Debates of March 20th, 2023

(Return tabled)

Question No.1183—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Business Account, broken down by program: (a) how many organizations which received funding are (i) in receivership, (ii) insolvent; and (b) how much funding did the organizations in (a) receive?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1185—

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC), since 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what are the details of all funding transfers between the DFO and the GLFC, including, for each, the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) type of funding or reason for the transfer; (b) which line item in the DFO's financial statements included the funds allocated to or received from the GLFC; (c) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of the DFO and how will they be listed; and (d) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of another government department or agency, and which department or agency will each commitment be listed with?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1186—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, broken down by month: (a) what were the delivery times for permanent resident cards, from when the application was received to the issuance of a card, for the time periods between (i) July and December 2019, (ii) July and December 2022; and (b) what was the average time between the confirmation of the permanent residency and the issuance of the card, between (i) July and December 2019, (ii) July and December 2022?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1187—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to expenditures related to the lifting of long-term and short-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount provided, broken down by individual Nation and reserve, for boil-water advisories that (i) have been lifted, (ii) are still in effect; and (b) for each boil water advisory still in effect, what are the expected costs to lift each advisory?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby made his speech a little while ago, but I want to thank him. I would like him to come back to the importance of having an independent, totally non-partisan, public inquiry that would be voted on in the House of Commons.

I want to mention the statement made by my colleague from Trois‑Rivières, who aptly described at the outset the importance of public trust. The current government's complacency is undermining the public's trust in government. We are going to go from mistrust to defiance, as the member for Trois‑Rivières said so well.

I would like my colleague to expand on that point and perhaps explain why he thinks the government wants to buy time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. As I mentioned in my speech, that is why the NDP will move a motion tomorrow that we were able to have adopted at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This motion requires that a public, transparent and independent public inquiry be held to examine all concerns and allegations concerning foreign interference.

Of course this is important for the NDP. We are very pleased to have received the support of other parties on this matter, and tomorrow, as I already mentioned, we will propose that this report be adopted. It was adopted by the committee and we want the House of Commons to adopt it. Naturally, there will be a debate, but every member will have the opportunity to vote on this important motion. We hope to count on everyone's support. We also hope to push the government to take action and to launch this public inquiry, which should absolutely be independent and transparent.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to ask the member this question before, but he did not answer it, so I want to give him another opportunity.

The leader of the NDP said, “up to this point...I have seen [that] the committee, and the way it is operating, is more so a forum for scoring [political] points on each other. The Conservatives are trying to score points on the Liberals”. He went on to say, “And so, that, to me, is the wrong use of our resources. The fact that a committee is being used in a partisan way to score points on something [is inappropriate].”

As a matter of fact, this member, on February 21 in the PROC committee, said, “I caution on the issue of inviting staff [to committee].” He went on to say, “Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did [and why].”

Given that this motion is all about inviting staff to committee, can the member give some insight into why the NDP is even considering whether to support it, given his comments in committee and the comments by the leader of the NDP? He did not answer the question the last time I asked. I am really hoping that he can actually answer my question this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is being disingenuous. I absolutely did answer the question, but he did not like the answer.

The reality is that if we ask Canadians from coast to coast to coast what they want to see, they want to see resources invested now in a national public inquiry that is transparent and independent. I am answering this question now for the second time. It is the same question he asked, and I am giving the same answer. Resources need to go to a national public inquiry now. That is what Canadians want.

My question back to the member for Kingston and the Islands is simply this: Why is the government stonewalling something that Canadians want, and want to see now, and why is the government not investing those resources so that we can have the national public inquiry that so many Canadians want to see?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I agree with the need to take foreign interference very seriously, and I want to ask the member whether he agrees that we should look at not just the 2019 and 2020 elections, but at the others as well.

I know that the NDP thinks that we need to examine interference from other parts of the world, but could we also not examine more elections because we need more information to protect our democratic systems?

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the fact that my colleague from Waterloo spoke in French and I also appreciate the work that she does as the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The reality is that we are calling for a public inquiry. As the member is well aware, the NDP proposed to the committee a broader public inquiry on foreign interference. The Conservatives tried to amend the NDP's motion and reduce the scope of this public inquiry by removing the allegations of interference that we have already seen, even though the agencies have indicated that they are just as worrisome. Take, for example, the interference by Russia, Iran and other countries. I do not know why the Conservatives wanted to reduce the scope of this inquiry.

The NDP is proposing a broader scope. It is important that the government take action now to set up this public inquiry, which should absolutely be transparent and independent.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks, since these stories started to break and since the leader of the official opposition started asking questions about this very important issue, I have heard from many constituents who have found that the faith they need to have in our democratic institutions has been shaken.

My question for the member from the NDP is simple. Can we count on his support tomorrow so we can get the answers required for Canadians to have that trust in their democratic institutions restored?

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the NDP is presenting its motion on the public inquiry. Tomorrow, Conservatives will have a chance to vote for the NDP motion. The Conservatives have been all over the map on this, trying to pull apart the NDP proposal for a vast and extensive public inquiry into foreign interference. I hope that tomorrow Conservatives will support the NDP motion.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thornhill.

It is a privilege to speak in the House on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant on our Conservative motion, which would essentially compel the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to appear as a witness.

Canadians have heard numerous media reports on foreign interference in our democratic processes, particularly by the Communist regime in Beijing. We, as a society, cannot allow foreign governments to manipulate our elections and influence the will of our people. Any interference tries to undermine the very foundation of our democracy and threatens our sovereignty, especially when it is plotted by authoritarian regimes.

The CSIS whistle-blower who leaked the story did so at great professional and legal risk. He or she put country over career and country over everything, which is the Canadian way. That is how our society should work. This is a serious matter that requires our full attention and immediate action. Canadians deserve the truth and nothing less.

From day one, our leader called on the government and all parties in the House to launch an open public inquiry that would answer all the questions and concerns that people have. In this case, only two people can provide us with answers: the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, Katie Telford.

As always, the Liberals decided to use their tactics of denial and deflection. Rather than explain what he knows, the Prime Minister is suggesting there should be an investigation into what he already knows. After all these years and numerous scandals, particularly those of SNC-Lavalin and WE Charity, accountability was never the goal of the Liberal government. Its goal is to prolong the scandal as much as possible until no one can remember why it matters.

For the past several weeks, the Liberals have been unnecessarily fighting attempts to have Telford appear before committee to testify. They have delayed votes, given long speeches to run out the clock and even refused to show up for meetings, all in an attempt to block Telford from appearing. Almost 24 hours of committee work has been wasted for this single cause.

Hearing from Katie is vital to any investigation into the Global News story because she would have been the top advisor who CSIS would have advised in 2019 in providing a brief on concerns about the Liberal candidate and his ties to the Chinese foreign interference network. She has been chief of staff since 2015, and she has the top secret clearance needed to be briefed.

The Prime Minister rightly said that voters, not intelligence services, get to pick who represents them, but if those intelligence services believe a candidate is compromised by a foreign government, voters should know that before casting their ballots. Having Telford come before the committee to tell MPs what the government did with the intelligence, if anything, is a necessary step in restoring confidence in our democracy. The fact that the Liberals refuse to allow this to happen may tell us a lot. Probably what she has to say would shake what is left over of that confidence even more.

It is time to end the Katie cover-up. The New Democrats have a choice to make: Will they vote for transparency and answers on Beijing’s interference in our elections, or will they again prop up the Prime Minister? We insist that Canadians must hear from Katie Telford and learn what the Prime Minister knew, when he first knew about it and what he did or failed to do.

Katie is the highest ranking political staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office. She supports not only the Prime Minister but also his entire cabinet. It is a powerful, yet largely behind-the-scenes role. Unlike other public servants, her job is a political one. She works not only for the PMO, but also for the Liberal Party during elections. Calling political staff, current or former, to testify is not something extraordinary. She testified before the finance committee on the WE scandal and on the sexual misconduct in the military in 2021. Last year, she testified before the Rouleau commission.

Any international attempts to interfere in our elections should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that the Liberals are making it one and trying to stop investigations should make everyone question their motives, and today we call on all parties in the House to support our motion and stop the endless filibustering by Liberal members, who are deliberately blocking the Prime Minister’s chief of staff from testifying

While the Prime Minister claims that his approach to the issue is “grounded in facts and independent decision making,” he is the one who is playing the partisan games in the hope of delaying any serious investigation or discussion about interference. As revelation after revelation reveals, the Liberal government knew about China’s election interference. It had four years. It did not inform the public. It did not recall any diplomatic staff. It did not pursue any legal remedies.

Poll after poll shows that the majority of Canadians are concerned about China's attempts to meddle in our elections. A recent Abacus Data poll showed that 67% of Canadians support a public inquiry into that issue, and in fact, 70% of Liberals support it.

It is irresponsible to silence a matter of a foreign government attempting to corrupt our election by pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora. If that does not qualify for the fullest and most public examination, then one must ask oneself this question: What will?

There are lots of questions the Prime Minister does not want to answer. Number one, were the Liberals briefed by national security officials that at least one Liberal candidate in 2019 was allegedly part of the interference network from Beijing? Two, did they wilfully ignore that warning because it was to their advantage? Three, did they know that 11 candidates in that election, nine of whom were Liberals, were favoured by Beijing? Four, were Trudeau and his advisors also briefed about China working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021—

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

Members cannot use the names of other members. The hon. member used the Prime Minister's name.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies.

Were the Prime Minister and his advisors briefed that China was working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021 so that a Liberal minority government would be elected? Five, did they know that the former Chinese consulate general in Vancouver bragged in 2021 about helping to defeat two Conservative candidates?

The heart of this scandal is not that there has been electoral interference, it is that the Liberals allegedly knew there was electoral interference but did nothing because it was to their benefit. CSIS leaked a quote from a Chinese consulate official who said, “The Liberal Party of Canada is becoming the only party that the People's Republic of China can support.”

The best guarantee of good government is still vigilance of an effective parliamentary opposition. It does not matter to Liberals that the opposition has not actually suggested that the outcomes of the previous two elections are in question. Liberals are at best misguided in seeking to demonize the opposition using the very partisanship and rhetoric they denounce.

The Prime Minister seeks to wedge the issue out of legitimate opposition concerns for the safety and integrity of Canadian elections. He does a grave injustice to our system of democracy by doing so. The role of opposition is to hold the government’s feet to the fire, not so that they can get warm and toasty, but so they can feel the heat of parliamentary scrutiny.

It seems like the Liberals are playing all the cards when it comes to burying the story. Number one, the Prime Minister used the Trump card when he said that giving reasons to mistrust elections is not good for society and is something that we have seen from other elections, echoing a senior Liberal who more openly accused the opposition of Trump-style tactics.

Number two is the “nothing to see here” card, which he played when he said, “Canadians can have...confidence in the integrity of our elections.” Number three is the partisanship card. The Prime Minister accused the opposition of sowing confusion and mistrust by even raising the allegation.

Number four is the “it is all lies” card from when he said, “We are very concerned with the [Global News] leaks, particularly because there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks.” Number five, and the most disturbing, is the racism card. The Prime Minister referred to a rise in anti-Asian rhetoric to deflect a question on the subject.

The Liberal MPs have been successful in blocking a vote for far too long. Canadians must know that Katie Telford has the information that she received from CSIS, but she has either made the decision to keep the Prime Minister in the dark, as she did during the scandal of sexual misconduct in the military, which is disturbing on its own, or maybe she did notify the Prime Minister and he kept quiet about it. Either way, people need to know what is going on in this country.

Lastly, I turn to the leader of the third party, the leader of the NDP and his caucus.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, you have got an extremely important choice. When you were elected, you were elected to represent all of your constituents, not just those constituents who voted for you. It is time for you to make a decision. Will you support this country, get to the heart of this matter and deal with this appropriately, or will you continue to prop up the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is one thing to say “through you” and then suddenly turn to direct all comments and point fingers at another member. It is pretty clear what is going on.

I do not think that the member was saying all of that to you personally, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps he would want to reflect on the rules of the House.