House Publications

     moved that Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, be read the third time and passed.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour and privilege to rise in this House on behalf of the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. Today, it is a particular honour because I rise with respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-281, on human rights.

    Just to give a little context before I jump into the substance of this legislation, I want to say that we are extremely blessed to live in the greatest country in the world, a country where we can be assured of the rule of law and where people can disagree without there being any physical violence. In the last three weeks of Parliament, I imagine we will hear some rancorous debate, which I am sure the Speaker will do a great job presiding over, along with some arguments and other things that may not be as pretty as they could be. However, they will be a lot better than the alternative, which, of course, would be violence.

     In too many countries around the world, people have been resorting to violence. There are many countries where people will spend the night awake, waiting to see what their government might attempt to do to them. People who are just standing up for who they are, what they believe in and how they choose to worship stay up nights in living, shaking fear of an authoritarian regime or some goon or thug coming in to threaten them, simply because of the way they live. Worse yet, they may be arrested, put in jail or tortured. Right now, many are sitting around and rotting in horrible conditions, suffering through torture and unthinkable, unbelievable pain at the hands of governments around the world. Therefore, it gives me great pride today to discuss my private member's bill, which seeks to at least move the ball a little bit forward towards more humane conditions while advocating for human rights around the world.

    Bill C-281 has four primary sections, or clauses. The first section deals with prisoners of conscience. Prisoners of conscience are people around the world who are being detained, sitting in prisons right now, simply because of their beliefs or thoughts. They are fighting for virtuous causes like liberty, freedom of religion or freedom of expression. They are in incredible pain and suffering. Anything that Canadians and the Canadian government can do to alleviate or reduce their suffering is something that I think we should do as quickly as we can.

    My private member's bill seeks to give the Canadian people and Parliament oversight of the government's advocacy for these individuals, these important people around the world. Specifically, it puts on to the government a reporting regime that forces it to report what actions it is taking to help prisoners of conscience around the world. It would have to report how many prisoners of conscience the government's Department of Foreign Affairs is aware of and what it is doing to aid their cause; it would also have to determine whether it has been deemed helpful by the families of these victims to publish their names.

    I have had the great privilege of talking to some of the family members in Canada whose loved ones are in prisons around the world; there is one in particular who is in Venezuela. They want the name of their loved one, their brother in this case, to be published, because it would add gravitas. They would be able to point to a government report to say, “Yes, the Canadian government agrees with me. My loved one, my spouse, my sister or my child is being held not because they have done a crime but because they believed in the cause of freedom, democracy or religious freedom.” The report will go on to say what the Canadian government is doing.

    I will not cast aspersions in this House, because I do not think that would be parliamentary. However, I think it is fair to say that many observers out there have written about the fact that the cause of human rights has sometimes been forgotten when carrying out international diplomacy or economic trade. However, human rights should be something we stand on. Human rights should be something that demands transparency and accountability.

    This private member's bill would get us there with respect to accountability and transparency. It would have the government tell us why it has not been taking action with respect to prisoners of conscience or individuals who believe that they are prisoners of conscience. There will be various groups of individuals and organizations that will look at this report and ask why a certain individual is not included or why there are only 10 prisoners of conscience in Venezuela, when surely there are many more than that. It would give family members and organizations the ability to push the government to help with care and advocacy and, hopefully, the release of their loved ones. As I said, these are some of the most honourable individuals I can imagine; they are people who have given their lives to the cause of liberty, democracy and freedom. As Canadians, we need to do everything we can to support them.

    The next clause is with respect to the Magnitsky sanctions, which are, of course, named after Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky was a brilliant tax lawyer in Russia and one of the strongest fighters against Vladimir Putin's incredibly corrupt and devious regime. He stood up to Putin. Unfortunately, he ended up in a prison in Russia. A true warrior for the cause of integrity and honour, Magnitsky wound up passing away in that prison while fighting for what was right, for integrity and honour. The president of Russia, then and now, let him die there from a treatable medical condition that he would not allow him to get treatment for.

    Magnitsky's friend and business colleague, Bill Browder, then went around the world trying to get Magnitsky sanctions in place. In my estimation, Magnitsky sanctions are incredibly powerful devices. They seek to put individual sanctions on some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Too often, in the past, human rights violators have gotten up in the morning, tortured victims, then hopped on their jets to attend cocktail parties in some of the most advanced economies around the world, hobnobbing with the world's elites. These are the lowest of the low; they deserve to be sanctioned and not to be given access to our country.

    These Magnitsky sanctions are incredibly important tools in our tool box, and when the Magnitsky act was passed, there was a flurry of sanctions put in place for some human rights violators. We started towards the path of holding them accountable. It was a great step, I might add. However, in recent years, it has slowed down to an almost imperceptible trickle of people who have been named under the Magnitsky act. This is challenging.

    What is being asked for in the second clause of my private member's bill is to look at giving Parliament oversight. We would not be taking away the power of imposing Magnitsky sanctions, although many legislative bodies around the world have done so. We are simply looking for the government to report back if the Senate, the House or a committee thereof says a person is terrible and is torturing people in Venezuela, Russia or Beijing. It then needs to find out why the government is not sanctioning that individual. All it would require is a very simple report, but it would add transparency and accountability to the government when it does not sanction a terrible human rights violator, when it is letting an individual get up in the morning and torture innocents, then, in the afternoon, fly their private jet to Toronto, B.C. or wherever to hobnob with some of our elites. It is a very reasonable bill in that it does not seek to go too far. It simply looks to hold the worst human rights violators in this world accountable.

    The next section is with respect to the Broadcasting Act. During Vladimir Putin's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, we saw that a foreign power can use Canadian airwaves to broadcast its propaganda. Fortunately, the CRTC did the right thing in pulling Russia's licence today, stopping it from broadcasting Vladimir Putin's hatred across Canadian airwaves. Unfortunately, there was no process in place, so the CRTC had to hodgepodge one together. This bill would give the CRTC a process to use when a genocidal state is using Canadian airwaves to broadcast its hatred.

    We obviously do not want to restrict freedom of speech or freedom of expression unduly, so this would be a very limited prohibition in that it would need to be a genocidal state utilizing Canadian airwaves. The CRTC could then prevent it from broadcasting on Canadian airwaves. It is an oversight that this does not exist. The idea of a genocidal state broadcasting its hatred, propaganda and promotion of genocide on our airwaves is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am very proud of the proposed Broadcasting Act amendment.

    The final amendment is about the prohibiting of cluster munitions. These are all great provisions, and they are all important to me, but this one is of particular importance and relevance to me. I have been to demining fields. We are talking about cluster munitions, but it is a similar concept in demining fields around the world. It is incredibly sad what cluster munitions and mines do to civilian populations. They primarily kill innocent civilians, and in many cases, children. Once the cluster munitions or mines are put down, they can take years or even decades to remove, making otherwise fertile farmland and areas where there could be schools and businesses completely useless for years and decades to come.

    Even sadder is the fact that, often, these unexploded ordnances last for years and decades. The ones that are not found are the saddest of all; many children have lost their lives simply by walking somewhere. The really scary, sad and disturbing part is that cluster munitions are bomblets, or bombs of bombs. Imagine one bomb with thousands of little bombs inside that land all over. They are completely indiscriminate, which makes them particularly horrible and terrifying.

    They land everywhere, and no one has a map or a marking of where these bomblets went because they are often dropped from thousands of feet up. The wind could take these things in a myriad of different directions. Therefore, mapping them out is nearly impossible. Even if countries that drop them wanted to remove them, it is very difficult to do so and requires a demining process.

    The disturbing part is that these bomblets often look like shiny little toys. There have been many reports of small children going out to a play yard or a field and seeing these shiny toys; obviously, the worst happens. These tools are not even valuable when it comes to war. Because they are indiscriminate and not targetable, their value to an army is extremely limited. They are really just weapons of terror, weapons that are completely indiscriminate; because of that, they are particularly dangerous to civilians and children.

    As part of this private member's process, I have had the ability to travel a bit in the country and meet with people in communities from all over who settled here in Canada, because they believe, as I do, that Canada is the greatest country on earth. They have told me their stories. They have told me about their suffering. More than once, in either one-on-one or group meetings, I have been brought to tears by their stories.

    These individuals are people who have given up their lives, sacrificed their lives, for important things like making sure little girls have the opportunity to go to school; that children, regardless of where they live in the world, have the opportunity to seek an education and improve their lives; that people have the ability to vote for their leadership and not simply be told; that people enjoy freedom and have the right of personal self-determination; and that people have the right of liberty and are able to decide who they want to be, how they want to be and whom they want to love. These people need our help, and this is hopefully at least a small step in that direction, a step in re-establishing Canada as a human rights champion around the world, as it should be.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all the work he did on this bill. It was a pleasure to work with him on this.

    One of the amendments the NDP brought forward at committee regarding this bill was to have a human rights strategy in place. Of course, it is very difficult to measure how the government is doing on human rights if there is no strategy to measure this by. Unfortunately, the Liberals took an opportunity to vote against bringing forward that amendment.

    How does the member feel about our ability as parliamentarians, as the government, to be able to measure how well we are doing on human rights if we do not even have a human rights strategy in this country?

    Madam Speaker, as members know, we supported that amendment and continue to support that.

    My father, who was a businessman, used to say to me when I was young, “Son, what gets measured gets improved.” If we cannot measure something, it is very difficult to see whether we are improving or not. We simply do not know. I thought the NDP's amendment was a great one and that it would give us the ability to measure how we are performing on the various human rights issues and to see whether we are getting better. As my father used to say, what gets measured gets better.

    Madam Speaker, minutes after midnight on December 13, 1981, the secret police arrived at my family's door and arrested my father. My father was a member of the Solidarity movement. He was arrested, detained and put in prison. Like many Solidarity activists, he was a prisoner of conscience. Afterwards, when we received letters of support internationally from people in countries like the Netherlands and elsewhere, as well as care packages, these things were really critical to maintaining my family's spirits and my father's spirits.

    I just want to ask the hon. member how this legislation may help mobilize global support for prisoners of conscience, and their families as well, as they go through such trials.

    Madam Speaker, I thank your father for fighting for the cause of freedom. We would not be where we are in this country, and around the world in many of the liberal democracies we now enjoy, without the great service and sacrifice of people like your father, so thank you for that.

    The idea for this legislation is that Canada would now put its stamp or seal behind those human rights advocates like your father and say that we, as a Canadian government, support them and are behind them, and that their family members can say, “Yes, the Canadian government says that my loved one is on the right side of history.”

    I want to remind the hon. member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

    The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important bill. It is a step forward in terms of government transparency, which is what my question will focus on.

    Bill C‑281 does, however, raise some issues. Consider the case of Raif Badawi and his wife Ensaf Haidar, a past Bloc Québécois candidate. Mr. Badawi spent 10 years in a Saudi Arabian prison. Although he has been released from prison, he is not permitted to travel. He is not allowed to come here. In essence, he is still not really free. He is still over there.

    It has been a long time. Canada has not been able to do anything for him. He served his 10 years in prison and remains in Saudi Arabia. The government has still not shown accountability. We have no idea what discussions the government has been having.

    Apart from his bill, does my colleague have any ideas about how the government could be more transparent and take concrete action?

    Madam Speaker, what I would say to that is that this legislation actually proposes a framework for human rights reporting and with respect to prisoners of conscience. The more we can raise the awareness of the Canadian public, and I know that all of Canada is in favour of human rights, the more we can get that case to build. I might say that the NDP amendment would have been helpful with that as well.

    Madam Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-281 today and would like to comment on two main themes.

    First, I would like to comment briefly on the portion of the bill that would amend the Broadcasting Act. My colleague, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, began commenting on this during the debate at report stage, and I think it is worth highlighting a few points that come from this side of the House. Afterwards, I would like to speak to human rights generally and the government's commitment to promoting and protecting human rights, both globally and here at home. This is a core part of our foreign policy and is essential to our party's approach to politics.

    Broadcasting plays an important role in Canadian society. It allows for Canadians to exchange ideas, enriches our democracy and can play an important role in advancing human rights. Bill C-281 would recognize this important role by prohibiting the issuance or renewal of broadcasting licences to broadcasters that are vulnerable to significant influence by certain foreign nationals or entities of concern. Measures to protect the broadcasting system from influences are important, especially when it comes to critical issues related to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

    That said, despite the intent behind this proposal, ensuring that broadcasts that go against Canada's fundamental commitment to human rights are not on the airwaves, the bill, in its original format, was troubling. I am glad that, thanks to Liberal proposals at the committee, it has been significantly improved. It is crucial to respect the independence of the CRTC as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that serves at arm's length from the federal government as a regulator for broadcasting and telecommunication. In Canada, the CRTC is our expert regulator, comprising professionals with comprehensive knowledge of the broadcasting industry. It is independent, and it is well known and recognized, as it operates outside of the political sphere and has done so since 1968. It must continue to act in the public interest and make use of the full regulatory tool kit. The bill would now ensure that the CRTC can use the full scope of its power to deal with broadcasters under the significant influence of an individual who has been sanctioned, or who has been implicated in genocide or other crimes against humanity.

    Additionally, I would like to recognize the important role played by Canadian courts and by international tribunals to which Canada is a signatory, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, in making legal determinations of genocide and other crimes against humanity. While the House has an important role in shining a light on these types of bad acts and being at the leading edge of international responses, it is crucial that the political determinations we make in the House are not confused with decisions that have full legal standing both in Canada and abroad.

    Next, I would like to speak to Canada's work in promoting and protecting human rights around the world, which goes far above and beyond the proposal in this bill. In fact, should the new reporting requirements for the government proposed in this bill go forward, I am confident Canadians would gain a better understanding of just how strong the government has been on this front. Just last month, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada would be seeking a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2028-30 term.

    Human rights are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. When there is greater respect for human rights globally, the world is more stable, prosperous and resilient. Unfortunately, they are also currently under attack, and the multilateral system that underpins these rights is under threat like never before. This is evident in challenges such as illegal wars of aggression against Ukraine, rising racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and discrimination and an intensifying backlash against the most basic rights of women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people.

    In order to confront the challenges that lie ahead, we must work together to reinforce the foundation of human rights and strive toward a more just tomorrow for everyone. Multilateral institutions play a crucial role in continued and effective engagement on human rights, online and off-line, and to holding countries accountable for their international human rights obligations, including respect for gender equality, the rights of freedom of expression, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of religion or belief. I encourage members of all parties to come together in support of initiatives that advance Canada's work on this matter, such as our candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council and many of the concepts proposed by this bill.

    In her announcement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs outlined that Canada's candidacy will be based on six priorities. As a member of the council, Canada aims to support the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders, strive for a more inclusive future for all, advance reconciliation with indigenous people, prioritize gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in all of their diversity, reduce harms online, and work with others to address the adverse impacts of climate change, which Canadians across the country know all too well, given the wildfires raging across much of the country. These objectives are ambitious, but with determination and in close collaboration with other countries, indigenous partners and civil society we can advance these objectives and achieve a better future for all.

    The minister also noted that the government's engagement on this issue is built on a desire to strengthen the international human rights system. It also reflects our approach here at home, where we stand up for the human rights of all Canadians. For example, we are currently celebrating Pride Month. It is a time for 2SLGBTQI+ communities and allies to come together to celebrate the resilience of the pride movement and to show the beauty and talent of our community, while also continuing to advocate for a safer and more inclusive Canada. It is necessary for us to keep in mind that, while it is important that we take the opportunity to recognize the hard-earned victories of the pride movement, we must continue pushing back on the sharp rise in anti-trans hate, anti-2SLGBTQI+ legislation, protests at drag events, the banning of educational books in schools, and calls against raising the pride flag. I am glad that, on this side of the House, working on that type of issue is a key part of our approach to human rights.

    In that regard, I want to thank all the municipalities across the country that raised the pride flag on June 1. I want to thank them because it is important. Resistance is rising across the world. Last week's flag raising is humbling, and I want to thank all of the mayors who participated.

    Canada's Human Rights Council candidacy adds to a consistently strong voice for the protection and promotion of human rights and the advancement of democratic values. It is without question that the human rights bodies of the United Nations are the foundation of a strong and effective international human rights system.

    Canada is party to several international human rights instruments and disarmament conventions, including the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to which we acceded in 2015. This convention, in fact, takes inspiration from the work of another great former Liberal foreign affairs minister, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who led the charge in the 1990s on banning the use of land mines. Cluster munitions pose a devastating and indiscriminate threat to civilians in conflict and post-conflict contexts. Having immediate and long-term effects due to high failure rates, these weapons are dangerous and hinder sustainable development and post-conflict recovery for affected societies.

    Canada has played a critical role in encouraging the international community to accede to the convention and ultimately eradicate these deadly weapons from the world. Canada meets its international obligations outlined in the convention through the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. We have also made significant investments to support programming that aims to eliminate cluster munitions and all unexploded ordnances of war. Over the past two decades, Canada has contributed over $450 million to this end. Our international programming addresses key elements of explosive ordnance clearance work, including national implementation support, stockpile destruction, gender mainstreaming, risk education, training and victim assistance. This work is essential to the sustainable facilitation of the safe return of civilian populations, reconstruction of affected communities and the restoration of essential services for generations to come.

    All countries have a duty to promote and protect human rights under international law and the United Nations charter.

    I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting this bill forward, and I look forward to further debate.

    Madame Speaker, before I begin my comments, I would like to say a few words. Quebec is in a very difficult situation right now. Over 150 forest fires are burning on the north shore, in Abitibi and in Lac-Saint-Jean. My colleagues are working on the front lines of that situation. Thousands of families have been evacuated.

    Meanwhile, another tragedy has occurred on the north shore. Five people went capelin fishing and drowned. Four of those were children. It is not clear whether they were members of the same family, but it is a terrible tragedy.

    I would like to say to the devastated families and the families who have been evacuated that we are thinking of them and they have our heartfelt sympathy. We are hoping for rain as soon as possible to put an end to the forest fires.

    I thank my colleague for introducing Bill C-281. It is an important bill that is quite robust and touches on many issues. I think that, more than ever, we need greater transparency on human rights. I think that is one of the objectives of this bill.

    This bill has four components.

    The first objective of the bill is to increase government transparency. The government will be required to report to the House on international human rights issues. It will therefore be required to report more frequently. I will talk about that later.

    The second objective of the bill is to impose new measures to counter corrupt foreign officials, particularly by requiring that the Minister of Foreign Affairs respond within 40 days to any committee report recommending sanctions against a foreign national under the Magnitsky Law.

    The third objective of the bill is to prohibit the licensing of foreign propaganda broadcasting undertakings when the state is recognized by the House of Commons as having committed genocide or is facing sanctions. No one needs to be a genius to know that this refers primarily to China, but also to Russia and other states.

    The fourth objective of the bill is to prohibit any investment in an entity that contravenes the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Still today, throughout the world, weapons that were once used in a war are still on the ground ten years later. Children often go through those areas where bombs may have fallen and where parts of those devices may still explode and cause serious injuries and deaths. Moreover, the victims are often children. It is unacceptable that that is still happening today.

    Let us go back to the first component, government transparency regarding international human rights. I think that more than ever there is a need to ensure that Canada's actions advance the ongoing cases and issues of those who are unjustly detained. Transparency would allow for joint work with organizations such as Amnesty International. It would also enable families to be actively involved in a communication and dissemination strategy that is consistent with their needs. That would make it possible for civil society to support advocacy and grievances and for elected officials to follow up on real-life situations, which would help advance international human rights.

    I spoke earlier about the case of Raif Badawi. This is a clear case of unjust imprisonment. Mr. Badawi was imprisoned for 10 years simply for having posted things against his government on Facebook. His case received a lot of media coverage. His wife is still advocating for him. She is travelling around the world to talk about her husband’s case, to talk about human rights and all these issues. In Canada, we are doing nothing. We have no news. We do not know what is happening. Mr. Badawi is no longer in prison, but he is still stuck in his country. He would like to come and join his children, whom he has not seen for 10 years. His wife is here and his children are growing up. It is outrageous that we have no news and that the government is not more transparent.

    The second component, imposing new measures against corrupt foreign officials, speaks to all the foreign interference problems that have been talked about in recent weeks. It is completely inconceivable that foreign individuals in Canada can threaten Canadians here, in Canada. We have heard stories. In the Uyghur community, people have been threatened and harassed and families have split up. It is an inconceivable tragedy.

    Of course, we also immediately think of the case of the Chinese diplomat linked to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, which we discussed here for many weeks. Despite all the questions asked, we never truly learned what the government did or did not know. We never received much of an answer to that. I think it is really important, particularly since the government is not acting quickly to stop activities that jeopardize the safety of a Canadian individual. That is the situation. We asked questions, but we do not know what the government knows. We are unable to get to the bottom of things.

    This bill will ensure that there will be more frequent reporting. Perhaps we may get answers.

    I sit on the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship. Recently we submitted a report entitled “A Threat to Canadian Sovereignty: National Security Dimensions of the Canada-People’s Republic of China Relationship”. It is an unnecessarily long title, but it addresses human rights in China. The report states:

    I would also like to mention that the Canada—Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group met with representatives from Hong Kong Watch last week. They reported situations similar to those disclosed by the witnesses who appeared before the special committee. These examples of threats and intimidation can be found in the report, which describes them as the “coordinated use of counter-protesters, Chinese international students, and pro-Beijing United Front organizations to block and intimidate peaceful demonstrations in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa”.

    Another example cited in the report is the “publication of private information online to intimidate protest participants”.

    The report continues as follows:

    After much harassment in the House, Canada finally expelled the diplomat who had been involved with the MP. However, it was complicated and took a long time, and it had to be made public before the government decided to take action.

    Canada can no longer afford to be complacent about situations like this. It is unacceptable. We are being laughed at. Swift, consistent responses are needed to counter this type of interference, which threatens our sovereignty.

    The third element of Bill C‑281 seeks to prohibit broadcasting licences from being issued to foreign propaganda companies when the House of Commons or Senate has recognized the foreign government as having committed genocide or when it is subject to sanctions.

    The same special committee report mentions that the People's Republic of China has been identified “as one of the countries that has attempted to interfere in Canadian elections”. That much is proven.

    I remember when a representative from Hong Kong Watch appeared before the committee. I told her that there was a documented case of interference in the election of a municipal candidate in Brossard. The Chinese regime was sending messages in Mandarin to people in Brossard using a platform called WeChat to encourage them to vote for that candidate. I naively asked the representative from Hong Kong Watch whether such a thing were possible at the provincial or federal level, and she basically laughed in my face. She found the question to be completely ridiculous because the answer was so obvious to her.

    It is clear that the Chinese regime has been attempting for years to influence municipal, provincial and federal elections here in Canada in any way possible. There is no doubt that issues are coming to light. People are talking about it more and more, but the government is still not doing anything about it.

    I want to come back to another aspect of the special committee's report with regard to ACHK. It reads, and I quote:

    This happened in Brossard. We know that the Chinese police stations start out as community centres that help people with various issues, such as integration, poverty and employment. Then these centres slowly turn into intelligence centres.

    It is not clear. There are grey areas. People naively thought that these centres had been shut down, but we recently learned that they are still open and operating. I am referring to the two centres in Brossard and the one in Montreal. They were supposedly shut down. The RCMP—

    I apologize for interrupting the member, but I would like to point out to him that his time is up. I must now give the floor to the next speaker.

    The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

    Madam Speaker, I thank colleagues of mine who have spoken to Bill C-281.

    The New Democrats will be supporting this bill at third reading. I would like to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing it forward. It has been a real pleasure to work with him and his team on this bill over the past few months.

    The reason for this bill is that we want to make sure Canada's laws protect human rights. We want to strengthen that legislation. We want to strengthen how Canada acts with regard to international human rights. For me, I want to remember, while we do this work, that people's lives are at risk. These are people who are being detained, who have disappeared and who are suffering greatly. Canada could play an important role there.

    I want to start my speech today by talking about a few of those people.

    I want to talk about Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has recently been sentenced to 25 years in prison in Russia because he opposed Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. I know that a number of people from all parties are hoping that the government will offer Vladimir Kara-Murza honorary citizenship in Canada to help protect him.

    I also know there are others. It has been over a decade, getting close to two decades, since Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen, has been able to see his family. There is also Dong Guangping, whose wife and daughter are Canadians. We do not know where he is right now.

    There is a lot of work to do on human rights, and I want to make sure that we always centre this work on the people who suffer, the people who are impacted by this.

    As many have said before me, this bill has four changes to pieces of Canadian legislation. It requires the minister to publish an annual report on human rights, as well as a list of prisoners of conscience for whom the government is actively working. It amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. It amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky act. It also requires the issue or renewal of broadcasting licences in the case of genocide to be prohibited. Obviously these are all things that I think are very important and very strong to do.

    We were happy to bring some amendments forward. That first piece about providing the list is important. I know the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South spoke to many families of victims, and they wanted more information; they wanted that there. We were also conscious that there are some concerns. We do not want to put people's lives in danger. We do not want to make situations worse. We always need to act with an abundance of caution when we are working with things that are very sensitive.

    The NDP brought forward an amendment that would change the list to give the government the ability to protect people but still give information to families, parliamentarians, activists and human rights defenders around the world. It was a compromise, and a really strong one, that makes the legislation better. It was lovely to see support from all parties on that.

    Our second amendment was on a human rights strategy. I have brought this up in this House before. We asked for there to be a human rights strategy in this country. Most Canadians probably feel we have one. We do not have a human rights strategy. We have no benchmark to measure how well the government of the day is doing in protecting human rights. That does not exist.

    It makes sense to me, and I think it is a very common-sense thing, to include that and have the government do it. Unfortunately, the government chose to vote against that. It chose not to move forward on that in a way that makes me believe it simply did not want to do the hard work. It simply did not want to have to do the work to create that strategy and keep it updated.

    It is very disappointing, particularly considering that the government is asking for a seat at the United Nations Human Rights Council as we speak. It is very disappointing, because time and time again, we hear the government talking about being defenders of human rights while at the same time failing time and time again to do the hard work to protect human rights. A perfect example of that for me is watching the Liberal government, as reported yesterday in The Globe and Mail, continue to sell more arms to Saudi Arabia than any other country aside from the United States, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record, despite the fact that this does not align with our Arms Trade Treaty and despite the fact that the government continues to claim that it has stopped doing it.

    As we see, there is a record of the government speaking about human rights, and talking about being human rights defenders, but failing to act when it comes to it.

    One of the things that I really want to talk about today is the piece in this bill around cluster munitions. This, for me, is the absolute ultimate in the Liberals' ability to say one thing when they are in opposition and do a completely different thing once they are elected as government. In the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, section 11 carves out the ability for the Canadian military to use cluster munitions in the event it is working with another military that uses them. In 2013, the NDP worked very closely with the Liberal government to put restrictions in place to fix that loophole. Paul Dewar, the NDP foreign affairs critic at the time, said, “when we sign international agreements, it's important that we live up to our signature. It's important that the legislation we adopt does not undermine the treaty we negotiated and signed on to and accepted.”

    There is one other quote that I would like to share, if I could, which states:

    That sounds like it was Paul Dewar, but in fact, it was Bob Rae, speaking as a Liberal, saying how much Liberals disagreed with clause 11.

    The language New Democrats chose in our amendment to close that loophole in Bill C-281 was the exact language that our former colleague Marc Garneau had used when he stood in this place and said that section 11 was a loophole that needed to be closed. Again, we find ourselves in a situation where the Liberals have said time and time again, when they were not in government, that they wanted to fix this loophole. Some of the pre-eminent voices within their caucus, Mr. Garneau and Mr. Rae, people who would be seen as good, staunch Liberals, wanted to fix that loophole and saw that as important, but when it came down to doing the work, when it came down to them actually fixing it, they chose not to.

    It has been very difficult for me to listen to the government try to make excuses for this. It has been very difficult for me to listen to Liberals try to justify why they continue to support the loophole for cluster munitions, which is similar to why they continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Before they were elected, they also said they would support nuclear disarmament, but whenever we asked them whether they would even attend the TPNW, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, even as observers, even the fact that many NATO members do attend as observers, they declined to participate.

    My ask of the government members would be for them to please be the Liberals they were before they were elected in 2015 and to please think about nuclear disarmament and human rights the way they did before 2015 because, since 2015, their record has been appalling, and human rights are far too important for this continual politicization.

    Madam Speaker, given the critical nature of this debate, I wonder if you could confirm that the House has quorum.

    I will double-check.

    And the count having been taken:

    We do have quorum.

    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

    Madam Speaker, I welcome colleagues, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about Bill C-281, the international human rights act, and to congratulate my colleague. Over this journey we have had together on this bill, I have been working to get his constituency's name right. It is Northumberland—Peterborough South. I want to recognize the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for putting forward this bill. I spoke at report stage about the provisions of this bill, and I want to focus on something else at third reading, which is how people will be able to use this bill.

    I spent the entire parliamentary recess week in the greater Toronto area, meeting with different communities, with the primary goal of sharing and discussing Bill C-281. There was a lot of support from different communities, from the Yazidi community, the Persian community, various African communities, the Hong Kong community and eastern European communities. There is a lot of support for this bill in the impact it would have. People were asking how we would use it and what concrete difference it would make.

    My hope is that Canadians of all backgrounds would eagerly await, every year, the government's publication of its annual report on international human rights. People will be able to look through that report to say, “What does the government say it is doing? What are the areas where the government is not doing enough?”

    They will then be able to hold the government accountable and say, “Why has it not talked about Ethiopia? Why has it not talked about Yazidis? Why has it not talked about Rohingya this year?”

    They will be able to look to see where the areas of action have been and where the areas of inaction have been and then hold the government accountable to ask why more has not been done. They can then look at the following year's report to ask if there has been progress in relation to the previous year's report or not. Are there individuals that communities want to see the government advocating for, in terms of their release? Are those names in the report? If they are not in the report this year, there is a jumping-off point for advocating for their inclusion next year

     Right now, so much of this advocacy, whether it concerns prisoners of conscience, human rights in general or listing individuals under various sanctions provisions, happens in a bit of a black hole of information. There are no requirements right now around this sort of reporting. If people want to advocate for individuals to be listed, for sanctions to be considered in various ways or for human rights advocacy, it can be very difficult to know what the government is doing and where the access points are for that advocacy.

    This bill strengthens the Canadian government's engagement on human rights, we hope. It strengthens the tools that parliamentarians have, but it also provides broader tools for communities across the country who are concerned about human rights issues.

    If one wants to see somebody sanctioned for human rights abuses they are involved in, one can advocate directly to members of Parliament, who can then put forward motions at committee. If one wants to know whether the government is doing anything on a particular human rights issue, one can look at the human rights report and ask if it is doing anything, if it is not doing enough or if one is satisfied. Then one can advocate for the government to change its approach and hope to see that change in approach reflected the following year.

    This is important for communities of people who are concerned about human rights issues, not because this bill is going to usher in nirvana, and not because things will be perfect after the bill is passed, but because it provides critical tools of advocacy and mechanisms for people to know what is going on, to advocate and to make a difference.

    The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has the floor for his right to reply.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking all of the individuals who played such important roles in getting this legislation before the House today, up for a final vote and, hopefully, off to the Senate.

     I will start with thanking the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He worked very closely with me in drafting and putting this legislation together. I would like to also thank all of the non-government agencies and the families of victims who I had the opportunity to talk to, along with all the groups from various communities across the country and the world that have come together to signal their support. I would also like to thank Bill Browder for his support.

    I have many thanks for the contributions from the members of the different parties who helped out, including the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberal Party. There were some substantial amendments made at committee. There was significant debate and long discussions. I am proud to say that I think we finished in a very good place.

    There were a number of concerns. I do not think any one of our parties got exactly what we wanted out of the amendment process, but perhaps that is a signal that we got what we should get, with one exception. I thought the NDP amendment for a plan of strategy for human rights was excellent. I was sad to see it ruled out of order by the Chair.

    As I said, this legislation has four critical parts that I believe would help the cause of human rights in Canada and around the world. The first of these respects prisoners of conscience, those heroes around the world who are fighting for important rights, such as for young girls to have the ability to pursue an education; for people to have the ability to live in a country free of government tyranny; and for people to pursue democracy, freedom and liberty and live their lives as they see fit without potentially fearing imprisonment or worse. The part on prisoners of conscience is critical.

    The second critical part is having parliamentary oversight of Magnitsky sanctions. This is important. I am hopeful that this piece of legislation will not only allow Parliament to make its reports, but also encourage the government, maybe even future Conservative governments, to take the steps they need to make sure Magnitsky sanctions are put in place against some of the worst offenders. As I have said numerous times, it just seems shameful to me that, in this day and age, we allow violators of human rights to torture their victims in the morning and then take their private jets to fly around the world to hobnob with the world's elite in the afternoon.

    Third, with respect to the Broadcasting Act, I think this is an amendment that only makes sense. Genocidal states should not be allowed to use Canadian airwaves to tout their propaganda. Just to add to that, we have seen what foreign interference can mean for our democracy and the challenges that can impose. Canadians should have a full, free and open ability to understand and give consent. We should also make sure that genocidal states are not broadcasting their hatred on Canadian airwaves. That seems to be only common sense.

    Finally, with respect to cluster munitions, of course these are horrible, terrible things. Canada has had a leading role, going all the way back to the Harper government, in outlawing and making them illegal. This will reduce the ability of Canadian companies to finance the construction and manufacture of cluster munitions.

    I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill and proud to be the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

    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.

    Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

    Pursuant to order made on June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw attention to a procedural matter related to Question No. 1337, which I submitted on March 21.

    In this Order Paper question, I asked for a detailed breakdown of spending from the mission cultural fund. For the sake of time, I will spare reading the text of the question into the record, but my point of order relates to a passage found on page 523 of Bosc and Gagnon, which states:

    With regard to Question No. 1337, the government stated as follows:

    To restate, the government has stated it could not respond to the question in the 45 allotted days. As such, it did not answer the question, as required by the Standing Orders, within the allotted time. That is because Standing Order 39(5)(b) states:

    The key word here is “unanswered”. I have indicated my desire to have the question answered in 45 days, per the Standing Orders, and the government has now stated that the question could not be answered within that timeline. Due to this, per the Standing Orders, after 45 days my question remains open without a response.

    Before (5)(b) of Standing Order 39 came into effect in 2001, governments routinely ignored the 45-day deadline to answer questions. Following the adoption of this rule, the government began to respect the 45-day deadline. However, it appears that the government is attempting to circumvent this rule to thwart the intended protection offered to members of Parliament by Standing Order 39(5)(b). That is, it stated on the matter of the question that the government cannot respond within the time allotted.

    I think it hopes that would hold water with the Speaker, and that is why this point of order requires a different level of scrutiny and response than previous rulings made on related matters in the past. The Speaker often cites how what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The government's acknowledgement that it did not answer Question No. 1337 by saying it could not produce the information in the time allotted is an example of that principle.

    The Speaker's rulings have established that access to information from the government is a fundamental privilege of a parliamentarian. It is also a critical aspect of the functioning of our system of democracy. When the government flouts its responsibility to provide this information, the system fails. That is why, in a related matter, many members of the press gallery are raising concerns about the breakdown of the access to information system.

    The government has also begun to argue in its responses that time allotted to respond to questions could lead to incomplete and misleading information. That too is a contravention of the Standing Orders.

    I ask the Speaker to consider this. If the government does not have the processes in place to answer questions, it is incumbent upon it to change those processes, not to contravene the Standing Orders. I ask that the Speaker respect this principle in their ruling. If the Speaker rules that the government can satisfy the Standing Orders by saying that it cannot respond to the question in the time allotted, then none of us should bother submitting Order Paper questions anymore.

    While I suspect the government would not much mind that outcome, the House is governed by rules that allow parliamentarians to access information necessary to do their job for a reason. In this instance, the government's decision to flout the Standing Orders severely hampered my ability, as a parliamentarian, to scrutinize a government expenditure that has been in the news for many weeks. I hope you consider this impact in your ruling and I would like to explain why.

    This question related to expenses in the mission cultural fund. Every year, the government spends millions of dollars on this fund that purportedly assists with Canada's diplomatic efforts abroad. Given the current state of geopolitics, this could be a reasonable expenditure.

    The problem is that I and, by virtue of me not having this information, Canadians have no real way of knowing because there is precious little information regarding how this particular fund selects project and is managed and how success is measured. The government's decision to flout the Standing Orders has made this situation worse.

    I require a response to this question because last year, the foreign affairs minister made blunt comments emphasizing Canada's lack of military power. She stressed that the federal government's current strategy is to continue to rely on soft power as the government's primary tool to influence other nations.

    The concept of cultural diplomacy is the formal term for a notion that soft power can be exerted through sharing values like food, visual arts, music and literature. One of the government's primary vehicles regarding cultural diplomacy is the opaque and, frankly, questionably managed mission cultural fund.

    Much has already been recently reported about the value for money that Canadian taxpayers may or may not get from this fund. More has been written about the provocative nature of some of the events that have been funded.

    The bigger issue, and the issue I ask the Chair to rule on, is the government's muted and closed-door response to both of these issues. That is because you should not rule that the government's statement that it cannot provide this information in the time allotted is a satisfaction of the Standing Orders.

    Very little has been said by the Liberal government to defend the program or describe how the fund is furthering broader diplomatic goals. How can I, as a parliamentarian, ascertain value for money if the government flouts, in the Standing Orders, questions about the matter?

    For a government that loves nothing more than to loudly honk about spending money, the statement regarding my question raises many other questions. If the fund is not yielding impressive results, why hide them? Why not brag about how much has been spent, as it does with so many other programs? Why not disclose where the expenditures remain and what they accomplished? What criteria was used to select projects and the recipients of contracts?

    Coming back to the matter at hand, my point of order simply asks you to rule that when the government substantively ignores much of the substance of an Order Paper question by saying it cannot respond within the time allotted, it should be considered an open question and it could also be considered a failure to answer for the purposes of Standing Order 39(5)(b).

    That way the government's refusal to answer a written question can be referred to a committee for review. It is unacceptable for the government to state that it cannot provide the information in the 45-day time period. That is not my problem. I ask the Chair to rule in my favour that this question remains open.

    Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I understand that the member did receive an answer to the question. She may not like the answer, but she did receive one.

    Madam Speaker, like the previous member, I stand today to address some of what I believe are very serious challenges when it comes to the questions posed related to the Order Paper questions.

    I would read from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. This is the September 2021 edition where 39(5)(b) states:

    There is a growing trend when it comes to the responses that the government has brought forward to Order Paper questions that I have seen and with the questions that I have brought forward to this House.

    I would specifically refer to Question No. 604 put forward by me, which was signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. The information provided in that answer varies differently from information that was both reported in the public and information that I received via members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

    For context, for the Speaker and for those watching, this has to do with a number of Canadian Armed Forces personnel who were put on leave due to their choice of not—

    I want to indicate that I get the hon. member's point and I will take the information under advisement.

    I want to remind members who are getting up on this point of order that our precedents are clear that it is not for the Chair to rule on the content of the responses to written questions.

    Indeed, in a ruling on a similar matter, on April 25, 2022, at page 4310 of the Debates, the Chair stated:

    Therefore, although the hon. member is mentioning that the information was different, he may not like the information that he received, but he did receive a response.

    I will go to another point of order if the hon. member is finished. If he wants to continue on with respect to the information he just provided, as I indicated, he may not have been satisfied with the information he received, but it is very clear that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on the information he has received.

    I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up, please, because points of order and questions of privilege need to be succinct and to the point and should not drag on.

    The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

    Madam Speaker, absolutely. Personally, I would not want to drag it on. I would just point to Standing Order 19 on points of order, which indicates the effort of being succinct certainly when addressing these fundamental questions we have before us.

    There are three specific questions. To ensure that I am in fact succinct, I would simply reference specifically the other two questions I am calling the Chair to look at, not just with respect to the government having provided a response, but as to whether or not that response was satisfactory.

    With respect to the work we do within this place, it is fundamentally important that Canadians can trust the information that is provided. Therefore, this has far less to do with whether I am satisfied with the response, as that is not even relevant to the discussion, but about the government hiding behind procedure and the ability to simply reply by saying it cannot reply, or in some cases it simply seems like it is not willing to do the work.

    I would refer you to Question No. 286, signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. There is a very clear unwillingness on behalf of the ministry to provide information. Again, it is not that I am dissatisfied with the answer, but the fact that it seems there is an unwillingness on the part of the government to provide any information related to the substance of the question. I may not like the answer, but it is not the responsibility of the government to decide whether or not it likes the question.

    I would further refer you to Question No. 565, signed by the then parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, which has to do specifically with the work that is being done at the ethics committee, of which I am a part. The issue is not whether I agree with the substance, but that the government seems to be using the 45-day timeline requirement to simply not table a response in this place. It can then wash its hands of anything to do with those important questions that, in some cases, my constituents bring forward, like I referenced with—

    I am satisfied with the information that I have received.

    Does the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock also want to weigh in on this point of order?

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a different point of order.

    The hon. member is rising on a different point of order.

    Does the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill want to add to this point of order?

    Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I just want to respond to the deputy House leader's assertion that I did not like the response.

    For your information, and for that of the table staff who are perhaps providing you information, the point is that the government said that it could not respond to the question in the time allotted. Therefore, it has stated that it could not respond.

    Whether or not I like that or the government likes that is immaterial; the reality is, the government, by its own admission, said that it could not respond to the question in the time allotted. Ergo, the question remains open. Ergo, the Standing Orders have been violated, and I ask you to review that similarly.

    Though I appreciate the additional information, I am not sure whether the government was indicating that it would not respond at all, so I will take the information under advisement.

    Is the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil rising on this point of order?

    Madam Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing this very important matter to your attention, because I too have a similar situation. I am not going to reference all of the Standing Orders, as I think the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has done that, but this is in relation to Question No. 1357. If you will indulge me, I asked this question of the government:

    It is not that the government did not respond within 45 days. It did not answer the questions that I had asked. It only referred to the Privy Council Office.

    Again I refer to the importance of the intervention by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. On behalf of Canadians and the people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, I note that my question was not answered. The government needs to respond to ensure the transparency and openness that these Order Paper questions call for. I want you to consider that in your deliberations as well.

    I will certainly consider that.

    The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is also rising. Is it on this point of order?

    Madam Speaker, it is on a separate but similar point of order.

    Okay. It is on a separate point of order.

    I will indicate that I have heard enough on this particular matter. I will take the information under advisement and will come back to members if required.

    There are quite a few points of order. Other members had their hands up before the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, so I am going to the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the vote that took place on Friday, June 2, 2023. I want to express my thanks to the Speaker for returning to the House with the results of his investigation into the technical issues that were experienced. With the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to make a few brief points to add some context and then ask for a clarification from the Speaker.

    First, as the chief opposition whip, I would point out that votes on a Friday are rare and unusual. In my caucus, we allow members who do not have further responsibilities in Parliament on Fridays to travel back to their constituencies to tend to community and family matters. This is a policy that helps members who have long commutes to and from their ridings.

    In the Conservative caucus, we have 14 members from Saskatchewan, 29 from Alberta and 13 from British Columbia. That is 56 members from the west. To accommodate these members and others who travel great distances to perform their elected responsibilities, governments have generally avoided forcing these kinds of votes on Fridays. However, the government is in a rush to pass its budget implementation legislation, something the NDP is eager to help it do.

    When the parliamentary—

    I remind the hon. member not to go into debate and to go into the issue itself, because what the hon. member is bringing up is debate. If she can get to the exact point, that would be better.

    Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there.

    To put this in context, when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader surprised the House with a motion to proceed to orders of the day, a non-debatable motion, the Liberals triggered a vote on short notice, catching many members off guard, and we—

    This is going into debate. The hon. member—

    Hon. Kerry-Lynn Findlay: Madam Speaker—

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I have the floor right now.

    I want to remind the hon. member that what she is providing right now is more debate. The hon. member and all members in this House are well aware that votes can be had at any time and that we need to be ready to respond if required.

    If the hon. member wants to discuss the technical issues that were experienced, based on the report of the Speaker I am willing to entertain that. I am not willing to entertain debate on the issue.

    The hon. official opposition whip.

    Madam Speaker, I am trying to provide context because we are seeking clarification from the Speaker, including in my own situation, where I had no use of my camera on my computer and had to switch to my phone. As you may recall, I also did not have the proper headset. I appreciate that my vote was counted, but these things happened on a Friday. I am certainly going to encourage all members of the House to make sure they have proper equipment and access at all times regardless, because of what you just said.

    The clarification I seek is this: is the Chair contemplating the question of privilege raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader? As you are aware, the parliamentary secretary rose in this place following the vote and accused the Conservatives of being in contempt of Parliament, which is a serious accusation. Such an accusation would normally be raised as a question of privilege and would then be contemplated by the Speaker, who would decide if there was a prima facie case of privilege. I note that the member did not explicitly state that he was raising the matter as a question of privilege.

    It is a common practice for other members to return to the House to make arguments as they see fit if the matter is being considered as a question of privilege. Therefore, it would be helpful to all members if the Chair clarified whether a question of privilege is being contemplated. For our part, I can assure the House that the Conservative caucus holds the highest regard for the institution of Parliament. We do, however, have contempt for the Liberal-NDP government that is in the process of forcing a budget through.

    Some hon. members: Debate.

    Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: That said, I thank the Chair for clarification on this issue.

    I appreciate that members are trying to indicate that this is debate, but I am the Chair and am well able to decide whether it is debate or not.

    I want to advise the member that no question of privilege was raised. I have no way of knowing whether someone is contemplating one. It is not something we will need to come back to the House on.

    As for voting, as indicated, every member in the House has a responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary tools, whether it is their headphones, their phone or their computer. There are already procedures in place, which are spelled out, for what to do if they are not able to vote.

    As indicated, the technical team looked on our side, the side of the House, to see if there were issues technically and none were seen. I want to remind members that they all have responsibilities. We know it is a privilege to go into our ridings when the House is sitting, and we need to make sure we have the tools with us to react immediately, as required.

    The hon. official opposition House leader has a point of order.

    Madam Speaker, this is on a different point, but it does relate to a decision by the Chair.

    I want to seek clarification on the use of the word “phony” in the House of Commons. You will recall that, last week, I referred to the special rapporteur, David Johnston, as the “phony rapporteur”, because the Conservatives simply believe it is a fake job.

    The job is fake. The idea that he is independent is fake. He himself has acknowledged that he answers to the government, not to Parliament and not to the people of Canada. In fact, his order in council lists him as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. There is no independence around somebody who is employed by the government, who is employed by the Prime Minister and who has acknowledged that he is not independent. That is point number one—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. If individuals want to have conversations, they need to take them outside. Individuals can approach me and try to have a conversation quietly here, but they cannot have one across to each other while I am trying to listen to a point of order before the House.

    The hon. official opposition House leader.

    Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is our contention and belief, as more and more Canadians are realizing, that the position of the rapporteur is fake and the idea that there is independence around it is also fake. The government may believe something different, but it is certainly our right as opposition members of Parliament to make that assertion.

    On Thursday, my question was interrupted by the Speaker because of that word, and that really puzzled me, because I have sat in that chair before and I know the exercise that one must go through in listening to interventions and assessing whether they are orderly or disorderly. It is truly a context-driven exercise.

    When I used the expression “phony rapporteur” last week, I certainly was not imputing motives on the part of any hon. member or suggesting that any member was deliberately misleading the House. In my view, the use of the word “phony” was acceptable and parliamentary in the circumstances. Citation 490 of Beauchesne's identifies a list of examples of expressions that, between 1958 and the mid-1980s, were held to be parliamentary. They are actually in Beauchesne's, in a list of words that have been ruled parliamentary. Not only is it not on the list of unparliamentary words, but it is on the list of parliamentary words. I refer you to page 147 of Beauchesne's sixth edition.

    “Phony” appears on that list with four separate rulings in support of it being a parliamentary expression: Mr. Speaker Michener, on July 7, 1959, at page 5624 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on July 11, 1959, at page 5849 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on May 19, 1960, at page 4051 of the Debates; and Chair of Committees of the Whole Herman Batten, on April 21, 1967, at page 15206 of the Debates.

    Perhaps more importantly, the expression has been in common use in the House since that time. Punching the term “phony” into the House's website search engine for parliamentary publications reveals hundreds of occasions when the term appears in Hansard. I know that I heard it often when I served as the chair occupant between 2006 and 2015.

    Here is one example by then leader Bob Rae, at page 6077 of the Debates, from March 12, 2012, which has a lot of resonance in this debate. It states:

    On February 14, 2013, the member for Charlottetown, at page 14160 of the Debates, referred to a minister's “phony performance”. On April 1, 2015—

    I think I have heard quite a bit on this. The hon. opposition House leader has been in the Speaker position before, so I know he is well aware of the following:

    Given the fact that the hon. Speaker has already ruled on this, it is not a matter that I am prepared to continue to entertain.

    Madam Speaker, I take the point. I anticipated that you were going to mention that ruling, so I have something that I would like you to consider. We do have question period later on today—

    I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up in one minute.

    I will do my best, Madam Speaker.

    You are absolutely right that there is context and that it is the Speaker's job to judge many factors when considering whether or not a term or a word is unparliamentary. However, I put it to you that it is a tactic of the government to take offence at words or phrases that have been used before, and they caused the disorder—

    This is becoming a point of debate, so I am going to shut it down. The Speaker has already ruled on this. I will certainly take the additional information the member has provided under advisement, and we will come back to the House if need be.

    Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, on that point of order—

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I have just closed down this particular point of order by the House leader of the official opposition. I have already stated that. If the hon. parliamentary secretary has a different point of order, I will come back to him, because somebody else has one.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Madam Speaker, you said that you would take it under advisement. If you do, I would like to add something to it, which is that, if you need other examples of comparison for this, you might want to refer to Wayne Easter's Canadian heritage moment when he referred to the then leader of the opposition as a “pigeon”, and the Speaker responded to that at the time. I would be happy to share the video of that if you would like to see it.

    I have heard enough on this particular issue. As I said, the Speaker has already ruled on this. I do not see us coming back to the House, but we will certainly look at the information provided and will come back if need be.

    If individuals want to have conversations, I would ask them to take them outside.

    The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to your attention to proceed—

    Order. The hon. official opposition House leader may want to take his conversation outside.

    Madam Speaker, it is a procedural matter related to Question No. 1013, which I submitted on November 23, 2022. My question was:

    I just want to remind the hon. member that I really do not need to know what the question was and that he should just tell me what the issue is.

    Again, if the member is not satisfied with the answer from the government, that is not something the Chair would rule on. I would ask that he explain exactly what he is raising in the point of order, without going into all of those details.

    Madam Speaker, this is a very detailed question, and it goes on through all the different spectrums, which is a very complicated subject. What we attempted to do was try to peel the onion back and understand what will actually be going on with the government with spectrum management in the coming days. However, the bottom line is that the government did not answer anyone, did not refer to any cause, did not even refer to megahertz or gigahertz, and did not use a technical term at all for a very technical question.

    I am asking you, Madam Speaker, to refer to Standing Order 39(5)(b), which states:

    As I noted, or was trying to note, my questions were not answered. Failing to answer these questions prevents me from fulfilling my duties as a member of Parliament. Failing to answer this question on this particular subject matter raised in an Order Paper question is preventing me from fulfilling my duties as shadow minister for rural economic development activity.

    I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule that when the government significantly ignores the substance of an Order Paper question, this should be considered a failure to answer, for the purposes of Standing Order 39(5)(b). That way, the government's refusal to answer a written question can be referred to a committee for review.

    I thank the member very much. However, I want to remind members that, while members should have access to relevant and accurate information to ensure that they can fulfill their parliamentary functions, it is not for the Chair to evaluate the content of responses to written questions. Again, this is a response from the Speaker. As with Oral Questions, it is acceptable for the government, in responding to a question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer.

    Again, I will take the additional information that the hon. member has provided and come back to the House if need be.

    The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte has a point of order as well.

    Madam Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a pattern developing here. I also would like to bring forward my issue with a non-answer, actually a failure to answer my question that was put, which is Question No. 1002. This is a very short question. It is not that I did not like the answer; I did not get an answer. In its answer, the government is saying it did not answer. I will put this into the record to show you another quick instance. My short question was:

    This is where I would really like to get into the details—

    Again, I do not need the details of questions. I have an idea of the question that has been put forward. I would just encourage greater co-operation between members and ministers in their exchange of information and correspondence. This is all part of what has been discussed.

    I am going to go to orders of the day.

    I have a question of privilege. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

    Madam Speaker, my understanding is that, having stood to be recognized on a question of privilege, my standing should have come prior to that piece of business being moved, so I would seek a ruling from the Chair on that item and ask for you to come back to the House.

    I gave notice to the Speaker's office about the question of privilege that I am raising. It concerns the government's not appointing a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I would like to draw attention to pages 80 and 81 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:

    At page 82, there is a list of those offences. They include “interfering with or obstructing a person who is carrying out a lawful order of the House or a committee”. In this case, the government is refusing to fill the position of an officer of Parliament who is charged with carrying out the lawful orders of the House. On the same page, it also lists as an offence. “failing to fulfill any requirement of the House, as declared in a code of conduct or otherwise, relating to the possession, declaration, or registration of financial interests or participation in debate or other proceedings.”

    Without an Ethics Commissioner in place, there is no one on duty to ensure that members fulfill the requirements of the House, as described by the House in law and in its rules. There are serious questions that remain unanswered, like that of Michael Sabia, the former deputy minister of finance, who is now with Hydro-Québec. Mr. Sabia and the finance department were repeatedly lobbied by Hydro-Québec throughout his tenure as the deputy minister. Hydro-Québec approached Mr. Sabia about a job there, but Mr. Sabia declined to pursue it until the budget was released. He knew what the job was, and, lo and behold, the budget contained direct benefits for Hydro-Québec. There are many questions arising from this case that can be answered only by the Ethics Commissioner, and there is not one. Did Mr. Sabia report that job offer? Hydro-Québec lobbied finance, and both the company and the former deputy minister stood to benefit from the decisions he just made in government. It is actions like these that damage the public trust in institutions.

    The Liberal government, this one in particular, its Prime Minister and its ministers, has a record of repeated ethical breaches that further reinforce the question of privilege I am raising now about the need for an Ethics Commissioner to be appointed.

    There are several references in reports that have been tabled in the House, which I would like considered. They include the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report”. Both of these outline the first time in the government's history that a prime minister has been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We also have the now intergovernmental affairs minister who was found guilty of breaking the Ethics Act, and the then president of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, who had given a contract worth $24 million to a family member. The same is true with the former finance minister. We have seen repeated reports of breaches of this code.

    Madam Speaker, I want to refer you to Joseph Maingot's 2nd edition of Parliamentary Privilege, page 227. It says, “In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.” This citation is in reference to a ruling from March 21, 1978, at page 3975 of Debates, where the Speaker cites the report of the U.K. select committee on parliamentary privileges, and from a ruling of October 10, 1989, at pages 4457 to 4461 of Debates.

    In a ruling of October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of Debates, the Speaker said:

    Finally, on March 27, 1969, at page 853 of the Debates, the Speaker ruled:

    We have an unprecedented situation, in which the government has an obligation, based on laws passed by members duly elected to the House, to appoint one of those guardians, one of those whose position allows them to safeguard the confidence of Canadians in this democratic institution. AS in the question I raised with respect to the former deputy minister, Mr. Sabia, testimony at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which now appears in Hansard, was heard from spokespeople from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who said they are unable to fulfill their obligations because of the vacancy in this role.

    Members have the right to be able to file with the Commissioner, and the Commissioner then has an obligation to investigate these complaints and whether or not a breach of the act has occurred. In this case, it is incredibly serious. It deals with a deputy minister of the Crown then taking a position, a lucrative one, with a company like Hydro-Québec, which benefited substantially from the budget Mr. Sabia presided over as the deputy minister. Once that cash hit the table, he was out the door and into a job at Hydro-Québec.

    It is only reasonable that members of the House, on behalf of Canadians, in order to ensure their confidence in the processes we have in place, would be able to raise that with an independent officer of Parliament so there could be an investigation. If that officer of Parliament were to find there was in fact a breach, there are ramifications for that; if not, then the matter is disposed of.

    This is only one example, because we are not going to hear from all members of the official opposition today on other issues they have observed and that they would like investigated or raised with the Ethics Commissioner, because no one is in that position. In fact, when a standing committee of the House did send for a representative from that office, the office had no one to send except a communications director. I have checked, and if the Speaker consults the act, they are not going to find that members of the House are to raise concerns with the GR director, the PR director or the comms director for the offices of independent officers of this place.

    They do not have powers that are given to them by statute or by law. The government has that obligation. It also has the power to appoint someone on an interim basis, but it is refusing to exercise that power. What this demonstrates is that the government is availing itself of the ability to mind the store without anyone counting the register at the end of the day.

    All members of this House were duly elected by their constituents. The official opposition is composed of members who have exercised the right to raise issues to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That independent office has, in the past, found breaches by ministers of the Crown and by other designated public office holders.

    Madam Chair, I am asking for you to consider this question, come back to the House and make a ruling on whether my privilege, as a member of this House, has been violated by the government's actions and inactions in this case.

    I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. Certainly, we will get back to the hon. member on that.

    There are 904 motions and amendments standing on the notice for the report stage of Bill C-47. I will get to the points of order after I am finished.

    Motions Nos. 690 and 750 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. Motions Nos. 456 to 683 will not be selected by the Chair because they are repetitive and could have been presented in committee.

     All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

    Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749, and 751 to 904 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

    I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749 and 751 to 904 to the House.

     moved: