44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 28, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, there is different legislation that is covered for the government, but philosophically, absolutely the government should be held accountable for keeping Canadians' information safe. We know there have been breaches over time. We had a recent one with the ArriveCAN app. There was information that was sent out to 10,000 people that was not accurate. We know there have been other breaches over time.
It is imperative that Canadians know that the government is also held to account for the information it holds in all the different departments a Canadian citizen might correspond with.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the private right of action would allow individuals and groups of consumers to seek compensation in court. This has been used effectively in the United States to remedy violations, but it is very burdensome in Bill C-27 to make it even usable.
For example, if the Privacy Commissioner does not investigate or rule on a complaint, an individual has no right of action. If the Privacy Commissioner does investigate and rule on a complaint but the tribunal does not uphold it, the individual has no right of action. These are a couple of examples.
Does my hon. colleague feel that this bill should be amended to fix this?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have seen over time from the Liberal government is building up bureaucracy, building up red tape and making things more difficult for people. Just as a general philosophy, any time we can strip away red tape, create efficiencies and take away bureaucracy, it is a good thing.
Of course, we need to have rules and policies in place. We also need to have the department serving Canadians, and that should really be its focus. It should be focusing on making sure people follow rules, but as soon as we get into difficult, bureaucratic regimes and a lot of red tape, it makes it more difficult for everyone.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
I would like to hear what my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country thinks about the government's public data. Is it not time for the government to implement other ways to verify identity?
I am talking about at least a factor of two verifications, maybe even three. This may be data such as a password, but it may also be by voice recognition, by facial recognition, by text, and so forth. It may be time for the government to move on to something else.
Could we have more robust means of protecting Canadians' data?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the specific ideas might be but I think, in general, any time we can do anything to protect the privacy of Canadians, whether it is within government or within the private sector, whatever all those different levels are, it is a good thing. I know it is something people are extremely concerned about.
As I mentioned in my speech, I often get local residents reaching out to me about privacy concerns they have.
We need to do everything we can within our legislative powers to make sure people's personal privacy is protected.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:31:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the last time we visited this topic, we were talking, of course, about the Minister of Public Safety's claim that police had asked for him and his government to invoke the Emergencies Act.
We know now that this was not true. This is pretty consistent with the government. It is part of a pattern, a pattern of disinformation and a lack of transparency.
Since the minister made that false claim, we have heard the stories of the ArriveCAN app. We have more than $54 million spent on this app, which wrongly sent thousands of Canadians into quarantine. It could have been built for many orders of magnitude less, some say hundreds of thousands of dollars, some say, at most, $1 million, certainly not $54 million.
We cannot get the details. The Liberals will not even tell us who did the work. They will not even tell us who the subcontractors are.
While we wait for the government to slowly produce invoices for us, and as parliamentarians and Canadians pore over that data, I will note one of the hard-working staff members who has been on my team for years. He is tireless in his pursuit of the truth and answers and accountability, a great Canadian, Jordan Johnston from Victoria-by-the-Sea, Prince Edward Island. Everyone back home should be really proud of the work Jordan does. He was poring through the information the government gives us in drip, drip, drips.
We see a lack of transparency from the government at every opportunity. It promised in 2015 that it would be open by default, but it is anything but that, whether it is with the minister's false claims on the police requesting that the government invoke the Emergencies Act, which was really just used as a way for the government to punish people it disagreed with, or with the ArriveCAN app. It does not want to tell us which Liberal insiders got these contracts. It does not want to tell us who got rich on the arrive scam.
We are going to keep asking the government for answers. We are going to keep demanding accountability. It looks like it is going to keep misleading Canadians and providing disinformation to throw us off the trail of whose pockets are being lined and who is getting rich on these contracts.
My question to the government is very straightforward. It goes back to the promise it made in 2015. It speaks to the times we have heard the Prime Minister say that the story in The Globe and Mail was false, or the stories in the newspaper of late about what the Prime Minister said about having been briefed about foreign interference in our elections, when he will not tell us which 11 candidates were receiving cash from communist China. He will not tell us. He says those stories in the media are false.
The Liberals are not being straightforward with Canadians. We want transparency. Canadians deserve it. Conservatives demand it. When will the government finally be transparent with Canadians?
512 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:34:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is good to have a chance to debate the hon. member opposite.
We want to unpack a couple of things in the member's questions in relation to what we saw last winter. This past winter we saw a state of emergency declared in Ottawa with protesters blocking key infrastructure and harassing and intimidating citizens. We also saw interference with transportation and other critical infrastructure throughout the country, which was preventing the movement of people and essential goods.
The illegal blockades we witnessed were well funded and constituted a serious threat to national security. We knew through our engagement with partners that law enforcement had certain tools available to address illegal protests and blockades. Existing powers included those under provincial and municipal statutes in place to address traffic and noise violations. However, as all Canadians saw, despite those existing tools, the situation was rapidly changing and changing in a bad way. We saw it reach a point in which local law enforcement, for example here in the nation's capital of Ottawa, required additional assistance to address the unique situation posed by the illegal blockades.
We also saw that the economy as a whole was being affected by the situation, with the safety and security of Canadians in more than one province affected. We knew the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was becoming clearer. Invoking the act was a measure, and the Prime Minister and others have spoken to this, of last resort, which is the situation we found ourselves in.
The new measures the act provided were additional to the existing tools, and they were squarely aimed at public safety and protecting our country's interests. The new measures were temporary and in place to address a specific emergency. They helped to prohibit unlawful assembly that interrupted the movement of people and goods, affected trade or interfered with critical infrastructure.
They also helped to deter the financing of the occupation and end material protests to the illegal demonstrations. They helped to secure our border crossings, bridges, airports and other public institutions. As well, thanks to the temporary measures available under the act, we saw vehicles towed, including, most vividly, here in Ottawa, where Wellington Street and the streets of the downtown core were finally given back to the public of Ottawa. We saw the act being used to bring about the peaceful conclusion of the illegal blockades at ports of entry, at the border, deterring unlawful actions and encouraging, in fact, peaceful protest.
On February 14, we invoked the act, at the right time, for the right reasons, in the right way. We revoked it at the right time, for the right reasons, in the most responsible way.
Now we find ourselves looking back, able to take a necessary look at what was done and what could be done, quite frankly, differently. Along with the significant limits and safeguards that provided, we knew that accountability mechanisms were also built into the very act. That includes the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency scrutiny and the invocation of the act. It includes the work of the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is examining the aspects of the public order emergency and the Emergencies Act.
This is the accountability Canadians demand. It is exactly what they will get thanks to our responsible, timely and effective use of the Emergencies Act, just as the act intended.
570 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:38:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's response. I do not think I have had the opportunity to engage in debate directly with the member before.
Aside from what the government members perceived, and in spite of their discussions and their trepidations, the situation is that the minister claims something happened that is not supported by the evidence that was offered under oath by the heads of the relevant agencies: the OPP, the RCMP, the Ottawa Police and the military police. None of them asked the minister or the government to invoke the act. We know that CSIS has said that it did not meet the threshold required.
Canadians want transparency. They want accountability. They want honesty. When are they going to get it?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:39:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the process is doing what it is supposed to do, in terms of providing Canadians an oversight and overview of what transpired.
I would respectfully disagree with the member opposite. Last winter, as I mentioned in my statement, participants in illegal blockades and protests adopted a number of threatening acts, disrupting the peace and impacting the Canadian economy. Quite frankly, the folks in Ottawa and in other parts of Canada were under siege. I think we took the necessary steps in short order. The review process is showing that we did the right thing.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:40:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to take up a point that I debated in this place when we first had the news from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the spring of this year, that we have less time than we thought in responding to the urgency of the science. The panel reported that, if we did not reduce our emissions rapidly, we would lose any chance of holding to 1.5ºC global average temperature increase, and that we had to stay below 2ºC.
At that point, in my question to the government members, I quoted the United Nations Secretary General, António Guterres. He, when speaking recently of the promises made in Paris at COP21 in 2015 versus the delivery on climate action by governments around the world, said that some governments are promising to reduce emissions, but emissions are increasing. He said, “Simply put, they are lying.” I asked the hon. government members, when the UN Secretary General was speaking of governments that were doing one thing and saying another, whom did our government think António Guterres was referencing.
Since the time of my question, it has been clear that the government has provided additional support to the expansion of fossil fuel development. Now we have a very clear difference here, and I want to set out the problem because I want to be fair to all concerned. The government of the current Liberal minority, supported by the NDP in their confidence-supply agreement, appears to believe, or at least wants Canadians to believe, that reaching net zero by 2050 is a target that will ensure we can hold our increase in global average temperature to 1.5ºC, or at least as far below 2ºC as possible.
The Liberals put forward this notion, and they emphasized it again in the climate accountability act that was passed in the last Parliament, even though it is not true. It is not true that achieving net zero by 2050 assures us of a livable world. In fact, the science in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report makes it very clear that the 2050 target of net zero is irrelevant if emissions continue to rise in the near term. In other words, again from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 2050 target without emissions must peak globally and begin to fall dramatically at the latest before 2025 or any hope of 1.5ºC or 2ºC is gone.
A 2ºC world is unthinkable, yet we are on track to it. Again quoting António Guterres of the United Nations, when COP27 opened earlier this month in Sharm el-Sheikh, he said that the world is “on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.”
Therefore, again, what government does the Canadian government believe the UN is referencing when it says that some governments are promising and doing the opposite? He said, “Simply put, they are lying.” As well, to whom does the government think it is referring to when it says “foot on the accelerator”, when we have a government that is insisting on building pipelines, expanding production and drilling off Newfoundland? Whom is the United Nations referencing?
564 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:44:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and colleague for the question.
I cannot speak for the Secretary-General nor speculate about which leader he is referring to. However, what appears to be underlying his statement is a deep concern with the state of global emissions despite several decades of international co-operation and political commitments. I share this deep concern and so does our government.
With less than a decade left to 2030, and with countries around the world quickly moving to a cleaner economy, Canada's 2030 target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels is ambitious, necessary and achievable, reflecting both the scale of the climate crisis and the economic opportunity that climate action presents. This target reflects Canada's highest possible ambition in light of its current national circumstances.
Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan is a road map that goes sector by sector, outlines the measures and strategies for Canada to reach this target and lays the foundations for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments and a suite of new measures to help mobilize Canada towards a truly sustainable economy and becoming a leading competitor in the global transition to cleaner industries and technologies. This plan also builds on the strong foundation set by the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change and the strengthened climate plan. As well, since 2015, the government has delivered $100 billion in investments for climate action.
These efforts are working. Thanks to the actions of millions of Canadians, we have been able to halt our once-upward trend of emissions and bend it downward. This road map will build on this progress and chart the course to lowering emissions by 40% below 2005 levels.
Of course, ambitious action by Canada alone is not enough. Climate change is a global crisis that requires global solutions. Under the Paris Agreement, all have adopted national emissions targets. Like Canada, many have recently come forward with even stronger commitments. Still, there is much more to be done at the global level, and Canada will continue to play a key role and strongly advocate that all countries, particularly members of the G20, do their part to achieve the 1.5°C temperature goal.
We need more countries to adopt stronger targets and formal commitments to achieve net-zero emissions. We need to see greater public and private investment in low-carbon solutions. We need to see an even more deliberate and rapid move away from unabated coal. As we move forward in driving down Canada's own emissions, we will continue to engage with international partners from all over the world and advocate for increased ambition.
454 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:48:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the exchange I just had with my friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary, exactly explains our problem.
Canada's targets are currently out of sync with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we must do. Spending billions of dollars on good programs is excellent, but while this government gives with one hand, it takes with the other. For climate action, absolutely promote heat pumps and electric cars, but it is a drop in the bucket while bucketfuls of effort continue to go to increasing our production of oil and gas, which when burned in other countries puts us on the highway to climate hell.
Our foot in this country is on the accelerator. If I do nothing more before I die than to get this Prime Minister to get his heavy foot off the accelerator, I will die happy.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:49:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to repeat, the 2030 emissions reduction plan provides a credible pathway to the lower range of our target of 40% below 2005 levels. Enhanced climate ambition from provinces, territories, municipalities, industry and the financial sector, as well as the acceleration of clean technology and innovation, and the deployment of that technology, will drive further reductions. These collective efforts will give Canada the accelerated momentum that is needed to achieve the upper bound of Canada's emissions reduction target and put us on track to net-zero emissions by 2050.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I asked a question on November 17 of the government about when it will finally return our coastal waters to wild salmon, specifically by getting open-net fish farms out of the water. The evidence is clear that these fish farms are polluting and destroying marine ecosystems and livelihoods, yet the Liberal government continues to prop up rich Norwegian CEOs, who are the owners of these fish farms, and allow them to continue on with business as usual while destroying marine life and the future of wild Pacific salmon.
The minister's response, particularly in light of the detrimental consequences on our environment and coastal communities, was beyond inadequate, so I am here today to ask for action.
Last Friday, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and I were invited to and attended a ceremony and meeting on the Tsleil-Waututh first nation's territory, with chiefs and representatives from first nation territories across B.C., including representation from Snuneymuxw, which is found in the riding I represent, Nanaimo—Ladysmith. They were focused on the protection of wild Pacific salmon and were united in their wish to get open-net fish farms out of the water.
In this meeting, the minister and I had the honour of participating in a salmon dance, which, as a side note, is something I will carry with me forever in my memories. It was an honour. Chiefs shared the many ways that first nations and wild salmon are interconnected, not only regarding food security but regarding social, ceremonial and first nations' inherent and constitutionally protected rights to harvest fish and provide for their communities. In fact, 90% of B.C. first nations rely on wild salmon. Despite this, we are seeing historic low returns.
Vital wild salmon are facing many threats, such as the impacts of climate crises, including extreme weather, flooding, heat domes, forest fires and warming waters, and all of this while we are continuing to allow fish farms in our coastal waters to damage our marine ecosystems. We see salmon left to swim through diseases and sea lice found in key migratory routes, which is all spewing from polluting fish farms that are being allowed to maintain and continue business by the government.
We heard from first nations chiefs in this meeting, who spoke to the diseases being carried by fish exposed to the impacts of fish farms. They were being described as glowing and covered in sores and sea lice, which has never been seen before. There are endless examples of impacts, and first nations chiefs across British Columbia described to us impacts on both wild salmon and their coastal communities.
I am wondering if my colleague can provide us with action and the reassurance today that we are going to move away from open-net fish farms and finally follow through with a plan to get them out.
491 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I sit on the fisheries committee together and I have a great deal of respect for her and her work.
We recognize that wild Pacific salmon are of great importance to the communities in British Columbia both culturally and economically, and that wild Pacific salmon are facing historic threats from a variety of stressors. It is therefore a priority of the Government of Canada to protect and restore our oceans and coasts.
We are taking a wide range of actions to halt and reverse the decline in wild Pacific salmon populations. For example, with the funding announced through budget 2021, we are investing $647 million over five years to conserve wild Pacific salmon. The minister has also been mandated to continue to work with the Province of British Columbia and indigenous communities to create a responsible plan to transition away from open-net pen salmon farming in coastal B.C. waters by 2025.
We are fully committed to this and indeed are making progress toward a plan. On July 29, Minister Murray released a discussion framework that outlines a proposed vision for open-net pen—
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:54:38 p.m.
- Watch
Order, please. I remind the member that using the name of a minister is probably not the best thing to do.
The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:54:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on July 29, 2022, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard released a discussion framework that outlines the proposed vision for open-net pen transition in B.C. in a manner that progressively minimizes or eliminates interactions between salmon open-net pens and wild salmon, while also taking into account social, cultural and economic objectives.
The proposed framework is helping guide comprehensive engagement with first nations in B.C., the province, the aquaculture industry in B.C., environmental stakeholders and other interested parties, to hear their diverse perspectives on the transition of open-net pen aquaculture in B.C.
Over the coming months we will continue to gather input and take into account the many diverse views on aquaculture. The feedback and input received during this engagement will be instrumental in the development of a final transition plan, which we expect to complete in the spring of 2023 and which will build on four objectives.
The first is to create a pathway for existing aquaculture operations to adopt alternative production methods that minimize or eliminate interactions between farmed and wild salmon.
The second is to improve transparency on how the government assesses and responds to new scientific information, to build confidence and trust in the aquaculture industry.
The third is to provide greater opportunities for collaborative planning and decision-making with first nations partners.
The fourth is to advance innovation and attract investment to support the adoption of alternative production technologies in the province of British Columbia.
While the transition plan is being developed, licences for marine finfish aquaculture facilities in the province of B.C., outside of the Discovery Islands area, will also be renewed for two years. The renewals include stronger requirements for aquaculture facilities, including the implementation of standardized reporting requirements and sea lice management plans, as well as wild salmon monitoring.
We will continue to work with partners and key stakeholders to advance sustainable aquaculture in B.C. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is fully committed to promptly developing a responsible transition plan for open-net pen aquaculture, in partnership with B.C., the province, first nations, industry and other interested parties.
We believe this work will drive Canada toward technological innovation and place us at the forefront of modern, sustainable aquaculture.
386 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the science is clear. We know open-net fish farms need to get out of our water. We are hearing from first nations chiefs who are very clear that they want open-net fish farms out of the water. We have seen Washington state say “no more” to fish farms in the water. The Shíshálh Nation has also said no to fish farms in the water.
I am hearing an argument that the scientific evidence is inconclusive, which is untrue. There is clear scientific evidence that shows that these fish farms are damaging, and even if that were not the case, we need to be implementing a precautionary approach to ensure that we are erring on the side of caution in protecting wild salmon.
When will the government finally get fish farms out of the water and protect wild salmon?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:58:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, given the unprecedented threats that the wild Pacific salmon are facing, we agree that we must take action to conserve and protect them.
That is why the government, through the minister's mandate letter, is developing a planned transition for open-net pen salmon aquaculture in coastal waters. We will continue to engage, as I said in my previous statement, with all of the stakeholders in B.C., to put forward a plan that transitions us in a coordinated, strategic and outcomes-based way.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 6:58:42 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
