SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 169 - Mar/20/23

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I appreciate the enthusiasm from members opposite to hear from me on this important opposition day motion. The motion is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at a parliamentary committee on what she knew and when she knew it with respect to the foreign interference efforts by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing on our elections, specifically in 2019 and 2021. We have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to investigate matters like this in our committees. The procedure and House affairs committee had undertaken a study specifically on this issue. The ethics committee also initiated a set of hearings on foreign interference. That process was under way before we heard all the explosive details that we are now privy to. At the procedure and House affairs committee, the government is engaged in a full-blown filibuster cover-up. It has been going on for nearly 24 hours, and anyone who has watched it has been subjected to anything but dealing with the substantive matter. Canadians have reached out to me. I have heard from them, and they are looking for answers. We know the Prime Minister's chief of staff was named by members of our intelligence community as having received the information with respect to foreign interference attempts. However, that is a departure from what we have heard from the Prime Minister as to what he knew and what individuals in his office knew. Therefore, it is important that we hear from this key witness. Filibustering, obstructing and engaging in cover-ups are parts of a pattern for the Liberal government. We have seen it time and time again, notably with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At that time, The Globe and Mail made allegations with respect to the Prime Minister's attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. Interestingly, the Prime Minister said the allegations were false. It was later confirmed by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, that the Prime Minister had, in fact, been found guilty of breaking the Act for his interference in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This was confirmed in the Trudeau II Report. We saw the same obstruction with the investigation into the WE Charity debacle, where the government tried to give $912 million, nearly a billion dollars, to friends of the Prime Minister. It did this instead of actually delivering on services and supports to Canadians at a time when they needed it most. This is the Liberals' pattern, and so we are not surprised to see that first they deny, then they deflect and then they try to cover it up. We are witnessing the cover-up as it unfolds. On the matter of why Mrs. Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, will not come to committee, the Liberals have said she cannot come because we have ministerial accountability. Therefore, that staff member should not come, and it should be the minister who comes. However, the minister is the Prime Minister. In the 24-hour filibuster that we have endured, we have not heard an amendment proposing that the Prime Minister come to committee. What we know is that the chief of staff has come to committee twice before. This was on the WE Charity scandal and the hearings on the sexual misconduct in the military at the defence committee. We know the chief of staff can come to committee, and Canadians can judge for themselves the quality of the appearances by Ms. Telford. She is a professional, and she is able to handle herself well at committee. We would imagine the same would happen again. What is different this time? What information is the Prime Minister's chief of staff unable to share with Canadians that would be so damaging to the government that it is pulling out all the stops, up to and including potentially declaring an opposition day motion a matter of confidence in the government so that it can strong-arm the fourth party in the House into supporting it? That is the big question that we are faced with. We know that the Liberal government is going to obstruct and to continue its cover-up. What we do not know is what the Liberals' coalition partners in the NDP are prepared to do. Are they going to provide that transparency for Canadians on a matter that speaks to the fundamental, foundational principles of our democracy, that it is Canadians at the ballot box who decide the makeup of Canada's Parliament? Or are we about to witness a cover-up of state actors, in this case the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, putting their thumb on the scale to try to elect preferred candidates to engineer an outcome? In this case, there were reports that they were looking for the return of a minority Liberal government. Frankly, that a diplomat from another country would make that claim on Canadian soil should precipitate a response from the government, and that response should be to expel the diplomat, to kick them out. When someone is bragging about interfering in our democracy, we do not need to substantiate the claim first. They do not get to pass “go” and collect $200. They are declared persona non grata, PNG, and off they go, back to the dictatorship in Beijing. We have not seen that kind of action in the face of incredibly concerning reports in The Globe and Mail and in Global News, with intelligence sources who have laid out for us what we need to be looking at. The response from the government is that now it says it is taking it seriously. However, the Liberals' actions do not demonstrate that they have been serious about it up to this point. The Prime Minister is hedging his bets. He has named an individual who has the ability, we are told, to advise the Prime Minister on whether he should or could have a public inquiry. However, the Prime Minister describes the individual he chose as his adviser as a close personal and family friend and as a member of the Beijing-funded Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which returned a contribution of $200,000, that we know about, back to the dictatorship in Beijing. Are they telling me that with 38 million people in this country, the Prime Minister could not find someone whom he does not call a close personal friend and who does not sit on his family's foundation? Canadians deserve to have transparency and they need to have confidence in the process that is set up. An open, transparent public inquiry is what opposition parties are looking for, and having the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is named in these intelligence reports, testify at committee is essential. We know the government is going to vote against the motion, and I know I am going to get a question from the fourth party. In that question, I hope to hear from them that they are planning to vote in favour of having Ms. Telford testify at committee and vote to end this Liberal cover-up.

1206 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/20/23 6:01:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard Conservative members talk about and try to defame the reputation of David Johnston. Fred DeLorey, the former campaign manager for the Conservatives, was on a panel recently. I found it interesting. He said that, back when they appointed David Johnston as Governor General and to various different positions, he was accused of being too close to Conservatives. Now I am hearing Conservatives say he is too close to Liberals. I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not he thinks that David Johnston, despite his connections to anybody, has the ability to properly execute the role he has been put in charge of, regardless of the fact that he happened to live on a street that somebody grew up on, that Stephen Harper happened to appoint him as governor general, or that Stephen Harper happened to appoint him as head of an inquiry back in the day. Does the member think that David Johnston has the ability to be impartial and to do that job to the best of his ability?

179 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/20/23 6:02:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the problem is that Canadians are going to question the appointee because the Prime Minister has said that this individual is a close friend of his. The problem is that the appointee sits on a foundation that has the same name as the Prime Minister. It is the appearance of the conflict of interest that is going to cause Canadians to doubt the integrity of that process. It taints everything downstream from it. That is why an independent, transparent public inquiry is important, and that is why we need to hear from Katie Telford at committee.

98 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/20/23 6:03:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Liberals believe, we do not wish to call into question Mr. Johnston's competence. It is more about trying to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and to demonstrate that, as elected members, we take this issue seriously and we are trying to restore the trust of people who have questions about China's interference. It is a serious matter. As my colleague just explained, to demonstrate that this is a serious matter, the partisanship must stop. This is an urgent matter, and the time for committee meetings has passed, since they would unfortunately be drawn out and filibustered by the Liberals. That is what they did at the Standing Committee on National Defence to try to avoid an investigation into assault in the armed forces. That is what I am concerned about. To expedite the process, perhaps we do not need a committee that is going to draw things out. Instead, we should immediately establish—

166 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 6:04:35 p.m.
Watch

We need to give the hon. member time to answer the question. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

25 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/20/23 6:04:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, acting with a sense of urgency is very important. I agree wholeheartedly. That is why the call for an immediate, transparent public inquiry was made. That is also why the issue was to have already had Ms. Telford testify a week ago, not to continue a filibuster over the course of four weeks and not to then have this supply day used to address this issue as well. It already could have occurred, but the government is intent on covering up what it believes is too damning for Canadians to hear. We should move quickly with it, and all parties in the House, including backbenchers on the government side, should support having the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at committee.

124 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/20/23 6:05:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure the facts are correct. It is important that Canadians understand this. It was New Democrats who tabled the motion in committee to ensure there was a public, independent inquiry. Conservatives, after much delay, finally agreed, but they agreed only with the exception of removing foreign interference like that of Russia, like that of rich oligarchs, like Putin and his cronies. The Conservatives protected them. They are protecting them now because they would not address the reality that foreign interference is by many state actors. Would the member comment on foreign interference of other countries, and whether he thinks that is important?

108 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/20/23 6:06:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, foreign interference by any country in our democratic institutions is absolutely unacceptable. When we have credible reports about it, as we have seen in this case in The Globe and Mail and in Global News about the communist dictatorship in Beijing, it should call for swift action. We have case-in-point evidence in this case, and that is why we are calling for this motion to be passed and for the Prime Minister's chief of—

80 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 6:06:49 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has the floor.

15 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Mar/20/23 6:06:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a time when a future prime minister said, “It's hard not to feel disappointed in your government when every day there is a new scandal.” When the Prime Minister took power, he proclaimed, “Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve – you.” From the floor of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said, “I believe in sunny ways.... I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Openness and transparency is what Canadians expect. That is what we will always stand for.” After eight years, what a fall from grace there has been. Here we are on the floor of the House of Commons with the final speech of the night. However, instead of keeping to the words the current Prime Minister said, there have been 24 hours of filibuster in committee, including 12 hours last Tuesday, where Liberal members, instead of calling the question and doing any sort of study in public, read from books, clapped at each other and joked about the type of coffee they were sipping. They drew the clock out for 12 hours straight, instead of studying something Canadians want answers to. It is important to remember here tonight why we are having this debate. It is not because the Prime Minister and the Liberal government were forthcoming with Canadians. It is because a brave whistle-blower came forward to expose bombshell revelations about the magnitude and extent of the interference attempts by the Communist Party of China. The worst part is not the magnitude and extent of all that interference on Beijing's part, but the bombshell revelations that it was the Prime Minister and those at the PMO who covered up the truth. When they found out about it, they did nothing because it was helping their political interests. When it came to that topic, they swept it under the rug. We owe that whistle-blower a great deal of gratitude as we have the floor asking for more information and testimony from the government. That is why we need to have Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, appear at committee. We get a lot of fake outrage from the other side, from the Liberals, because they say this is unprecedented and having chiefs of staff should not be allowed. However, chiefs of staff from both Conservative and Liberal governments have testified at committee before, especially when scandals brewed out of their offices. Katie Telford has already spoken twice at committee. She testified on the WE scandal and she testified on the sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and what the PMO knew, what it did and, more importantly, what it did not do to resolve that problem. So the question Canadians are asking now is this: Why is it suddenly a problem so she cannot testify? With every passing hour of the filibuster, and with the opposition we have seen from the government in the House here today, the truth must be really bad to hear, which is what we can conclude. If Katie Telford had done everything great, if there were no problem and the PMO acted with full integrity, she should have no problem going to committee to defend her actions. However, the third time we want her to come forward, but now on this national scandal, about what she knew, what the PMO knew, what the Prime Minister knew, as well as when, how, and what they did, suddenly every roadblock goes up. Nobody believes that the Prime Minister was not aware of the magnitude and extent of the election interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections. The solutions government members proposed today are to go back behind closed doors with no public inquiry, have a close family friend give advice behind closed doors on what we should or should not do, which he may do or not do. They want to continue to have a secret committee behind closed doors with reports that go directly to the Prime Minister instead of that sunlight we desperately need to see. The Liberals and the PMO have lost the right to take this issue behind closed doors again. When they received the reports from our intelligence agencies about the magnitude and the extent, and because they knew it might hurt them, they avoided it, they swept it under the rug and they did nothing. They covered it up. Tonight, as we wrap up the debate, it is equally important to talk about the issue and the need for support for this motion. We also need to rightfully call out the NDP for its lack of backbone in standing up and in supporting this resolution. The state of the NDP today is very sad to watch. Its members are unable to simply stand up for what is right. They propped up the Liberals originally, and then when the bombshells kept coming from the whistle-blower in the media, they said they supported it. The NDP whip said, “Sadly, what we have seen in this country is a continuous leak from CSIS that tells us that there's something serious that we need to be concerned with. And after that many leaks, I am persuaded that we now have to take a step that I am not necessarily...comfortable with, because it is imperative”. That was just a couple of weeks ago. As the Liberals filibuster and hold up a vote and as we come to the floor and force a vote on this tomorrow, all of a sudden the NPD is wavering again. I want to make a comment to the three million Canadians who voted for the NDP in the last election. No one voted for the NDP to allow this to happen, to cover up time and time again on multiple Liberal scandals. There is outrage and frustration from the millions who placed their faith in the NDP, and for it to suddenly start covering up and defending the Liberals time and time again is shameful. The NDP can file amendments and do different things. A week ago, its members supported having Katie Telford at committee. They supported hearing this at committee, and all of a sudden they are wavering. Do not fall for their games. We can have a public inquiry. We can study other forms of election interference. The reason this— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1105 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 6:14:23 p.m.
Watch

I ask members to allow the hon. member speaking to finish his speech.

13 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Mar/20/23 6:14:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one would think I might be bothered by the heckling of the NDP members. They know they are in trouble. They are confirming what I just said, which is that Canadians believe their cover-up of the Liberals is continuing, and it is absolutely unacceptable. We need this motion to pass, because the Liberals, PMO officials and the Prime Minister's chief of staff need to be at committee answering questions on what they knew, when they knew it and when they hid it. The question tomorrow is whether the NDP is going to stand up for Canadians or prop up the Liberals again and cover up more of the now Liberal-NDP scandals.

116 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 6:15:06 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

73 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/20/23 6:17:01 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/20/23 6:17:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division, please.

11 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/20/23 6:17:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House on the lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I am speaking today as a follow-up to a question that one might think was stale-dated, but it gives us an opportunity to pursue what was a remarkable success in Montreal at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is nice to be able to recognize the success of anything in this stage of a planet on fire and biodiversity in free fall. I raised this matter at the end of November, before the conference occurred, when I was asking if the Prime Minister would be able to raise the profile of this event and encourage other world leaders to come; that question is definitely stale-dated. However, the results of what happened at COP15, which is titled the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” after the city in China where this event was supposed to have happened, as well as the global goals for 2050, are worth taking the time to recognize right now. I am grateful that the parliamentary secretary is here for the adjournment discussion. What did we accomplish? I will say, which I have not had a chance to say in this place, that the hon. Minister of Environment did a great job in negotiating and keeping some diplomatic heavy lifting going. This was a convention discussion where the cards that were dealt on this were not good; they were pretty bad. COP15 was supposed to have happened in September 2020. There were all the delays because of COVID, but the geopolitical cards were not good either. At basically the last minute, in June 2022, Canada said to the People's Republic of China that clearly it did not have a place to host this right now. Montreal is the host city of the Secretariat for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, so Canada offered to step up and invite everybody here. When I say “last minute”, six months may sound like a lot of time to people, but we know what it is like if we suddenly decide we are going to invite 30 friends for dinner at four o'clock in the afternoon, and they are due at seven o'clock. In UN terms, that is what we did. The dynamic here was very challenging in that the People's Republic of China remained the host in the context of being in charge. It was, in UN terms, the president of the COP. This meant that our Minister of Environment was a physical host in Montreal. Again, I give credit to the Minister of Environment; he actually put himself into an interesting position and worked in a very unusual diplomatic, successful partnership with the minister of environment for the People's Republic of China. What did we accomplish there? The goals are many and they are detailed. Today, I want to speak to today the 23 detailed targets. However, I am afraid that what we are going to see is the typical response out of Environment Canada: Here we go, our targets are 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Then it becomes a job of drawing lines on a map. The targets are not about lines on the map, which might even do a disservice to the targets of slashing pesticide use, reducing food waste and recognizing mother earth and indigenous sovereignty. These goals require far more transformational changes than lines on a map, where if an area is outside that line, it will be decimated. We need to focus and plan.

610 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Mar/20/23 6:21:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and hon. colleague for her compliments on the success of COP15, and I will certainly pass those on to the minister. This was a success for Canada and, indeed, the world. I think the hon. member will agree that the hard work begins now in implementing that framework. As was correctly noted, China retained the presidency of COP15, while Canada provided the host location. Canada stepped up as the host location, doing in five months what normally takes two years to do, and sent a strong signal that we understand the urgency of mobilizing the world on this issue. China, with the COP15 presidency, was responsible for working with the United Nations secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity to issue invitations to the high-level segment. This was a UN conference, as the hon. member referenced. It was Canada's conference, in terms of home field, and formally it was China that invited heads of state and governments to COP15 at its discretion. As a United Nations meeting, COP15 was open to all UN member states. All parties were formally invited to choose their representatives following an official notification from the CBD secretariat. As the hon. member will know, the Prime Minister delivered remarks at the opening ceremony of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, COP15, and he highlighted the importance of protecting nature and biodiversity. He was engaged with key stakeholders. His participation on the ground sent a strong message that Canada is engaged and is leading by example in order to push for a clear, ambitious and transformative post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The high-level segment, which was always planned as a ministerial event, engaged ministers to help conclude negotiations and secure an ambitious outcome, and that is exactly what happened. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change served as the head of the Canadian delegation and had a very active role in the negotiations and at COP15 generally. In addition, several other cabinet ministers attended COP15 throughout the two weeks of negotiations, lending a strong message of Canadian political engagement and leadership. To wrap up, I will highlight that the Prime Minister was active at COP15 and that Canada's expectations for an ambitious outcome were indeed realized at this landmark event. We are confident there is now clear recognition that nature is as important as climate and that the two crises must be tackled together.

412 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Mar/20/23 6:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot was accomplished, as I said in my moment, but what I really want to focus on now is what is next. The question will remain: How do we recognize this language? The targets from Kunming-Montreal are truly transformative. This is the first UN document that has referenced mother earth; our relationship as humanity with mother earth; the leadership of indigenous peoples around the world; and the indigenization of our cultural approach, which has forever been, at least in industrialized modern society, exploitative, extractive and violent. This is a call for a transformation of our values, a change in our industrial systems and a requirement that we do more in how we conduct agriculture, aquaculture and forestry and that we change our ways while we still have time.

132 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Mar/20/23 6:25:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, I find myself in violent agreement with the hon. member, which is often unusual in the chamber. I will just re-emphasize that the Government of Canada signalled commitment and resolve in the lead-up to COP15 through a series of statements and announcements centred around our progress toward conserving 30% of our land and waters by 2030, the protection and recovery of species at risk and partnerships with indigenous peoples and provincial and territorial governments. At the international level, leaders from Canada and many other countries underlined the importance of COP15 and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework in recent months, including at G7, G20 and the UN General Assembly.

115 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mar/20/23 6:26:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on November 22, 2022, I asked the Liberal government if it would finally stop treating housing like a stock market and ensure every Canadian has access to safe, affordable and adequate housing as a basic human right. The Liberals talk a good game when it comes to solving the housing crisis, but they have failed to act. Costs remain out of control and the homelessness crisis continues to worsen as wealthy financial landlords line their pockets. In Vancouver, the average one-bedroom apartment now costs $2,640 per month. The CBC recently reported that one needs to earn $109,000 a year in Vancouver to afford a one-bedroom rental unit. This is simply outrageous. However, it is not just people in big cities feeling the squeeze. Vacancy rates are dropping to all-time lows across the country. For example, in Prince Edward Island, the vacancy rate for bachelor apartments has fallen to zero. As more Canadians are struggling to find a place they can call home, the Liberal government is expecting Canadians to accept less when it must be doing more to tackle the crisis. We desperately need more affordable housing, but the national housing strategy is missing the mark. The Auditor General's report released in November revealed that programs such as the national co-investment fund are failing to deliver affordable housing. I have heard from housing providers, community non-profit organizations and advocates that this flawed program desperately needs to be fixed. The Auditor General's report revealed that the government spent billions developing unaffordable housing. The co-investment used an affordability measure tied to 80% of average market rent, resulting in housing that is unaffordable for many Canadians. Meanwhile, 115,000 units have received funding commitments through the fund, yet no money has flowed to the non-profits for this program. CMHC says the funding cannot be given to the non-profits until construction begins. This is yet another bureaucratic barrier for the non-profits trying to deliver affordable housing. As projects sit on the shelf collecting dust, recent changes to the co-investment fund implemented by the government are jeopardizing affordable housing projects. Rising construction costs due to inflation and higher interest rates are adding to the financial burden of the non-profits. Rather than helping the non-profits in these challenging times, the government has reduced the funding available through the co-investment fund by implementing a $25,000–per–unit cap on nonrepayable grant dollars. Prior to this change, organizations were eligible for up to 40% of total project costs. This is a huge cut for the non-profits, which will now need to find money elsewhere or, worse, abandon projects. People say that projects go to CMHC to die. Sadly, the government is only proving this point. Community organizations are being told the fund has been depleted and will now have nowhere to turn for money. Non-profits intending to rely on the program were informed of the changes at the last minute, leaving them with gaps in funding and putting their projects at risk. It is unacceptable. The upcoming federal budget next week is an opportunity for the government to provide real investments into affordable housing and finally tackle the housing crisis. The government should do away with the $25,000 limitation. It should not let these projects die that are desperately needed in our community. It should not let the efforts of the non-profits, which have been working so hard to provide housing, fail. The ball is in the government's court.

598 words