Debates of April 10th, 2024

National Defence

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

I am already hearing a number of noes.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have said no twice now to adopting the report.

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

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we might actually listen to a unanimous consent motion from the NDP House leader if he had any honour to follow through on some of his promises.

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

We are getting into debate once again.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been so difficult to follow. My understanding was that the Conservatives refused to support our work on helping the military, but there was so much chaos in the House that I am wondering whether the hon. member from Burnaby he could repeat so we can have it on the record.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I do think it is important for the House to understand this very clearly. For all Canadians watching, the Conservatives did say no twice to our veterans—

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

That is descending into debate.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is common practice in the House that if somebody is going to move for unanimous consent, they actually talk to all of the other whips to make sure we get to a unanimous consent motion. We were not consulted, and we will not say yes on something we have not been consulted on.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I agree completely with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman that those discussions should be had in advance. The unfortunate reality is that Conservatives never do that. They are the biggest abusers of that rule in the House, so for the member to stand up and say that is quite ironic and demonstrates hypocrisy.

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

The point is well taken. From this chair, I would ask all parties to get together to debate these things to make sure that before they come to the floor, they are actually going to be voted upon in the positive.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that that was the second time that they voted—

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

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton in rising on a question of privilege.

Statements by Minister of National Defence to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege from the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was tabled earlier today. While the main thrust of the report concerned the prima facie contempt, which the House referred to the committee last year related to foreign interference directed toward the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other colleagues, it is my view that the report lays out grounds for finding a new prima facie contempt. Namely, that the Minister of National Defence provided misleading evidence to the committee and misleading comments in the House.

I should first offer some context. After the House agreed, on May 10, 2023, to refer to the committee that question of privilege, which was sparked by a report in The Globe and Mail based on a July 2021 intelligence assessment, it came to light, through special rapporteur David Johnston's subsequently published report that:

In addition to the memorandum in question, CSIS sent an issues management note (IMU) to the then Minister of Public Safety, his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister in May 2021, noting that there was intelligence that the PRC intended to target [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills], another MP, and their family in China (if any).

As the Speaker will recall, having been a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at the time, this led to new areas of important questions for our witnesses and especially for the public safety minister.

In the portion of the 63rd report summarizing the minister's appearances before the committee, we may read that the minister “understands that CSIS authorized the IMU to be shown to him, but he never received it.” The associated footnote in the committee's report points to the minister's statement responding to one of my questions, which is found at page 22 of the committee evidence for June 1, 2023. It reads:

It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me, but they determined.... The director determined that this was not information the minister needed to know, so I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me.

On the following page, one may read his further statements. When pressed about ministerial responsibility, he said:

This is a situation where it's an operational decision of CSIS as to what information needs to be passed along to government. In this case, they made an operational decision that this was not required. Two years later, when it was leaked to the press, that information was subsequently shared with me.

At the time, I had no knowledge that it existed. I had no knowledge that it was not being shared with me, because I wasn't aware that the information was available. CSIS, quite appropriately, made a determination that they didn't believe it was necessary to pass that information along.

The minister's version of events was soon contradicted. Elsewhere in the 63rd report, in the portion summarizing the testimony of CSIS director David Vigneault, we read that he:

...told the Committee that in May 2021 an IMU was sent from CSIS to the Minister of Public Safety...warning that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] and his family were being targeted by the PRC. The IMU included a specific directive that it be forwarded to the Minister. The purpose of the IMU was to highlight the information and bring it to the Minister’s attention. When asked whether the information contained in the May 2021 IMU was information that [the minister] did not need to know, Mr. Vigneault stated that “the fact that we did an issue management note speaks to the notion that we wanted to highlight the information” to [the minister].

The associated footnote directs the reader to the following comments by Mr. Vigneault, at page 4 of the evidence from the committee's evening meeting for June 13, 2023, in response to my questions:

It's also important that when we see we have something of high importance...we have instituted this process called an “information management note”. That would be shared to bring attention to something more specifically. That was the purpose of this note. It was to bring it to the attention of the people to whom it was destined to go.

Another footnote points to the following answer, at page 7 of the evidence, in response to a question from the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable: “As I mentioned a little earlier, CSIS and I conveyed the information to the Department of Public Safety along with the very specific directive to forward it to the minister... it's important for the committee to understand that we shared the intelligence and the briefing note.”

In spite of this, the minister doubled down on his position. During question period on June 14, 2023, the day following Mr. Vigneault's committee appearance, in response to a question from his coalition partner, the hon. member for Burnaby South, the minister said, at page 15981 of the Debates, “Mr. Vigneault did not send his note to me”.

Suffice to say there was no “operational decision” that was “appropriately made”, or otherwise, by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to keep the minister of public safety in the dark about a serious matter of national security, namely the threats from a foreign government directed toward a senior, long-serving member of the House of Commons.

However, this analysis does not rely exclusively on the evidence of Mr. Vigneault. According to the 63rd report, the minister's then deputy minister, Rob Stewart, did not recall an operational decision not to inform the minister about the IMU. More pointedly, the IMU in question has been released by CSIS under the Access to Information Act and was subsequently tabled by Conservatives at the procedure and House affairs committee. The committee has made reference to its possession of the IMU in the following comment at footnote 98 of the 63rd report: “The Committee notes that, in documents that it received, the May 2021 CSIS IMU was sent to [the minister], his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister”.

A copy of the publicly released version of the IMU has, for good measure, been annexed to the Conservatives' supplemental opinions in the 63rd report, so that the House is seized with a copy of it. While the document is heavily redacted, it is still plain to see on its face, in two separate locations: “Distribution...confined exclusively to: DM Public Safety, Minister Public Safety, MIN PS CoS, NSIA.”

Recall that the minister said here on the floor of the House that the note was not sent to him. The facts are clear: The Minister of National Defence misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he misled the House.

Page 82 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes among established grounds of contempt, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. Similar comments can be found on pages 153 and 1,081, for example.

As explained in numerous Speaker's rulings, to establish a prima facie contempt in respect of deliberately misleading statements three, elements must be made out. First, it must be proven that the statement in question was misleading. Second, it must be established that the person making the statement knew at the time that it was misleading. Third, in making the statement, it must be established that the statement was offered with the intention to mislead. It is clear from the evidence I have cited that the statement was misleading.

As for the other two elements of that test, the correct analysis is the following one. On its face, the minister's testimony is, frankly, absurd. Why would CSIS issue an IMU to the minister on intelligence about which an operational decision had been made to not share it with him? This defies common sense and lacks all credibility. After the minister was caught out on this deception, he appeared before the committee a second time, on October 24, 2023, and offered this weak explanation: “I assumed that if the director did not share information with me, then he didn't require that I see it.”

Without more, we are not satisfied with the minister's explanation. Not only was the minister's assumption incorrect. It was, I would submit, a faulty one, too. Certainly, the minister was in no place to speak so authoritatively or with such conviction that CSIS had “made an operational decision” to keep him in the dark. The minister used very specific words. He was unequivocal in his words. Moreover, the minister made the claim repeatedly. Taken together, it is evident his choice of clear, convincing and unequivocal wording was deliberate. He showed no hesitation, and he did not shade his words with doubt or otherwise represent that he was speaking on the basis of an assumption. Put simply, he did not misspeak. He actively misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he actively misled this House.

Speaker Milliken stated, on February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

The integrity of information here, too, is in doubt. To this, it is worth adding the words of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, from a ruling delivered March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates:

This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.

What is serious here is that these exchanges at committee appear to have been meant to deflect from the shocking fact that the minister of public safety, as he was, through his own inaction and omission, was unaware of intelligence concerning the targeting of a senior long-serving member of Parliament by a hostile foreign state, intelligence that CSIS had specifically sent to him as a matter of high importance.

This constituted a serious breakdown in the flow of information and intelligence under the minister's watch. As the minister, he bore responsibility for this breakdown. Instead of accepting responsibility, the minister deflected blame to the director of CSIS for a supposed “operational decision” that had been made to keep him in the dark.

The minister had to have known that no such “operational decision” had been made, yet he said so anyway. The minister had a duty to be truthful in his testimony to the committee. He was not truthful. He misled the committee in a self-serving attempt to evade accountability for a massive failure that occurred under his watch as minister of public safety.

Misleading a parliamentary committee is a serious matter. Indeed, it can be a contempt of Parliament. That it was a minister of the Crown who did so makes this even more grave. It simply cannot be overlooked. Indeed, as Speaker Milliken ruled, on November 6, 2003, at page 9229 of the Debates:

However tempting the invitation, the Speaker cannot presume to articulate the expectations that committees have of the witnesses who come before them. Suffice it to say that I believe all hon. members will agree with me when I say simply that committees of the House and, by extension, the House of Commons itself, must be able to depend on the testimony they receive, whether from public officials or private citizens. This testimony must be truthful and complete. When this proves not to be the case, a grave situation results, a situation that cannot be treated lightly.

On February 1, 2002, after concerns about the statements of another Liberal minister of national defence, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege, commenting, at page 8582 of the Debates:

...I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air.

Similarly, your predecessor ruled, on March 3, 2014, at page 3431 of the Debates, that a prima facie case of privilege existed:

...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

In the present case, the House, again, is possessed of two versions of events by virtue of the 63rd report. Before concluding, I should note that while the statements of concern were made last spring, the matter is actually being raised in the House at the earliest opportunity. I would refer the Chair, in that regard, to Speaker Milliken's February 10, 2011, ruling on page 8030 of the Debates:

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was not mistaken in his assertion that any and all statements made in committee, even when those have been repeated verbatim in the House, remain the business of the committee until such time as it elects to report them officially to the House. This is a long-standing practice....

Furthermore, while a copy of an internal CIDA document obtained through an access to information request was provided to me, it was not tabled in the House and, thus, is not officially before it....

Speaker Milliken continued:

It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House. With regard to statements made by the minister, this material is limited to a few answers to oral questions and one answer to a written question, not to any comments in committee.

A week following that ruling, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its sixth report, which referred to the committee testimony in question as well as provided a copy of the document obtained through the access to information process. On the strength of this information with which the House had become seized, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege on March 9, 2011, at page 8842 of the Debates.

The same circumstances prevail here with the 63rd report now placing properly before the House the necessary evidence to make out the relevant tests for the question of privilege I am raising.

Should the Speaker agree with me that the air again needs to be cleared because the current Minister of National Defence appears to have committed a contempt by deliberately misleading the procedure and house affairs committee, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to task that committee with assessing this specific problem and reporting its views back to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time to digest what the member just said and reserve the right to return to the House tomorrow on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this particular point, we too will return.

However, while I have the floor, after discussions with you and others in the chamber, I am hoping to get unanimous consent to go back so that I can answer some Order Paper questions and motions for the production of papers.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today. Question Nos. 2357, 2361 and 2363.

Question No.2357—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's 2023-24 Departmental Plan: (a) what indicators does the department use to measure the mental health and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities; (b) do the indicators used by the department show that the mental health and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities will improve by 2024-25; (c) does the Minister of Indigenous Services believe that the department can achieve its mental health targets by March 2028 with the sunsetting of funding for mental health and wellness at the end of 2023-24; (d) what is the total number of (i) full-time equivalent, (ii) part-time equivalent, employees who will be affected by the sunsetting of mental health and wellness funding; and (e) what are the details of all programs and services that will be reduced or eliminated as a result of the sunsetting of funding for mental health and wellbeing?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, works closely with first nations and Inuit partners to gather and develop monitoring systems to address the need for timely, community-based and national-level data. We work collaboratively to ensure that data informs policies and programs, and we seek to build upon national monitoring and research activities. ISC also supports first nations and Inuit to develop self-determined indicators. Although data are less readily available for Métis populations, ISC also supports Métis organizations to develop a long-term strategic plan for Métis data development and governance.

In response to part (a) of the question, indicators within ISC’s departmental plan that relate to mental wellness are the percentage of first nations individuals who reported "excellent" or "very good" mental health and the percentage of Inuit adults who reported "excellent" or "very good" mental health.

In response to part (b), the Minister of Indigenous Services remains committed to working with indigenous partners to achieve by March 2028 the mental health targets identified in the departmental results framework, which seek that 55% of first nations and at least 50% of Inuit people report “excellent” or “very good” mental health. The department will measure distinctions-specific progress towards increasing positive outcomes by using data from self-reported health surveys that ask respondents to rate their mental health. This is a recognized metric that closely aligns with other measures of mental health and well-being.

As noted in several indigenous-led mental wellness strategies and frameworks, such as the first nations mental wellness continuum framework, the national Inuit suicide prevention strategy, and Métis Nation’s vision for health, addressing inequities in the social determinants of health and the impact of colonization, racism and discrimination are key to Indigenous mental wellness. The journey of reconciliation is far from complete, and it remains a priority for the government. Moving forward on the commitments of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action continues to be a priority in the mandate of the Minister of Indigenous Services and the mandates of all ministers. It is with the knowledge that it will take at least seven generations to heal from the profound harm caused by the Indian sesidential School system and other colonial sources of trauma that we are working with partners to ensure that survivors and intergenerational survivors continue to have access to the services they need to support them on their healing journeys.

With respect to part (c), ISC will continue to advance its mandate to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis to improve access to high-quality services, improve well-being in indigenous communities across Canada and support Indigenous peoples in assuming control of the delivery of services at the pace and in the ways they choose. Federally funded mental wellness programming aims to improve well-being in indigenous communities across Canada by supplementing the programs and services offered by provinces and territories. Contributing to this are access to local multidisciplinary mental wellness teams, wraparound services at opioid agonist therapy sites, life promotion and suicide prevention initiatives, substance use prevention and treatment services, and crisis line services.

In response to part (d), these programs are supported by 80 full-time positions.

Regarding part (e), these mental wellness investments are funding mental wellness teams in communities, bolstering wraparound services at opioid agonist therapy sites and enhancing suicide prevention and life promotion efforts. This investment is also funding trauma-informed health and cultural support programs, including the Indian residential schools resolution health support program, the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls health and cultural support program, the federal Indian day schools health and cultural support program, and the Indian residential schools crisis line. The program funds community-based cultural and emotional support services across Canada.

Question No.2361—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

With regard to the government's commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) which organizations have received funding as part of the tree planting program; (b) for each organization in (a), how much funding has it received to date, broken down by year in which the funding was received; (c) for each organization in (a), how many trees was it expected to plant with the funding provided to date; and (d) how many of the trees in (c) have been planted to date?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has made significant progress on its commitment to plant two billion trees. As of December 2023, the government had agreements signed or under negotiation to plant over 393 million trees, with over 200 contribution agreements with provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous organizations and other groups. As of the most recent progress update in August 2023, the program had supported the planting of over 110 million trees since it was launched in 2021. As funding recipients have until May 31, 2024, to submit planting numbers for the 2023 planting season, an update on progress to date will be provided shortly thereafter.

Information on projects, organizations and planned planted trees with signed contribution and grant agreements can be found here: https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/?sort=agreement_start_date+desc&search_text=contributions+for+2+billion+trees&page=1&agreement_type=C%7CG%7CO&owner_org=nrcan-rncan

Information about the two billion trees program can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/2-billion-trees.html

Information on the progress of the two billion trees program can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/2-billion-trees/our-action.html

Information on the two billion trees program’s collaboration with provinces and territories can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/2-billion-trees/2-billion-trees-partnerships-with-provinces-and-territories.html

Question No.2363—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

With regard to government funding for highway or road projects: (a) what are the details of all proposals or requests for funding related to highways or roads which the government has received but for which the funding has not yet been either formally approved or denied, including, for each, the (i) date on which the government received the proposal or request, (ii) amount of federal government funding requested, (iii) entity that submitted the request, (iv) summary of the proposal or request, including geographic location and road or highway numbers, if known, (v) current status of the application, (vi) expected timeline for when the government will provide a response; and (b) what are the details of any highway or road projects which are currently proposed or in progress and which are subject to, and waiting on, a federal environmental review, including, for each, the (i) name and description of the project, (ii) geographic location and highway or road numbers, if known, (iii) date on which the environmental review began, (iv) expected completion date of the environmental review, (v) current status of the project, including details of what has been completed to date, (vi) total amount of federal funding committed to the project, (vii) amount of government funding on hold pending the completion of the review?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to government funding for highway or road projects, a list of projects submitted under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, or ICIP, is available on the Infrastructure Canada, or INFC, website at: https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/icip-proj-piic-eng.html

Information received in respect of projects from a province, territory or municipality that have not been funded cannot be provided as such information is considered to be confidential information under paragraphs 13(1)(c)(d) of the Access to Information Act, respecting information received in confidence from another level of government.

Likewise, information received in respect of projects provided from the private sector, including non governmental organizations, that have not been funded cannot be provided, as such information is considered to be confidential information under paragraphs 20(1)(b)(c) of the act, respecting confidential information supplied by a third party. The names of project proponents also cannot be provided, since such information is confidential under subsection 19(1) of the act, respecting personal information.

Therefore, INFC is not in a position to provide information on the details of all non-funded applications received as requested in part (a) of the question.

With respect to part (b), INFC currently has no highway or road projects subject to an impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act.