Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 1146, 1147, 1151, 1153 to 1168, 1172 to 1178, 1180 to 1183, and 1185 to 1187 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what is the process for a case manager or Veterans Service Agent (VSA) to approve a veteran or a veteran's family member to receive services from a service provider; (b) how are case managers and VSAs made aware of service providers; and (c) what is the process for evaluating service providers, and (i) by whom, and (ii) how often, are service providers evaluated? With regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister on November 30, 2022, that 93.5 percent of Canadians have access to reliable high-speed Internet services: what percentage of Canadians living in the Hamilton metropolitan census area have access to at least 50 Mbps download speed as of December 2022? With regard to the Statistics Canada release entitled “Access to the Internet in Canada, 2020” which stated that only 76 percent of respondents living in a census metropolitan area, and only 48 percent of respondents not living in a census metropolitan area, had an advertised speed of 50 Mbps or more: what percentage of Canadians living (i) inside, (ii) outside, of a census metropolitan area have access to at least 50 Mbps download speed as of December 2022? With regard to Canadian sourced income and the definition of "permanent establishment": (a) why is working from home in Canada while logging into US-based companies' internet servers interpreted or considered as Canadian-sourced income by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) is the CRA considering a commuter's home as a US company's permanent establishment or as the commuter's permanent establishment; (c) since the commuter's home is not US company property by any measurement, why does the CRA consider the commuter’s home as a US company’s permanent establishment or as the commuter’s permanent establishment of work and in turn how does neither case imply that the commuter and his home are therefore a small business entity generating Canadian-sourced income with deductible expenses; (d) if a commuter's home is considered a commuter's permanent establishment and the commuter is not employed by a Canadian company but provides services to a foreign company, why is the commuter not considered its own small business entity for Canadian tax purposes and not qualified for small business tax deductions; (e) if the commuter’s home is considered as a permanent establishment, why are commuter business expenses such as utilities, travel, rent, vehicle used and registration, etc. not allowed to be deducted as business expenses from their Canadian-sourced income; and (f) if a commuter’s home is considered a permanent establishment, why is going to another office from the commuter's home permanent establishment not considered as a business travel expense? With regard to reports that in 2020 or 2021, officials at Employment and Social Development Canada (EDSC) were instructed to answer in the affirmative whenever individuals enquired about whether or not they were eligible to receive Employment Insurance benefits: (a) on what date were directives or instructions on eligibility given; (b) what is the summary of each directive or instruction given; (c) who gave the directive or instruction; and (d) how many individuals who contacted ESDC were falsely told by the government that they were eligible for El benefits as a result of such directives? With regard to the Government of Canada's appeal of the Federal Court decision, dated January 6, 2023, allowing for late claimants in the case of Sherry Heyder, Amy Graham, and Nadin Schultz-Nielsen v. The Attorney General of Canada: (a) did the Minister of National Defence instruct the Department of Justice to commence this appeal; (b) what are the total legal costs incurred to date in this case; and (c) what are the legal costs incurred solely as a result of the appeal of the Federal Court's decision on January 6, 2023? With regard to the statement in the government's technical backgrounder on the Canada Growth Fund (CGF) that the CGF will be established in 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV): (a) on what date in 2022 was the CGF established as a subsidiary of the CDEV; (b) how many funding applications were received by the CGF in 2022; (c) how much funding was provided by the CGF in 2022; and (d) what are the details of all funding in (c), including the (i) amount, (ii) date funding was provided, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description? With regard to the Atomic Workers Recognition Program: (a) how much money has been allocated for the program; (b) of the amount allocated, how much is for (i) payments to beneficiaries, (ii) the administration of the program; (c) how much has been (i) spent to date, (ii) budgeted, for advertising related to the program, broken down by type of media; (d) how many beneficiaries have received payments to date under the program and what is the total value of those payments; and (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by type of beneficiary (worker, surviving spouse)? With regard to the renovations to Centre Block and the grounds of Parliament Hill: (a) what is the current projected total cost of the project; (b) what is the current timeline for the project, including the current projected completion date and the year Centre Block will reopen; (c) what is the projected timeline for when the work in front of Centre Block will be completed and the lawn will reopen; and (d) how much has the projected cost of the project increased since construction began, in total, and broken down by each type of expense which has increased? With regard to access to drinking water in First Nations reserves, broken down by reserve: (a) what is the total number of households on each reserve; and (b) what is the total number of households whose primary water access is through (i) in-home piped water service, (ii) truck delivery, (iii) water wells, (iv) other water source, (v) no water access? With regard to wastewater treatment in First Nations reserves, broken down by reserve: (a) what is the total number of households on each reserve; and (b) what is the total number of households that use (i) in-home piped wastewater, (ii) truck haul, (iii) individual wastewater system, (iv) other wastewater system, (v) no wastewater system?

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the government's "Check processing times" webpage, broken down by application type, sub-type, when applicable, and by country: (a) what is the service standard for processing each type of application, measured in days; (b) what is the actual time it takes to process each type of application, measured in days; and (c) during the current fiscal year, broken down by month, how many individuals have been processed (i) within the service standard, (ii) outside the service standard? With regard to civilian work within the Department of National Defense, broken down by fiscal year and province or territory since 2015-16: what is the total value of external contracts issued for (i) food services, (ii) cleaning, (iii) facilities maintenance, (iv) firefighting, (v) administration, (vi) information technology services, (vii) power engineers and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning services? With regard to funding from the Universal Broadband Fund or other sources known to the department: how much funding has been allocated to projects that improved broadband living for the residents of Hamilton living within West Flamborough? With regard to the double taxation of Canadian commuters working from home a few days per week for US-based companies and the impact on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) foreign tax credit of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes deducted in the US and the US 401(k) contributions via the CRA form RC268; (a) must employment be 100 percent exercised in the US per year in order to claim 100 percent of the FICA tax deductions as a foreign tax credit in Canada; (b) if the employment is partially exercised in the US while FICA taxes are deducted based on full employment income by US-based employer regardless of where employment is exercised, would only the percentage of FICA tax deductions equivalent to the percentage of days of employment is exercised in the US be eligible to claim as a foreign tax credit rather that the full actual FICA tax deduction amount; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, why is it not possible for commuters to deduct (on a Canadian tax return via the foreign tax credit) the full FICA tax amount paid in the US based on full employment income even when working from home in Canada; (d) for the 401(k) US pension plan, if employment is only being partially exercised in the US while 401(k) contributions are being made 100 percent throughout the year regardless of where the employment is exercised, would only a percentage of the 401(k) contributions that matches the percentage of days that employment is being exercised in the US be eligible to claim on CRA form RC268; (e) if the answer in (d) is affirmative, is the combination of the lack of a tax deduction credit for the 401(k) portion not eligible to claim on RC268 and the income tax payable during retirement upon 401(k) funds withdrawal considered as double taxation, and, if not, why not; (f) is there a minimum percentage of time that employment must be "exercised" in the US so that Canadian commuters can claim 100 percent of their full year 401(k) contributions on form RC268; (g) if the requirement in (f) is 100 percent or if the answer in (a) is affirmative, could the Department of Finance Canada and the CRA clarify or work to have the convention modified to establish and allow a minimum requirement (a percentage of days of exercising employment in the US vs. total work days) with regard to being allowed to claim 100 percent of FICA taxes and 100 percent of 401(k) contributions; (h) why is the third qualifying bullet on form RC268 not allowed a deduction on the full-year 401(k) contributions (regardless of where employment is exercised); (i) would partially working from home in Canada disqualify Canadian commuters from claiming (i) 100 percent of their 401(k) contributions on Form RC268, (ii) a certain percentage of the full-year 401(k) contributions with respect to the percentage of employment exercised in Canada; (j) how does the Government of Canada, along with the CRA, abide by Article XXIV-ii (Elimination of Double Taxation), if (i) FICA taxes are not fully deductible in Canada through a foreign tax credit, (ii) the 401(k) contributions are disqualified or partially disqualified from being claimed on Form RC268 due to the form's third qualifying bullet? With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the Governor General’s trips within Canada in 2022, broken down by department and trip: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of all other costs related to the trips? With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the Governor General’s trips outside Canada since July 26, 2021, broken down by department and trip: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of all other costs related to the trips? With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the royal family’s visits to Canada since July 26, 2021, broken down by department and visit: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of expenditures incurred for the Prime Minister, the Governor General and their accompanying persons, (ix) amount of all other costs related to the trips? With regard to the Weather Modification Information Act, broken down by year since 1985, or as far back as records permit: (a) how many times has the government’s administrator been informed of weather modification activities; (b) what are the details of each instance in (a), including, for each, (i) the date and time when and the place where the activity was to be carried out, (ii) who carried out the activity, (iii) the purpose of the activity, (iv) the equipment, materials and methods used, (v) geographic area affected; and (c) how many instances is the government aware of where an individual violated the act, and for each instance, what was the result (warning, fine, etc.)? With regard to the government’s response to the freedom convoy protests, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total number of employees or full-time equivalents who were assigned to report, monitor, advise or gather information for their department about the convoy and protestors; (b) was the information collected shared with any banks or other financial institutions, and, if so, which ones; (c) did any non-governmental entities receive this information, and, if so, which ones; and (d) what were the estimated costs associated with the work described in (a)? With regard to the Canadian Army’s fleet of Leopard II tanks: (a) how many are currently (i) combat capable, (ii) not combat capable, broken down by class of vehicle and by variant; (b) for the tanks in (a)(ii) which are not currently combat capable, when does the government expect them to return to service or to become combat capable; (c) how many are required for training operations, broken down by class of vehicle and by variant; (d) what were the total expenditures on maintenance of Canada’s Leopard II tanks since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (e) what is the expected retirement date of Canada’s Leopard II tanks; (f) has the Department of National Defence initiated any consultations or plans to replace Canada’s Leopard II tanks and retain the Canadian Army’s heavy armour capability, and, if so, what are the details, including when the consultations began and what consultations have begun; and (g) has the government initiated discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the possible transfer of Leopard II tanks to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and, if so, when were the discussions initiated? With regard to the development of a comprehensive violence prevention strategy announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) how much of the $724.1 million announced has been spent; and (b) broken down by province and territory, how many shelters (i) have been newly opened, (ii) are currently in construction, (iii) are planned, but the construction has not begun? With regard to the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), broken down by industry under the North American Industry Classification System and province or territory: (a) in total, how many businesses applied for CEBA funding; (b) how many businesses were initially approved for CEBA funding but later deemed ineligible; (c) of the businesses in (b), how many were provided reasons for being deemed ineligible; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by reason given; (e) what is the dollar amount of CEBA funds that were initially provided to businesses that were later deemed ineligible; (f) in total, how many businesses applied for CEWS funding; (g) how many businesses were initially approved for CEWS funding but later deemed ineligible; (h) of the businesses in (g), how many were provided reasons for being deemed ineligible; (i) what is the breakdown of (h) by reason given; and (j) what is the dollar amount of CEWS funds that were initially provided to businesses that were later deemed ineligible? With regard to funding applications submitted by researchers at Canada’s francophone and bilingual universities, broken down by granting agency (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada), by fiscal year from 1980–81 to 2021–22 and by university: (a) how many applications were submitted in (i) French, (ii) English; (b) what proportion of applications were submitted in (i) French, (ii) English; and (c) what was the success rate of applications submitted in (i) French, (ii) English? With regard to scientific research and publication in Canada: what strategic plans, measures, programs and mechanisms have been put in place within the three federal granting agencies (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) by the government in order to facilitate, ensure, promote or elevate (i) the submission of French-language funding applications, (ii) fair and equitable assessment of French-language funding applications, (iii) the conduct of research in French, (iv) scientific publication in French, (v) the dissemination of scholarly knowledge in French, (vi) the profile and positioning of Canada within the international francophone scientific community? With regard to expenditures on consulting services by the government in the 2021 and 2022 calendar years, broken down by year and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) training consultants (code 0446), (ii) information technology and telecommunications consultants (code 0473), (iii) management consulting (code 0491), (iv) other types of consultants or consulting, broken down by type and object code; and (b) for each response in (a), what is the total value of the expenditures that were (i) awarded competitively, (ii) sole-sourced? With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since September 1, 2022: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel? With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since September 1, 2022: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel? With regard to the regulatory changes related to amendments to the Insurance Companies Act made in budget 2018: (a) what is the status of the drafting of the regulations; (b) what is the anticipated timeline for publishing the regulations in the Canada Gazette; and (c) what is the anticipated date of bringing these changes into force? With regard to expenditures related to the video released by the government titled "Minister Alghabra clears Santa for take-off in Canadian airspace": (a) what were the total expenditures related to producing the video; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of expense (video editing, location rental, etc); (c) how many employees worked on the video; and (d) what are the details of any contracts signed related to the video, including, for each, (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the description of goods or services, (iv) how the contract was awarded (sole source, competitive bid, etc.)? With regard to the connectivity (i.e. internet, cellular, broadband, etc.) funding announced by the government since November 2015, broken down by year: (a) how much money has been announced for connectivity under the (i) CRTC Broadband Fund, (ii) Strategic Innovation Fund, (iii) Universal Broadband Fund, (iv) Connect to Innovate program, (v) First Nation Infrastructure Fund, (vi) Canada Infrastructure Bank, (vii) Investing in Canada Plan; (b) what are the details of all connectivity projects funded by each funding mechanism in (a), including, for each, the (i) project name and description, (ii) date of funding announcement, (iii) amount of funding, (iv) recipient, (v) date funding was actually transferred to recipient, (vi) current status of project, (vii) date construction began on project, (viii) project location, (ix) original projected completion date, (x) actual completion date or current projected completion date, (xi) reason for delay, if applicable, (xii) number of households or businesses connected through the project; and (c) are there any connectivity projects which were announced by the government but later cancelled, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) date of announcement, (ii) project name and description, (iii) project location, (iv) amount of funding announced, (v) amount of funding transferred to recipient, (vi) date of cancellation, (vii) reason for cancellation? With regard to the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities program, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16 and province or territory: (a) what are the details of all projects funded through provincial or territorial Aboriginal sport bodies for the development of sport community projects; (b) what are the details of all projects funded through Indigenous governments, communities and not-for-profit Indigenous organizations; and (c) what are the details of all projects funded to ensure that Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people have access to sport activity? With regard to the Community Sport for All Initiative, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16 and province or territory: (a) what is the total number of projects that applied for fundings and were deemed (i) eligible, (ii) ineligible; (b) what are the details of all projects that received funding, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) amount of funding recieved, (iii) sport or activity, (iv) number of participants in the project; (c) what is the total amount of funding delivered to rural, remote or Northern communities? With regard to the $4.3 billion announced for Indigenous housing in budget 2022, broken down by federal electoral district: what are the details of all projects that received funding, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) number of housing units built, (iii) number of housing units under construction, (iv) total number of units approved, (v) total amount of funding received? With regard to spending on stock photographs or images by the government since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the details and duration of contract, (iv) the date, (v) the number of photos or images purchased, (vi) where the photos or images were used (Internet, billboards, etc.), (vii) the description of the advertising campaign, (viii) the file number of the contract? With regard to personal protective equipment masks purchased by the government: (a) how many masks were purchased each month since January 2021; (b) how much was spent each month on the masks in (a); and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by type of mask (N95, disposable cloth, reusable, etc.) and by manufacturer? With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased by the government since March 1, 2020, broken down by year: (a) what is the total value of PPE purchased by the government that was (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (b) what is the total value of PPE contracts that were made under a national security exemption? With regard to expenditures related to the Prime Minister's trip to Jamaica in December 2022 and January 2023: (a) what were the total costs incurred by the government for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses for the flight crew and government officials who travelled to Jamaica in connection with the Prime Minister's trip; (b) what hotels or resorts did the flight crew and government officials stay at in Jamaica; (c) how much did the Prime Minister reimburse the government in relation to the flight for his family's vacation; and (d) did any government officials travel to Jamaica in a method other than on the Challenger flight which carried the Prime Minister's family and, if so, how many officials travelled through other means, and how much was spent on their airfare? With regard to the Crown corporation Export Development Canada (EDC) and McKinsey & Company: has EDC offered any contracts to McKinsey & Company since January 1, 2011, and, if so, what is the nature of these contracts and what are the amounts involved? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's post-payment compliance work related to the Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy: (a) what metrics are being used in the assessment of risk of non-compliance; (b) how is each metric in (a) used; (c) how many recipient companies were audited for suspected non-compliance; (d) how many of the audits in (c) (i) are completed, (ii) resulted in a finding of non-compliance; and (e) how much money resulting from findings of non-compliance (i) has been recovered, (ii) is still outstanding, (iii) has been written off? With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Business Account, broken down by program: (a) how many organizations which received funding are (i) in receivership, (ii) insolvent; and (b) how much funding did the organizations in (a) receive? With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC), since 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what are the details of all funding transfers between the DFO and the GLFC, including, for each, the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) type of funding or reason for the transfer; (b) which line item in the DFO's financial statements included the funds allocated to or received from the GLFC; (c) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of the DFO and how will they be listed; and (d) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of another government department or agency, and which department or agency will each commitment be listed with? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, broken down by month: (a) what were the delivery times for permanent resident cards, from when the application was received to the issuance of a card, for the time periods between (i) July and December 2019, (ii) July and December 2022; and (b) what was the average time between the confirmation of the permanent residency and the issuance of the card, between (i) July and December 2019, (ii) July and December 2022? With regard to expenditures related to the lifting of long-term and short-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount provided, broken down by individual Nation and reserve, for boil-water advisories that (i) have been lifted, (ii) are still in effect; and (b) for each boil water advisory still in effect, what are the expected costs to lift each advisory?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby made his speech a little while ago, but I want to thank him. I would like him to come back to the importance of having an independent, totally non-partisan, public inquiry that would be voted on in the House of Commons. I want to mention the statement made by my colleague from Trois‑Rivières, who aptly described at the outset the importance of public trust. The current government's complacency is undermining the public's trust in government. We are going to go from mistrust to defiance, as the member for Trois‑Rivières said so well. I would like my colleague to expand on that point and perhaps explain why he thinks the government wants to buy time.

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. As I mentioned in my speech, that is why the NDP will move a motion tomorrow that we were able to have adopted at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This motion requires that a public, transparent and independent public inquiry be held to examine all concerns and allegations concerning foreign interference. Of course this is important for the NDP. We are very pleased to have received the support of other parties on this matter, and tomorrow, as I already mentioned, we will propose that this report be adopted. It was adopted by the committee and we want the House of Commons to adopt it. Naturally, there will be a debate, but every member will have the opportunity to vote on this important motion. We hope to count on everyone's support. We also hope to push the government to take action and to launch this public inquiry, which should absolutely be independent and transparent.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is being disingenuous. I absolutely did answer the question, but he did not like the answer. The reality is that if we ask Canadians from coast to coast to coast what they want to see, they want to see resources invested now in a national public inquiry that is transparent and independent. I am answering this question now for the second time. It is the same question he asked, and I am giving the same answer. Resources need to go to a national public inquiry now. That is what Canadians want. My question back to the member for Kingston and the Islands is simply this: Why is the government stonewalling something that Canadians want, and want to see now, and why is the government not investing those resources so that we can have the national public inquiry that so many Canadians want to see?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I agree with the need to take foreign interference very seriously, and I want to ask the member whether he agrees that we should look at not just the 2019 and 2020 elections, but at the others as well. I know that the NDP thinks that we need to examine interference from other parts of the world, but could we also not examine more elections because we need more information to protect our democratic systems?

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the fact that my colleague from Waterloo spoke in French and I also appreciate the work that she does as the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The reality is that we are calling for a public inquiry. As the member is well aware, the NDP proposed to the committee a broader public inquiry on foreign interference. The Conservatives tried to amend the NDP's motion and reduce the scope of this public inquiry by removing the allegations of interference that we have already seen, even though the agencies have indicated that they are just as worrisome. Take, for example, the interference by Russia, Iran and other countries. I do not know why the Conservatives wanted to reduce the scope of this inquiry. The NDP is proposing a broader scope. It is important that the government take action now to set up this public inquiry, which should absolutely be transparent and independent.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks, since these stories started to break and since the leader of the official opposition started asking questions about this very important issue, I have heard from many constituents who have found that the faith they need to have in our democratic institutions has been shaken. My question for the member from the NDP is simple. Can we count on his support tomorrow so we can get the answers required for Canadians to have that trust in their democratic institutions restored?

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the NDP is presenting its motion on the public inquiry. Tomorrow, Conservatives will have a chance to vote for the NDP motion. The Conservatives have been all over the map on this, trying to pull apart the NDP proposal for a vast and extensive public inquiry into foreign interference. I hope that tomorrow Conservatives will support the NDP motion.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thornhill. It is a privilege to speak in the House on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant on our Conservative motion, which would essentially compel the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to appear as a witness. Canadians have heard numerous media reports on foreign interference in our democratic processes, particularly by the Communist regime in Beijing. We, as a society, cannot allow foreign governments to manipulate our elections and influence the will of our people. Any interference tries to undermine the very foundation of our democracy and threatens our sovereignty, especially when it is plotted by authoritarian regimes. The CSIS whistle-blower who leaked the story did so at great professional and legal risk. He or she put country over career and country over everything, which is the Canadian way. That is how our society should work. This is a serious matter that requires our full attention and immediate action. Canadians deserve the truth and nothing less. From day one, our leader called on the government and all parties in the House to launch an open public inquiry that would answer all the questions and concerns that people have. In this case, only two people can provide us with answers: the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, Katie Telford. As always, the Liberals decided to use their tactics of denial and deflection. Rather than explain what he knows, the Prime Minister is suggesting there should be an investigation into what he already knows. After all these years and numerous scandals, particularly those of SNC-Lavalin and WE Charity, accountability was never the goal of the Liberal government. Its goal is to prolong the scandal as much as possible until no one can remember why it matters. For the past several weeks, the Liberals have been unnecessarily fighting attempts to have Telford appear before committee to testify. They have delayed votes, given long speeches to run out the clock and even refused to show up for meetings, all in an attempt to block Telford from appearing. Almost 24 hours of committee work has been wasted for this single cause. Hearing from Katie is vital to any investigation into the Global News story because she would have been the top advisor who CSIS would have advised in 2019 in providing a brief on concerns about the Liberal candidate and his ties to the Chinese foreign interference network. She has been chief of staff since 2015, and she has the top secret clearance needed to be briefed. The Prime Minister rightly said that voters, not intelligence services, get to pick who represents them, but if those intelligence services believe a candidate is compromised by a foreign government, voters should know that before casting their ballots. Having Telford come before the committee to tell MPs what the government did with the intelligence, if anything, is a necessary step in restoring confidence in our democracy. The fact that the Liberals refuse to allow this to happen may tell us a lot. Probably what she has to say would shake what is left over of that confidence even more. It is time to end the Katie cover-up. The New Democrats have a choice to make: Will they vote for transparency and answers on Beijing’s interference in our elections, or will they again prop up the Prime Minister? We insist that Canadians must hear from Katie Telford and learn what the Prime Minister knew, when he first knew about it and what he did or failed to do. Katie is the highest ranking political staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office. She supports not only the Prime Minister but also his entire cabinet. It is a powerful, yet largely behind-the-scenes role. Unlike other public servants, her job is a political one. She works not only for the PMO, but also for the Liberal Party during elections. Calling political staff, current or former, to testify is not something extraordinary. She testified before the finance committee on the WE scandal and on the sexual misconduct in the military in 2021. Last year, she testified before the Rouleau commission. Any international attempts to interfere in our elections should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that the Liberals are making it one and trying to stop investigations should make everyone question their motives, and today we call on all parties in the House to support our motion and stop the endless filibustering by Liberal members, who are deliberately blocking the Prime Minister’s chief of staff from testifying While the Prime Minister claims that his approach to the issue is “grounded in facts and independent decision making,” he is the one who is playing the partisan games in the hope of delaying any serious investigation or discussion about interference. As revelation after revelation reveals, the Liberal government knew about China’s election interference. It had four years. It did not inform the public. It did not recall any diplomatic staff. It did not pursue any legal remedies. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Canadians are concerned about China's attempts to meddle in our elections. A recent Abacus Data poll showed that 67% of Canadians support a public inquiry into that issue, and in fact, 70% of Liberals support it. It is irresponsible to silence a matter of a foreign government attempting to corrupt our election by pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora. If that does not qualify for the fullest and most public examination, then one must ask oneself this question: What will? There are lots of questions the Prime Minister does not want to answer. Number one, were the Liberals briefed by national security officials that at least one Liberal candidate in 2019 was allegedly part of the interference network from Beijing? Two, did they wilfully ignore that warning because it was to their advantage? Three, did they know that 11 candidates in that election, nine of whom were Liberals, were favoured by Beijing? Four, were Trudeau and his advisors also briefed about China working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021—

Members cannot use the names of other members. The hon. member used the Prime Minister's name.

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. Were the Prime Minister and his advisors briefed that China was working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021 so that a Liberal minority government would be elected? Five, did they know that the former Chinese consulate general in Vancouver bragged in 2021 about helping to defeat two Conservative candidates? The heart of this scandal is not that there has been electoral interference, it is that the Liberals allegedly knew there was electoral interference but did nothing because it was to their benefit. CSIS leaked a quote from a Chinese consulate official who said, “The Liberal Party of Canada is becoming the only party that the People's Republic of China can support.” The best guarantee of good government is still vigilance of an effective parliamentary opposition. It does not matter to Liberals that the opposition has not actually suggested that the outcomes of the previous two elections are in question. Liberals are at best misguided in seeking to demonize the opposition using the very partisanship and rhetoric they denounce. The Prime Minister seeks to wedge the issue out of legitimate opposition concerns for the safety and integrity of Canadian elections. He does a grave injustice to our system of democracy by doing so. The role of opposition is to hold the government’s feet to the fire, not so that they can get warm and toasty, but so they can feel the heat of parliamentary scrutiny. It seems like the Liberals are playing all the cards when it comes to burying the story. Number one, the Prime Minister used the Trump card when he said that giving reasons to mistrust elections is not good for society and is something that we have seen from other elections, echoing a senior Liberal who more openly accused the opposition of Trump-style tactics. Number two is the “nothing to see here” card, which he played when he said, “Canadians can have...confidence in the integrity of our elections.” Number three is the partisanship card. The Prime Minister accused the opposition of sowing confusion and mistrust by even raising the allegation. Number four is the “it is all lies” card from when he said, “We are very concerned with the [Global News] leaks, particularly because there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks.” Number five, and the most disturbing, is the racism card. The Prime Minister referred to a rise in anti-Asian rhetoric to deflect a question on the subject. The Liberal MPs have been successful in blocking a vote for far too long. Canadians must know that Katie Telford has the information that she received from CSIS, but she has either made the decision to keep the Prime Minister in the dark, as she did during the scandal of sexual misconduct in the military, which is disturbing on its own, or maybe she did notify the Prime Minister and he kept quiet about it. Either way, people need to know what is going on in this country. Lastly, I turn to the leader of the third party, the leader of the NDP and his caucus. Through you, Mr. Speaker, you have got an extremely important choice. When you were elected, you were elected to represent all of your constituents, not just those constituents who voted for you. It is time for you to make a decision. Will you support this country, get to the heart of this matter and deal with this appropriately, or will you continue to prop up the government?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is one thing to say “through you” and then suddenly turn to direct all comments and point fingers at another member. It is pretty clear what is going on. I do not think that the member was saying all of that to you personally, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps he would want to reflect on the rules of the House.

I remind members not to speak directly to one another. They should speak to the Chair and through the Chair when speaking to individuals. I will let the hon. member for Brantford—Brant finish up the last 30 seconds of his speech.

I have a point of order.

Everything that I said in my last 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, was always through you. The fact is that I turned and looked at NDP members. Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the leader, but, notwithstanding that, the choice is there. Will the New Democrats continue to prop up the government, or will they get to the heart of the scandal and find out what Katie Telford knew?