Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the member have unanimous consent to change his vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 80 minutes.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Canada Business Corporations Act

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

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

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it too late to present a petition?

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

We are not at Petitions yet.

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill S-203, an act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

I would like to congratulate and thank the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for a very compelling presentation to the committee and a long record of advocacy on this issue.

Canadian Heritage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Strengthening the Status of the Artist in Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Conservatives' supplementary report on the impact of the Status of the Artist Act on the working conditions of artists.

Conservatives recognize the volatility of year-over-year income in the arts and culture industry, but we believe in a free and fair market and would stress that guaranteed basic income should not be considered as a means of earning or supplementing an income in Canada.

Canadian artists are world-class. Assuming that the government-granted guaranteed income would assist artists in achieving success is a disservice to the talent, hard work and dedication of so many artists who are striving for and achieving success on their own merit. Canadian artists have, for decades, risen above to achieve worldwide success.

We also recognize the rapidly evolving nature of the arts and culture industry in the online sphere and would encourage the government to allow digital creators to flourish, absent of government intrusion into their work. Should a review of the Status of the Artist Act occur, a focus on reducing regulatory and taxation burdens should be a priority.

The Conservatives wish to thank all the witnesses, analysts, clerks and interpreters for their work during this study.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on Bill S‑5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Veterans Affairs

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled “Main Estimates 2023-24: Votes 1 and 5 under Department of Veterans Affairs and Vote 1 under Veterans Review and Appeal Board”.

Justice and Human Rights

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on motion No. 21 to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, be deemed to have taken place and the motion be deemed agreed to.

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

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

It is agreed.

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

(Motion agreed to)

Business of the House

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, on the day the House begins debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment or when no member rises to speak during the debate, whichever is earlier, the motion be deemed adopted on division and the bill be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

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

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

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

(Motion agreed to)

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives share the desire to move forward discussion of this bill quickly. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the motion adopted earlier today regarding the second reading motion of Bill C-41 , an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, Monday, March 27, be the day designated for the debate.

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

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

[An hon. member]

No.

Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 8, be concurred in.

I would like to start by acknowledging that this is a debate that was supposed to be held yesterday, but the Conservatives unbelievably rescheduled the debate to today. They denied consent yesterday to have this debate on the public inquiry, so now we are holding the debate today. As we well know, because the Conservatives did that procedurally, it delays the discussion we are to have later on about the tax increase on beer, wine and spirits.

For anybody who is tuning in to see that debate, because the Conservatives screwed up procedurally yesterday, we will have the debate later on about having the House call on the Liberal government to cancel its April 1 tax increase on beer, wine and spirits. The NDP will be voting yes on that, and there will be a round of speeches later on this evening, but because of the Conservatives screwing up yesterday and forcing the debate to today on the public inquiry, we are called upon now to have a debate on the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I want to read into the record of the House that report on the public inquiry.

This was an NDP motion, and I would like to thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River for putting forward this motion. She does extraordinary work at procedure and House affairs. What she has put forward, what procedure and House affairs has adopted, and what we are now debating for the next three hours is:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, March 2, 2023, the committee has considered the matter of foreign election interference.

Your committee calls on the Government of Canada to launch a national public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, including but not limited to allegations of interference in general elections by foreign governments;

That this inquiry be granted all the necessary powers to call witnesses from the government and from political parties;

That this inquiry investigates abuse of diaspora groups by hostile foreign governments;

That this inquiry have the power to order and review all documents it deems necessary for this work, including documents which are related to national security;

That the individual heading this inquiry be selected by unanimous agreement by the House Leaders of the officially recognized parties in the House of Commons; and

That this inquiry does not impede or stop the committee’s study on foreign election interference, including the production of documents and the calling of witnesses.

Members will recall that yesterday, New Democrats, playing their role as the adults in the House of Commons, forced the government, which had not been taking the issue of foreign election interference seriously, in our opinion, to relent and allow Katie Telford and other witnesses to come before the procedure and House affairs committee. Subsequently, we put in place in procedure and House affairs a motion that would allow for this foreign election interference study to be continued.

As I have said all along, the member for Burnaby South has been very clear, and NDP MPs have been very clear, that we believe that, given the size and scope of the allegations that have come forward, there is no doubt that we need a national public inquiry on the issue of foreign election interference.

I am going to outline some of those individuals who have a broad understanding of this issue who have also called for a national public inquiry. There is no doubt that this is an important issue. I understand that Bloc members also support the idea of a national public inquiry. Unbelievably, though, as we know, and we saw this yesterday, Conservatives denied the debate that was scheduled on the national public inquiry. They forced that debate to today. I will be talking about some of the evidence around some of the allegations that include Russian interference a few moments from now, but the reality is that the Conservatives have steadfastly objected to the idea of investigating foreign interference related to the Russian government and state actors, which I find disturbing.

There are the Chinese government and Chinese state actors, and I think all Canadians are concerned about why Conservatives would want to stop investigations into Russian government interference and Russian state actor interference. This concerns me because this should be an issue that rallies all members of Parliament. We should all be stepping up to ensure our elections are free of any taint of foreign interference, and that they are free and fair right across the country.

We have a proud tradition of free and fair elections. No one denies that the election results up until now have been election results that reflect, in a first-past-the-post system, what Canadians have voted for. We would prefer to see proportional representation. That would certainly change the representation in the House and make it more closely related to how Canadians have actually voted, but in a first-past-the-post system, which tends to disjoint the actual parliamentary representation, no one denies that our elections have been free and fair up until now.

The allegations are concerning, and that is why it is important that all members of Parliament vote on this issue in the coming day or two. We believe, very strongly, that members of Parliament have to respond to concerns that Canadians have raised. As a result of that, we are putting forward this motion today.

We would have preferred yesterday. The Conservatives stopped that from happening. They may say that it was inadvertent, that they just screwed up procedurally. I do not know. Whether it was inadvertent or purposeful, the reality is that they denied Canadians the right to hear the debate on a national public inquiry yesterday, which is so important. Fortunately, we are having that today.

I wanted to talk a bit about some of the evidence that has come forward, the allegations that are concerning, which are so important to triggering a national public inquiry. The member for Burnaby South has been exceedingly strong on that issue, talking about the importance of putting that in place. The government did not want to act, and we saw, as well, the government being reluctant even to offer key witnesses up. The NDP has forced that issue, so those witnesses are now going to be available to the procedure and House affairs committee.

We also believe, undeniably, that a national public inquiry is warranted. The rapporteur has now, again, because of NDP pressure, been given a date, a deadline, in the month of May, the third week of May, to submit that possible consideration of a national public inquiry.

I think that members of Parliament, by endorsing the NDP committee report, the motion for a national public inquiry, will get us considerably closer to the point where the rapporteur will be obliged, I believe, to respond to the concerns that have been raised by so many Canadians by actually putting the national public inquiry in place.

Who has said that a national public inquiry is warranted? The former director of CSIS Richard Fadden has said that a public inquiry is absolutely warranted. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, a former director of Elections Canada, has said that as well. This is very relevant, and I will come back to that in just a moment.

Gerald Butts, the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, has also stated that it is important to have a national public inquiry. Artur Wilczynski, the former head of the Communications Security Establishment, said as well that a national public inquiry is warranted.

There is no doubt. We have a situation where we have to put this into place. These are elements that the NDP will continue to push.

I wanted to, for the record, talk about some of the allegations that have come forward that are concerning. This should be covered by a national public inquiry. Members of Parliament will be asked to vote on this in the coming hours. It is important that they reflect what has been a broad concern for Canadians. Over 70% have said that a national public inquiry is warranted.

This started the more recent discussions, of course, over the last few weeks, but I would suggest that the implication of the Russian government and Russian state actors in the convoy last year also raised broad concerns, and there have been concerns raised previously.

There was a series of articles in The Globe and Mail by Robert Fife and Steven Chase. Sam Cooper from Global News has also done work as a journalist to bring forward some of these facts and allegations. These journalists have provided this information. I want to quote from one of the stories that came out, published on February 17 by Robert Fife and Steven Chase, in which they said the following of documents that had come out that raise serious allegations about foreign election interference. The article reads:

CSIS also explained how Chinese diplomats conduct foreign interference operations in support of political candidates and elected officials. Tactics include undeclared cash donations to political campaigns or having business owners hire international Chinese students and “assign them to volunteer in electoral campaigns on a full-time basis.”

Sympathetic donors are also encouraged to provide campaign contributions to candidates favoured by China – donations for which they receive a tax credit from the federal government.

Then, the CSIS report from Dec. 20, 2021 says, political campaigns quietly, and illegally, return part of the contribution – “the difference between the original donation and the government’s refund” – back to the donors.

These allegations are profoundly disturbing because what they represent is criminal activity, contraventions of the Elections Act. The Elections Act we have put into place is far different than what exists in other countries. For example, in the U.S., washes of money, dark money, can come in to influence the electorate. In Canada, we have strict financing provisions that must be followed, and if they are not, as former Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro found out, people go to jail for trying to skirt election laws. As the Conservative government found out, and the Conservative Party under the Harper regime found out as well with the in-and-out scandal, there are significant penalties for trying to get around our election laws.

The allegations contained within this article of having undeclared cash donations and of having business owners hire students to volunteer on a full-time basis, being in other words, paid students, and of ensuring that there is some kind of in and out where the money is provided to the campaign but is in some way reimbursed, are all illegal. These allegations contained in these reports show potentially serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.

Penalties, as I mentioned earlier, can be sizable fines and even prison terms. For the government to not move on this, to essentially stonewall this issue is, in my mind, hugely irresponsible. When we have allegations that point to what could be serious violations, criminal activity, around our elections, we have to make sure, if these allegations prove to be right, that the criminal penalties apply and the proper investigations take place.

This is the first concern we have, and it is why the NDP has been pushing in such a resolute way to ensure that we have a national public inquiry. It is because of the concerns that have been raised. These, being serious allegations, need to be treated seriously. This is the opportunity for all members of the House of Commons, on this NDP vote, to ensure they are doing everything to protect elections. Hopefully there will be a unanimous voice of all members of Parliament standing up to say to the government that it is time to put in place a public inquiry now. It has to be independent. It has to be transparent. It needs to happen now.

This is the reason why New Democrats have pushed for the type of public inquiry that handles all forms of foreign interference. I will say the Conservatives were very reluctant to have the Russian state actors and Russian government examined as part of this. They wanted to carve it off and make it a very targeted public inquiry.

Fortunately, we were able to push them back on that. Ultimately, the report that will come is the broad public inquiry I mentioned earlier in the report. However, that broad and public inquiry has to include Russia for the following reasons.

For the record, during the debates at the procedure and House affairs committee, I read a series of articles by Canada's National Observer that pointed to Russian state actor and Russian government involvement in the so-called convoy movement that hurt and harmed so many people, particularly in downtown Ottawa. Our memory is still fresh of the hundreds of businesses that were shut down, the hundreds of senior citizens who could no longer get their groceries delivered and the people with disabilities who were denied basic medications because of this unbelievable imposition and takeover of downtown Ottawa.

Without belabouring the details, what is of most concern in this particular debate is the Russian involvement. There have been a number of studies that have come out and a series of articles from Canada's National Observer, which are very important.

I want to read from a recent study that came out a few months ago, written by Caroline Orr Bueno and published in The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict and Warfare, volume 5, issue 3. It is an analysis of many of the sources that talk about the issue of the convoy and Russian involvement.

I want to read a few excerpts for the record.

It states, “Russia views homegrown protest movements like this”, referring to the convoy:

...as an opportunity to exacerbate social divides and sow discord as part of its asymmetric assault on western democracies.... [T]here is ample evidence of Russia’s involvement in far-right movements around the world.... From the National Front in France to the Northern League in Italy to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Russia’s ruling political party—

In this regime, which is a dictatorship, “has established formal and informal ties with ultranationalist movements across Europe”.

Members will recall that three members of the Conservative caucus met with the Alternative for Germany. This is very germane to the issue of foreign interference. The study goes on to state, “Russian disinformation campaigns have been cited as a contributing factor in pandemic-related protests, extremist activity, and unrest”.

I would profoundly disagree with saying that this kind of documentation is not something that should be taken seriously and that we should carve off Russian interference so that we just focus on one country. What is before the House is a comprehensive public inquiry, which includes not only the Chinese involvement, disturbing as it is, but also the involvement of Russia and other countries.

I want to conclude with some quotes about the convoy.

The study goes on to state:

In addition to amplifying convoy-related coverage on television, Russian state media also produced a significant amount of online content related to the convoy movement.

It also references that social media amplified that coverage by Canadian supporters of the convoy.

We also have concerns that have come up recently about Iran issuing death threats against Canadians in a study that came out from the Indian government.

A study came out this week by the British Columbia Sikhs Gurdwaras Council and the Ontario Gurdwaras Committee.

One of the quotes from that study states:

...there is significant evidence on the record establishing that Indian officials and intelligence operatives have manufactured news, offered bribes to [news] media outlets for favourable news coverage, amplified targeted messages to disrupt public debate, interfered in electoral processes across the country, and attempted to manipulate Canadian policymakers on a number of occasions.

It is important that we have a transparent national public inquiry. The NDP is moving this motion today to seek the support of all members. This should not be a partisan issue, but something that we all look into, because our democracy is precious. People have given their lives for democracy.

Looking to the future, it is important that we use all the tools at our disposal to prevent any foreign interference, whether from Russia, China or any other country. No foreign government or state actor should be able to influence our government in any way whatsoever. I hope that all members will support our motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said this a number of times: I do not think my position is that far off from that of the NDP. I am just concerned about the fact that the NDP thinks this needs to happen in a public inquiry.

The member and I are both on the PROC committee, or he was on it for a few meetings, and we heard from experts that a public inquiry is not the best venue to do this. He said there were some allegations; fair enough. However, more importantly, we have professionals to look into those allegations. CSIS specifically said it takes information, and when necessary, refers it to the RCMP. The RCMP also said it has no active investigations going on. One does not have to be great at reading between the lines to figure out the reality there.

Why does the member think it has to be a public inquiry? Why can we not use one of the other mechanisms that we already have to do this very important work?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would differ with my colleague on the issue of active investigations because our questioning of officials seems to indicate a disconnect between allegations and investigations. My sense is that it is not completely clear that allegations that come forward are automatically investigated, for example, by the commissioner of elections, who has the ability and responsibility to enforce our electoral laws and ensure they are obeyed.

We have a situation where there are holes. There are tools that could be used. A public inquiry would allow us to get answers for Canadians, which is why the NDP pushed strongly to have witnesses like Katie Telford and Jenni Byrne come before the procedure and House affairs committee. We pushed hard on that because we believe it is important to get answers to those questions.

We also need to have the tools and recommendations to ensure that whenever the next election happens, whether this year, 2024 or 2025, the elections are free of any possibility of foreign interference, whether from China, Russia, Iran or India.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something unusual going on here. We keep hearing that this is not a partisan issue. Every party is non-partisan here, as everyone knows. None of the parties are partisan.

I find it rather strange that my NDP colleagues are bringing this up now. The Bloc Québécois quickly announced that it is in favour of a public inquiry. Why are they moving this motion this evening? I think that their main goal is not to embarrass the government, but rather to embarrass the Conservative Party on its opposition day.

Our NDP colleague had the gall to say that he was doing this in a non-partisan way. I am not the Conservatives' biggest fan, but members of the House owe each other a modicum of respect. We usually respect the other opposition parties' opposition days.

I do not see why the NDP is bringing this up today. Are they hoping to redeem themselves after yesterday, when they voted against our Conservative colleagues' motion calling for a public inquiry? I do not know. I am not saying that their intentions are bad, but that is the feeling I am getting. We will hear what they have to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking the wrong person that question. As my colleague knows, and as all members know, we were supposed to debate this motion yesterday. The Conservatives and the Conservative House leader know that full well. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. The Conservatives screwed up procedurally. Since we did not debate the motion yesterday, it had to happen today.

The Bloc Québécois should be asking the Conservatives that question, because they are the ones who screwed up the procedure for the whole week, and they know that full well.

As for yesterday's motion, that motion was no longer particularly useful, since the NDP had succeeded in demanding that several witnesses appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Now the NDP wants to push for a public inquiry. In our opinion, this is a non-partisan issue that all members should look into.

With respect to House procedure, my colleague from the Bloc should really be asking the Conservative Party that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, as all of us should be aware, foreign interference in our elections is a growing concern.

We have all heard repeatedly that it did not have a meaningful impact on the past two elections. However, we know moving forward that the lack of clarity for candidates, MPs and mayors, as we have heard from the previous mayor of Vancouver, is just a growing concern. It is something that the public is seized with. Canadians are concerned about our systems, and they want to have faith in their systems.

Could the member talk a little about why we are seeing this partisan game between the Liberals and Conservatives? I think there needs to be a public inquiry. I think that national security needs to be recognized and honoured. Those two things could happen at the same time. Why do these two parties not seem to think it can?