Debates of June 18th, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

The Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members have agreed to apply the vote.

Because it is the last vote, I will just very quickly say, “Go Oilers”.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #846

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

I declare the motion carried.

When shall this bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Foreign Interference and Alleged Reputational Harm to Members of Parliament

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sent you a notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege related to the revelation contained in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions”.

The committee reviewed over 4,000 documents, including over 1,000 intelligence products. The NSICOP report is an alarming wake-up call in terms of the depth and insidious nature of hostile foreign state actors' efforts to covertly undermine Canada's democratic processes and institutions. China and India are both identified as the most aggressive foreign states; they are deploying wide-ranging and multi-faceted tactics in foreign interference activities in Canada.

The shocking allegations that some members of Parliament wittingly or semiwittingly worked with foreign state actors is not only unsettling, but it is also a betrayal of Canadians, who trusted them to act in Canada's best interests and not a foreign state's interests. The report did not provide any names, and as such, all 338 members of the House, including those who have since left this chamber, are under a cloud of suspicion for having intentionally or semi-intentionally worked with a foreign state to undermine Canada's democratic processes and institutions.

My intervention today will not cover the national security aspect of this extremely concerning situation. Instead, it will focus on the damage to the reputations of all members of the House of Commons.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, outlines the rights and immunities of members of Parliament on page 107. There is a section on “Freedom from Obstruction, Interference, Intimidation and Molestation”. It states, “Members of Parliament, by the nature of their office and the variety of work they are called upon to perform, come into contact with a wide range of individuals and groups. Members can, therefore, be subject to all manner of interference, obstruction and influences.”

On page 112, it goes on to say the following:

The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction if the Member is prevented from performing his or her parliamentary functions. In 1987, Speaker Fraser stated:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.

I would submit that what has been revealed in the NSICOP report constitutes such an impediment for all members of Parliament. Throughout the report, there are many references to how some parliamentarians are willing participants with foreign states. We can take, for example, paragraph 55 of the NSICOP report. It notes, “Some elected officials...began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election.” It goes on to say, “members of Parliament...worked to influence their colleagues on India’s behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.”

Paragraph 56 states that there was “a textbook example of foreign interference that saw a foreign state support a witting politician.”

Paragraph 59 states that “the PRC had established an informal foreign interference network”, where those in “the network...worked in loose coordination with one another and with guidance from the consulate...to covertly support or oppose candidates in the 2019 federal election.” Moreover, the “network had some contact with at least 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers, some of whom appeared to be wittingly working for the PRC.” The report also “described the network’s efforts to keep federal political candidates away from events that the PRC considered to be ‘anti-China,’ such as a pro-Hong Kong rally; noted similar activities by another network in the riding of Don Valley North; and identified specific individuals involved.”

Paragraph 68 states, “an Indian proxy claims to have repeatedly transferred funds from India to politicians at all levels of government in return for political favours, including raising issues in Parliament at the proxy’s request.”

Paragraph 72 states, “PRC officials allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada.” Following this, paragraph 73 “describe[s] India’s alleged interference in a Conservative Party of Canada leadership race.”

Paragraph 164 states that “some Parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘semi-witting or witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

Paragraph 57 even notes an example of a former MP, and the report refers to:

...a particularly concerning case of a then-member of Parliament maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. According to CSIS, the member of Parliament sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence.

We do not know who the elected official associated with each allegation is. In the face of such alarming revelations, this means that all members are tainted and that the reputation of the whole House is put in question.

Since China and India are the top two countries cited as being most aggressive in foreign interference activities, I would submit that those of us who are Chinese Canadians or Indo-Canadians are at a greater and heightened risk of unjust reputational damage.

There are a few examples throughout the years of similar situations where a prima facie case of privilege was found because the reputation of the House was put in question. In March 1966, the House was gripped for several days with the Munsinger case when the then minister of justice, Mr. Cardin, alleged improper conduct on the part of ministers in the former Diefenbaker government. Mr. Cardin stated that certain members of the House were involved with Greta Munsinger, a “self-admitted espionage agent” in the employ of the “Russian intelligence service”.

On March 10, four questions of privilege were raised by the members in relation to the statement made by former minister Cardin. Speaker Lamoureux ruled immediately that there was a prima facie case of privilege, even though all four motions were ultimately ruled out of order by the Chair for various reasons. One was disallowed immediately because the motion was too general and did not specify the charges against the minister. One requested that the minister substantiate his charges. The other two motions sought the resignation of Minister Cardin.

In May 1976, a former member of Parliament, Mr. Choquette, was quoted as saying, while giving testimony in open court, that “if everyone who had ever taken or given $600 or $700 bribes in their life were arrested, 50 per cent of the MPs would no longer be sitting.... I know it because I was an MP for five years.”

The matter was raised as a question of privilege. Speaker Jerome ruled immediately and stated that he had no difficulty in agreeing that there was indeed a question of privilege.

We also had a situation in 1983, when several articles in the Montreal Gazette alleged that Mr. Mackasey, member for Lincoln, was a paid lobbyist. In her ruling of March 22, 1983, Speaker Sauvé said, “An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.”

From selected decisions of Speaker Jeanne Sauvé, we can read about this case:

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule”.

I fear that this is where we are under these circumstances. Without disclosure of the names of the parliamentarians who are “‘semi-witting or witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics”, we may subject all members of the House, including former and sitting MPs, to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Indeed, this is already happening.

Outside this chamber, just yesterday, there were individuals shouting, questioning and jeering about who the traitors may be. Members of Parliament had to walk past these individuals on the members' way to the House to do their work. I believe we must find a way to disclose which MPs are knowingly, intentionally, wittingly or semi-wittingly engaging with foreign states or their proxies to undermine Canada's democratic processes and institutions. I believe this can be done in a way that does not compromise national security.

If there are no consequences for MPs who knowingly help foreign governments act against Canadian interests, we will continue to be an easy target. This will further erode the trust and faith Canadians have in our democratic processes. If allowed to continue, it will further impugn the integrity of the House. Revealing any member of Parliament, former or present, who is a willing participant in foreign interference activities would have the effect of deterring this kind of behaviour. Moreover, it would send a clear message to those foreign states that this cannot continue and that they will not be able to continue to use parliamentarians in this way. This will further reassure the public of the integrity of the House.

I strongly believe that the House should refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. A possible way to deal with the issue would be for committee members to undergo the necessary security screening to examine the unredacted report and look into the allegations about parliamentarians who were “‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.” We could allow the named parliamentarians to be informed and to come before the committee as witnesses; we could then explore options on how to disclose the named parliamentarians without compromising national security or police investigations of the matter.

Madam Speaker, if you find a prima facie case of privilege in this case, this is the motion I would move: That the matter of reputational harm done to all members of Parliament as a consequence of the redaction of parliamentarians' names from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, report entitled “Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions” be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

I thank the hon. member. Her comments will be taken under advisement, and the Chair will come back to the hon. member as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Madam Speaker, given the importance of the subject that my colleague just raised, I would like to reassure the House. Conservative members are ready to meet this summer at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study this issue, to advance the study already under way on foreign interference and to consider today's question of privilege more specifically.

I advise the House that we prefer to reserve comment for the time being. We will return to this later.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois understands the importance of the situation and the importance of the study that needs to be done on this matter. We choose to exercise the right to reserve comment for the time being.

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

Madam Speaker, I would also like to review the comments that the member has put on the record. We will report back at some point in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I also want to add a few comments and thank our colleague from Vancouver East.

The matters raised, as we all know, are of critical importance. I have listened carefully to the member for Vancouver East. I want to read her question of privilege. It is clearly pressing and urgent that Parliament come together. At this point, I would like to reserve further comments, as other representatives of parties in this place have done. I hope to pursue conversations, as I have indicated in a letter to all party leaders and to all members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

However, I think the member for Vancouver East has raised a critical issue. Once I have read her question of privilege carefully and considered whether it is consistent with respecting the top secret nature of the full, unredacted report, I would like to add my thoughts.

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

Well noted.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and highlight a number of issues that I think are really important for those who are going to take the time to follow the debate we are going to be having on the important piece of legislation before us.

Virtually from the very beginning, just under nine years ago, we have seen a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It has been focused very much on a sense of fairness for generation X and millennials to ensure that all Canadians feel that they are a part of the economy and of our society, while at the same time recognizing the true value of the Government of Canada providing the types of services Canadians would like to see and to have supports put in place. As a government, we have seen, over the last number of years, a number of actions that have really made a positive difference in all of our communities.

We often hear stats being brought forward by the opposition in an attempt to try to portray things in a negative way. We have the leader of the Reform-Conservative party across the way who likes to travel the country and talk about Canada being broken when nothing could be further from the truth, especially if we compare Canada to any other country in the world. If we put into context how Canada has been performing over the last eight to nine years compared to Stephen Harper and the nine years he was the prime minister, one of the key indicators is jobs. Jobs are so critically important to building an economy and a society. In the nine years of Stephen Harper, there were one million jobs. Let us contrast that against the two million–plus jobs created by this government working with provincial jurisdictions, Canadians, municipalities and the many different stakeholders out there.

Let us look at the types of investments we have made over the years. As a government, even though the official opposition has been more focused on character assassination, we have never lost our focus on serving Canadians. Let me give members a specific example.

In the first budget we presented, one of the initiatives was an extra tax increase on the 1% wealthiest in Canada's society. At the same time, we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Let us focus on the 1% wealthiest and the belief that people need to pay their fair share. Back in 2015-16, going into that budget, is when that was incorporated. If we fast forward to today, we have a capital gains tax increase that is being implemented. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc support it, but not the Conservatives. I would like to emphasize that when I say “Conservative”, I am suggesting the far-right Reform-Conservative Party we have today. I say that because its members are very critical of the government for increasing the capital gains tax.

[An hon. member]

Yes, we are.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of them just said that they are. That is the reform element.

Brian Mulroney actually increased it more, albeit Brian Mulroney, in fairness, was a Progressive Conservative. Do not confuse that with the Reform-Conservatives that we see today. In fact, the best way to summarize the difference between the Reform-Conservatives and the Liberals, as I said the other day, is Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives have a hidden agenda they will not talk about, which means taking away services, many of which we have put in over the last number of years.

We are talking about services that genuinely matter and that provide supports to Canadians in every region of this country. They are programs that are in this budget and programs that were established many budgets ago. A good example of that is the child care program. Remember, in the last election, when we were campaigning and saying that we were going to bring in a national child care program that would provide $10-a-day day care in all regions of our country?

How did the Conservative Party respond to that? At the time, Conservatives said that they were going to rip up the deals. They did not believe in a national child care program that delivered $10-a-day day care. The election went by. The government continued to work on the issue. Every province and territory signed on. As a result of the efforts of the government, we now have a national child care program that delivers $10-a-day day care and child care. The Conservative Party is on the record as saying that it would like to rip up those deals, based on the last election.

Fast forward it again to today, where we see programs that are going to be there to support millions of Canadians in different ways. We hear about the dental program. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have now registered for the dental program; I think it is close to two million. We have literally tens of thousands who have already benefited from a program that has just been rolled out. The Conservative Party is committed to cancelling that program. Even though literally thousands of seniors in each and every one of their ridings would benefit by that program, Conservatives would still cut the program.

What about the national pharmacare program that we talk about? It is a program that is delivering, whether it is free contraceptives or dealing with the issue of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease in Canada. There is a substantial cost to it. For the first time ever, we would have a program that would deal with those two issues in a very tangible way. Once again, we have a Conservative-Reform Party saying that it would also cut that program because Conservatives do not believe that the federal government has a role to play in that area. They are so far to the right, they want to see the federal government's presence in our national health care diminished.

What does that say about the $200 billion, which is billion with a “b”, of investment in health care in the next 10 years, in terms of money being transferred over to provinces? Under the Canada Health Act, it clearly indicates that the national government does have a role to play. Canadians love our health care system, in a very real and tangible way. Often, when we ask someone what makes them feel good about Canada, they will often talk about health care.

The Conservatives are no different from the Bloc, the separatists. They do not want the federal government involved in health care at all. The Bloc asks that the government to give it more money, and the Conservatives say that it will not give as much money and that all it needs to do is give some money. Canadians need to be aware that this Reform-Conservative party is putting health care on the block. To what degree is it going to fulfill the commitment we have made for that $200 billion to ensure that future generations have critically important health care? I do not say lightly that the Liberal Party genuinely cares and that it will be there for Canadians. We have demonstrated that.

Let us look at what took place during the pandemic. In every way, the federal government stepped up to the plate and delivered, whether it was vaccines, supports for small businesses or providing disposable income to literally millions of Canadians in every region of this country because we knew the federal government needed to play that role, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. However, it does not stop there.

For the very first time, in this budget, there is the single-largest increase to establish a disability program. It is a great step forward. It is $200 a month, a significant amount of money. It recognizes that the national government does have a role to play. That is the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not have a problem in 2025 talking about that contrast because I believe that Canadian values are a whole lot closer to what the Liberal Party is talking about than what the Conservative Party is talking about.

I want to talk about two issues. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a program about which many Conservatives are critical. Other opposition members criticize the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We only need to look at Hansard to get a very clear indication of the number of MPs, particularly the Conservative-Reform MPs, who are critical of it. In essence, the Conservative-Reform government says that it would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the finance critic says “yes” in agreement. There is no change there. That is their intent. They want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and it is because they do not understand—

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

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I am hearing impaired and have incredible difficulty listening to the member for Winnipeg North. I would ask that you show some compassion and ask the member to defer the rest of his speech to this time next week.

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

That is definitely not a point of order, but I would ask the hon. member to perhaps lower the tone of his voice.