44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Winnipeg South Centre for the quality of work he did in moving his bill through the House of Commons. He put his heart and soul into it. It is with reluctance that I have to say that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting the member for Winnipeg South Centre's bill.
Of course, preparing an action plan to promote the transition to a greener economy in the Prairies is certainly necessary. It is a timely move, and we support any initiatives that promote and power such a transition. However, we are against the federal government interfering in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec with regard to their economic and environmental choices and directions, which are their own. We are worried that this will set a precedent, which is why we will not be supporting it.
I do not want to point fingers, but I think it is important to mention that, currently, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers; one Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. This is an enormous challenge, and the Bloc Québécois agrees 100% with the member for Winnipeg South Centre's statement that the central provinces absolutely have to go green. Even so, it is wholly inappropriate for the House to force the government's hand to legislate any directive whatsoever, because it is up to the provinces to choose when and how they begin that shift. Are these provinces truly on board with switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy? I am not so sure.
One thing we do know is that the prairie provinces will need a lot of help to achieve that. That is what the government is for. Without encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, the government should provide financial and organizational support as well as incentives. Above all, it should give them the means to undertake this transition, which can be highly destabilizing if not underpinned by support measures commensurate with the challenges these provinces are facing. That is key to making any radical change socio-economically palatable.
It is 2022. It is high time a plan was developed to accelerate the shift to a green economy in the Prairies, and the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was the natural resources minister from 2015 to 2018, knows that this is an enormous undertaking and that he would have to mobilize a massive amount of resources. He also knows that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that these provinces are facing decline unless they diversify their economies and begin the energy shift. The sooner they start, the less painful it will be. It is up to the government and its institutions to support the Prairies in that regard but not by imposing a law that will have the stifling effect of centralizing federal powers.
The fact that the member for Winnipeg South Centre and former natural resources minister introduced this bill says a lot. If he wants to force his government to develop an action plan to promote the transition to a greener economy in the Prairies, it is because he knows that the government currently has no such plan. He feels obligated to propose a bill to force the government to do so. We understand that and we commend him for it. We admire him because we share his concerns; however, we want to prevent government interference and that is the most important factor in our position.
That being said, the extent of the challenges our friends in the Prairies are facing is enormous. In economics and regional development there is a concept called intrusive rentier syndrome. That is what a region experiences when a major employer that pays high wages is operating in a sector in decline. It drags the entire community into that decline and prevents it from being competitive. That is the story of oil because it governs all the rules and levers, hence the scope of the challenge and the insecurity around change.
The approach in the bill is interesting. It proposes sitting down with everyone, which I like, and determining the economic strengths outside fossil fuels and creating favourable conditions for their development. Whether it is infrastructure, training or regulations, a development plan calls for coordination. It calls for the public's participation because the economy has to serve the people. Getting everyone on the same page from the get-go is hardly a waste of time. Doing so saves the proponent from constantly going back to the drawing board because the initial proposal lacks social licence. We save time by getting everyone around the same table from day one. That is truly one of the strong points of the bill.
My colleague's reasons and arguments are interesting. It is a good premise, but it clearly represents interference in provincial jurisdictions. I would like to remind members that over the years, it was the decisions of both Conservative and Liberal governments that made it possible to develop the oil sands.
Let us look back. There was Pearson's energy policy. Then budgetary policy fostered the development of oil. In 2009, under the Harper government, Canada made a commitment at the G20 to eliminate its inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, there has been no progress since then. The Auditor General and the commissioner of the environment indicated in three reports that 13 years after the G20 commitment, the government is still unable to define what it considers to be an inefficient subsidy. Therefore, it it not getting rid of those subsidies.
The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to support for fossil fuels. We would be very pleased if the money and subsidies that are currently being spent on fossil fuels were instead redirected to the western provinces' transition to renewable energy. Given the magnitude of the challenges they will face, we think that is a good idea.
We believe that the energy revolution we face will be on the same scale as the industrial revolution. That is quite significant. The revolution would never have happened if it had to rely solely on government legislation. It happened because all the actors in the economy, in particular the financial sector that enables investments, contributed to it. The same holds true for the renewable energy revolution and the green economy. Developing this sector of the future will mean relying on the strength of the financial sector and the experts in the field.
In 2021, Greenpeace published a study on investments in fossil fuels. Since late 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, Canada's five big banks have pumped nearly $700 billion into fossil fuels. That makes no sense. To this day, even though several banks say they are committed to the 2050 net-zero goal, there is no indication that the banking community is looking to shift away from fossil fuels: Investments have increased from $122 billion in 2016 to $160 billion in 2019, and the trend keeps going strong. Canada's five big banks are all on the list of the world's top 25 investors in fossil fuels. I find that disturbing.
The oil and gas sector is set to decline, for both environmental and fiscal reasons, both here and abroad, and stock market trends are also following the green trend in finance. Unfortunately, this trend has not had much influence on Canadian banks. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre seems to be aware of that. It is up to the House to send a clear message to the financial sector, where something could be done. This is more likely to increase the chances of a successful transition to a green economy in the western provinces, which is what the member for Winnipeg South Centre is calling for. Given the magnitude of the challenges faced by those provinces, they will need help and motivation, not a framework imposed through legislation that interferes with provincial jurisdictions.
I was recently fortunate enough to connect with economists and actuaries in California, where incentives for green investment are already well established. These same experts are actively moving forward and giving speeches to financial organizations around the modern world. I wonder if Canada is doing anything like this. I am simply asking the question. I would be happy to put the government in touch with these proactive firms, which have already helped implement a financial system that is firmly committed to responsible investments that will save the world. It is up to us in the House to support the redirection of funding and fossil fuel subsidies towards green financing to help the provinces that need it most.
We all know it. We all see it. The evidence is clear. Fossil fuels are killing the planet and all the life upon it. Many are suffering the terrible consequences of our cowardice in the face of deteriorating planetary ecology. The maritime provinces and the Magdalen Islands just went through hurricane Fiona. That was right here at home, not halfway around the world. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is currently studying how hurricane Fiona affected the Maritimes. We all know there is no escaping this. It is real. It is happening, yet investments are still being made in Bay du Nord. Investment in natural gas is being tolerated and even promoted, but there is no move toward creating incentives to direct funding toward sustainable development.
In closing—
1601 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:27:21 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member because her time is up.
The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be here to speak to Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. I want to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for bringing this forward.
As a person who lives on the coast, I do not have the experience of living in the prairie region. However, I do connect to this very important issue, because I live and have grown up in more rural and remote communities. I recognize that when one lives in those environments, there is a very different way of being in the world.
We are a lot more connected to our communities. We often have a harder time getting to other places. I really appreciated the member talking about flying places and then having to wait many hours. I know when I come here, often I get to fly to one part of the country and then wait a few hours before I can get to this part of the country.
That is just the reality that we experience. It is something we all know we need to do better, especially when we are thinking about how we are going to make sure those spaces are more accessible. We think about making sure they are part of our communities across the planet and across this country, and they have an economic viability. That can sometimes be a challenge for more rural and remote communities.
This bill talks a lot about how to bring people together to talk about how we can see more of a green economy. It is something I really believe in. When we stand in a place like this, where we collectively represent the whole country, the stories from each region are unique, yet there is a common ground, especially when we talk about rural and remote communities.
We know they often go through a cycle of boom and bust. One moment it is going well, the economy is strong and people are doing well, but then it changes quickly. It is these communities that have built this country. Their resources and people have given so much in taxes and resources to this country, and often a lot of urban centres are built on the labour of more rural and remote communities. They are not included in a way that is meaningful.
In the last Parliament, I was happy to table Motion No. 53 on the principles for a sustainable and equitable future. It talked specifically about having solutions locally that looked at what the resources were, what our skill set was and how we were going to make ourselves more sustainable in rural communities. Then we can have a more stable economy but also address the issue of climate change, because we are in an emergency and things are changing very rapidly.
I can argue at a later date about what I think the government is doing, because I have to say, quite frankly, it is not moving in the direction I would like to see it move. We are pushing really hard to get some of those actions. When it comes to emissions and addressing climate change, we have a lot more proactive work to do.
Part of that conversation has to be looking at these communities in the Prairies, looking at rural and remote parts of Canada and asking what is sustainable in those communities. What are the skill sets in those communities? How do we bring people together? That is what this bill is about. How do we bring all those different voices together to make sure there are meaningful solutions going forward?
In my last job, I worked with newcomers to Canada. One of the things I found interesting was the amount of research that has happened in Canada and across the whole planet on how to create the best solutions. It is said again and again that with more diversity at the table and with more people with different opinions at the table, it can actually be worked through. It takes longer. There is no doubt.
When we are trying to figure out how to get from one place to another, and we have a lot of people around a table with differing opinions, it is going to take longer to get to that. The research has proven repeatedly that once we get there, even though it takes longer, the other side of that is a lot more coordinated, the solutions are a lot more innovative and they are long-lasting.
It is something we should be looking at and addressing, and that is what my motion talked about. How do we bring people together? How do we have a regional approach? When we look at what is happening in our environment, when we look at the challenges and concerns around stable employment, how do we not fight against each other? We need to come together and create solutions that are going to make sense and make sure there are good jobs in our region, but also address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.
We have to do that work. We have to do it with an urgency, so I appreciated the member talking about making that timeline shorter.
In his speech, the member said that the pace of change is too slow. I agree. When we are looking at the challenges that we are facing today, we cannot wait. We cannot sit here in this place and have big discussions. We need to give resources to local regions and communities and say to them that they are the experts in their area, that they tell us the criteria and the next steps they are going to take.
The NDP will be supporting this because I think it is important to look at those solutions, to look at local responses and to look at regional responses. They can profoundly make a difference.
When I look at my area, a lot of things are being ripped out of the earth, in one way or another. They are being shipped off to somewhere else, often outside of the country, to be changed into something, which is sent back to us and then we buy it. I am really concerned about that.
When I think about local solutions and when I look at the environmental crisis that we are in, we need to see more value-added production in our communities and in our regions. This is something that I think the bill will touch on. I hope that every person in this place will take it under consideration. If we do not start seeing more production with our own resources in our own country, we are going to continue to see wealth being here for a short time but it will not stay here permanently.
Last Friday, I was in Campbell River. A lot of people came together to talk about the housing crisis we are experiencing right now. Of course, inside of that issue, like every issue across the country, the climate crisis was brought up, how people without homes are having to live on the streets and what that means when we are having incredibly unpredictable weather and how we deal with these issues. We also talked about the vulnerability of seniors who live in our region. Our region usually does not get very hot but we are seeing this huge increase in heat, and then, during the winter, there is the very high cost of energy for people to stay warm and what that means for folks.
I think of Cortes Island, a small community in my riding, which is two ferry rides away from where I live. That community is working together. They are actually fundraising, as they have a high level of poverty in their senior population, so that they can all have heat pumps. The community itself is recognizing this huge challenge and they are collectively working together to deal with the climate crisis and also honour and respect the seniors in their communities by trying to find a solution.
In closing, we have to recognize the dynamic approach of our smaller communities. We have to work with them so that they have more opportunities. We have to understand that while the federal government has a very important role, sometimes its important role is to make sure that the resources are there so that the local communities can do the work that needs to be done.
I cannot say enough about that. When I look at economic development and when I look at addressing the climate crisis, we need to see those communities recognized, honoured and listened to. Sometimes bringing them together is really going to make a long-term difference, so that we can get to a solution that we can sustain.
1477 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start off with a bit of a different perspective. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-235, which has been sponsored by a dear friend of mine, the member for Winnipeg South Centre. The member and I go back to 1988, actually. I have heard a great number of speeches from my friend.
Over the years, one of the things that I have really appreciated, and I think we need to put this into the context of the legislation that we are debating, is that the member for Winnipeg South Centre is very much a visionary. Virtually from day one since I have known him, he has brought forward ideas that can really make a difference.
This legislation is something which the member is very passionate about, because he understands the needs of the Prairies. The member has met with many mayors, councillors, stakeholders, not only in our home province of Manitoba but also throughout the Prairies.
There is a bit of a mindset that some like to say about people from the Prairies and that is, yes, we are all about economic development but the climate is an afterthought—
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, based on my count, we are at 16 people in the chamber, which is well below quorum. I would like to call a point of order on quorum.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:38:49 p.m.
- Watch
There is a quorum call. We will count the members.
And the count having been taken:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): We have quorum.
The hon. member may proceed.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one might question the actual timing of that particular quorum call, knowing full well that members are, if not here, in the MP lobbies. I would think this would not be done, at the very least out of respect for the fact that we are talking about private members' legislation.
The point I was attempting to make, prior to the quorum call, was the fact that what we have before us is something to enable a strong and sustainable prairie economy. Some might try to give a mindset that the people on the Prairies are only concerned about the economy, which is somewhat of a false impression. People from the Prairies are also concerned about the environment and recognize that climate change is indeed very real.
There are two points I want to emphasize with regard to the legislation. One is that I do not believe there is any form whatsoever of jurisdictional creep. This is about a framework. It is not about jurisdiction. It is about bringing people together in order to establish a framework so that the Prairies could move forward on the issue of a strong, sustainable prairie economy.
For people who would try to suggest that it is anything other, I would really encourage them to meet with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. He would be able to alleviate those concerns. In 2019, we had a wonderful organization. It used to be Western Diversification. There were a number of prairie members of Parliament. and I like to think I was one, who wanted to establish PrairiesCan, as opposed to Western Diversification.
The Prairies is something I am very familiar with. It is very unique in its very nature. PrairiesCan brought together over 125 experts to deal with the issue of water management. They were brought together in the city of Regina, and it involved a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from the federal government, the provincial government, municipalities, indigenous community members, labour, industry reps and others.
At the end of the day, what we saw was a compilation of ideas and thoughts dealing with the issue of water management. In fact, I think out of that group came a report that has been referenced in many ways from many different jurisdictions.
I would suggest that we are better off as a region as a result. I can say, as I have heard many from the Prairies say, water, and the flow of water, does not respect jurisdictions. Water management issues in the Prairies are a prairie issue.
This bill recognizes that climate change is real. This bill recognizes that the future of the prairie economy is immense. The potential, and I know the member for Winnipeg South Centre would be able elaborate in great detail, is equal to or greater than any other region of Canada.
I remember consistently over the years that the member would talk about having lots of wheat and many different types of resources coming from the Prairies, but it is the processing that gives us the jobs people in the Prairies want. When we talk about a greener economy, as this legislation is referencing and wanting us to move toward, the prairie provinces, as a region, need to continue to invest in that.
Clean energy and clean tech are absolutely critical for the future growth of our Prairies. Whether they are big corporations or new start-up companies, all of them recognize that the future means clean energy and moving towards an economy that is greener. People of the Prairies do not fear that.
The bill recognizes the need for the Prairies to come together, bring the stakeholders and establish that framework. We have many bright people on the Prairies. The member for Winnipeg South Centre highlighted a Nobel Prize winner from Edmonton.
Whether it is from Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon or the many municipalities in between, and I have lived in all three provinces and am proud to say I am from the Prairies, I believe the future is there, and we should not be fearful. It is not a jurisdictional issue to establish a framework of prosperity, and that is what this bill would do. I commend the member for Winnipeg South Centre for taking the initiative and once again providing a vision, not only for people in the Prairies, but for the entire country.
729 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have appreciated listening to the various speeches on this subject, and as someone who is very proudly an Albertan, which is part of this area, I think it is commendable in the effort, but the follow-through and the actual bill fail to meet the mark.
One thing I have heard exceptionally clearly from my constituents, and it does not matter whether they are from far north in Fort Chipewyan, down south in Cold Lake or anywhere in between, is that they do not believe an “Ottawa knows best” approach is correct. One of the major problems with the piece of legislation as proposed is that it would impact only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, yet we heard, when it came before committee, that Saskatchewan's and Manitoba's governments do not support it. They do not want to see it go forward. They do not believe it is in the best interests of their provinces, and I can speak with pretty decent certainty, being an Albertan, that the Alberta government is definitely not keen when the federal government puts its part on provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, something critically important to highlight is that while the bill has good intentions, good intentions pave the way to a lot of places, and not all of them are good. I would suggest the bill does not meet the mark and is not good enough. It is not going to serve the Prairies in a positive way, and I would urge everyone that, if they think what they are doing is helping the Prairies, they are part of a paternalistic structure that is telling the Prairies it knows best and those provinces do not know the best thing for their own area, because those provinces have made it exceptionally clear they do not support the bill.
Something the government needs to do a better job of is listening to provincial governments when they tell it that enough is enough, and acting on that. That is not something we have seen—
341 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have to interrupt the hon. member.
We have come to the end of the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business. The hon. member will have eight minutes when the bill next comes to the House. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:49:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to come back to my question for the immigration minister about challenges being faced by members of my community seeking to reunite with loved ones, and needing to work with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to do so.
One example is refugee claimants and permanent residents who first came here as refugees and who are now seeking to travel outside of Canada to be with family. In question period, I asked about Ataklti, a permanent resident in my community who applied for a travel document last February to join his wife in Sweden for the birth of their daughter. Ten months later, Ataklti's request has still not been processed and he is yet to even meet his daughter.
There are so many others in similar positions in Kitchener. Naima, for example, was sponsored by a local church in 2019 and came solo to Canada with her three young boys. Her husband is awaiting sponsorship by the same church group. She applied for a travel document for herself and her boys to visit her sick mother in a hospital overseas back in January. In February, the file was marked as urgent, and while Naima got her travel document, her children's applications have not been finalized yet so she cannot visit. For the past three months, Naima has been calling IRCC every two weeks to request updates. Will she ever get to visit her sick mom?
My team and I have been advocating to IRCC for both Ataklti and Naima without success to date. For my team and me this feels unjust. There is a gap between the two standards that exist in Canada. One is for people like me with citizenship. We can travel. I was just in Egypt, for example, for the annual climate negotiations a few weeks ago. However, those who came to Canada as refugees, like Ataklti and Naima, are being denied the same opportunity, even in life-or-death situations, with no timeline and seemingly no accountability.
This lack of a timeline and accountability also extends to other requests made by neighbours of mine to IRCC as we try to bring families back together. I have more examples.
Angeline is in Canada and is attempting to sponsor her husband Pouya to join her. They have been waiting since 2019. Since my office first inquired on their behalf, we have received no updates. Their file has been relegated to so-called non-routine status, which means that normal processing times simply do not apply.
Two other neighbours, Jess and her husband, are waiting to be reunited with their sons, who are now eight and 11 years old. Their applications for permanent residency for their sons were submitted back in 2019. All assessments have passed except for eligibility, which is under further review, so normal processing times do not apply. They have not received an update since 2020.
I know the Government of Canada can solve these issues. One example of this was the improvements made to processing passports, which was a significant concern back in the spring and has since been brought under control. People like Ataklti, Naima, Angeline and Jess and dozens more in my community have a right to travel and to be reunited with their loved ones.
I would like to know what the minister is doing to address systemic issues at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada—
573 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:53:49 p.m.
- Watch
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:53:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the member knows, Canada has faced a number of events that let to IRCC having a large volume of files that are being treated in timelines outside of processing standards.
The global pandemic led to the closure of borders and offices around the world. As Canada is among the top destinations in the world for immigrants and refugees seeking a new life, demand continued to grow during this time. When travel restrictions were lifted, there was a massive number of applications to come to Canada. While tackling the growing demand, the government also faced a back-to-back humanitarian crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Thankfully, our government was able to step up quickly and offer much-needed support to those who were the most vulnerable.
Our government also responded well to each challenge as they came up because we know that immigration is critically important for our country's economy. That is why we have been investing to make sure that our immigration system works well. The fall 2021 economic and fiscal update announced $85 million in funding for IRCC and federal partner organizations to reduce the inventories and support a return to service standards. In the fall 2022 economic and fiscal update, an additional $50 million was committed to continue to address the application backlog and speed up processing times. These investments are already yielding significant results.
As of October 31, the department has hired over 1,000 new employees and is expected to add up to 400 more by the end of March 31, 2023. Over 850 of those employees have already been trained and are fully operational. Further, we have implemented technology-based solutions and streamlined processes; improved policy; re-examined our risk tolerance; and leveraged provincial, territorial and other partners to ensure we are able to respond quickly and effectively to client concerns.
Here are some very telling statistics for 2022 compared to 2021: IRCC has processed over 135% more PR applications, nearly three times more work permits, nearly one-third more study permits and nearly five times more temporary resident visas.
We have been taking concrete steps to reduce the number of applications in the system that have been in the inventory for longer than service standards. Our government knows that the wait is too long for those hoping to come to Canada to start their new lives, reunite with loved ones or further their education, and for business owners seeking valued foreign workers.
We are working hard to address the challenges and return to the service standards that our clients expect, and that is what Canada's future students, workers, permanent residents and citizens expect. I am proud to stand on behalf of our government and reassert our commitment to improve processing, reduce backlogs and ensure that our immigration system works for everyone.
472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear of more resources being allocated. I hope to see those resources lead to improved outcomes for the people in my community who are separated from loved ones who may be sick or who may have had a baby and are waiting to meet their child for the first time. However, I would like to know better how the resources are being allocated to these so-called “non-routine” cases, which are the most time-intensive and heartbreaking that we deal with.
Could the parliamentary secretary share more about whether enough time and resources are being given to these non-routine cases and what percentage of cases are non-routine, as those are the ones having the most challenging situations, so that Ataklti can meet his daughter, and so that Naima can visit her sick mom?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:58:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, each and every case is different, and immigration officials are working hard to address the delays while ensuring the safety of Canadians.
Immigration has faced significant global challenges, including the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and Ukraine, a pandemic-generated backlog and a surge in demand for people wanting to come to Canada. We did not create these challenges, but we do have a plan to address them, and our plan is working. We have invested to increase processing capacity and are adopting new technologies to improve our system.
We know, as the member mentioned, what too many clients face, and the wait time is too long. We are committed, as always, to ensuring that we return to our service standards.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 6:59:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, CSIS advised the Prime Minister that when it comes to foreign interference, the policy of the government should be grounded in transparency and sunlight, and that foreign interference should be exposed to the public. When it comes to Beijing's interference in our elections, the Prime Minister has been anything but transparent. Let us look at the facts.
On November 7, Global News reported that last January, the Prime Minister was briefed about a vast campaign of interference by Beijing in the 2019 election directed by Beijing's Toronto consulate involving 11 candidates. For two weeks, Conservatives asked the government what the Prime Minister did with that information. Did he report it to Elections Canada, to law enforcement, or did he sit on his hands and cover it up?
For two weeks our questions were met with silence by the Prime Minister. Suddenly, after two weeks, the Prime Minister broke his silence and essentially said “nothing to see here as it pertains to me,” claiming that he was not briefed, but using very carefully chosen words that he was not briefed about candidates receiving money from China. That is not what Global News reported on November 7 that the Prime Minister was briefed about. The Prime Minister was reportedly briefed about a vast campaign of interference by Beijing, directed by the Toronto consulate. It was reported that those candidates received money but, again, it was never alleged that that money directly came from China, that a cheque was written from China to 11 candidates.
It was telling yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition asked a pertinent question of the Prime Minister: Was he briefed about electoral interference by Beijing? Not once, not twice but on five occasions, the Prime Minister refused to answer. Today I asked the Prime Minister whether he had been briefed about electoral interference by Beijing specifically involving any candidates. Again, the report pertains to 11 candidates and a vast campaign of interference. Again, there was no answer from the Prime Minister.
What we have is the opposite of transparency. We have a smokescreen from the Prime Minister, a prime minister who is answering questions no one is asking, denying allegations no one is making, all while avoiding answering the question that needs to be answered, namely, was the Prime Minister briefed about electoral interference by Beijing? Specifically, was the Prime Minister briefed about electoral interference by Beijing involving candidates? I ask again, was he, yes or no?
416 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 7:03:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member feels as though his question has gone unanswered, but sitting through the same question period as he has on a number of occasions, I have heard some fairly direct answers, which I will attempt to provide to the member once again. Perhaps he will take them from me.
The reality is that at a time when democracy is challenged worldwide, Canada's electoral system is healthy and robust, and Canada continues to rank among the healthiest democracies. However, there is no question that with the rise of authoritarianism, what we are seeing in other countries around the world today, with an increase in both the public's and the media's focus on foreign interference, protecting Canada's national and economic security requires strong action. That is exactly what the government has done since 2015.
As the Prime Minister has said very clearly and the Minister of Public Safety has repeated, our government has put in place an independent process of experts, chaired by the Clerk of the Privy Council, something that the previous Conservative government had not thought important enough to do. That group of experts, chaired by the Clerk of the Privy Council, which includes the heads of Canada's security and intelligence agencies, was given the important responsibility of ensuring that Canadian elections were free and democratic. The good news, which I hope would excite the member opposite, is that experts have confirmed both elections were exactly that: free and democratic.
It is important to remember that witnesses we heard in the PROC committee, on which the member who asked the question and I sit, including the Chief Electoral Officer and CSIS officials, commented on the fact that attempts to influence democratic elections do not equate to causing actual influence, nor is this a new phenomenon in Canada or around the world. The information the Conservatives are asking for is already made available in unredacted form to independent experts, as well as to members of the NSICOP committee, which the previous leader of the opposition, I would remind the member, removed his Conservative caucus members from in 2020.
This is in addition to the current study being undertaken by the PROC committee. Again, the member and I both sit on that committee and are both fully aware of the opportunity to ask these questions. The work being done by committees like NSICOP, by CSIS and by national security experts strengthens the democratic process and Canada's elections, and the Conservatives are undermining this important work rather than offering a more productive contribution to the discussion of security in elections.
Canadians should be asking what the Conservatives have to gain by instilling fear and division among electors in an effort to convince them that our elections are unfair and influenced by foreign actors.
472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 7:06:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no one is questioning the overall integrity of the last two elections. That is not the issue.
There is a specific report of specific interference involving 11 candidates, and it was further reported that the Prime Minister was briefed about that interference. It is important that the Prime Minister be transparent. That was the advice he had received from CSIS. I do not understand why the parliamentary secretary is unwilling to answer that very straightforward question, so I will ask it again.
Was the Prime Minister briefed about electoral interference by Beijing last January, and specifically in respect of candidates?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 7:07:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would refer the member to the answer to that exact question that the Prime Minister gave today when he answered that question.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the member just said himself that no one is questioning the electoral integrity. If that is the case, why is the member continuing to ask? Maybe he needs to be more clear on exactly what he is accusing the Prime Minister of, so we can then try to address his question.
If the member wants to be direct and transparent, as he is suggesting is so important right now, maybe he should be direct and transparent in what exactly he is suggesting that the Prime Minister has done, because he just said, by his own admission, that apparently nobody is questioning, including Conservatives, that there was any electoral interference. Then why the charades and why keep going on and on about this?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 7:08:29 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:08 p.m.)
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
