outstanding performance of our civil servants at the national and other levels of government. Comparing Canada as a whole to other nations around the world, I think we can take a great sense of pride in it. I am glad to hear that the department itself is looking at ways in which we can even improve the system by incorporating whistle-blower legislation that will add true value to the process and protect our public servants.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a bill that I believe is long overdue, as it addresses something that I believe is long overdue to be addressed.

Bill C-290 would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen the current whistle-blower protections for public servants. This is an excellent initiative, and I commend my colleague for introducing the bill.

As was mentioned in the sponsor of this bill’s speech, while the Public Servants Disclosure Act is based on sound principles, it has a number of flaws. The bill before us seeks to address those flaws. That is why it is important to add these stronger protections sooner rather than later. Though it would seem that the desire to swiftly deliver stronger protections for whistle-blowers only exists on the opposition side of the House.

The government, after sitting on well-written recommendations for whistle-blower protections for five years, now wants to spend millions of dollars and more time studying them. The Liberals may even decide to procure the services of some outside consulting firm to tell them what they should do. We simply cannot continue to wait for them to get their act together.

Whistle-blower protections are fundamental to the functioning of our government. If public servants are afraid to raise the alarm, then corruption and wasteful spending run rampant. In the absence of these protections, a culture of fear arises. Public servants are worried about retaliatory actions being taken if they raise their concerns over government actions.

Oftentimes, it is public servants who lead to the public discovering a government’s malfeasance. For example, at the beginning of this year, when CBC published its article detailing the McKinsey contracts, there was testimony from two IRCC employees who held major roles in the department. They spoke about the issues of contracting with McKinsey and their concerns on the condition of remaining anonymous.

If we had a system in place that would have protected them and allowed them to raise these concerns earlier, we may not be where we are now, with the government having given over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey. That is why we must ensure that the protections for whistle-blowers are strong. The bill would do many things to strengthen these protections.

Bill C-290 would expand the definition of wrongdoing. It would broaden who is considered a supervisor, so that public servants could make a protected disclosure to any superior within their organization. This would allow public servants to go to any trusted superior to voice their concerns. It would give public servants more confidence in raising concerns if they know they can go to someone they trust outside of their direct superior.

Another good change that is being proposed through the bill is the extension of the deadline for filing a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year. Giving public servants more time to file their complaints would ensure there is ample time for reprisal actions to be identified and punished. It is important that these concerns are heard and that bad actors are dealt with, or else we may have reoffenders.

Another aspect that is addressed in the bill is the penalty for reprisal against whistle-blowers and protections for whistle-blowers themselves. The significant increases in financial penalties for reprisals would be an important deterrent for possible bad actors who are trying to punish and silence whistle-blowers. The increased penalties would likely be a strong deterrent against reprisals.

The bill would also allow for a remedy to be provided to a whistle-blower if a reprisal action was taken. This is important, as not only could the whistle-blower be vindicated if reprisal actions are taken, but they could also be compensated in some way to make up for the reprisal action and ensuing consequences. Additionally, by giving superiors a duty to protect and provide support to public servants making a disclosure, whistle-blowers could be more confident when coming forward that this would indeed happen.

One last aspect of the bill that I want to focus on is the requirement to review the act every five years. I am sure that members of the governing party will enthusiastically welcome this addition, given their eagerness just now to review the act.

Obviously, we have seen that, without proactive attention, the shortcomings of the act have been exploited. As members may recall, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was brought in under the previous Conservative government in 2006. This legislation was in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Over the past several years, we have seen that the current whistle-blower protections are not sufficient.

As the sponsor of this bill said in his speech, we can probably count on two hands the number of people who have actually been protected under the current framework. We must do more. With a Prime Minister and cabinet that have been found guilty of a record five ethics breaches, we need to rely on whistle-blowers more than ever to bring to light the questionable and unethical, behind-the-scenes actions of the government.

We need only recall how the Prime Minister treated his former minister of justice when she stood up for the integrity of her office. She was quickly forced out. If a minister of the Crown cannot be protected, how can we expect public servants to come forward with their concerns? This bill is the first step we can take towards strengthening whistle-blower protections. Hopefully, we can reach the point where the government will fully implement all of the recommendations put forward by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017.

Conservatives have always been supportive of strong protections for whistle-blowers. That is why we are supporting this bill, just as we supported the 2017 recommendations from the OGGO committee then, and they were as follows: expanding the definition of the terms “wrongdoing” and “reprisal” and modifying the definition of the term “protected disclosure” under the act; amending the legislation to protect and support whistle-blowers and prevent retaliation against them; reversing the burden of proof from the whistle-blower onto the employer in cases of reprisals; providing legal and procedural advice, as necessary, to public servants seeking to make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing or file a reprisal complaint; embedding in the legislation confidentiality provisions of witnesses’ identities; making the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner responsible for training, education and oversight responsibilities to standardize the internal disclosure process; and finally, implementing mandatory and timely reporting of disclosure activities.

As my colleague, the shadow minister for Treasury Board, stated last fall:

Conservatives have a long history of standing up for whistleblowers, first with the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protections Act under Prime Minister Stephen Harper as well as reforms to strengthen the act included in both our 2019 and 2021 platforms. As the Liberal government fails to prioritize these important protections, we will continue our work to stand up for public servants and protect whistleblowers.

I hope that all of these recommendations will be fully implemented sooner rather than later, and I think this bill is a great start. I also hope my colleagues on the government side will support it. If they do not, we will be left to speculate as to why they do not want public servants bringing forward concerns about the government’s actions.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to support this bill going to committee. Obviously, whistle-blower protection is something quite serious and important. It is one of a few ways Canadians can come to know about misbehaviour or indeed rule-breaking and unethical behaviour within the government. The fact that Canada's whistle-blower regime needs to be improved is well known.

In 2021, the International Bar Association did a survey of about 50 different countries around the world, and Canada placed dead last in its assessment of our whistle-blower protection regime, so it stands to reason that we should take that to heart. In my first Parliament, in the 42nd Parliament, there was finally a rather extensive review of the legislation under a commitment by this very government that it would improve whistle-blower legislation. This resulted in a number of recommendations that were never acted upon.

We know, and it has been acknowledged in many different fora, both internationally and here at home, that our whistle-blower protection regime is not what it should be and not, what I dare say, Canadians expect.

If we want to talk about gatekeepers, as some do in this place, one of the important ways of trying to create accountability for gatekeepers is to have the people who work under them able to confidently identify instances where they are not doing what they should be doing, where they are not working in the public interest they have sworn to work under or where their political masters are not doing that either. It becomes very important indeed that we have that kind of protection.

Of course the leader of the Conservative Party is someone who likes to talk a lot about gatekeepers and wanting to protect Canadians against them, but it was actually he, as minister in 2006, who introduced this legislation, which has been roundly panned as a terrible way of protecting whistle-blowers within the Canadian public service. Canadians should ask themselves how it is that somebody who managed to design one of the worst whistle-blower protection regimes in the world, or certainly within the 50 countries that were examined by the International Bar Association, will fare as a prime minister trying to stand up to gatekeepers.

We notice in other areas, such as when we talk about housing, for instance, that he wants to stand up against gatekeepers. He pretends that it is only municipal governments that are the problem, and that if only we could push them to approve permits faster, we would solve the housing crisis. There is no mention of the massive corporations that are making billions of dollars with the financialization of the Canadian housing market and the kinds of things we could be doing to make that less of a lucrative enterprise for these large corporations to be renovicting tenants and putting them out on the street. There is no mention of that.

There is no mention of all the gatekeeping that happens in the economy by private actors. He is only seeing one part of the problem, which is government, and sometimes government is the problem. There are government gatekeepers, but here is an example where the cabinet minister had the opportunity to do something about a problem and actually designed one of the worst systems we know of to hold gatekeepers to account. I would just remind Canadians of some of these important facts this bill reminds me of, and it may remind others in the House, on the record of the leader of the official opposition.

However, I digress. It is important also to talk about the record of the government when it comes to whistle-blowing, because at one time the Prime Minister said that he cared about that and that he was aware of the shortcomings of Canada's whistle-blowing regime. Then, not for the first time, he did not follow through on making good on commitments to improve that regime.

Here we are, and a hot topic often in the House of Commons these days, and rightly so, is the extent to which firms such as McKinsey, and I will add, and would like to see my Conservative colleagues add these more often to that list, companies such as Deloitte, KPMG and others, which have also received huge contracts from the federal government.

How would one come to know about an 80-year contract, a contract that is good to the year 2100, is not competitive and does not lock in value for Canadian taxpayers, but actually just shifts expenditure from where it should be in a well-functioning, well-trained and well-supported public service to the arena of private contractors? We would expect somebody who was given the job of administering that contract to blow the whistle, but we cannot get access to that kind of information if people are worried that they will not be properly protected when they bring those kinds of things to light.

I think some of the contemporary topics here in the House of Commons highlight the importance of being able to get good information from our public servants by offering the protection they deserve when they see, in their workplace, that their superiors in the civil service or their political masters are not behaving in the public interest and doing things that rightly ought to be examined in this place, in the media and in all the other fora that matter when we talk about a well-functioning democracy.

We might also expect, frankly, a little more respect for our public servants. We are talking about whistle-blowing today, but another important aspect ties into this question around McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The government, which says it really values public servants, values the work they did during the pandemic and values that going forward, is not coming to the bargaining table to bargain in good faith with the very workers it is willing to praise with words in this place. When they go back to their departmental offices and it is time for action and time to honour those words in the collective bargaining process, the government takes a pass.

PSAC members at the taxation centre in the riding I represent, Elmwood—Transcona, have been without a contract for two years now. The government will not come to the table to talk to them about the offer that workers have put on the table, so they are contemplating strike action. How does that represent the commitment to respect the civil service that the government made in 2015 when it was also talking about improving whistle-blower protection? It does not.

How dare the government plead poverty at the bargaining table and say it does not have money to pay public servants what they are worth when it is hemorrhaging money out to companies like McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers to do work that properly belongs within the purview of the public service. It is unreal.

This perpetual inadequacy of the whistle-blower regime is just another way that a government that says it wants to respect its workers continues to show an incredible amount of disrespect to them. There is disrespect by not allowing them to bring forward problems from the workplace with adequate protections. There is disrespect by refusing to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith. There is disrespect, while doing that, to be paying billions of dollars to private consultants to do the job that public servants were hired to do. The government then says it cannot invest in the public service. Well, that is poppycock because it has the money. It is just choosing to spend it elsewhere.

I am happy to be voting to send this bill to committee, not just to improve whistle-blower protection in Canada, which is long overdue, but also as part of a larger project of manifesting respect for our public servants, who, as others have said in this place, did an incredible service to Canadians in delivering pandemic relief programs on an urgent basis. In many cases, they did that from home while trying to manage children who were not at school and spouses who were also working their various jobs. It was difficult, and a lot of them still, as we all do, bear certain scars from that experience.

What has made it worse and what is tanking morale at a time when the federal government is struggling to provide basic services is this ongoing disrespect by not showing up at the bargaining table and not giving whistle-blowers the protection they deserve. Meanwhile, we find out the government has plenty of cash to pay its friends in the private sector to do the jobs of public servants.

That is why I am quite pleased to be voting to send this to committee, where I hope the whistle-blower portion of the project will be examined in greater detail.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a great bill.

I wondered which member had come up with this brilliant idea, and then I found out that it was the member for Mirabel, an inspiring member. How did he come up with this brilliant idea?

Unfortunately, people often mistakenly accuse us of looking for a fight, and yet we have plenty of solutions to offer all the time. The member for Mirabel had this fantastic idea to introduce a whistle-blower bill, after talking to people who had things to say to us, as one of the Mirabel member's look-alikes would put it. Anyone who watches Infoman once in a while knows what I am talking about.

After talking to people who had things to say to us and unfortunately perhaps felt uncomfortable saying those things, he came up with the fantastic idea of introducing this bill. I know that he spared no effort to move his idea forward. The bill we have today should reflect a consensus. I am under the impression that our NDP colleagues, our Liberal colleagues and our Conservative friends will be in favour of this, which shows that when members have good ideas, as is often the case with the Bloc Québécois, they can bring people together. It is fantastic to be able to bring about change.

Those were my congratulations. Now let us look at the issues at hand.

Only one person within the machinery of government is in a position to see the wrongdoing, illegal acts, instances of abuse of power—that, it must be said, still occur frequently—and, worse still, the political interference that often plays into decisions that should rest solely with the public service, not with partisan people. This means we have to live with the fact that, behind closed doors, public servants are often the eyes and ears of the people. The most important principle underlying democracy is access to information to make decisions. If mistakes are made from time to time and the information is not available, democracy as a whole suffers.

When I say that public servants are the eyes and ears of democracy when it goes on behind closed doors, that is contradictory because there is another principle of significant importance to public servants: the duty of restraint. We know they must obey a hierarchy, that loyalty and allegiance to authority cannot be challenged and discretion is necessary. Public servants are asked to remain politically neutral. That falls under their duty of restraint, their honesty, their impartiality and the absence of conflicts of interest.

None of these very essential principles is questioned in the bill that my colleague is introducing. What needs to be questioned is a situation where the search for public good is obstructed by public servants invoking the duty of restraint for sometimes questionable reasons such as covering up wrongdoing.

This bill is incredibly timely. Looking at the current context, we can see a phenomenon in federal politics that may have existed before, but that is now growing quite significantly. Private enterprise is replacing the state. Members probably know where I am going with this.

I am thinking among other things of McKinsey, a private company that becomes a substitute for the state and writes public policy. We are no longer in the realm of strategic advice or expertise that is obtained externally. We are purely and simply watching a private company replacing us as elected officials. If we had good politicians, and I include myself in the criticism, they would be able to introduce bills and define interesting guidance for the public service, and that would make us move forward. Today, the state apparatus is trying to move away from politician- and public servant-led initiatives and relying more frequently on private firms.

This is quite troubling, especially when it comes to immigration. Personally, I must admit that the Century Initiative frightens me.

Some people have spoken to us about this. Some public servants who receive and see these communication plans or development ideas come in think that this in no way applies to their reality, even though they are the ones who know best how their department works. Still, the Liberals continue to invest a lot of money in this and in these consultants.

Of course, these public servants' superiors could listen to them. They have means at their disposal, but when things become too intense or if they go against the common good, there must be a way to alert the public and the media to get the word out.

That is the purpose of the bill introduced by my colleague from Mirabel, a bill to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing. The bill has two objectives that are fairly simple but can have a significant impact. The first objective is to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public service, which can take many forms. The second objective is to establish a process for investigating the wrongdoing and help put an end to it.

The bill would create a mechanism of sorts that would allow a public servant to report wrongdoing while remaining anonymous. This person would be protected from reprisals, such as being fired or demoted. Even private companies that receive government contracts could be covered and protected from the non-renewal of their contract. That is good.

I was thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that maybe we should look back at some questionable, not to say controversial, actions taken in the past by the government, actions this bill might have allowed us to get more information about.

Since I am a sovereignist and that will never change, the first case that came to my mind was the sponsorship scandal. Allan Cutler, a.k.a. “Ma Chouette”, was working for the Department of Public Works in 1995 when he sounded the alarm and started communicating with journalists. He was demoted that same year.

If we take a close look, the objective of the sponsorship program was, to use a vulgar phrase, to grease friends' palms with generous subsidies while trying to sabotage the sovereignists by burnishing Canada's image. The scandal that was brought to light resulted in the demotion of a public servant in 1995, a person who would have been protected under this bill.

I am also thinking of public servants like Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gérard Lambert, who reported health risks associated with bovine growth hormone and the government's inadequate measures to prevent mad cow disease. In 2004, all three were fired because they had had the audacity and courage to blow the whistle on a situation that could have had considerable impacts on public health.

I am also thinking of Sylvie Therrien, who was involved in the employment insurance quota affair. Members will recall that, in 2013, the Conservative government imposed quotas on EI officers to ferret out “repeat EI claimants”. Ms. Therrien also incurred the wrath of the government because she had good intentions and wanted to raise a matter of public interest that made her work highly questionable.

I am also thinking of the University of Toronto's Centre for Free Expression, which said that the Phoenix scandal would probably have been brought to light much faster because several people wanted to be heard, but, once again, they feared the wrath of the public service and stayed quiet.

We could say the same thing about the Government of Quebec.

I will conclude by saying that it was high time such a bill was introduced. Based on a report by the International Bar Association, which compiled a list of 50 whistle-blower protection laws—

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

I do apologize, but the member is well over his time.

The hon. member for Mirabel has a five-minute right of reply.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for taking the time to consider the bill that I have brought to their attention. There were some constructive and positive comments in absolutely every case. This gives me a lot of hope. I hope to see this bill studied in a non-partisan and constructive way in committee as well.

The people who need to be heard are not the MPs, certainly not the MP for Mirabel. Those who need to be listened to first are the public servants, the public service, those who work within the machinery of government and who feel a need to be better protected, even with the current protections in place.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that there are not a lot of reprisals. Some people have talked to me about reprisals, demotions and threats within the public service. These people think they need to be better protected. That is why I am standing before my colleagues and before the House today.

The ones we should be listening to are the Canadian Bar Association, the unions, the former whistle-blowers, the witnesses of all stripes who came by the dozens to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates several years ago. To date, none of the report's recommendations have been implemented.

The International Labour Organization has pointed out the importance of having a more effective whistle-blower regime. Newspaper columnists and journalists have been raising this issue for years, telling us that it is time to take action, not to hold more consultations first. Of course, we can have consultations. However, the pursuit of excellence is an ongoing process that should not be impeded by holding more consultations.

If anyone talked to the whistle-blowers who contacted me and who are the very reason I introduced this bill, they would realize that what we need to do today is listen to common sense and the common-sense recommendations found in the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Many recommendations from that report were incorporated into this bill.

Essentially, it offers protection for more public servants, for contract workers, for former public servants. It offers more anonymity for those who file complaints as well as witnesses. When someone is called to testify, when someone has noticed irregularities, as a complainant has, they are not protected under the current law. We must be able to entrust certain investigations to the auditor general. As we know, his or her work is fundamental to assessing complaints.

It was through the work of Sheila Fraser, the auditor general at the time, that the sponsorship scandal was uncovered. Today we are working to prevent further reprisals, to rewrite and expand the definition of wrongdoing, and to give more time and resources to public servants who want to do their duty with peace of mind, honesty and loyalty to the government, which they must serve first.

I have had some positive signals from the government. Clearly, I have received signals that are more than positive from the two opposition parties supporting me today, and I note that, when I introduced my bill, the minister launched a round of consultations for potential amendments to the act. This would result in significant delays in improving a regime that could be improved today. I hope that these consultations, which are most welcome, will not impede the process leading to the amendment and passage of this bill.

In conclusion, I would like to remind members that whistle-blower legislation is obviously somewhat of a band-aid solution. It is no substitute in the long term for a profound change in culture in certain departments, Crown corporations and Crown agencies that need to make more significant changes to their way of doing things. I hope that the future coming into force of this bill will help them make changes in their culture that, in some cases more than others, are extremely necessary.

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

The question is on the motion.

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

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Infrastructure

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

Madam Speaker, I am optimistic that tonight's debate on a previous question in the House will be responded to by the relevant representative for Canadian heritage as opposed to intergovernmental affairs.

It is likely tough to be coherent and understanding when it is not a matter under the jurisdiction of one's own department. Regardless, I want to ask again what I initially thought was a really straightforward question on a matter that is not only very much on the minds of many of my neighbours in Spadina—Fort York, but represents, to quote a constituent, “A loss to our community, the Greater Toronto Area residents, and the businesses along and in the waterfront neighbourhood.”

On August 21, 2021, the federal government announced an investment of $20 million for urgent repair and upgrade work at Toronto's Harbourfront Centre. The rationale was that improving culture and community infrastructure builds strong, dynamic and prosperous communities. However, such lofty objectives have fallen short of reality.

Part of the problem is that after obtaining the funds, Harbourfront Centre ignored obtaining input from residents, who very much wanted to see the funds put to good use in revitalizing Harbourfront so that it could still provide the updated quality of service and recreation that attracts over five million visitors annually.

In the winter months, Harbourfront's skating rink provides a well-attended attraction that has become a vibrant heart of our community, and it has been that way for decades. However, do not take my word for it. After a recent town hall that I convened on Harbourfront Centre, here are some of the comments that my constituents have said about the rink and the lack of public consultation.

Tracy told me that her four children enjoyed skating there. She said that it was so fun and that it was a free winter activity. The fact that Harbourfront Centre did not even consult the community is, in her words, egregious. She even asked whether the decision to uproot the rink involved “some kind of backroom shady deal”.

Renata would like to remind the government that “downtown Toronto suffers from a shortage of parks and recreational activities for families during winter”. She implores that this “beloved institution” be kept open.

Joan talked about how the skating rink has been the heart of the community.

Joe did not mince words. He would like the government to know that he does not “like the fact that fat pigs appointed by our government do whatever they want to the benefit of big fat corporations to get what they want.”

Gordon Moores wanted his comments completely attributed to him. Gordon is appalled at this unconscionable decision and that it was done without consultation. He would like the government to know that when his wife was diagnosed with cancer, one of the very first things they did that same day was go skating on the Harbourfront Centre rink.

The Harbourfront Centre rink was the heart of our community, the heart of our city. It was the only place where people from across Toronto and across the GTA could actually skate right on the shores of Lake Ontario. It is something that many residents and many visitors have been doing for generations.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. Is he okay with the government giving away 20 million dollars' worth of taxpayer dollars with little public consultation?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the opening of the member's speech about the Minister of Infrastructure was truly disingenuous, as he then asked an infrastructure question. However, I guess that is unsurprising given his disingenuous candidacy and the lack of information he shared with his constituents during that time. I think the constituents whose thoughts he shared would be quite surprised to find out what he hid from them and continues to hide from them.

Harbourfront Centre, as the member knows, is an independent non-profit cultural organization that provides internationally renowned programming in the arts, education and recreation, all within a collection of distinctive venues in the heart of Toronto's downtown waterfront. It is an organization with significant social and cultural impact. Over 4,000 events are programmed each year at Harbourfront, many of which are free of charge to the public. It is estimated that nearly five million people visit the Harbourfront Centre annually.

The institution works with hundreds of community stakeholders and organizations to offer events and festivals reflecting Canada's diverse society. I had the opportunity not too long ago to go to the Harbourfront Centre and engage with a Nordic cultural exchange. Each year, it hires over 1,000 professional artists from around the world, representing diverse communications and artistic disciplines. As such, investing in the Harbourfront Centre supports access to our arts, culture and recreation, and showcases the diversity and richness of life in Canada.

The Government of Canada has a long-standing relationship with Harbourfront Centre and provides annual funding and support for its operations and facilities. Harbourfront sits on 10 acres of Toronto's waterfront, an important destination for Torontonians and visitors alike. Its facilities include four theatres, an outdoor amphitheatre, the Power Plant Art Gallery, Harbourfront Craft and Design Studios, the Bill Boyle Artport and several additional exhibition areas, as well marinas, piers, restaurants and many other indoor and outdoor spaces.

Much of Harbourfront Centre is repurposed from an industrial space that dates back long before its incorporation. Aging infrastructure is a challenge for the organization and it requires significant investment.

Organizations in the cultural sector, including Harbourfront, were hit badly during the pandemic. Budget 2021 included an investment of $500 million over two years for the recovery fund for arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors, and the reopening fund, to help the sector return to its prepandemic strength. Substantial portions of these funds were invested in the live performing arts sector, community festivals, performing arts and music.

As part of that fund, an additional $20 million was awarded to Harbourfront for capital infrastructure work over two years. This funding sought to address urgent capital improvements and repairs to update performance spaces and venues; address health and safety elements to welcome back artists, visitors and staff; provide greater accessibility to the site; achieve reductions in energy and water use targeting zero-carbon levels; and continue urgent capital repairs.

As an independent non-profit organization, Harbourfront is responsible for setting its priorities for ongoing infrastructure projects and making its own decisions accordingly.

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

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have had a debate with the member, and it seems that each and every time, he makes it about me instead of the issue at hand. It is likely because he is having to rise to defend the indefensible.

The Harbourfront rink was an iconic venue. It is where new Canadians have come to learn to skate. I have heard from immigrants who have embraced skating and learned to skate on the very rink that is now being removed without any public consultation. It was a decision made behind closed doors by those who do not know the pulse of our community or care about what people want. Is this how the federal government cares about how $20 million in taxpayer money is spent?

I call upon Canadian Heritage to review the terms of this contribution, including its initial plans, and the complete failure by Harbourfront Centre to undertake public consultations.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member said “defend the indefensible” without irony. He still to this day has not addressed the charges against him that he hid from his constituents. It is shocking that every four to six months he pretends to care about issues relating to Canadian heritage.

The Minister of Heritage and his office are working on this file. Even today, the minister's office met with Harbourfront Centre. We are committed to the arts. We are doing it every day, not every few months when the hon. member thinks to come here and ask a question.

Foreign Affairs

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand today and address this place. I am here because I have tried multiple times, through multiple channels, to get information about the sanction regime that is being imposed by the Canadian government. I have asked questions through Order Paper questions. I have asked questions during question period, and I have raised it during debate, and yet it is impossible, as a parliamentarian, to get clear answers from the government on what is being done to ensure that our sanction regime is effective.

The reason this is so important is that the sanction regime is in fact the cornerstone of some of our foreign policy. We look at what is happening in Ukraine. We look at the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine and the horrific things being done by Vladimir Putin and his thugs within the Russian Federation. One of the tools we have, which could be one of the best tools we have, is the ability to sanction those oligarchs and make them pay for what they are doing to the people of Ukraine. We use sanctions in multiple countries. We are using sanctions in Haiti. We are sanctioning people in Iran. Though not nearly enough, we are sanctioning people responsible for the Tamil genocide.

However, the sanction regime is only as good as the enforcement, and right now that enforcement is not transparent. It is nothing that we can get any information on. It does not appear to be working at all. We have no idea why certain people are added to the list, when they are added to the list and what has been seized of their assets. It is extremely frustrating, for all of us in the House, not to be able to get these answers from the current government.

We have seen the Minister of Foreign Affairs stand up. The minister, frankly, hands out sanctions like she is Oprah Winfrey: “You get a sanction. You get a sanction.” All those people, those 1,600 people, should be on the sanction list. However, how fast do members think someone who is sanctioned is going to realize the sanctions do not matter if the Government of Canada is not enforcing those sanctions?

Let me tell a bit of a story. When I asked about the sanction regime and what was being seized, I was told that the government could point to only one asset that it had seized in six months in response to Putin's invasion: one asset, that of Roman Abramovich, of $120 million. That is it. Sixteen hundred people are on the sanction list, and the government has seized $120 million. That is a lot of money to me and that is a lot of money to members, but it is not a lot of money to Russian oligarchs. That is an embarrassingly small amount of money for Russian oligarchs.

How fast does the government think they are going to realize that the sanction regime is not strong in Canada? How fast does it think our allies are going to look at us and ask what is the point if we are not enforcing the sanctions? If the government is not putting the tools in place to enforce them, what is the point?

In 2017, the foreign affairs committee put forward recommendations on a sanction regime. The government has had ample time to implement those recommendations. It has not done so. I would love some information on why that is the case. I have been calling for a renewed study, five years later, of the sanction regime. I would like to see the foreign affairs committee study that, but at the moment that is not happening. I am going to need some answers.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. It is my second question from her today, and she is consistent in her passion for human rights, both in Canada and abroad.

Canada and its allies work closely together to seek changes in policies and behaviour of individuals and foreign states engaged in heinous acts. This includes co-operation and coordination on imposing sanction measures against the most egregious actors. Together, we are restricting the revenues and resources that fuel their violence to hinder their ability to operate politically, economically and militarily.

Over the past year alone, Canada has increased its use of sanctions in response to numerous global crises, including Russia's illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, as well as respond to the situations in Iran, Myanmar and Haiti. In 2022 alone, Canada imposed 60 rounds of autonomous sanctions, representing an overall 150% increase in the use of this foreign policy tool over the previous four years combined.

In response to Russia's illegal and unjustifiable war, Canada has imposed a broad dealings ban with over 1,600 Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian individuals and entities. In effect, the dealings ban freezes the assets of designated persons and bars those individuals and entities from transactions with Canadians or persons in Canada. Canada has also imposed a shipping ban and prohibitions on a broad array of key revenue-generating sectors. These measures are largely taken in coordination with our allies. As a result of the international community's coordinated sanctions, we are seeing impacts on Russia's economy. There is also evidence that Russia is becoming increasingly desperate to find ways to finance and wage its war.

On Iran, Canada has imposed broad measures denying access to the Canadian market and prohibiting sensitive goods, technology and sources of Canadian investment that could support the nefarious activities of this regime.

In Haiti, sanctions are having an impact and are recognized as being a key factor in the pressure on members of the elite to resolve the crisis, as demonstrated by the December 21 political accord, which was endorsed by a number of political factions and the private sector in that country.

Further, in Myanmar, Canada's sanctions target those responsible for violence and are consistent with Canada's commitment to uphold democracy and end impunity in Myanmar.

Enforcing sanctions is critical to ensuring their impact and effectiveness. The government takes this responsibility seriously. With interdepartmental collaboration, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Canadians and, in particular, those of the Canadian financial institutions, who have played a key role in enforcement, not only by disclosing dealings bans on individual entities but also in disclosing to the RCMP any assets in their possession.

Recognizing that effective enforcement is a central part of the desired impact of Canada's sanctions, the Prime Minister announced, in October 2022, that new funding would support the creation of a dedicated sanctions bureau at Global Affairs Canada and enhance the capacity of Canada's enforcement agencies to carry out these duties. Additional resources will allow Canada to deepen its sanction capacity and align it better with our closest allies.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, putting more people on the sanctions list if there is no enforcement of the sanctions is simply meaningless political theatre. The government should be ashamed of its actions on the sanctions regime.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's sanction measures are unprecedented in their impact, scope and level of coordination with our international partners. We recognize the importance of ensuring the effectiveness of Canada's sanctions through enhanced enforcement, broader across-government coordination and increased co-operation with our allies and partners, particularly to catch sanction evaders. These new investments in Canada's sanctions capacity will help achieve these goals.

Sanctions are but one foreign policy tool among many. In addition to imposing sanctions against those responsible for a breach of Canada's international security, Canada has also provided much support and assistance to the people of Ukraine, Haiti, Iran and Myanmar.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:19 p.m.)