Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Procedure and House Affairs

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

I would remind the hon. member that this is not a conversation. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has the floor and we will allow him to finish his speech.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the NDP who is talking during my speech and his colleague who is a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs are quite aware of all the efforts I have made for us to work together on this file. They cannot deny it. I called them, I communicated with them in an effort to have the opposition parties hold the government accountable for its actions. My colleague is well aware that we worked together to make this public inquiry happen. He is well aware that we changed the motion calling for a public inquiry in order for the appointed commissioner to be chosen by Parliament and by the leaders of all the parties. The Conservatives made that change. Otherwise we would not have independence because the NDP were leaving it up to the Liberals to choose who could preside over the inquiry.

They claim to be the first ones to come up with the idea, which is quite something. They had an idea, but that idea would have led to a non-independent inquiry. As a show of good faith, we agreed to amend our motion. Our motion called for an investigation of the Beijing regime, which the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said is the greatest threat to our elections today. The NDP wanted this to be extended to other countries and other foreign powers that might have an interest in influencing our elections. We agreed. Then the NDP comes along and says that they were the first, as though they are the only ones who want to get to the bottom of foreign interference in elections, and that the nasty Conservatives are being partisan. It is amazing to see what has transpired today, and to think that we can work together and get something done.

I think the Conservatives have been the least partisan on this issue. In fact, I am certain we have been non-partisan, considering all the concessions we made. The Liberals filibustered for 24 hours because we had the best interests of Canadians at heart and we wanted to get to the bottom of the Beijing regime's interference in our elections. That is what happened.

Today, the members of the NDP are taking up half of our opposition day because they want to score political points. That is the only reason. The NDP has changed its mind on foreign interference many times. Were it not for the pressure from the Conservatives and the public, were it not for the media revelations, the NDP would still be backing the Liberal-NDP coalition in trying to protect the Prime MInister and his seats for as long as possible. That is the reality. I am extremely disappointed with the NDP and that we no longer have the collaboration that we had with them before.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a two-part question.

He was in the House when the member for Perth—Wellington was speaking and said foreign interference to even one Canadian is unacceptable. Does the member opposite agree with that?

His caucus members met with an alt-right MP, Christine Anderson, from a foreign government. She came to this country spouting anti-Islamic rhetoric, denying the Holocaust and glorifying Nazis. If the member actually does not support even one Canadian being influenced by foreign interference, will he and his party ask that those three members be removed from their caucus?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, first they deny, then they divide and then they accuse and try to avoid answering questions. That is standard practice among the Liberals when they are caught with both hands in the cookie jar.

That is what they did in the WE Charity scandal. They said that it was not them, then they said that it might have been them and then finally they found a scapegoat. That is how it works. When there is a Liberal scandal, there is a little red book with instructions on what to do. It is always the same thing. Every time there is a scandal, they do the same thing. They deny, they deflect and they find a scapegoat.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague in the House is well aware that I appreciate him very much, but his speech really takes the cake.

The facts he concocted about the NDP's involvement in moving this motion today and also in getting Katie Telford to testify at committee—all of that was thanks to the work of the NDP. I am glad we had support from the other parties, but really, as he well knows, it was the NDP that got the job done.

I have three questions for my colleague.

First, why did the Conservatives try to eliminate the Russians from the scope of this public inquiry? Second, and this is an important question, why did they remove Katie Telford from our original motion? Today's motion makes no reference to Katie Telford because the Conservatives amended it. Third, why did his leader, the member for Carleton, refuse to vote on the Conservative motion yesterday?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, the NDP can scream and yell and stand up and say that it was the first, but the fact is that it cannot get anything done on its own.

It took the Bloc Québécois and discussions with that party and the Conservatives to get this done. Had it not been for the Conservatives, there would be no motion right now. We would still be studying something in committee because the NDP would not have obtained the necessary support.

I am not sure the Liberals would have supported the NDP if it had called for an independent national public inquiry with a commissioner appointed by all of the parties. Would the NDP have had the Liberal's support for that? No. It would not. It took the three parties.

Unfortunately, the NDP does not recognize that the opposition parties can sometimes work together, but that, in the end, the result is that the three opposition parties must—

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

We have time for one last question.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my colleague will agree with me, but as I sit in the House tonight, listening to the various debates and the various speeches, I feel like I am watching a pointless contest. It just makes no sense. One party says, “We asked for it first”, and the other party says, “No, we asked for it first”. Each accuses the other of being the most partisan. This is ridiculous.

I am trying to convince young people in my riding to take an interest in politics and look at what goes on in the House of Commons, because there are some debates worth watching. Tonight, I would tell them to turn off their television. This debate is outrageous. It is like listening to children argue over whose dad is stronger.

We have been talking about this for weeks. The NDP has obviously just woken up in time for the Conservatives' opposition day. What we are hearing now is that we all agree that the government should be held accountable.

Since we all agree, why can we not work together to hear what the government has to say for itself to the opposition and to Canadians?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. There is too much partisanship in the debate, too much back and forth and too much bickering between everyone, when the opposition parties should join forces and form a united front to show the government that the public inquiry and our objective are important. We represent Canadians.

I agree with my colleague, but unfortunately, their government is refusing to call a public inquiry.

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

Madam Speaker, it is really important tonight of all nights that we discuss this issue. In a world of disinformation and political interference from foreign actors, democracy is in a fragile condition these days. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to reassure the public and give them reason to believe that the public service has integrity. This is the reason that New Democrats came forward tonight to bring this motion, and we can see how excited the Conservatives are that, once again, they are able to respond to the NDP's lead on this. This is why, on a number of issues, we have used our position in Parliament not to burn the House to the ground but to try and find solutions.

When the Liberals overreached on Bill C-21, the gun bill, the Conservatives just loved it. They were going to raise money off of it. We were like, “No, we are going to find a solution so that farmers and hunters are not targeted.” We pushed relentlessly and negotiated. That is what we do in Parliament.

It is the same for the issue of getting Ms. Katie Telford to come before committee. The Conservatives were just using their tactics of character assassination and smear, but we said no to the Liberals. We said that we have to find a way to start getting answers.

The NDP was the first party, with our leader, to call for a public inquiry. Tonight, we are the ones leading this discussion. We need this because we are in a situation where we have just gotten allegations, which I think are explosive, that a sitting member of Parliament may have advised a senior Chinese official over the illegal detention, the hostage-taking, of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, whom we know as “the two Michaels”.

The hostage-taking of those two men was a real line that was crossed in this new century in terms of the breakdown of international order and international law. It was incumbent upon all of us, regardless of party, to put the interests of those men and their families first.

I know the member who has been accused. I have sat with him on committee. I am not here to say whether those allegations are true. However, I am saying they are so explosive that the Prime Minister must respond. One of the ways he can respond now is by following the New Democrat call for a public inquiry to restore confidence.

I am not confident that addressing this in just a parliamentary committee is enough. We are also dealing with serious state secret issues. A lot of this comes through what CSIS is going to tell us. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Conservative leader with this kind of information anymore because I see the tactics that he has brought forward.

I blame the Prime Minister for delaying, obfuscating, not addressing the seriousness of this issue and undermining public confidence. However, I think it is equally dangerous to use the tactic of character assassination and smear, as well as trashing anyone who stands in the way of the Conservative agenda on this. Knowing what they are doing, I would certainly never be comfortable knowing that state secrets could be brought to a committee. They can say what they want about David Johnston or the decision of the Prime Minister, in terms of whether it was right or wrong to appoint a special rapporteur, but shame on Conservatives who trashed the reputation of a former governor general. This is a man who was appointed by Stephen Harper and who serves his country with dignity. He deserves better than this kind of smear.

I do not think I will ever be invited to a Trudeau Foundation dinner; I would be very surprised if I were. However, when we have institutions that actually serve the public, it is not acceptable to decide to try and smear them as though they are some kind of Chinese, communist-run foundation of friends and pals. That is ignorant. I disagree with the Prime Minister on most things, but I would never stoop so low as to say that he is some kind of paid stooge for a foreign government. However, that is the language that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party, and that is dangerous because it undermines confidence.

The first time I was called a “traitor”, I thought it was a joke because I serve my country with dignity. However, I realized language like calling people “traitors” and “enemies” is now part of the Conservatives' discourse. This is why we have death threats in this country. There are disinformation reports from the World Economic Forum. We have to rise above this.

There was a time when the Parliament of Canada would have been shocked and appalled that any member would have partied with an extreme right neo-Nazi German extremist, like Christine Anderson. However, she is a folk hero to many on that side. There was a time when any Conservative leader who knew that their members were cavorting with extreme-right German extremist groups would have drawn a line, but that does not happen anymore.

We are in a situation where we are moving further away from where we need to be as an institution that reassures faith in the public that they can trust not only that our elections are completely protected and the rights of citizens are protected, but also that public institutions serve the public interest and that the people we elect to serve are doing it with a belief that public service is a public good. We have to get back there.

When we look at the situation before us, with the allegations of foreign interference, we know that there were serious questions during the convoy about Russian disinformation, proxy sites and the use of RT. It favoured certain political interests in this country, because it was undermining the present government, but there were serious questions about Russian disinformation in the convoy scandal.

We need to make sure that we have the tools to examine if this is interfering with how our democracy operates. The situation of allegations of potential interference by Chinese state actors is also concerning for another profound reason. We see a rise of anti-Asian hate and anti-Asian violence in this country. We need to say very clearly, as parliamentarians, that we are not exploiting this situation for our own personal and political gain. We are deeply concerned, just as people in the Chinese community are concerned and just as people in the Iranian community or any other community would be concerned, about any potential foreign actors. This is why the Prime Minister needs to reassure the public that he understands this.

I respect David Johnston. I do not know if we needed him as a special rapporteur. The allegations that have come out tonight are very serious, and I think the Prime Minister must respond to those allegations. I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to say that we have to take this out of the realm of the partisan monkey house, which this place has sometimes descended to in the last few days, and to put it in the hands of an independent inquiry that has the power to compel testimony, the power to gather documents and—

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would 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 Thursday, March 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1190, 1192, 1196 and 1200.

Question No.1190—

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

With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the list of companies from Xinjiang which have been prohibited from importing goods into the United States under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act: (a) does CBSA currently allow imports from companies on the list into Canada; and (b) what is the volume and value of goods which entered Canada from companies on the list since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, company, and type of goods imported?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), in Canada, the legislative authority for border services officers to give effect to the import prohibition of goods mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced labour is subsection 58(1) of the Customs Act, which is the authority to determine the tariff classification, together with tariff item 9897.00.00 of the customs tariff.

Unlike U.S. laws, the customs tariff does not provide authority to deem goods as prohibited prior to importation and without evidence. Nor does it provide for a company- or country-specific ban on goods having been mined, manufactured or produced with forced labour. Tariff classification determinations on imported goods are made on a case-by-case basis and are based on the available information at the time of importation. Goods are permitted entry if all import requirements are met, unless there is sufficient and appropriate information available to link each good with forced labour.

The CBSA is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the customs tariff. The labour program of Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, provides support for the forced labour import prohibition by conducting research and analysis on the risk of forced labour for specific complaints or allegations. The CBSA may use this information and other sources of information to identify and intercept shipments containing goods suspected of being produced by forced labour.

With regard to part (b), CBSA records are based on advanced shipment information required by the reporting of imported goods regulations. The data that importers are legally obligated to submit to CBSA when importing commercial goods does not provide CBSA with full traceability through an importer’s supply chain. As such, while the CBSA has no records of imports by companies on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, or UFLPA, entity list, the agency cannot definitively confirm that there have not been imported goods linked to the listed companies.

Question No.1192—

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to Transport Canada and the shortage of commercial pilots: (a) what was the average processing time for each of the four categories of aviation medical certifications as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (b) what was the number of pending medical certification applications, broken down by category, as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (c) since January 1, 2020, how many medical certification applications in each of the four categories had a processing time of more than (i) 40 days, (ii) six months, (iii) one year; (d) what was the average processing time for Restricted Area Identity Cards (RAICs) as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (e) what was the number of pending RAIC applications as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) January 1, 2022, (iii) July 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023; (f) what is the normal processing time or standard for RAIC applications; and (g) of the pending RAIC applications on each of the dates in (e), how many applications took longer to process than the normal processing time or standard?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, since information technology, IT, systems and hybridized processes, which involve a combination of paper and digital file processing, are currently being updated and modernized, Transport Canada is unable to provide the data requested with respect to the average processing time for medical certificate applications. The most recent data for aviation medical certificate applications received in January 2023 demonstrates that Transport Canada is currently reviewing eligible applications within the service delivery standard.

In January 2023, 75% of applications were for existing medical certificates that received immediate in-office renewal by medical examiners. An additional 17% of applications were for new medical certificates, and all were reviewed within the service delivery standard of 40 business days, with an average review time of nine to 14 business days depending on the region. The remaining files are complex medical files requiring additional review to determine whether the applicants meet the applicable medical standards to ensure aviation safety. These are not subject to the service delivery standard of 40 business days.

With respect to the backlog, IT systems began collecting data on the backlog of aviation medical certifications in July 2022. In July 2022, the backlog of aviation medical certificate applications awaiting processing was estimated at 5,000. As of February 6, 2023, Transport Canada estimates a backlog of approximately 5,600 aviation medical certificate applications that are awaiting processing. However, the backlog is composed of medically complex applications requiring additional review to determine whether the applicants meet the applicable medical standards to ensure aviation safety. These are not subject to the service delivery standard of 40 business days. Category 4 applications are excluded from these totals as they are based on medical declarations, not medical examination reports. The service delivery target for category 4 certificates is 40 business days, and there is currently no backlog.

Transport Canada is working to improve its processes and ensure there are sufficient resources and staff to process aviation medical certificates in the most efficient manner possible to address the backlog. Notably, Transport Canada is digitalizing its processes by implementing an electronic medical examination review system to eliminate paper-based dependencies. Close to 90% of applications are now processed electronically. Applicants are encouraged to apply as early as possible for aviation medical certificates.

Any individual who requires unescorted access to the restricted areas of designated airports across Canada, such as pilots, must first obtain a transportation security clearance from Transport Canada. Transport Canada grants transportation security clearances to applicants who do not pose a risk to transportation security. A transportation security clearance is needed before a restricted area identity card can be issued and administered by airport authorities. Although restricted area identity cards are governed by Transport Canada regulatory requirements, which specify conditions for when and how they may be issued, used and cancelled, they are issued and administered by individual airport authorities.

Question No.1196—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to the government’s decision to spend $90 million on 200 Senator Armoured Personnel Carriers to be donated to Ukraine: (a) was this contract sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; (b) if the contract was sole-sourced, what was the rationale for not using a competitive bidding process; and (c) was theatre (combat) experience taken into account when awarding this contract, and, if so, how and why were these vehicles chosen over other Canadian-made vehicles that already have such experience?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has stood firmly with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in the face of unwarranted Russian aggression as they fight to defend their sovereignty, freedom and independence.

Since February 2022, National Defence has committed or delivered over $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including battle tanks, heavy artillery, body armour, gas masks, helmets, drone cameras, funding for high-resolution satellite imagery, anti-armour weapons systems, rocket launchers, small arms and ammunition, as well as other highly specialized pieces of military equipment. This amount includes the complete allocation of $500 million in military support for Ukraine announced in budget 2022. More information about Canada’s military support to Ukraine can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/campaigns/canadian-military-support-to-ukraine.html.

On January 18, 2023, the Minister of National Defence announced that Canada will donate 200 Senator armoured personnel carriers, or APCs, to Ukraine. The vehicles are being purchased from Roshel, a Canadian company based in Mississauga, Ontario. This package of military assistance responds to a Ukrainian request for these specific vehicles and builds upon Canada’s donation of eight Roshel commercial pattern armoured vehicles in April 2022. Additional information on the contract for the additional 200 Roshel Senator vehicles can be found below.

With regard to part (a), the contract was sole-sourced, with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC, acting as the contracting authority.

With regard to parts (b) and (c), the Roshel Senator vehicles were specifically requested by the Government of Ukraine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine, or AFU, currently possess Roshel Senator vehicles in their fleet and have experience using these vehicles in theatre.

Question No.1200—

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

With regard to Indigenous Services Canada and on-reserve schools: (a) what is the total number of (i) schools, (ii) teachers, (iii) students; (b) what are the training and educational requirements to become a certified teacher in these schools; and (c) what percentage of teachers have an undergraduate or higher degree in (i) education, (ii) another field?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, is concerned, the response is as follows.

With regard to part (a)(i), ISC provides funding to 450 elementary and secondary schools on reserves across Canada, including seven federally administered schools. Federally administered schools are community-run but under federal responsibility, and teachers and the education director are federal public servants. There are six in Ontario and one in Alberta.

With regard to part (a)(ii), as of March 31, 2022, 4,433 teachers were reported by first nations and/or organizations designated by first nations to deliver elementary and secondary education programming. Please note that this field is not mandatory and may not include information on all teachers. In support of first nations control of first nations education, first nations are best placed to respond to specific questions regarding the teachers employed within schools.

With regard to part (a)(iii), there are 75,228 students.

With regard to parts (b) and (c), in support of first nations control of first nations education, first nations operate and manage first nations schools on reserve, including the hiring of teachers and subsequent validation of their credentials. First nations are best placed to respond to specific questions regarding the teachers employed within schools. Please note that teacher certification requirements will vary between provinces.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 1191, 1193 to 1195, 1197 to 1199 and 1201 to 1206 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.