Debates of May 30th, 2023

Privacy Commissioner

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a report from the Privacy Commissioner entitled “Protecting privacy in a pandemic”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Improving Bus Connectivity in Canada”.

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

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for tabling his 13th report of the committee. While the Conservatives always enjoy working with the clerk, the chair, the analysts and our colleagues on the committee, I want to make note for this report that the Conservatives did call for the removal of the inflationary carbon tax on intercity bus travel, and unfortunately our recommendation was not accepted by the majority of the committee.

We did hear from bus operators in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and other parts of the country about the significant impact of the carbon tax in terms of the cost pressures on their operations. They are, in many cases, taking a significant business risk to offer this service to Canadians, and at great value to many Canadians, and they face these taxes and other red tape burdens. This is especially true now with carbon tax number 2 coming in.

This is driving up costs. It is driving up costs for tickets of passengers, and as a result, these bus routes, which are lifelines in many parts of canada, are more expensive. There is no rebate for these bus companies.

I just want to make note of this on behalf of my Conservative colleagues on the transport committee on the occasion of the tabling of this report.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Main Estimates 2023-24”.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The following motion, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, was put on the Order Paper:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(b), consideration by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of all votes under Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, be extended beyond May 31, 2023.

(Motion agreed to)

Justice

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the fourth time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The common people of Swan River are demanding a common-sense solution to repeal the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their community. People used to travel around the town freely and safely in Swan River, but now they fear leaving their own homes.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, as they directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Criminal Code

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say what a privilege it is to stand in this House and bring forward petitions from Canadians. We are not required to do this, but I think it is really important that we stand and represent people from across our nation.

The individuals I am representing today are very upset that they have been demeaned in this House for the positions they take. They support something that is so crucial: violence against pregnant women.

The petitioners indicate it is well established that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant. Currently, the injury or death of preborn children as victims of crime is not considered an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes within the Criminal Code of Canada. These individuals, who say something contrary to other individuals but come together on this issue, state that Canada has no abortion law. The legal void is so extreme that we do not even recognize preborn children when they are victims of violent crimes.

Justice requires that an attacker who abuses a pregnant woman and her preborn child be sentenced such that the sentence matches the crime. The petitioners call upon this House to legislate the abuse of pregnant women and/or the infliction of harm on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

I have another petition to present, representing a number of Canadians on this issue. They say it is well established that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant. Currently, a woman's pregnancy is not an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Addressing this legal void through sentencing that considers the vulnerable state of a pregnant woman is necessary in denouncing such crimes. The majority of Canadians support access to abortion. Eighty-four per cent of Canadians support access to abortion.

Having appropriate sentences when violent crimes are committed against pregnant women is imperative to protecting a woman's reproductive choice to have a child. The unity across Canada on this issue is so exciting. The sentence should match the crime.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to legislate the abuse of a pregnant woman and/or the infliction of harm on her child as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code.

I thank both parties for their support of Bill C-311 and for their calls to bring forward proper legislation in regard to violence against pregnant women.

Falun Gong

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise one more time to table a petition that highlights the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

The petitioners indicate that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation exercises and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. They note that practitioners are the victims of various forms of persecution in China, including forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

The petitioners are asking this House to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs; to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting; and to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Opioids

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to table this petition today on behalf of moms, family members and loved ones of those who have died from a toxic, poisoned drug supply. This has become one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime, with approximately 21 deaths a day and a death toll of over 35,000 people in the last six years. This toxic drug crisis rages.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency. It is timely, because one year ago this week, the House defeated a bill that called on the government to take steps to end overdose deaths and overdoses injuries.

The petitioners call on the government to immediately collaborate with the provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive, pan-Canadian overdose action plan. They want to ensure that any plan considers reforms that other countries have used, including ensuring there is a safer supply of substances, stopping the criminalization of people who use substances and changing flawed drug policy and policing. They want to ensure this emergency is taken seriously with adequately funded programming and supports that will save lives.

Old-Growth Forests

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with a petition of grave concern to residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and throughout Vancouver Island.

The petitioners draw attention to the alarmingly dwindling remaining original old-growth forests of British Columbia, of which only 2.7% remain. On Vancouver Island, only 2.6% of old-growth forests are protected. The last unprotected intact old-growth valley on southern Vancouver Island, Fairy Creek, has been subjected to logging and has been the site of many arrests for non-violent civil disobedience.

The petitioners call on the federal government to work with the provinces and first nations governments to immediately halt the logging of endangered old growth, to fund long-term protection of old-growth forests and to support value-added forestry to create more jobs in partnership with first nations. On this important point, the federal government could ban the export of raw logs to maximize the use of forests in local communities and create local jobs, and ban the use of whole trees for wood pellet biofuel production, which is promoted as a false climate solution.

Air Transportation

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the incredible growth of the Indo-Canadian community over recent years has really put an emphasis on the need to look at international flights. I am tabling a petition from constituents who in essence are saying they would like to see an international flight from Winnipeg directly to India and preferably right to Amritsar. We need to see more international flights going from Canada to India.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to take that into consideration and to work with and lobby the airlines, and in particular the Winnipeg International Airport, to see what can be done. This is not only for Indo-Canadian members, as the demand to fly to India as a desired location far exceeds even the Indo-Canadian community.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, on March 23 and May 8, 2023,

(ii) the government did not heed this call, and instead appointed an independent special rapporteur who has recommended against holding a public inquiry, despite noting significant gaps and leaving many questions either unasked or unanswered,

(iii) serious questions have been raised about the special rapporteur process, the counsel he retained in support of this work, his findings, and his conclusions,

(iv) only a full public inquiry can fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions,

the House:

(a) call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur, and call on the government to urgently establish a public commission of inquiry which would be,

(i) led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House,

(ii) granted the power to review all aspects of foreign interference from all states, including, but not limited to, the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Iranian and Russian governments,

(iii) asked to present its report and any recommendations in advance of the next dissolution of Parliament or, at the latest, at the fixed election date as set by the Canada Elections Act; and

(b) instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with sadness that I stand here today, when the NDP has to put forward this motion.

The situation around foreign interference is real. It is happening. It is impacting Canadian society. It is impacting us all. It is damaging to our democratic system. It is threatening to some Canadians who are very active in their fight for basic human rights and democracy.

Despite this, the Liberal government does not see the importance of why, in looking into these matters, there should have been a public inquiry right at the outset. Instead, the Prime Minister decided, himself, that the appropriate path forward would be to appoint a special rapporteur.

Now here we are; the special rapporteur has tabled a report, and there are lots of issues with the report and with the entire process. I just want to say on the public record what the NDP is calling for. Our motion essentially calls for these four things: that the independent special rapporteur, the Right Hon. David Johnston, step aside; that the government launch an independent public inquiry on election interference by foreign governments; that the commissioner of the public inquiry be selected with unanimous agreement from the House leaders of all recognized parties; and that a report on the public inquiry be tabled in the House before the next election.

In addition, to get going with this work, the NDP's motion also calls for the House to instruct PROC to report to the House on the terms of reference and a possible commissioner who could lead such a public inquiry. This would allow for the greater pressure that needs to be put on the government in the coming weeks in terms of the need for an inquiry; it would also set the stage to show that this work can and must be done.

Last Friday, I had a classified briefing with CSIS. I was briefed on foreign interference and how I was subjected to it by the Chinese Communist Party. The briefing was very clear in saying that I could not disclose exactly how I was subjected to foreign interference, because that would put in jeopardy the important work the intelligence agency is doing. That is something I obviously would not want to jeopardize. To that end, I am not able or at liberty to share exactly what is happening or how it is happening with regard to my being targeted. However, CSIS made it clear that I am subject to foreign interference and will continue to be a target.

Foreign interference is happening. Whether someone is in support of the Chinese Communist Party, ambivalent about it or opposed to its policies, they could be targeted and subject to foreign interference. We also know that this could happen prior to or during an election, as well as at any period outside of that. We are seeing that unfold.

Some of us are outspoken and have concerns about basic human rights and the genocide of the Uyghurs. Some of us voted in support of the motion in this House in that regard and have concerns about the erosion of the basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the national security law, for example. Such people need to be ever vigilant in terms of attempts of foreign-interference actors working to coerce, to co-opt, to reorient, to neutralize or even to try to silence our voices.

Coming out of this briefing, what is clear to me is that the fight for people whose human rights are being violated, who are being silenced and even threatened, is more important than ever. We must do everything we can to protect Canadians' charter rights and our fundamental right of freedom, with the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom for peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of beliefs. The very essence of what makes us whole as people is to enjoy those freedoms and to protect them for Canadians, and not only for Canadians, but also for people around the globe. This is why we are here. This is the important work that is before us. I am here to say that, despite threats of foreign interference, I will not be deterred from fighting for those rights and fighting for the people who do not enjoy those rights.

It is more important than ever that Canada and the Canadian government do everything we can to protect our democracy and our cherished fundamental freedoms for all Canadians and people around the globe. I want to send a clear message to everyday Canadians who have families and loved ones in Hong Kong and in China; it is that I know their fear is real and the dangers their families face are real. For that reason, I am saying very clearly that I recommit myself to stand with them, to fight with them and to demand action from the government to protect them.

Canadians deserve answers. They deserve accountability and, yes, they deserve protection. This is not just for members of Parliament, like me, who have privilege in this place, but for everyday Canadians as well. They too are faced with foreign interference. The work that has been done so far is inadequate. Right at the outset, the Prime Minister made a misstep. However, it is not too late; he could make a correction and do what is right to rebuild the confidence of Canadians around this process.

I read Mr. Johnston's report, cover to cover, several times. I did not want to misunderstand or miss the point that had been made. He made a number of recommendations. One of the key recommendations was that he would not recommend a public inquiry. He stated that this would have been the easy thing for him to do. With all due respect, I disagree. I actually think that for Mr. Johnston to say that there needs to be a public inquiry and that there should be one would have been the hard thing for him to do.

I say that because he would be saying to the Prime Minister point-blank that the process the Prime Minister had chosen was categorically wrong. He would be saying that it was the wrong process and that the Prime Minister should not have embarked on it. Moreover, it would indicate that Mr. Johnston himself should perhaps not have accepted that appointment. I understand that it would be a hard thing to do to call out the Prime Minister. We do it every day in this House because it is our job; however, I guess that when one is appointed by the Prime Minister to do a job, it is a much harder path to take, to say that it is the wrong path to take. Mr. Johnston chose the easier way and did not call out the Prime Minister; instead, he said he would carry on the work, even though he should have known that he does not enjoy the confidence of all members of this House. If he did not know, he definitely should know that by now.

In his report, Mr. Johnston notes how important it is to undertake this work so that it is entirely non-partisan, and he says that we need the co-operation of all members of the House. I absolutely agree with that. In my previous speech, I pleaded with members of the House to set aside partisan politics and to engage on the issue. Recognizing the importance of that, Mr. Johnston noted it in his report; however, we are in a situation where, for a variety of reasons, Mr. Johnston does not enjoy the full confidence of every member of this House. The latest of these is the discovery that his legal adviser donated to the Liberal Party.

That surely should have been flagged, as Mr. Johnston was putting together his team, but it was not flagged. The team went on to carry on with this work. The legal adviser was a key member of the team in reviewing the documents from CSIS. How can it be that this went unnoticed? How is it even possible that, now that it is on the public record, there is no further action to be taken after the fact?

The basic principle of the appearance of conflict alone would suffice for someone to say, “I made an error and, therefore, I will now step away.” That did not happen, so now we are in this House and the NDP's motion is calling for Mr. Johnston to step down.

We have to do this work right. It is too important for us not to embark on a proper process, one that every Canadian has confidence in and one that is devoid of partisan politics. Mr. Johnston knows that much of the information he and his team have reviewed from CSIS could not be disclosed because it would put national security in jeopardy. I understand that. I do. I had my briefing. I was also told that there is much information I cannot share. I absolutely understand not wanting to jeopardize national security, but precisely because of that, the person who is looking at these documents needs to be a person whom everyone has their trust in. I am sorry to say that Mr. Johnston does not enjoy that confidence.

That is a reality. No amount of talking will change that. No amount saying that we are going to look forward instead of backward, that we are going to just plough forward and push through, is going to change that. That is now a reality, and the truth is that we must change the situation so that those facts are no longer relevant in moving forward. That is why we must have a public inquiry.

I am going to take a moment to turn to another aspect of the work that Mr. Johnston has provided, and what he stated in his report, which is on the question of who is reviewing the documents from the PMO. It was astounding to me. He noted the communication breakdown and the flaws within the system, and it kind of took my breath away to realize what a fiasco that whole process was, to be sure.

I will touch on this. Mr. Johnston states, “I have found that the narrative that the government failed to act is not a fair conclusion based on the facts.” However, in his report, he does not explain why that is a fair conclusion. He is simply saying to trust him that it is a fair conclusion. In the report, Mr. Johnston cited the communication challenges, and we have to ask this question: Who set up those poor channels of communications? It was the government itself. In the report, Mr. Johnston cites, “If staffers are away, they may not see the binder that day.” He is referring to the binder from CSIS, the intelligence binder. He is saying that the people reviewing this critical, serious information are staffers. Mr. Johnston does not define exactly what a staffer is, but in this universe, when we talk about “staffers”, they are political appointees. Ministers appoint ministerial staff as staffers. The PMO appoints staffers, who are political appointees the PM appoints in his office. That is how we generally understand the term “staffer”.

However, we have to ask why on earth a staffer would be reviewing top secret documents from CSIS. In what universe is that normal? That is not normal. That is not okay. That does not take seriously the work of the intelligence agency. I would argue that it is more than that the government, somehow, is botching the whole communications process. Right from the outset, in undertaking this work, there was no seriousness to this work. When one puts a staffer at the table like this, the staffer's goal is to look for political damage; that is why they are there, but that should not be how serious documents from CSIS on intelligence are taken. They should not be looked at from the point of view of how to address political damage. However, it seems to me that this is the approach, and I have serious problems with that.

The report talks about the infamous leaked memo, which was reported by Global News on February 8. The report highlights it by saying, “National Security Officials Warned [the] Prime Minister...and his Office More Than a Year Before the 2019 Federal Election That Chinese Agents Were ‘assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices’”. This is what was reported by Global News; it is cited as a heading in the report. The report goes on to indicate that “[a]n early draft of the memorandum contained similar but not identical language to that quotation. That draft was significantly revised before the memorandum went to the Prime Minister.” I have to ask whether the rapporteur asked these key questions: Who saw the draft memo? Who was the draft memo prepared for? Who changed it, and why? We do not have any answers to that. The report is completely silent on that. However, I think that it is pertinent information.

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

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time that the NDP has disagreed with the process that David Johnston has been in, but it certainly is the first time that it has participated in the Conservatives' conspiracy theories and antics to malign his character.

In 2018, we were studying the debates commission, and David Johnston, who was leading that process, appeared before committee. I would like to read a quote of what was said about David Johnston:

You are the gold standard of public service and I can't imagine any position for which you wouldn't be eminently qualified to represent Canadians and bring that fairness and values, and your integrity and your intelligence, your experience, to bear....

I have the highest regard for you, as does my caucus, and if at the end of the day, you end up being the debates commissioner, we as a country would be well served.

That was said by David Christopherson, a former NDP MP from Hamilton Centre.

How is it that the NDP cannot set aside its partisan interests this time?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, what nonsense that is. It is not partisan politics; this is the report that was tabled by Mr. Johnston, and I am raising issues with the report.

I will just go on and raise another issue with the report on the issue around the nomination of the member for Don Valley North. Mr. Johnston notes that irregularities were observed in the member for Don Valley North's nomination in the 2019 election, and that there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC consulate in Toronto, with which the member maintains relationships. Mr. Johnston noted that there were irregularities and that there were well-grounded suspicions. The Prime Minister was briefed on this, and then the Prime Minister concluded that there should be no action taken. Mr. Johnston noted that this was reasonable. How on earth is that reasonable when there are irregularities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I have to go to another question.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the NDP for finally standing up like an opposition party and acting like an opposition party in the House. Bravo.

I know it has been our party that has stood against the idea of a special rapporteur all along. It has been the Conservative Party that has really been the only party that has tried to bring the government down because of its corruption and many other issues. What I want to ask directly to the NDP is this: How far does this new opposition go? Will it stand with Conservatives and bring this corrupt Liberal government down?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that, if they want to participate in the debate, they need to wait until it is the appropriate time to do it. It is not when someone else is speaking.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are blinded by partisanship, but the key issue here is that they seem to continually forget that it was the NDP, by the way, that first moved the motion to call for a public inquiry at committee and in the House. Here we are again, calling for Mr. Johnston to step down, for a public inquiry and for PROC to undertake this work. We are taking the issue seriously, not being blinded by partisanship, on the importance of why this needs to be done. People should not look only at me, as a person who has been impacted by foreign interference, and at other members of the House, but also at the Canadian public, how it is being impacted, why this work is so important and why this motion is before us.

I call on the Conservatives to support this motion.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the NDP on the strong stance it has taken today. As my colleague said, the NDP did indeed move a motion calling for an independent public inquiry, but the Bloc started asking questions about this issue three weeks ago. Still, I am happy to see that the New Democrats are on board with the opposition consensus in favour of launching this independent public inquiry at last.

What is happening right now is extremely serious. It undermines public confidence in democracy, and that has major consequences. I really feel for my colleague, who was herself a target of Chinese interference. Of course the Bloc will support this motion.

I do have one question though. Given the significance of the situation, which is literally scandalous, will the NDP bite its tongue yet again to keep the Liberal government in power, even as it grows less and less deserving of Quebeckers' and Canadians confidence? Will the NDP help ensure that the government faces a vote of confidence so the House can decide on its future? I think this is really important and really serious, and I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say very clearly that at no point did New Democrats bite their tongues with regard to this issue. The NDP, every single step of the way, demanded accountability and called on the government to do what is right. That is exactly what we have done. No one should take my word for it; everyone can check Hansard and PROC and see what the NDP did. The member representing us, the NDP House leader at that time, moved the motion to call for a public inquiry. Who was filibustering and not doing the important work? Oh, that would be the Conservatives. It was New Democrats who took this seriously right from the get-go and continued to demand accountability, and we will continue to do that work. We will not be silenced. I will not be silenced by foreign interference, nor will I be silenced by the government.