SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/8/24 8:01:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as an Albertan, I would suggest that the fact that the member's jersey is promoting his hockey team is—

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 8:01:57 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

8 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/24 8:02:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have continued the infamous Harper Conservative tax treaties. It cost us over $30 billion each and every year. The Conservatives splurged. The Liberals should have reined that in, but they have chosen not to. This means, of course, that many other things the government could be doing are not getting done. I want to ask the member to comment on how there is more Conservative splurging tonight. They are trying to delete six words in the bill that are not substantive at all. The cost to taxpayers tonight will be nearly $100,000 for each word. Conservatives seem to spend like drunken sailors when they have the ability. Tonight they are holding Parliament up, and it is costing us $70,000 an hour for this debate on six words. What does the member think her constituents would think of the Conservative waste of half a million dollars tonight?

152 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

May/8/24 8:03:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy we are seeing right now is, unfortunately, not surprising. I do not see any common sense at all in spending this much time debating a motion that wants to remove six words from the title of a very important bill. As I said earlier, there are important things we could be debating. I know that many constituents in my riding are questioning what exactly this Reform-Conservative-Diagolon party actually stands for and whether its members have any right to be here.

86 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

May/8/24 8:04:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber. Before I start my remarks on the bill, I seek the Speaker's indulgence for just a moment. I was notified earlier today that a dear friend and former colleague of mine, Matthew Vaccari, had passed away. He succumbed to cancer. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Heather. Matt and I worked very closely together at Canada Life. I know a number of people at that organization who are very upset and sad and, of course, his family. Matt was a wonderful human being, someone who was full of energy and who always had a positive attitude. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his family for their loss and to all the people who worked with him and who knew Matt. He was a wonderful human being. It is a pleasure to speak to any financial legislation that the government brings forward. I know that there is a lot of debate tonight about the short title and some words, but the truth is that we are talking about a bill that would increase energy costs for Canadians. In Bill C-59, the EIFEL restrictions would impose an additional cost on public utilities in this country. We had witness testimony at the finance committee from a public utility in Nova Scotia that said that the bill would directly increase the energy costs of ratepayers in Nova Scotia. I understand that it may be inconvenient for the government, or for other parties who support the government, that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, taking their time and looking at ways to slow this legislation down because it would increase the cost of energy for Canadians at a time when they can least afford it. Wisdom has been chasing the Liberal government for a long time, but it has just not caught up with it yet. How is it possible that, in an affordability crisis, the government thinks it makes sense to introduce tax legislation that would directly increase the cost of energy for certain Canadians in this country, in particular Nova Scotia? There is no debate about it. There is no—

370 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/24 8:06:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as members would know, many interruptions have taken place this evening, saying that members needed to be relevant. The member started off talking about the amendment, and then he went right into the bill itself. I am just suggesting that if the Conservatives want us to be relevant to the actual amendment, then so should the Conservatives.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 8:07:12 p.m.
Watch

If I may, the hon. member is being relevant because he is explaining why the stalling is necessary. That is how I understand it, and I do listen to what is being said. The hon. member for Simcoe North.

39 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:07:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you are tough but fair, and I appreciate you, wholeheartedly, for your very wonderful ruling. I will continue.

20 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/8/24 8:07:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would just note that occasionally we get passionate in debate, but Conservatives did not call a point of order on the previous member who spoke, the member from Cohasset, Massachusetts.

38 words

Cohasset

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 8:07:58 p.m.
Watch

I really do not think that is an appropriate point of order. I would like the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the way he accuses colleagues of where they are or are not. The hon. member for Simcoe North.

43 words

Accuses

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:08:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North. As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title. I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill. There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy. The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government. That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill. In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians. These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do. Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill. The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers. I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.

837 words

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

May/8/24 8:14:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member, but I am sure that he could imagine how this might seem, to people following the debate, as though the Conservatives are acting like fish out of water, flipping and flopping all over the place. The member said that they want to hold up the bill and that they do not want the bill to pass. He seems prepared to admit that the Conservative Party just does not want the bill to pass, which is why they are holding it up, yet the person who moved the motion that he was actually debating said that the government cannot pass this legislation. Does he not see the inconsistency in the discussions that Conservatives, or the reformers across the way, are having with their collective Conservative mind?

135 words

Debating

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:15:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happens in the Liberal caucus, but we have a lot of individual members here who have individual aspirations, individual reasons for how they vote and individual reasons for why they feel compelled to speak. The reason I am speaking tonight is that the energy bills of the people of Nova Scotia are going to go up as soon as this bill passes. I think it is irresponsible to do anything but try to prevent that from happening just a little longer.

88 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/8/24 8:15:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions. I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C‑56 and Bill C‑59. The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act. Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

154 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:17:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed working with my friend at the finance committee. I think he asked a very relevant question. The short answer is that, yes, it definitely shows the incompetence of the government because, every few months, the Liberals see a shiny new bauble and decide they are going to change the Competition Act. One would think that the Liberals have had enough time, after being in power for nine years, nearly a decade some might say, to do things properly, yet they chose piecemeal amendments, which they say are monumental every single time, but the amendments do not actually hang together. One wonders what is really going on over there.

114 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/8/24 8:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked to be here tonight debating a Conservative amendment to change a short title. As this is costing Canadian taxpayers $70,000 an hour, the Conservatives will be wasting $420,000 tonight to change a title. I ask my colleague if this is how he is going to manage public finances if, by some misfortune, his party ever comes to power.

66 words

Short

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes to talk about wasting money, but the NDP members are supporting the government for incredible amounts of corporate welfare. The NDP has chosen to support this bill with tons of corporate welfare in it and has chosen to support a budget that has tons of corporate welfare in it, but it has only a pittance for those with disabilities. They are turning their backs on a primary constituency for themselves and then trying to lecture us about spending money properly. Members of the NDP are supporting an incredible amount of corporate welfare and are turning their backs on one of their primary, normal constituencies.

110 words

The Speaker

May/8/24 8:18:51 p.m.
Watch

I see the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is on his feet, but unfortunately he is not in his seat to ask a question. I am terribly sorry. To be honest, colleagues, we are now about 15 seconds over the time for questions and comments. It was going to be a particularly short question.

56 words

The Speaker

May/8/24 8:19:33 p.m.
Watch

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 29, 2024, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning cyber-attacks targeting members of Parliament by a foreign state-backed group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 31. In his intervention, the member alleged that he, along with several other parliamentarians, were the targets of progressive cyber-attacks on their emails in 2021 by a group with ties to the Chinese government. He argued that members were targeted because of their association with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC. He and other affected members of the House learned of the attacks through a recent news story. The member noted that, contrary to a ministerial directive issued last year, members were not notified of this by the government. He stated that this situation was akin to the prima facie question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, where a foreign state had also sought to interfere with the duties of a member. He also indicated that he could not assess the extent to which, as parliamentarians, they were impacted, through the disruption of communications or through the monitoring of their activities, but that their parliamentary work was under attack. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan further intervened on the matter on May 1, 2024. He added that the cyber attack in question was aimed at his personal email account rather than his parliamentary account. He further posited, following media reports which stated that House of Commons IT thwarted the attack, that the House Administration is not a security agency and therefore not responsible for informing members of threats made against them. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader mentioned that the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, was advised by the FBI on June 29, 2022, of cyber threats targeting Canadian parliamentarians who are members of the IPAC. Citing the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government, he noted that the CSE believed it appropriate to share all relevant technical information with security officials of the House of Commons and Senate administrations for their action. This was done on June 30, 2022. The parliamentary secretary also pointed out that, given the evolution of security procedures and in consideration of the concerns of members, a ministerial directive was issued in May of 2023 requiring the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, to inform parliamentarians of threats to their security where possible. He concluded by stating that, had the threat occurred following the imposition of the ministerial directive, security agencies would have proactively informed the affected members of the situation. Finally, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and the member for Humber River—Black Creek, also presumed targets of the attack, rose in support of the question of privilege from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and expressed their concerns on the matter. In raising his question of privilege, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan brought forward two specific concerns. First is the attempt by the People's Republic of China to interfere in the work of parliamentarians, and second is the lack of notification provided to members of this attempt. The Chair will deal with these two issues separately, starting with the latter. In accordance with the processes in place at the time, the House administration was advised by relevant Canadian security agencies of the risk associated with potential attacks and appropriate measures were taken to ensure that they would not impact our systems, more specifically our parliamentary network. Members will appreciate that the processes and the protocols to manage the cybersecurity of the House, by its administration and by the government, have evolved considerably since then. The Chair has no reason to doubt the commitment of the government, through its ministerial directive of May 2023, that members will be advised of threats by CSIS as much as is reasonably possible to do so, bearing in mind various security considerations. It should be noted that the attempt in question and the sharing of the relevant technical information occurred well before the directive was in place, and that the matter was dealt with in accordance with the processes and protocols in effect at that time. It is important to reiterate that the House of Commons cybersecurity systems in place were successful in preventing a breach and negatively impacting the members' ability to conduct their day-to-day business with their parliamentary email accounts. However, the member noted in his submission that his personal email was the target of the attempted cyberattack, and the Chair appreciates the concerns of members with regard to being made aware about matters concerning their cybersecurity. In its 63rd report, presented to the House on April 10, 2024, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs echoed the ministerial directive in recommending that CSIS directly inform members about specific foreign interference threats, including providing a briefing on the mitigation measures taken to ensure members' safety. It also recommended the Speaker oversee the creation of a protocol within the House administration establishing a threshold for informing the whips of the recognized parties of foreign interference threats. The report has yet to be concurred in. The Chair will now turn to the matter of the attempted interference by the PRC. As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan noted in his submission, the matter bears similarities with the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on May 2, 2023. That case involved various alleged acts of intimidation, linked to the PRC, towards the member and his family. Those acts came in retaliation for political positions taken by the member in the course of parliamentary proceedings. The matter was found to be prima facie. Indeed, as my predecessor stated in his ruling on May 8, 2023, at page 14105 of the Debates: The Chair agrees that the matter raised by the member, that is that a foreign entity tried to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings through a retaliatory scheme targeting him and his family, squarely touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded. At the time, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Had the question of privilege by the member of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan been raised while the study was under way, the Chair would have been inclined to suggest the committee consider it as part of that study. This is exactly what occurred when the former member for Durham raised a question of privilege alleging intimidation. At the time, my predecessor stated, on May 31, 2023, at page 15066 of the Debates: Given that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already been instructed to investigate the matter of foreign interference, the Chair believes that it is the appropriate forum for further discussion of this issue. In the case currently before us, it is clear to the Chair that an attempt to hack parliamentary emails of several members by a group with ties to the PRC occurred. This is of great concern to the Chair and, indeed, should be to all members. While the attempt was thwarted, it is understandable that a lingering effect on impacted members remains. Indeed, as my predecessor noted in his ruling on May 8, 2023, a threat, whether successful or not, may still be seen as interfering with a member in the discharge of their duties. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 109, I quote: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament....Speaker Jerome observed in a 1978 ruling that society demands much of Members but not all demands strictly impose a parliamentary duty. While every Member has duties as a representative of the electorate, a Member may claim the protection of privilege relating only to his or her parliamentary functions, though the line distinguishing these duties might blur. While the work of IPAC is not, strictly speaking, part of our parliamentary proceedings, it does seem clear to the Chair that the members were targeted due to their parliamentary work. Even if the attack was directed against the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's personal email account, it seems that this was an attempt to interfere in his and in other members’ parliamentary duties and that such interference could have the effect of impeding members. As the procedural boundaries of parliamentary functions can evolve over time, the Chair, and all members, might appreciate guidance respecting these matters. While the Chair is bound to consider this question of privilege based on its own merits, it must also bear in mind broader considerations. Protecting the security of members, whether physical or cyber, is of course essential to the functioning of the House. Cybersecurity attacks to our systems have multiplied over the recent past and there are no indications they will stop or even diminish. Not every attempt to interfere with or hack into our systems will necessarily be the subject of a question of privilege, as this is unfortunately a recurring problem. However, there might be a benefit for the House to decide how to tackle this issue more generally in order to clear the air and establish a way forward. On this basis, the Chair finds there to be a prima facie question of privilege. Accordingly, I invite the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move his motion.

1644 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/8/24 8:32:25 p.m.
Watch

moved: That the prima facie contempt concerning the People's Republic of China's cyber attack against Members of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

31 words