SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/19/23 12:19:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not in my nature to stand and argue that I have been wronged. I believe that a privilege motion is a very serious event, so, hopefully, my standing alongside the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill underscores the seriousness that I take with this breach. Just a few comments with regard to my specific situation stemming from the arguments of the breach that was noted by the earlier speaker. I think we all can probably agree that, in Canada, democracy is not as healthy as it could be and as it needs to be. We also know that the Prime Minister and his office, and some of his ministers, do not take the health of Canadian democracy all that seriously. However, we are incredibly fortunate that in Parliament we have the Westminister parliamentary system that can and needs to stand up for democracy. How does that work? Because the one thing that the Prime Minister does not have the power to do is to elect you, our Speaker. The fact that for many years parliamentarians must vote in the Speaker should never be forgotten or taken for granted, because the Speaker does not represent the government. Rather, the Speaker represents all democratically elected officials in this place to protect our ability to carry out the discharge of our duties; the benefit of a free and democratic society. In other words, you, Mr. Speaker, represent all of us in this work. I mention these things because we have a situation where a government department, in this case NRCan, with my Order Paper Question No. 1113, decided that it did not want to be accountable to Canadians. This department deliberately withheld information in order to mislead us as democratically elected officials. In an access to information request by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, there included a short reference to my Order Paper question. It specifically related to cancelled government contracts and any other related costs. Spending of the government and its scrutiny is core to every member of Parliament, who is not a part of the executive, to our parliamentary functions. The department and its communication assessment, for those who are watching at home, means to identify any issues and associated communications approach. It said, “NRCan answer uses limitation language and does not disclose specific cancelled contracts from the time period requested. Communication risk appears low and depends on whether NRCan stands out among all departments answering. Inherent risk of limitation language is accepted.” We know that this department did not want to disclose specific cancelled contracts. Were department officials embarrassed? Were they sensitive? Did they just not want to be accountable to the public? We do not know, but we do know that they identified there would be other departments that would answer honestly and forthrightly, as is their duty, being the stewards of public money. That was the risk that NRCan weighed. Imagine for a moment if every department started to do this, especially with something like an Order Paper question, where we ask for factual information with the expectation that we will get factual information. That is why this privilege motion is so critically important for Canadian democracy. We know that this department did not want to disclose specific contracts. Why that is we do not know. This, Mr. Speaker, will be your moment to stand up for the House, and for all members, to send a powerful message to NRCan that democracy will always prevail in Canada. That is the Speaker for whom I voted. I believe that we must send this message strongly, that no government department can be allowed to withhold information or taint our Order Paper process. If we allow this to happen once, it will inevitably happen again; if not the same kind of level, it could be worse. I ask that you investigate this, Mr. Speaker, to ensure we can carry out our parliamentary duties. There is no way that the decision to limit the language, to purposefully hide contracts from public disclosure would not happen without the approval of the minister responsible and his staff. All of this falls on your shoulders, Mr. Speaker, who must stand in this place to represent us and send a powerful message that this is wrong and needs to be turned around. If the Speaker fails to do this, it will only enable more government departments to engage in this kind of garbage, and, frankly, I think we all can agree that it is not acceptable. This department thought it was above this place. Let us remind the government and its departments that they are there to serve Canadians and that Order Paper questions should be sacrosanct and factual.

791 words

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

Hon. Pablo Rodriguez

Jun/19/23 5:24:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question is why the Conservatives are supporting tech giants all the time, every time, using their speaking points on this point. We are standing up for our democracy. We are standing up for traditional media, and new media of course; they all have a role to play. However, 500 of them have closed their doors, which is hurting our democracy. The Conservatives do not care. They have fought against this bill, and by fighting against this bill, they are fighting their own democracy. That is a shame.

90 words

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

Hon. Pablo Rodriguez

Jun/19/23 5:29:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague for his question and his tireless work. He is an MP I respect enormously. We have known each other since we started working together in 2004. I have seen the quality and thoroughness of his work over all these years, particularly on Bill C-18. He is absolutely right. There is no democracy or sovereign nation that can allow a web giant, a foreign company, to come in and dictate terms. We cannot allow a company, any company, to come in and tell a sovereign government, one elected by the people, that it must do this or that or risk suffering the consequences and paying the price. That is absolutely unacceptable. Some of the actions taken by certain web giants constitute bullying, pure and simple. They are bullying Canadians, members of the House of Commons and senators. It is unacceptable. We must stand strong. Unfortunately, the Conservatives caved immediately. They caved to pressure from the web giants at every step and at every opportunity, but we will stand strong.

179 words