Debates of June 10th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was actually a member of Parliament in 2013, as was the Conservative leader, when the issue of foreign interference came up. What kind of actions did we see from the member and from the leader of the Conservative Party back then? Absolutely none.

When the Liberal Party tried to create NSICOP when we were third party, what did the member opposite say? What did the leader of the Conservative Party say then? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they opposed it. We have the report today because of NSICOP. The hypocrisy coming from the member opposite is amazing. It is time that we start working together and recognizing that foreign international interference is serious.

When are the member and his leader going to get off the partisan cheap shots and try to get the issue dealt with in a more apolitical fashion?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remember well the foreign interference threat activities that were revealed by Dick Fadden in the public realm in 2013. They were directed at provincial governments and municipal politicians. I would note that the then Liberal government at Queen's Park in Toronto discounted that intelligence advice, dismissed it and said that it was not sufficient to take action. Here we are some 11 years later, faced with the foreign interference threats now at the federal level.

With respect to NSICOP, the very structure and flaws of the committee have been proven. It is a committee of the government. Under subsection 21(5), the Prime Minister ordered the redaction of the names of members of the House who were involved in the activities. That is why that committee should be a committee of Parliament and not an extraparliamentary committee that lies beyond the House and its authority.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a question in my mind about why we even have to be here to debate the motion. Right now there is an inquiry on foreign interference. Commissioner Hogue has been given the mandate to do exactly that work. Should the government not just give all the documents, unredacted, both those within cabinet and what NSICOP received, to Madam Justice Hogue for review so we can have faith in the determination of the outcome of foreign interference activities related to Canada?

As well, I would absolutely agree about the names of the people who are implicated, potentially, in the report under the allegation, who wittingly, knowingly and intentionally collaborated and worked with foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic institutions and processes. We should all be on board with that. Would the member like to comment?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has done a lot of very good work on the issue and at the public inquiry, and she rightfully points out something, which is that it has been reported that up to 10% or so of the documents the government has submitted for the second phase of the inquiry have been redacted and that other documents have been withheld from the public inquiry.

After reading the NSICOP report of a week ago, I wonder whether, of the 4,000 documents and some 33,000 pages that NSICOP received unredacted, Justice Hogue had access to all those documents to come to conclusions in her initial report. My skepticism suggests she did not, which is why the government should hand over all of the 4,000 documents, unredacted, that NSICOP received, to the public inquiry.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, in spite of the proposed amendment, we will not be in favour for the reasons I outlined in my speech.

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

Madam Speaker, “I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.” I have uttered those words three times now: once in 2015, once in 2019 and again in 2021. Of course now our allegiance lies with His Majesty King Charles II.

It is important to note we are not giving our oath to the person. It is really given to the embodiment of the Crown as an institution, which is, of course, a symbol of the Canadian state, a ship that continues to sail on despite the occasional changing of its captain.

I never thought I would arrive at a moment in time when I had to seriously doubt the sincerity of that affirmation or oath from fellow members of Parliament, but given the astounding report we received last week from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, that is the moment we have all arrived at.

I do want to note that I am incredibly proud to be a member of a caucus that has consistently led the way on trying to get results on the file we are considering. I take members back to just over a year ago, when, on May 30, 2023, my hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver East, used our opposition day in the House of Commons to make sure we debated a motion calling for a public inquiry.

As members will recall, at that time, the government had set up a special rapporteur, the right hon. David Johnston, but it was quite clear the faith in Mr. Johnston's abilities had become compromised because of his close relationship with the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. That is why we felt at the time, as New Democrats, it was necessary for the House to call on Mr. Johnston to step aside in his role and for the government to finally get serious about the matter of foreign interference and urgently establish a public commission of inquiry.

I am pleased to report that, thanks to all of the opposition parties, the motion brought in by my party passed by a vote of 174 to 150; unfortunately, the Liberals were the ones who voted against it. It did have results, because Mr. Johnston resigned the following week. He understood at that moment in time that it was simply untenable for him to continue in his role while not enjoying the full confidence of the House of Commons. As well, we know that finally the foreign interference commission was set up on September 7, 2023.

I am a member of a caucus that has seen its leader, the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, being directly impacted by foreign interference. We know that my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, has also suffered the same. In our small, close-knit NDP caucus, we know all too well how pernicious foreign interference is, because we have seen it directly implicate, constrain and negatively affect two of our members. It is very personal for our caucus.

That brings me to the motion the Bloc Québécois has brought forward on its opposition day for the House to consider and eventually vote on. I want to break up my speech into several parts, looking at the various components of the motion.

Let us take a look at the first part of the motion, “that the House take note of the Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.” Let us take note of the report. First of all, I want to note that in the opening paragraphs, the following appears: “the Committee noted the intelligence community’s consistent assessment that threat actors continue to consider Canada a permissive environment, viewing interference activities as a low-risk, high reward way to pursue strategic interests.”

At the end of the report, there is a litany of scathing conclusions against the Liberal government, complaining that the delays in developing policy demonstrated a lack of urgency commensurate with the gravity of threat, that delays in actions undermined the government's operational responses to the threat, and that a slow response to a known threat was a serious failure and one from which Canada may feel the consequences for years to come. Let that sink in, “for years to come”.

We are very much behind the eight ball on this issue. The warnings have been there, our country has been slow to act and those are the findings of NSICOP. Furthermore, we know now too that the Liberal government is withholding more than 1,000 pages of documents from the committee, just as it has withheld documents from the public inquiry. Those are hardly the actions of a government that is dedicated to transparency. I would argue that at this moment in time, what we need is transparency, we need to rebuild trust and we need accountability. This is an issue that rises above any one political party. This comes to the foundations of our democratic system itself. That is not full of hyperbole; that is the actual truth.

There is a real deficit in trust in the Canadian public right now and underpinning all of that is trust that we have faith that our democracy will continue through the turbulent times, that we can have faith that the people we elect to this place are doing their job honourably, on behalf of their constituents and in the best interests of the country we call Canada. It is clear that we have arrived at a moment where we must forcefully push back against hostile foreign powers that seek to undermine our democracy.

Let us go to the second part of the motion, which states that the House “express concern that certain elected officials may be wittingly or unwittingly working in the interests of foreign powers”. The NSICOP report landed with the force of a bomb last week. Its allegations that sitting members of Parliament are working on behalf of foreign interests is an incredibly serious issue that this House must be seized with. For example, paragraph 55 in the report talks about “Some elected officials...wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election.” The paragraph was heavily redacted, but the description of the redacted elements make mention of “members of Parliament who worked to influence their colleagues on India’s behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.”

Paragraph 56 talks about a foreign state, and it does not mention which one, supporting a witting politician. Again, it is heavily redacted. Paragraph 57 talks about the People's Republic of China establishing a quid pro quo relationship with MPs where it would mobilize its network in Canada in the members' favour in return for positive engagement with the PRC. On and on it goes, detailing clandestine networks influencing the political process, the use of proxies, covertly buying influence with candidates and elected officials, etc.

I want to take a moment to ask a question that I think is on a lot of Canadians' minds, and it is certainly on my mind. What is going on with the leader of the Conservative Party's ongoing refusal to get the clearance necessary for a top secret briefing on this matter? The NDP leader already has the clearance and is going to get the briefing on who these compromised politicians are. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there is ongoing refusal on the part of the leader of the Conservative Party. The only thing I can derive from that fact is it seems he would rather talk about things he does not know rather than know things that he cannot talk about. The report, specifically paragraphs 72 and 73, talks about where the People's Republic of China allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada and India allegedly interfered in the Conservative Party's leadership.

That is a five-alarm fire. That is something that all parties need to take seriously. We know, of course, of the allegations that exist out there with the Liberal Party. It has already impacted one of their sitting MPs, who is now sitting as an independent. Again, this is an issue that I think every single leader in this place needs to get up to speed on. I will tell us why.

Last week, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we were doing a thorough review of Bill C-70, which I will talk about later, which is designed to deal with foreign interference. One of our witnesses was David Vigneault, who is the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I asked him about this, about whether it is in the intelligence community's interest that key members of Parliament, i.e., leaders of parties, get briefed on this information. He said yes, that it is in their interest to make sure that as many key members of Parliament, of the whole Parliament of Canada, are briefed on this.

Again, I understand that there is a wide gulf between intelligence and evidence but there are other mechanisms that party leaders can make use of within their own caucuses, so that if a party leader learns the identity of a compromised MP, there are actions that leader can take within their caucus to make sure that the Canadian people do not have a compromised person on the ballot in the next election. That is one avenue that can be taken.

It is shameful, I think, that, so many times, there is a deliberate choice to play partisan games rather than become informed. In my opinion, that is simply not leadership. There is a veil of ignorance on the Conservative side, but on the Liberal side, their continued reliance on judicial process and the RCMP investigating is also a cover, because, again, there is that gulf between intelligence and evidence. The intelligence does not always meet the high standard that is necessary in a court of law. Often, intelligence agencies are very loathe to share that intelligence because it could compromise their sources that gathered the information in the first place. Again, to the CSIS director's point at committee, there are actions that party leaders can take, but they can only take them if they make the conscious choice to become properly informed. We have yet to see that from the Conservative Party leader.

The final part of the motion from the Bloc Québécois is asking that the terms of reference for the foreign interference commission, known as the Hogue commission, be expanded to investigate Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments, as well as senators.

I have listened to some of the debate thus far, and some members believe that the existing terms of reference already cover this. I would say that given the heightened attention and interest that there is on this issue and the very real concern that Canadians have with it, if there is any way we could ask the government to give more specificity and direction to what the terms of reference should be to the commission, then I, for one, would be in favour of it. I do think it is reasonable to ask for that because, again, we need to make sure that the inquiry has full access to all of the classified material. We cannot have cabinet confidences blocking the inquiry's search for the truth. That is very much a fact, and I think most Canadians would very much agree with that.

I think we are all very well aware of how serious this issue is and the attention that we need to pay to it from this point forward. The next question is: where do we go from here? I love reviewing Canadian statutes, and the statute, of course, that is most at play in these circumstances is the Security of Information Act. Anyone, under that act, who is permanently bound to secrecy commits an offence when they intentionally and without authority communicate or confirm special operational information.

In this case, that would be the names of these MPs. We are in a conundrum here. On one hand, we have the Security of Information Act, SOIA, with very stiff penalties. If one committed an offence under the SOIA, one could be found guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years. That is a serious punishment for breaching these conditions in the act. Again, members of NSICOP are members of Parliament, but, looking at the act that created that committee under section 12, no member of that committee can “claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege”. They have waived their parliamentary privilege to be a part of that committee. As a result, they are also bound by secrecy. They cannot utter the names because they would be found liable to imprisonment as well.

I must return to the rights of the House of Commons itself, because I think we are setting up a battle here between the rights of the House versus existing statutes. We all know that two of the most powerful mechanisms that the House of Commons has are the regulation of its own internal affairs and the power to discipline. Those are the dominant rights and powers, among a few others, that the House of Commons has. I would submit to colleagues that breaking the oath of allegiance or the affirmation that we all made to have the privilege of sitting in this place is probably the most serious offence that I can think of. It is something that I think the House would be well-versed to seize itself with and to find the appropriate punishment. I am not sure where this battle is going to go, again, because we have rights as members of Parliament in that anything we say here on the floor of the House is protected by parliamentary privilege. We literally cannot be held liable for the things that we say on the floor of the House, because there can be no impediment to an MP doing their job. Members of Parliament cannot fear prosecution to be able to do their job. We have to find a way where this information becomes known. The ultimate goal I want is for no Canadian to face a possibility where there is a compromised politician on the ballot who may be working on behalf of a foreign power, rather than the interests of the community they represent or to our country as a whole.

In this last two minutes I have, I do want to mention that, in terms of where we go from here, Bill C-70 is going to go through clause-by-clause this afternoon. I am going to be there, at committee, reviewing every single one of those clauses. It is going to be reported back to the House, hopefully by Wednesday. I think there are some substantive measures in that bill. We are certainly happy to be supporting it. I think it is important that we set up a registry. I think it is important that the CSIS Act gets updated so that it can work in a digital world. I also think it is important that the Security of Information Act gets important updates so that for clandestine interference, we have appropriate punishments for people who are engaging in those kinds of activities.

However, let me say this. With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think that foreign governments need to hear the message that their meddling in our internal affairs is now clearly on our radar and we are going to act. This is an item that the country is seized with, that this Parliament is seized with, and we are now prepared to take measures to make sure we root this problem out and get the perpetrators the justice that they so clearly deserve. The allegations that MPs knowingly received help from a foreign government are deeply disturbing. No one with those interests in mind should be sitting in this House of Commons. They should not be welcome in the Parliament of Canada. Canadians ultimately do deserve to know who these MPs are, who they are in undermining our democracy, and the government must find a way forward with this. All parliamentarians have an obligation to do everything they can to address foreign interference.

With that I will conclude by saying that we will support this motion. We will always be on the side of supporting efforts to get to the bottom of this issue and treating it with the seriousness that it deserves.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague clearly supports what we are proposing.

This is where we are today. In this entire months-long process, and considering how close the NDP member is to the government, how is it that he has not leveraged his influence a bit more to have an opposition day like the one we are having today?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in the early part of my speech, on May 30, 2023, it was the NDP that put forward the motion that expressed our distrust with the special rapporteur because of his close ties with the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada. It was that very same motion that established the need for a public inquiry. We actually achieved both those things, because the week after our motion was passed, no thanks to the Liberals but thanks to the Bloc Québécois for its support, David Johnston stepped down as the special rapporteur, and on September 7, 2023, we had the public inquiry set up. Therefore, we have been using our influence with the government, because we did achieve two notable things.

However, I am very much looking forward to the fact that our leader is going to receive the briefing necessary to understand which MPs are implicated in this mess. All party leaders in this place need to have that briefing. They need to understand if members of their own caucus are compromised so that they can take the appropriate actions to ensure that those individuals do not show up on a ballot come the next election.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member feels, like I do, that until we know who exactly is named in that report as having conspired with foreign entities, a dark cloud hangs over all 338 members, because everyone is suspected of being one of the persons. I think the names, like he said, should be released, and how many should be released as well.

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

Madam Speaker, it is true that since the report landed with the force of a bomb last week, it has let a cloud of suspicion hang over this entire place.

I did note that there is a wide gulf between intelligence and evidence, so it may not always be possible to satisfy evidence that someone was directly implicated in a court of law. However, there are extrajudicial methods that we can take, which is why it is very important that party leaders get briefed on this to find out if there are compromised members in their caucus.

However, what I am really worried about is that, one way or another, these names are going to be leaked anyway. It is really important for this Parliament and, indeed, the government to stay on top of that file and ensure that we agree on a process where we can ensure that those members are getting the punishment they are due for conspiring to work on behalf of a foreign power, but also that Canadians can be sure they will no longer show up on a ballot in the next federal election.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very good speech on what is happening here and how we have to address this, but he has one dichotomy in that speech, which is the role of His Majesty's loyal opposition in that, declaring that the leader of the Conservative Party should get that briefing. However, later in his speech, he talked about the parliamentary role that we have to play as His Majesty's loyal opposition in holding the government to account. His proposition that the leader of my party gets that briefing puts my leader on the side of not being able to voice exactly what has happened there, like the members of NSICOP to which he also referred.

Could the member please note that dichotomy, that we have to be here in Parliament serving our parliamentary role, and we cannot be silenced by being part of an agreement to not disclose what happens in that realm?

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

Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that it is a challenge. We have an existing statute coming up with parliamentary privilege, but that should not preclude his leader from getting the briefing necessary.

As I said in my speech, I was speaking with the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, David Vigneault, at committee last week. He said that it was the opinion of the intelligence community that all leaders get briefed on this very serious issue.

We may not be able to speak about it, but there are actions that party leaders can take within their own caucuses. Eventually we are going to find a path forward where we get to know these names, but I do not believe that the Conservatives' current arguments precluding their leader from getting this briefing holds much water. I would urge the member to speak to his leader on getting the briefing. We need to rise above partisanship right now and get to the bottom of this, and that starts with every leader getting the briefing necessary to get the names.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford made reference to Bill C-70 on a foreign interference registry, which we fast-tracked and which I supported. I have since heard from many concerned groups, and I wonder if he has as well, that in our collaborative spirit, which is so rare in this place, to get the bill through and be heard so that we would have a foreign interference registry, I think we made a mistake in not allowing the bill to be properly studied. There are a lot of concerns being raised now.

I wonder if the hon. member has any concerns as well, as a member of the committee, as to how we might be able, in a future Parliament, to hear expert witnesses and amend the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, we certainly have heard those concerns not only in briefings, but also in witness testimony.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims has certainly raised concerns with respect to parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill. It is very happy with the registry.

We were put in this uncomfortable position because we waited so long for the legislation to arrive in the House of Commons. As the NSICOP report mentions in its conclusion, there are a litany of scathing conclusions against the Liberal government for the delays that have put us in this precarious position.

Certainly, and I think I can speak for other committee members, we felt a bit rushed last week, but I believe we gave the bill a thorough vetting in the time we did have. I am looking forward to commencing clause-by-clause this Monday afternoon, and at report stage hopefully this Wednesday.

However, these upgrades to the CSIS Act, the SOIA and the Canada Evidence Act in setting up a new registry are incredibly important legislative tools, not only to create a registry but to go after the clandestine operations that we know are happening all too well with respect to foreign interference in Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NSICOP report indicates that the Prime Minister already knows who these individuals are. When I say “individuals”, we are talking about elected officials, members of Parliament, who knowingly, intentionally and wittingly collaborated with and worked for foreign states to undermine Canada's democratic processes and democratic institutions. In light of that, we have not seen the Prime Minister take any action, and the community, the public and members of Parliament have been kept entirely in the dark.

Is it not time that the information be shared with all parliamentarians and, most important, with all Canadians? When we run for office, is it not our job to serve Canadians and not foreign states?

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

Madam Speaker, I read the report over and again on my recent flight from home to Ottawa and the conclusions in it are damning. I agree. The fact that the Prime Minister has known this for quite some time, and we only learned about it last week, is a brutal judgment. Earlier I asked the government House leader what the Liberal Party was prepared to do to ensure that its candidates in the next election were not compromised. It is obvious that the government has fallen short on this matter. It has clearly fallen short of our expectations, let alone those of Canadians.

We need to find a way to learn the identities of these people. Underlying this critical point is that we need to find a way to ensure they are not on the ballot in the next federal election.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has held more than 70 meetings on foreign interference in our elections. There have been two questions of privilege, one raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and one raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, which have been studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. An independent commission of inquiry has been launched at the relentless urging of my colleague from Trois-Rivières and myself in the House. Now the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has released a bombshell report showing that Canadian parliamentarians are encouraging foreign governments to use them as part of their manipulations.

However, the report has not been met with urgency. The government hopes to put a lid on the scandal and smother it like so many others, but this time, the pressure cooker is about to explode. I think it is about to happen. What will it take for the government to act?

I cannot believe it is the Bloc Québécois, a separatist political party, that has to lead the charge on this matter to generate a discussion in the Parliament of Canada. That is crazy. Now even the Parti Québécois wants to launch a national inquiry in Quebec on foreign interference. The mayor of Brossard supports the idea, because the federal government is not doing its job.

Last week we learned that members of the House of Commons are being directly influenced by China and, even worse, are instigating interference. They are exploiting the schemes of foreign threat actors to further their own ends. That is serious. I hope that people understand what we are saying. When we talk about it, the government says that it is really not that serious. It is time for it to take responsibility and acknowledge how serious this problem is.

People know I am a sovereignist. I am sitting in a Parliament that I do not wish to sit in because I want Quebec to be independent. However, today I am the one asking the federal government to defend Canada. I want the government to realize that it is not addressing the issue. The government did everything it could to smother the scandal by initially vetoing a public inquiry and appointing a special rapporteur who we know is a friend of the Trudeau family as a diversion. Time is running out.

Just recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told opposition members to “get over it”. She did this right in the middle of a parliamentary committee meeting. I can tell the member for Pickering—Uxbridge without hesitation that no, I will not get over it, because I have no trust.

For months, I have been hearing the security agencies, CSIS, the RCMP and the Communications Security Establishment Canada, pass the buck and tell us that they are doing their job, but that it is difficult. I cannot get over not actually knowing what makes it so difficult. No one has the courage to answer my questions in committee.

I have come to my own conclusion, which is that our intelligence agencies are being ignored because the news they are reporting to the highest levels of the Canadian government is not to the Prime Minister's liking. Why? It is because, as has now come to light, members of the government party are under the influence of foreign states. These states have developed clandestine networks surrounding candidates and elected officials to arrange nominations, elections, parliamentary business and government decision-making.

Do people realize what is going on? It is unbelievable. These foreign states are surrounding targets with ethnocultural community leaders and prominent Canadian business people and political staffers. These states convey their preferences. What do the collaborators do? They promote the chosen slate to targeted groups of voters. They go through the back door.

Back in February 2023, David Mulroney, Canada's former ambassador to the People's Republic of China, told the committee: “[I thought] back in history to the 1930s, when France constructed the Maginot Line. They were not going to suffer what happened to them in World War I, so they were going to build defences that went from the borders in the low countries all the way along the borders of France to Spain. It was impregnable, and it gave the French great confidence. However, the Germans didn't follow that plan. They had another plan. They entered via the Ardennes, and France fell. It was a disaster because they had designed something as they saw fit.” That is exactly what Canada is experiencing.

St. Anne's Anglican Church

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today heartbroken at the loss of St. Anne's Anglican Church on Gladstone Avenue in Toronto.

As a fellow Anglican, I have worshipped in that space, and I do not think there is a more beautiful church in Canada. I guess I should use the past tense. It was an extraordinary architectural gem, a national heritage site lost forever.

When people read that there were works of the Group of Seven in that church, it is not just as though they were paintings hanging on the walls. The paintings were the walls. They were frescoes, unique in the works of the artists J.E.H. MacDonald, Frederick Varley and Franklin Carmichael, and they were portraits of saints and apostles as imagined by Canada's most talented, amazing artists.

To the congregation of St. Anne's, its clergy and leadership, we mourn with them and we grieve with them, but we remind them to remember that faith cannot be burned down.

Dragon Boat Festival

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, today marks the dragon boat festival, a traditional Chinese holiday that commemorates the life and death of famous Chinese scholar Qu Yuan.

I look forward to commemorating the festival by attending the highly anticipated 36th Toronto International Dragon Boat Race Festival this Saturday, organized by the Toronto Chinese Business Association and GWN Dragon Boat. This year, the festival will welcome over 2,000 athletes and 80,000 visitors globally to the Toronto Islands, showcasing Canada's leadership in promoting the sport of dragon boat racing, as well as Asian and Chinese Canadian cultural heritage.

Let us continue to honour this Asian Canadian legacy with the spirit of celebration, reflection and solidarity within our communities. I wish everyone a safe and healthy dragon boat festival.

N2 Neighbourhood Network

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to highlight a group local to Nelson, B.C., the N2 Neighbourhood Network. Heading up this group is Tanya, a local business owner who is passionate about keeping Nelson safe and prosperous for future generations.

Although local to Nelson, the N2 Neighbourhood Network has travelled around Kootenay—Columbia and B.C. to listen to business owners and communities alike regarding the increasing crime and drug use in our areas. By listening to folks, Tanya and the group can bring awareness to situations that are, frankly, getting out of hand: needles in playgrounds, graffiti on public and private spaces, and damage to and theft from our small business owners. They meet publicly, with all welcome, to discuss solutions to bring these ideas to the authorities.

It is appreciated to have such passionate community contributors openly trying to better our communities, seeing that public drug use and blatant disregard for property and people's safety are getting out of control. I look forward to supporting this group and seeing how it grows for a better future.

Graduation Congratulations

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, June is graduation season, and today I rise to congratulate all graduates, especially those in my riding of Halifax West.

This accomplishment is the result of years of hard work and marks the beginning of a new chapter.

For all our graduates, their teachers, parents, extended family and school administrators have been essential to their success. They have supported and believed in them, pushed them and inspired them. They have been there to share their successes from elementary to high school and beyond.

I want to give a shout-out to the graduates of Charles P. Allen High School, Halifax West High School, Citadel High School, École secondaire du Sommet, Bay View High School, as well as our NSCC grads and those receiving a degree from the Mount, Saint Mary's University, Dalhousie and King's. I send my congratulations.

I encourage them to be curious.

I encourage them to pursue their dreams.

I hope they find their place in our country and in our world.

Marc‑Antoine Bernier

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a young man from my riding who is making us proud in the realm of lifesaving sport. His name is Marc-Antoine Bernier.

Marc‑Antoine is an inspiring and determined young man I have had the pleasure of meeting several times. He is heading off to the Lifesaving World Championships in Australia in August. This will be his second time competing in the championships. His first was in Italy in 2022. Marc‑Antoine has been training at the Dam'eauclès lifesaving club in Val‑d'Or for the past 10 years.

Yesterday, he won the title of Canadian lifesaving champion in the 19-plus age group at a competition in Victoria, British Columbia. Over the past few years, Marc‑Antoine has also had opportunities to participate in other high-profile competitions, including the Commonwealth Lifesaving Championships, where he was the only person representing Quebec.

At the upcoming Lifesaving World Championships in Australia, I will be cheering Marc‑Antoine on, as will everyone in Val‑d'Or, in Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and across Quebec.

Centretown Community Health Centre

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to rise today to celebrate the 55th anniversary of the Centretown Community Health Centre, a pillar of support and compassion in my community of Ottawa Centre since 1969. Over the past five and a half years, CCHC has evolved into a multiservice, non-profit organization offering a wide array of services that cater to the diverse needs of the residents of Centretown. I know that personally because I had the great fortune of serving on the board of Centretown Community Health Centre for several years.

Through its work, CCHC's mission extends beyond simply treating disease. Its holistic approach includes promoting healthy lifestyles, supporting mental health, fighting addiction and promoting inclusive communities, to ensure that every individual feels valued, supported and empowered.

There are many people to thank, but I want to congratulate all the staff for their hard work in serving so many in our community.

Carbon Tax

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every day I hear NDP-Liberals make the disturbing claim that Canadians get more than they pay into the carbon tax. It is as if they are completely tone-deaf to the voices of real Canadians, so I am bringing the stories of everyday Calgarians right into this chamber.

Here is the real impact of the carbon tax: For the Royal Canadian Legion 285, it was $12,144 this year; for Bitter Sisters Brewing Company, it was $8,200 last year; and for Maria, her husband, and their two wonderful children, the burden is becoming absolutely unbearable. They buy expired food just to make ends meet, denying their kids the proper nutrition they need. Now they are on the brink of having to turn to food banks and the Woodcreek Community Association food pantry.

My neighbours are suffering. NDP-Liberals need to act and axe the tax.

Archery

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Brampton is forging its way as a sports hub in Canada. Bramptonians have been recognized for their achievement in sports around the world.

I rise today to highlight a young athlete in my community who is setting records and proudly representing Canada on the world stage. Harkunwar Singh Teja is an archer who recently set new records at the Pan American youth and masters championships. He received a gold medal in the compound under 15 men's category, and both of his results, from the qualification round and the final, broke continental records. These records are recognized as both Pan American championship records and records in the Americas. We hope that his record will stand for years to come.

This is a historic moment for archery in Canada and a proud one for Jiwanjot Singh Teja, a world-renowned archery coach who is also Harkunwar's father and mentor. I send my congratulations to Harkunwar.