SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 292 - Mar/20/24

Mar/20/24 6:53:35 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2255—

Questioner: Arnold Viersen

With regard to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022 and the government’s response to the events leading up to the invocation: (a) how many people were arrested in conjunction with the measures invoked or the events leading up to the invocation; (b) how many people were incarcerated; (c) how many people had their identity shared with financial institutions; and (d) how many people are still currently (i) incarcerated, (ii) facing trial related to invocation of the Act or the events leading up to the invocation?

Question No. 2257—

Questioner: Michelle Rempel

With regard to the government’s estimates on the efficacy of its Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations: (a) how many fabric, as defined in section 2 of the Textile Labelling Act, checkout bags (hereinafter “fabric checkout bags”) were purchased at major Canadian grocers annually between 2015 and now; (b) how much gross revenue did major Canadian grocers make from the sale of fabric checkout bags annually between 2015 and now; (c) how many fabric checkout bags were sent to landfills annually between 2015 and now; (d) how many times, on average, are fabric checkout bags reused in Canada before being discarded; (e) how many times, on average, are single use plastic checkout bags reused in Canada before being discarded; (f) what percentage of fabric checkout bags does the government estimate are recycled; (g) what percentage or fabric checkout bags does the government estimate eventually end up in a landfill; (h) what research, if any, has the government undertaken to determine how many reuses of fabric checkout bags would be needed for them to be deemed as a viable environmentally-friendly alternative to single-use plastic checkout bags, including, but not limited to, factors such as (i) carbon insensitivity in manufacturing, (ii) energy use in manufacturing, (iii) comparative impact on landfills when discarded; and (i) if the government does not have the information for any of (a) through (h), why does the government not track such information or why was the research not completed?

Question No. 2259—

Questioner: Marilyn Gladu

With regard to legal services and the Department of Justice: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government for the cases of (i) Canadian Frontline Nurses and Kristen Nagle v. Attorney General of Canada, (ii) Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Canada, (iii) Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Attorney General of Canada, (iv) Jeremiah Jost, Edward Cornell, Vincent Gircys and Harold Ristau v. Governor in Council, His Majesty in right of Canada, Attorney General of Canada, and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and (b) for each case in (a), what is the breakdown of the costs?

Question No. 2260—

Questioner: Marilyn Gladu

With regard to government statistics on injuries caused by COVID-19 vaccines: (a) what is the number of vaccine-related injuries reported to date, in total, and broken down by level of severity and type of injury; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by vaccine and manufacturer?

Question No. 2263—

Questioner: Kelly McCauley

With regard to capital subscription payments made by the government to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: what are the dates and amounts of each such payment made to date?

Question No. 2264—

Questioner: Alex Ruff

With regard to the government's response to recommendations 8 and 13 in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled "Restoring Full Accountability for Resources and Governance of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission": (a) has a decision been made about transferring the responsibilities and governance of the Great Lake Fisheries Commission (GLFC) from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to Global Affairs Canada (GAC), and, if so, what was the decision; (b) if a decision has not yet been made, when will a decision be made; and (c) if the government will be transferring the responsibilities and governance of GLFC to GAC, what is the timeline for when the transfer will occur?

2441 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/20/24 6:53:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2254, 2256, 2258, 2261 and 2262 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

32 words

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 6:53:35 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mar/20/24 6:53:48 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2254—

Questioner: Arnold Viersen

With regard to RCMP actions under the Criminal Code: (a) broken down by province or territory, and year since 2015, how many (i) arrests have been made, (ii) charges have been laid and what is the breakdown by final judicial outcome (e.g. charges dropped, conviction, case still ongoing, etc.); (b) how many times has bail been denied in relation to (a); (c) of those denied bail, how many were charged with firearm offences; (d) how many days on average do people who have been denied bail spend in custody pre-trial; (e) what is the longest period that an arrested person has spent in custody after being denied bail pre-trial; (f) what is the least amount of days a person denied bail has spent in custody pre-trial; (g) what is the average number of days a person denied bail spends in custody pre-trial if a firearm offence is included; and (h) what is the breakdown of (a) through (g) by those charged with violent crimes versus non-violent crimes?

Question No. 2256—

Questioner: Arnold Viersen

With regard to documents prepared by government departments or agencies about the Emergencies Act, since January 1, 2022: for each such document, (i) what is the date, (ii) what is the title or subject matter, (iii) what is the type of document (routine correspondence, directive, options to consider, etc.), (iv) what is the department’s internal tracking number, (v) who is the sender, (vi) who are the recipients, (vii) what is the summary of contents?

Question No. 2258—

Questioner: Lianne Rood

With regard to government surplus vehicles being scrapped rather than sold on the GCSurplus auction site: (a) how many vehicles were scrapped during the 2023 calendar year; (b) what are the details of each vehicle that was scrapped, including, for each, the (i) make, (ii) model, (iii) year, (iv) reason the vehicle was not listed on the GCSurplus auction site or otherwise sold as government surplus, (v) estimated resale value prior to scrapping, if known; (c) what were the total expenditures that the government incurred in 2023 relating to scrapping the vehicles, broken down by type of expense; (d) of the vehicles that were scrapped in 2023, were the useable parts available for purchase by the public, and, if not, why not; and (e) what is the policy for determining which surplus vehicles are made available for purchase versus which ones are scrapped?

Question No. 2261—

Questioner: Frank Caputo

With regard to bonuses for executives at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), broken down by year since 2020: how many and what percentage of executives got bonuses (i) in total, (ii) broken down by province, (iii) broken down by correctional institution or other place of employment (i.e. CSC head offices)?

Question No. 2262—

Questioner: Kelly McCauley

With regard to government dealings with BTNX: (a) what are the details of all contracts that government departments or agencies have had with BTNX since January 1, 2020, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) value, (iii) description of the goods or services, including volume, (iv) manner in which the contract was awarded (i.e. sole-sourced, competitive bid); and (b) what are the details of all grants, contributions, loans, or other funding agreements the government has entered into with BTNX since January 1, 2020, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount of funding, (iii) type of funding, (iv) program under which funding was provided, (v) amount of funding repaid to date, if applicable, (vi) purpose of funding?

573 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/20/24 6:53:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

12 words

Stand
Ask

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 6:53:48 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/20/24 6:53:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member put on the record, and it is a great deal of detail. On the other hand, my understanding is that the clerk had put in writing some requests for specific information and that information was provided. Therefore, the written request that came from the clerk of the committee was, in fact, complied with. The bottom line is that I do not think we are in a comfortable enough position to respond until we have a little more time or enough time to respond in more detail on what is a very important issue.

103 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/20/24 6:54:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I found the arguments of my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to be extremely detailed, and I would like to add the NDP's voice to this question of privilege. The 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was adopted unanimously. The points in the report are very clear, and I will not take much time. Let us look at the big picture. The witness, Mr. Firth, refused to answer legitimate questions directed to him. In our view, this constitutes a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt of Parliament. Although it is rare, we have previously seen situations like this. In the vast majority of cases, when witnesses testify before our committees, they give answers and are ready to speak. In this case, it is very clear that the committee found that the witness did not answer any of the very relevant questions about the ArriveCAN app. The committee was seized with this issue and now Parliament is seized with it. I would like to say that it is clear, when we look at the precedents that have been cited, and I will not repeat all of the various quotes from the procedural manual that governs our activities, that Mr. Firth's refusal to answer those key questions on the ArriveCAN application indicate that this is a breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament. It is clear, in my opinion, that this is an open-and-shut case of privilege. This is something that the Speaker could move to adjudicate in a very timely way. I would add that the 17th report of the government operations committee is very clear. It was passed unanimously by all members. This is something that does not happen very often, but very clearly, when parliamentary rights to get to the answers on behalf of Canadians are violated, it is something that all members of Parliament should take seriously. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is our representative on that committee, believes as well that this is a case in which answers should have been provided. The fact that Mr. Firth was uncooperative, refusing to provide those answers, is something that should be of concern to all Canadians. I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege being breached, of contempt of Parliament, and I hope that the Speaker will adjudicate as soon as he feels he has enough information.

413 words

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 6:58:16 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his intervention. I will now go to the hon. member for La Prairie, who is rising on the same point.

31 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Mar/20/24 6:58:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that the Bloc Québécois reserves the right to respond at a later time, but it will not take very long. We will come back fairly quickly with comments on the point of order raised by our Conservative colleague.

50 words

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 6:58:49 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on the same question of privilege.

16 words

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

Mar/20/24 6:58:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, having sat through the presentation from the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I would like to commend him for his thoroughness and for citation of relevant authorities in a fashion that did this place honour. It is so encouraging to hear a debate, and I am not going to mention others, that is substantive and helpful. On behalf of the Green Party of Canada, I wish to commend the member, and I wish to commend to the Speaker the veracity of his point of order. I completely agree with every word spoken by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on behalf of the New Democratic Party. The Green Party wishes to be aligned with those comments and the hope that the Speaker will come back and Mr. Firth will stand there and answer some questions.

145 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/20/24 7:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks short. I want to bring to light that I have been involved in a number of committees where we were at the line of an issue of contempt. It is important to put on the record what was explained to us in committee, that we are not a court of law. We may be really angry at government. We may be demanding witnesses. However, we have to do it in a judicious manner, and if there is an issue of contempt, it has to come to the House. We have been in situations in which we knew we were not getting truthful answers from witnesses. My colleague and I were involved with one, with a certain group of brothers and their chief financial officer. We decided at that moment to actually not go that way, because we had gotten as far as we could as a parliamentary committee, and we felt the evidence stood. However, the principle of parliamentarians being able to take this to the House has to be protected and preserved. It does not matter when the last time it happened was. What matters is that we have the obligation and the right and the power, when people are being dishonest and not telling the truth to committees, to bring it to the House, whether or not the government at the time likes it. These are tools that parliamentarians have. Again, we are not a court of law, but we get evidence that we present to Parliament so that Parliament can make decisions and, if something is wrong, it will not happen again. I trust that the Speaker is going to be very careful and judicious here with respect to the importance of preserving that right of parliamentarians to do their job and not be inhibited just because someone does not believe they are obligated to answer questions. They are obligated to answer questions when it is in the interests of the Canadian public.

333 words

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 7:01:47 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for their interventions, as well as all members. In particular, I would like to thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for bringing forward a very clear presentation. The member for Winnipeg North requested it, as did the member for La Prairie and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who have requested the participation of other members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I will wait. I hope that these interventions will come fairly quickly. I must say that the Chair is rather inclined to do everything possible to safeguard the right of members of the House to receive answers from witnesses who appear before a committee. Following the intervention of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I will hope that the members of the government operations committee will quickly intervene and that we will hear from members from the Bloc and from the NDP, as well as from the Liberals, who indicated that they would like to come back on this issue. I guess I am kind of tipping my hand; I am quite disposed to the motion. I look forward to an intervention as soon as possible, so that we can dispense with this matter quickly. I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the period provided for Private Members' Business is cancelled. The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting. Pursuant to order made on Monday, March 18, the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 36 under Government Business.

303 words

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 7:04:52 p.m.
Watch

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members how the proceedings will unfold. Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Pursuant to order made on Monday, March 18, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.

101 words

Hon. Diane Lebouthillier

Mar/20/24 7:05:57 p.m.
Watch

moved: That this committee take note of the Canada-Ukraine relationship and the newly signed strategic security partnership.

18 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Mar/20/24 7:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening. I rise on a topic that I wish I did not have to address. Two years ago, Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and, with it, unleashed an attack on democracy, freedom and the rules-based international order. Despite Russia's relentless assault, Ukrainians are standing strong, and Canada will stand with them for as long as it takes. The war continues to touch all of us and the ties between our two countries are strong. We all have friends of Ukrainian heritage. Not only do I have a large Ukrainian community in my constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, but many Ukrainian cultural and religious organizations, as well as the Ukrainian consulate, are located in my riding. I want them to know that I will not abandon them. Canada's support for Ukraine is ongoing and unwavering. I would like to underline some of the supports. Since the beginning of 2022, Canada has committed over $13.3 billion in funding to support Ukraine. This includes $4 billion in military assistance, such as M777 Howitzers, Leopard 2 main battle tanks, armoured combat support vehicles, ammunition, high-resolution drone cameras, thermal clothing, body armour, fuel and more; $7.4 billion in financial support; $352.5 million in humanitarian assistance, including support for emergency health interventions, protection services and essentials such as shelter, water, sanitation and food; and $186 million in development assistance and funds for the Canada-International Finance Corporation's facility for resilient food systems. We will also contribute $198 million in security and stabilization assistance. Canadian Armed Forces members are supporting the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the United Kingdom and Poland under Operation Unifier, providing training on a range of military skills. Between 2015 and 2024, Canada trained more than 40,000 members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of this operation. They have also been assisting with the delivery of military aid for Ukraine from Canada and on behalf of our allies and partners. Our support continues. Last month, Prime Minister Trudeau and the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, held a bilateral meeting to discuss— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

368 words

The Speaker

Mar/20/24 7:08:45 p.m.
Watch

It is very important for the member not to refer to sitting members by their names, but by either their titles or their ridings.

24 words

Mr. James Maloney

Mar/20/24 7:08:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Our Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine held a bilateral meeting to discuss the situation on the ground and Ukraine's needs over the coming months. The two leaders signed a new, historic agreement on security co-operation between Canada and Ukraine to establish a strategic security partnership. The agreement builds on the G7 joint declaration of support for Ukraine and outlines key, long-term security commitments for Canada to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity, protects its people and rebuilds its economy for the future. As part of this commitment, Canada will provide just over $3 billion in critical financial and military support to Ukraine in 2024. In addition, the Prime Minister announced new support for Ukraine's resilience and recovery efforts. This includes $75 million in peace and security assistance, which includes demining, cyber-support and intelligence support; and cultural support for the completion of the National Museum of the Holodomor-Genocide in Kyiv, helping preserve the memory of victims and survivors of the Holodomor, a systemic and heinous campaign of deliberate starvation by the Soviet regime that killed millions across Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. The Prime Minister also announced the allocation of funding, up to $39 million, for development assistance to provide access to essential mental health services for vulnerable populations, to help build food systems that are more resilient and to support efforts by local communities toward reconstruction and recovery. There is over $22 million in humanitarian assistance to support trusted United Nations and Red Cross partners in delivering critical assistance, including emergency health interventions, protection services, shelter, water, sanitation and food, as well as the promotion of respect for international humanitarian law. There is also over $18 million in peace, security and stabilization assistance to support projects. For many Canadians, and especially those of Ukrainian heritage, it is important now more than ever that Ukraine continues to receive the support it needs to fight the war. I was proud to host our Minister of National Defence in my community of Etobicoke—Lakeshore last month to announce that we are providing Ukraine with the drones it needs to protect its troops and the country. Of course, there is the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Yesterday, I was pleased to join my colleague from Etobicoke Centre and Ihor Michalchyshyn to witness the Senate pass the agreement, despite opposition from the official opposition in the House and the official opposition in the Senate. It was a fundamental way to show solidarity with Ukraine, and I cannot believe the official opposition did not support it. It is shameful. In short, the federal government stands in full solidarity with the people of Ukraine. There are so many more measures I could discuss, but the bottom line is that we are here, we are with them and we will support them until this is over.

486 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Mar/20/24 7:12:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and want to thank him for his support for Ukraine. We had the Ukrainian ambassador in front of the foreign affairs committee this afternoon. She gave us some very concerning statistics: Ukraine is facing six to seven times the number of shells daily from Russia that Ukraine is directing toward Russia. They have a dire need for 155-millimetre ammunition. There was a discussion at the committee today about the need for increased ammunition. I know the Government of Canada has recently made announcements about shell production. Could the member tell us what the government's plans are with respect to increasing Canada's 155-millimetre shell production in order to contribute not only to Canada's security but to that of Ukraine?

133 words