SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 181 - Apr/20/23

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Apr/20/23 3:06:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the remains of Linda Mary Beardy, a 33-year-old indigenous woman, were found in the Brady landfill in Winnipeg. On Saturday, the remains of another woman were found near the Red River. They deserve to be honoured. They deserve justice. This ongoing genocide requires an urgent national response, including creating a nationwide red dress alert program. Should we go missing, we must be found. Will this government take immediate action to implement a red dress alert and save lives now?

86 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 3:07:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her advocacy for putting a red dress alert in place across the country. As the member knows, I have made a commitment to work with her on this. Our budget also included a commitment to working on a red dress alert. I thank her for her advocacy, and I look forward to working with her to implement it. Of course, along with all members, we need to do better when it comes to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/20/23 3:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith died in segregation in 2007 at the Grand Valley Institution for Women. Then, in 2016, Terry Baker died at Grand Valley while also in segregation. An inquest into her death was called in 2017, but it has been delayed twice; this time, it was because Correctional Service Canada would not provide the necessary documents. It did not even give a reason. Will the minister direct Correctional Services to stop stalling this important inquest?

77 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 3:08:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with Terry Baker's family, friends and all who knew her. We were also disappointed that the inquest was delayed; we hoped that it would shed a light on the tragic and devastating events of 2016. I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy. I look forward to continuing to work with him on conditions of confinement, not only at GVI but at institutions across the country.

74 words

The Speaker

Apr/20/23 3:09:10 p.m.
Watch

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Caroline Cochrane, Premier of the Northwest Territories. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

29 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Apr/20/23 3:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In question period, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement cited the government's commitment in budget 2023 to reduce outsourcing by 15%. I am just asking for clarification. Is that on the 400% increase in outsourcing or is that on the 2015 amount of outsourcing?

55 words

The Speaker

Apr/20/23 3:10:06 p.m.
Watch

I am afraid the member will have to wait for the next question period or the next debate to ask that question.

22 words

The Speaker

Apr/20/23 3:10:40 p.m.
Watch

I have the honour to lay upon the table the strategic plan 2023-26 for the House administration.

18 words

The Speaker

Apr/20/23 3:10:52 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 17 by the member for Pickering—Uxbridge concerning comments made following Oral Questions on March 31 by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. In her intervention, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge alleged that the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake had intentionally misled the House by falsely accusing her of having made a statement containing offensive words. This, she suggested, was a misuse of the privilege of freedom of speech. She categorically denied having made such a statement and felt that the accusation had damaged her reputation. She added that her ability to perform her duties had been hindered because of these allegations, since her office received several threatening and aggressive phone calls, emails and social media reactions. For her part, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake asserted that her version of the events was different than that of the member for Pickering—Uxbridge. She countered that this matter did not meet the standards needed to establish that a member deliberately misled the House, and thus did not rise to the threshold of a question of privilege. The Chair has had an opportunity to review the proceedings. No part of the off microphone exchanges between the members for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Pickering—Uxbridge was captured in the transcript or by the video recording. In a ruling on a similar matter, on October 30, 2006, found at page 4414 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote: ...requesting an apology or a withdrawal is predicated on a common agreement about what actually took place, either because the exchange appears in the official record or because both parties acknowledge that the exchange took place. In this case, the official record is not helpful and the Speaker is faced with a dispute, indeed a contradiction, about what actually happened. This also appears to be the case here. One member alleges that something was said, while the other denies having said it. The Chair has no reason to doubt that both members sincerely thought they were right and, therefore, I can only conclude a misunderstanding between them. One way to avoid such misunderstandings is to be civil with each other at all times. The Chair is cognizant that exchanges in the House, on and off the record, can sometimes become heated. However, the Chair would urge members to be judicious with the words they use. There are alternative ways to make one's point and still remain respectful with each other. As to whether the events described constitute a question of privilege, as indicated, the Chair does not believe that it has been established that there was a clear intent to mislead. Finally, it is not clear how the member was prevented from fulfilling her parliamentary duties. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find a prima facie case of privilege. I consider the matter closed. I thank members for their attention.

503 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Apr/20/23 3:15:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a brief comment. This is the first of five consecutive sitting weeks in the House. We are asking a lot of all those who have families at home. I therefore want to salute and thank our families for allowing us to do the work in this place of representing not only our constituents, but all Canadians. Concerning the questions I have for the Government House leader, we are very interested in who will be the next Ethics Commissioner. We hope that by the next time we return to our ridings, the government will give us a clear indication of who is to be appointed the next Ethics Commissioner. In the meantime, let us try to avoid scandals. I would like to ask the Government House leader to inform members of the agenda for the remainder of this week and next week.

149 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 3:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, I echo my hon. colleague's statements. The next nine of the 10 weeks the House will be sitting is a long time away from families, and our families do sacrifice a lot, which is a really important point to emphasize. He and I could have a longer discussion about the Ethics Commissioner. We are both very anxious to see that important position filled, and I am sure he and I could work together on that. With respect to the business of the House, tomorrow morning we are going to start second reading of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. On Monday, Tuesday and Thursday of next week, we will continue with debate of the budget bill. On Wednesday, we will call Bill C-13, concerning the Official Languages Act, at report stage and third reading. On Friday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-42 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act. Finally, there have been discussions among all parties and if you seek it, I am certain you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House: (a) on Thursday, May 4, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 8, 2023, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall have deemed to have sat on Friday, May 5, 2023; (b) on Thursday, May 18, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2023, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall have been deemed to have sat on Friday, May 19, 2023; and (c) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on both Fridays.

325 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Apr/20/23 3:18:15 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

33 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

Apr/20/23 3:18:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents from Calgary Midnapore. I am here today to discuss the bill that is in front of us, Bill C-27, which is an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act, the personal information and data protection tribunal act, the artificial intelligence and data act, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. It is very interesting that this bill is before the House today. It talks about the three different components and, in fact, I see within the backgrounder prepared here in the legislative report that it is dubbed the digital charter implement act, 2022. I am reminded, by this bill that is in front of us here today, of another digital charter and that is the digital charter that was implemented in 2019, a very important year, by the Liberal government. It was brought into effect by the minister of industry and innovation at that time. I believe that document was actually supposed to be a tool to protect Canadians from foreign interference. That digital charter in 2019, along with many other tools, failed, so I do hope that the implementation of this new digital charter in 2022 will be far more successful than its predecessor. I will point out that in the 2019 digital charter, in terms of the principles within it, number 8 was listed as “a strong democracy”. In 2019, I was the shadow minister of democratic institutions. I worked alongside the current Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, who was, at that time, the minister of democratic institutions. I believe that the 2019 digital charter was supposed to be a tool, as I said, in coordination with other tools, to protect Canadians from foreign interference. The same year that the 2019 digital charter was issued, we also had the same minister of democratic institutions attempt to implement another suite of safeguards on foreign interference back in 2019, along with the 2019 digital charter. In fact, here, I have the minister's opening statements to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on safeguarding the 2019 general election and the security intelligence threat to the elections task force. I cite from it: Earlier this week, along with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, I announced the release of the 2019 update to the Communications Security Establishment’s report entitled “Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process”. This updated report highlights that it is very likely Canadian voters will encounter some form of foreign cyber interference in the course of the 2019 federal election. While CSE underlines that it is unlikely this interference will be on the scale of the Russian activity in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the report notes that in 2018, half of all the advanced democracies holding national elections, representing a threefold increase since 2015, had their democratic process targeted by cyber-threat activity and that Canada is also at risk— —and, in fact, compromised, we would later see. This upward trend is likely to continue in 2019— —and, we saw, into 2021. We've seen that certain tools used to strengthen civic engagement have been co-opted to undermine, disrupt and destabilize democracy. Social media has been misused to spread false or misleading information. In recent years, we've seen foreign actors try to undermine democratic societies and institutions, electoral processes, sovereignty and security. The CSE's 2017 and 2019 assessments, along with ongoing Canadian intelligence and the experiences of our allies and like-minded countries, have informed and guided our efforts over the past year. This has led to the development of an action plan based on four pillars, engaging all aspects of Canadian society. I will go on to expand on these four pillars that were supposed to protect us in addition to the 2019 digital charter, the predecessor to this legislation here today. On January 30, I announced the digital citizen initiative and a $7 million investment— I am continuing from the Minister of Democratic Institution's speech. —towards improving the resilience of Canadians against online disinformation. In response to the increase in false, misleading and inflammatory information published online and through social media, the Government of Canada has made it a priority to help equip citizens with the tools and skills needed to critically assess online information. We're also leveraging the “Get Cyber Safe” national public awareness campaign to educate Canadians about cyber security and the simple steps they can take to protect themselves online. She continued: We have established the critical election incident public protocol. This is a simple, clear and non-partisan process for informing Canadians if serious incidents during the writ period threaten the integrity of the 2019 general election. This protocol puts the decision to inform Canadians directly in the hands of five of Canada’s most experienced senior public servants— I am not sure where those public servants are now. Perhaps outside. —who have a responsibility to ensure the effective, peaceful transition of power and continuity of government through election periods. The public service has effectively played this role for generations and it will continue to fulfill this important role through the upcoming election and beyond.... Under the second pillar, improving organizational readiness, one key new initiative is to ensure that political parties are all aware of the nature of the threat, so that they can take the steps needed to enhance their internal security practices and behaviours. The CSE’s 2017 report, as well as its 2019 update, highlight that political parties continue to represent one of the greatest vulnerabilities in the Canadian system. Canada’s national security agencies will offer threat briefings to political party leadership... Under the third pillar—combatting foreign interference—the government has established the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force to improve awareness of foreign threats and support incident assessment and response. The team brings together CSE, CSIS, the RCMP, and Global Affairs Canada to ensure a comprehensive understanding of and response to any threats to Canada.... We know that they have also been manipulated to....create confusion and exploit societal tension. She concluded: While it is impossible to fully predict what kinds of threats we will see in the run-up to Canada's general election, I want to assure this committee that Canada has put in place a solid plan. We continue to test and probe our readiness, and we will continue to take whatever steps we can towards ensuring a free, fair and secure election in 2019. That, along with the 2019 digital charter, the predecessor to today's legislation, failed to protect Canadians from foreign interference. Along with the debates commission, which she, lo and behold, announced six months earlier, where she also took the opportunity to announce the government's nominee for Canada's first Debates Commissioner, the Right Hon. David Johnston, the very rapporteur who was named to defend our foreign interests. The result of the incompetence of the Minister of Democratic Institutions at that time, in coordination with the digital charter of 2019 that was supposed to protect us, leaks from CSIS, up to 13 members of this House compromised, a former CPP Consul General bragging about influencing election outcomes and one member in this House of Commons that had to leave their Liberal caucus. I will conclude by saying I certainly hope that the digital charter, this Bill C-27 is far more effective in helping and safeguarding Canadians than the 2019 digital charter that failed to do that.

1289 words

All Topics

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

Apr/20/23 3:28:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the member is kind of twisting her arguments around to talk about an election and foreign interference under this particular piece of legislation. I would like to remind the member, and then pose it in the form of a question, that foreign interference in elections is nothing new. In fact, the Harper regime, many years ago, was told about it, and Stephen Harper chose to do nothing. The minister who was responsible for doing something was the current leader of the Conservative Party. He, too, chose to do nothing at all. I am wondering if the member should not be reserving some of her criticism towards her leader and the former prime minister who sat on their butts and did absolutely nothing on foreign interference.

131 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Apr/20/23 3:29:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, this is what we hear repeatedly from the government, that it is not its fault, even though after eight years of the Liberal government we have Canadians at food banks, we have mortgages and rents that have doubled, we have a public service strike of a magnitude we have not seen in 40 years, and we have had foreign interference. A Poilievre government will change this. A Poilievre government will take responsibility—

75 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/20/23 3:30:05 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member that we do not use the names of members currently in the House.

19 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Apr/20/23 3:30:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, a Conservative government, under the current opposition leader, will take responsibility and bring legislation back on track so we do not have to see this again.

28 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Apr/20/23 3:30:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, rather than fixating on whose fault it is, which is not getting us anywhere, I would like my colleague, who gave a very interesting speech, to tell us whether she believes that Bill C-27 is still as valid as it was before the advent of generative AI, specifically ChatGPT. Do we need to start over or is she happy with the result?

66 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Apr/20/23 3:30:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I think that we need to do something about AI. Based on what I read in this bill and in the newspapers, there is a lot of work to do. With regard to what the member said at the beginning of his comment about whose fault this is, it will never be the fault of the Bloc Québécois members, since they will never form the government.

72 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/20/23 3:31:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Uqaqtittiji, 19,000 Canadians were affected by the Equifax breach, and 600,000 were affected by the Cambridge Analytica breach that was exposed in 2018, yet compensation for Canadians was far less than what it was for Americans. Does the member not think it is time for reform to bring parity and equivalency to citizens on both sides of the border?

61 words

All Topics