SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/24 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I concur that I have an element of confusion about what the Conservatives' intent really is here and how they measure people's needs. That being said, I know that climate change is having a huge impact on British Columbia. In my riding, what I have been hearing repeatedly from the tourism industry is that a lot of people are withdrawing their trips because they are afraid of forest fires. As we all know, part of British Columbia has already been on fire. People are scared they would be risking their life. That has really changed. I am actually supportive of carbon pricing, but I think it is one small step in moving toward climate safety, and we are far from that. I am just wondering whether the member has heard anything from the tourism industry in her riding. What next steps should we be taking, and we should be taking a great deal more, to combat the climate crisis?

162 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/30/24 5:10:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River, who has been an advocate for her community for as long as I have been here. Her colleague also has talked a lot about the damage from climate change to the vineyards. There was a snap freeze in January in which a lot of the crops froze, and growers are not quite sure yet whether they are going to be permanently damaged. However, fighting climate change is so important for the tourism industry. This is something I did not speak about, but if people are staying away, that is absolutely impacting the tourism industry so many communities rely on for generating revenue and creating good jobs. It is really important, and I am glad to see colleagues around the chamber are willing to work together to make sure we are supporting those industries and also fighting climate change.

152 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/30/24 5:11:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, after nine years under the Prime Minister, Canadians are being forced to cancel their summer vacations, as the Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda has made even a simple road trip unaffordable. Parents can barely afford basic necessities, much less a summer vacation. The Prime Minister may be able to jet off on a $230,000 luxury vacation, but most Canadians are having to scale back and cancel their summer plans after the Liberal carbon tax made gas and groceries unaffordable. Like all MPs in the House, I am getting emails and calls from moms and dads who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. I am hearing from seniors who worked for decades to save for their retirement, only to see inflation eradicate their income and their financial security. As someone who represents a large, rural constituency, I know how the carbon tax disproportionately impacts the people who call Westman home. At a time when life is costing far more for my constituents, the Prime Minister's recent budget does nothing to bring the relief families desperately need. As the costs of groceries, gas and home heating continue to increase, the NDP-Liberal government fails to listen to Canadians. I am glad to be splitting my time with my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. As my constituents back home know, the Liberals have voted down numerous calls from our Conservative team to scrap the carbon tax. Instead, the Liberals increased it even more, despite the financial hurt Canadians are feeling. The reality is that more and more families are struggling to afford basic necessities. When people find themselves in financial troubles, as they are today, even simple pleasures end up falling by the wayside. For many, a summer vacation is not a big, dramatic, expensive getaway. It could be a long weekend at the cottage, a week-long road trip or simply a few days of camping. It is a treasured opportunity to get away from business as usual, unplug and recharge with loved ones. Kids need time with their parents and grandparents; they need the chance to experience the outdoors and appreciate the beauty of our great country here in Canada. Unfortunately, thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, the Prime Minister was able to hike his carbon tax by 23% on April 1, further driving up the cost of everything. The fact is that 70% of Canadians oppose this tax hike; moreover, 70% of the provincial premiers have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase, and for good reason. Canada's Food Price Report predicted an additional $700 annual increase in food expenditures for the average family this year over 2023. The most significant increases range from 5% to 7% in the categories of bakery, meat and vegetables. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits in a single month, with a million more visits expected in 2024. Homeless encampments are now common in every city across Canada, and their number continues to increase. The decline in the Canadian economy since 2019, created by the Liberal Prime Minister, means Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. While the American GDP per capita has grown by 7% since 2019, Canada's has fallen by 2.8%. This is the single largest underperformance of the Canadian economy in comparison with our United States neighbours since 1965. We have already seen the real-world impact of this in our own backyard. In Brandon, the Samaritan House food bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, a dramatic increase of 12,000. As I have said in the chamber a few times, this was 50% above its normal annual average. This is in line with trends across the country, showing that families are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. We recently found that more than 50,000 Manitobans are now regularly using a food bank. That is the highest number ever recorded. While we can get bogged down in statistics, we must never forget that we are talking about people: our relatives, our neighbours and our friends. Food banks are being used by full-time workers more and more. In some communities, one in six visitors says they are employed, which is an 82% increase over 2016. That number continues to grow. More than 60% of visitors are first-time food bank users. It is heartbreaking. There are hundreds and thousands of Canadians who have been forced to stay in line in food banks only because the NDP-Liberal coalition is determined to make life equally miserable for all Canadians. Let us be clear: The rising cost of food and other necessities cannot be divorced from the NDP-Liberal government's tax-and-spend policies. The carbon tax alone is driving up the cost of everything. It is contributing to the cost of growing our food and other expenses along the entire food supply system. It gets passed down until everyday Canadians get stuck with the bill. Despite numerous claims by the Prime Minister and his radical environment minister, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that families are seeing a net loss under this ideological policy. People pay more in the carbon tax than they receive back from the rebate. Conservatives have been pointing this out for years. Nothing is more insulting to the millions of Canadians trying to heat their homes in the winter than when the Prime Minister decided to temporarily pause his carbon tax on only 3% of households. It is no wonder that provincial governments are up in arms. The most recent example of how out of touch and stubborn the Prime Minister can be is his position on Bill C-234. This is a Conservative bill that aims to remove the carbon tax for farmers, thereby lowering food costs that are passed on to consumers. Instead of using an opportunity to lower food prices by passing the bill, or at least letting it pass with no political interference, he did everything possible in the House of Commons and the Senate to delay change and undermine it. Moreover, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners decided to hike the carbon tax by 23% in April. That was just one step in their plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years, making everything more expensive at the worst possible time. At the same time, their inflationary spending and ever-increasing taxes are already taking their toll, and paycheques are not going as far as they once did. While the NDP leader is trying to save what is left of his political legacy, we must not forget that every NDP member voted 23 times to keep the Prime Minister's carbon tax in place. I will not stop calling on them to do the right thing and support our Conservative motion this time. This year, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost Manitobans an extra $1,750. This summer alone, it will take more than $600 from family budgets. These costs add up, and even the most basic summer vacation plan suddenly becomes out of reach for people. The constituents of Brandon—Souris are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. The riding covers more than 17,000 square kilometres. It is the ninth-smallest riding in Canada. Brandon—Souris is roughly the same size as three Prince Edward Islands put together. That may be hard to picture for the finance minister, who lives in downtown Toronto. The Liberal government needs to start realizing that its policies affect rural and urban Canadians quite differently. We know the Liberal carbon tax is playing a role in raising the price of everything, so we are fighting to axe the tax and bring relief to Canadians. Let us save $603 this summer for Canadians. They need it. People know better how and where to spend their own money, and the Prime Minister must recognize this fact. Let us put a pause on the carbon tax, the federal gas tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel for the summer. We must do it now. If we want to help young people, families and seniors deal with the rising cost of living, I implore all my colleagues to vote in favour of our Conservative motion. A future Conservative government will axe the tax on everything for everyone in a carbon tax election, but until that can happen, the Prime Minister must adopt this common-sense measure to give Canadians a break this summer.

1438 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 5:21:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need to inform the House that Donald Trump has been convicted on 34—

24 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 5:21:36 p.m.
Watch

That has little to do with the administration of the Canadian government. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

24 words

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

May/30/24 5:21:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one concern that we have is the tendency of the Reform Party across the way to mislead Canadians. The issue here is that they are trying to give an impression that Canadians will save $670 over the summer. I suspect that this could be challenged. I do not believe there is any substantive, factual information that the Conservatives can present to clearly show that Canada's population would benefit by the full $670. I believe that fewer than 5% would achieve the maximum $670, yet the Conservatives go around and say they will. Can the member provide any evidence whatsoever that would show that I am wrong on that?

111 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/30/24 5:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, he has been questioning us all day on this particular issue. I guess one would have to say that the only thing that he has got is a dispute of the facts. If one goes by the Liberals' enunciation of why people are getting more back in the rebate than they are actually paying, it is because the Liberals only use a few simple things, such as the cost of gasoline, the carbon tax on gasoline for one's car and for heating one's home, when it applies to many other materials that are moved back and forth across the country. It is very easy to use the Parliamentary Budgets Officer's own analysis to come up with these numbers that we have provided today.

128 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/30/24 5:23:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could my colleague tell me on what scientific, financial or taxation basis his party made that choice?

20 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 5:23:51 p.m.
Watch

There is an issue with the interpretation. There might be a problem with the earpiece of the hon. member from Brandon—Souris. Is the interpretation working? Yes? Okay. The hon. member from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles may start over.

43 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

May/30/24 5:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives' proposal involves not an expense, but a $1.5-billion shortfall over three months. I would like to know what financial or taxation basis the Conservatives relied on to estimate that there would be savings of $400, $500 or $600 per family. How did they calculate that? That is my first question. I might have had a second question, but I have decided not to ask it.

75 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/30/24 5:24:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our leader very clearly articulated this morning that the savings could be made by better management of the government. One thing is the fact that they have hired 25% more consultants over the last number of years and paid over $100 million in accounting fees that are questionable with regard to the number of people that they have hired to do consulting for them. It is not hard. I think what the member from the Bloc is missing is that this is coming right out of consumers' pockets today; they have young families. We have a short summer season in this country, and it would be, very much, a break for all families in this country to be able to afford a small holiday this summer.

128 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 5:25:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing that I am really grateful for is that, earlier on in this debate, we finally had a Conservative MP from British Columbia acknowledge that the federal carbon tax does not have jurisdiction in British Columbia. Actually, only the British Columbia government can decide whether it is going to remove or continue the carbon tax, despite the fact that we have the leader of the Conservative Party, from Carleton, coming into British Columbia and saying that he will axe the tax; he would not have jurisdictional authority. The member said that, in British Columbia, they should vote for one of the parties that would get rid of the tax. That would be one of the parties that brought in the tax, actually. One cannot even make this stuff up. Maybe the Conservatives are considering getting rid of the GST, since they brought the GST in here federally. That is actually something they have authority for. It seems that they bring in policies, and then they run and hide from them when it seems convenient for them politically.

180 words

Gst
Columbia

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/30/24 5:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is pretty rich coming from the New Democrats, whose leader says that he now vows to get rid of the carbon tax.

25 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/30/24 5:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to get on the record in Ottawa my support for our Conservative opposition day motion, a common-sense motion to help provide immediate relief to those who are suffering from the cost of living crisis in every part of this country. What we are proposing is immediate fuel tax relief on the price of both gas and diesel from Victoria Day all the way to Labour Day. That would take the tax off on multiple fronts when it comes to gas and diesel, suspending it for the summer. It is not just the carbon tax, which is going to quadruple, but also the federal fuel tax. If the Liberals do not frustrate Canadians enough, remember that they taxed the tax when they put GST and HST on the carbon tax. We will save 35¢ a litre for Canadians this summer if our motion passes. That means Canadians and families could maybe afford a summer road trip, which is not possible now because they cannot make ends meet. It maybe helps somebody going to medical appointments from my part of eastern Ontario to Ottawa or Toronto on a regular basis, or somebody in northern Ontario, in Timmins, who has to drive three and a half hours down to Sudbury for routine medical appointments. They deserve to have 35¢ a litre kept in their pockets this summer. I want to spend a bit of time talking about the break that Conservatives would provide on not only the price of gasoline, but also the price of diesel. As many know, I was proud to be born and raised around Jet Express, a trucking company in eastern Ontario that my parents ran for many years. I want Canadians to know about the trucking industry and how billing works. If we were to take the federal taxes off the price of diesel for the few months we are talking about this summer, it would have an immediate and measurable impact on the cost of transportation in this country. The overwhelming majority of trucking companies, when they charge a rate, have a base rate and fee, but there is a flexible and rotating fuel surcharge put on that. The higher that gas and diesel prices go, the more a trucking company has to charge in fuel surcharge, adding to the cost of delivering something from, for example, the soup and salad bowl that is Simcoe County all the way up to northern Ontario and all the way out to the east coast or west coast. If federal taxes were taken off, the price to run a reefer truck would drop significantly with the savings from the federal tax on diesel. The fuel surcharge could go down, providing immediate relief on the cost of goods and shipping around this country. It is common sense. The Conservatives will keep advocating for it, despite opposition from the other parties.

490 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 5:30:14 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

87 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

May/30/24 5:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote on this important issue.

11 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 5:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

May/30/24 5:32:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-377

Madam Speaker, Bill C-377, introduced by the Conservative member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, raises extremely important but sensitive issues. The member is correct in saying that the current situation is not working and needs to be improved. When we talk about parliamentarians' access to classified information, there are two conflicting principles. Both of these principles are important, and so we must find a way to reconcile them before our deliberations come to an end. On the one hand, there is responsible government, which is the very basis of democracy. Ministers are responsible for everything that happens in their departments. Cabinet members are collectively responsible for everything that happens in government. They are not accountable to the Holy Spirit, but rather Parliament. We have a parliamentary system, and Parliament is the boss. The government must be accountable to Parliament, to the representatives of the people. To do that, Parliament must have access to all the information it needs, including documents that are to be produced. When classified documents are involved, the situation is more sensitive. Those documents are classified secret for a reason, and disclosing them can be dangerous. Doing so can expose the identity of confidential sources, which burns them. It can make impossible co-operation with the intelligence agencies in friendly countries, which is necessary for ensuring security both at home and abroad. It can set off an international crisis or even uncover military secrets that would make us all vulnerable; it could cause an ongoing investigation to derail. In the somewhat outdated words used in Bourinot, the old procedural guide that was consulted by the Chair during the Afghan prisoner crisis, it is important to preserve the roughly 140 years of collaboration between the House, the grand inquest of the nation, and the government, the defender of the realm. It is old language, but we understand the principle. When it comes to classified documents, there is no real mechanism that allows for this collaboration to work. This gap was made clear during the Afghan prisoner crisis and the Winnipeg lab crisis. The Afghan prisoner crisis occurred under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper and the Winnipeg lab crisis under the current Liberal government. This is not a partisan issue. It is an institutional gap. I want to say a few words about the story of the Afghan prisoners. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the United States felt it had been the victim of aggression. It invoked NATO's collective defence clause and asked its allies for help. This marked the start of the Afghanistan campaign, in which Canada took part. In 2007, whistle-blowers made some alarming statements to journalists. Whenever the Canadian army took prisoners, it handed them over to the Afghan government, at which point they were tortured. This contravenes international law. Of course, it was extremely serious. In 2009, there was another leak. A memo prepared by Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan confirmed the 2007 allegations. The special committee on the war in Afghanistan asked to see the memo, but the government denied its existence. The committee asked to see all the documents relating to the affair, but the government refused. It was the start of a tug-of-war. The government eventually released 4,000 pages of documents, but so much had been redacted that it was impossible to know what information they actually contained. Worse still, new leaks showed that the redacted parts did not contain information that needed to remain secret. They contained information that was simply inconvenient to the government. The Speaker confirmed that the House had a right to know. The House declared the Harper government in contempt of Parliament and the government fell in 2011. However, this did not resolve the matter. The Harper government, which managed to win a majority because the Bloc Québécois had been weakened, created a committee of former judges and parliamentarians, all with security clearance. In the end, 40,000 pages of lightly redacted documents were made public in 2014 and confirmed the allegations. Canada had indeed handed over some prisoners to the Afghan government. They were subjected to torture. Canada knew it. Soldiers and diplomats had concerns about it. They are not to blame. However, the government turned a deaf ear. Seven years had gone by. The practice had long since stopped. The Canadian army's combat mission ended in 2011. It was too late to do anything. The Winnipeg lab affair is quite similar. In 2019, we learned that two researchers were fired and deported to China, but the government refused to say anything more. This was the start of another tug-of-war. The House asked for documents, and the government refused. The head of the Public Health Agency of Canada was found in contempt of Parliament and was admonished by the Speaker. The Liberal government, however, doubled down. Worse still, it took legal action against the Speaker of the House and then dissolved Parliament. Last week, after a committee composed of security-cleared former judges and parliamentarians reviewed the documents, the report was finally made public. Our worst fears were confirmed: These two researchers were spying for the Chinese government. Five years had passed since the information first came to light. Clearly, the system is broken. There is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which the government legislated into existence in 2017. However, the story of the Winnipeg laboratory, which occurred two years after the committee was created, laid bare its limitations. Not only are its members bound to secrecy, but it does not report to Parliament. It does not really allow Parliament to do its job. This is where Bill C‑377 comes in. When it comes to giving access to classified documents, the government has two requirements. First, individuals must have security clearance. Second, the documents must be required in the course of the individual's work. In the case of civil servants with well-defined responsibilities, it is fairly difficult to determine whether they need access to a particular document. In the case of parliamentarians, it is more complicated. The government is accountable to Parliament for all its activities and the government should not have the right to decide what Parliament can legitimately investigate, which is essentially the situation we have now. Bill C-377 proposes a simple solution. Proposed subsection 13.1(1) reads as follows: A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information in respect of which the application is made. The bill respects the privileges of parliamentarians, so this is a step in the right direction. The government will no longer be able to decide, on a case-by-case basis and in a completely arbitrary manner, what a parliamentarian should have access to. However, Bill C-377 is missing something. Parliamentarians who have security clearance will have easier access to classified information. That is good, but they will obviously have to keep it to themselves. I do not know whether the House of Commons, as an institution, will be strengthened by this or how the situation will be any different from what we are experiencing with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, whose limitations we have seen. The United States has the Gang of Eight. The government regularly provides this group with confidential briefings and access to documents. Who is on that panel? For each house of Congress, it is the leaders of both parties, plus the individuals responsible for intelligence in both parties. They must keep the information to themselves, of course, but having access to it guides their work, both in Congress or in the Senate, and at committee. This approach, in addition to giving representatives and senators access to information, feeds the institution and guides its work. However, such an institutional mechanism is missing from Bill C-377. That is why I just said the bill is missing something. It is nonetheless interesting, and I sincerely thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing it. The debate on this bill is important, very important indeed. The Bloc Québécois is approaching this in a non-partisan, open-minded way, because we are all interested. We remain open-minded, as we reflect and listen, which is the hallmark of a healthy parliamentary system.

1425 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/24 5:40:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-377

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-377. First of all, I want to acknowledge the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. We have worked on a few things together. I have a deep amount of respect for him and the work that he does in this place, so I am very pleased to be able to speak to this piece of legislation. I think it is a very interesting one, particularly in the context of the work that I have done on PROC, a committee that was overseeing a study on foreign interference. As we were going through that process, what we heard again and again was that the members of the committee were not vetted and did not have the clearance to access information that would really make the process for us a lot more logical, a lot less partisan and more focused on the important issues we were dealing with, so this bill, Bill C-377, really would allow for parliamentarians to be vetted and to go through that process. However, it is really important to underline the fact that this would not give them that clearance unless they were to go through that process. It would mean that parliamentarians would be able to apply, to go through all the interviews and to have things checked out to make sure they could be trusted to have secret information that the government may not necessarily want them to see, or they may simply not have the appropriate clearance, which would block that pathway for parliamentarians. Therefore, whether a parliamentarian would actually get that clearance is based on their history and on their capacity to get that. This bill, Bill C-377, addresses that and allows for parliamentarians to get that done. I think where this is really important, and Canadians need to think about this, is that we see a lot of drama sometimes in this place, which is largely based on hearsay. I know, as a parliamentarian, one challenge I have had with respect to the work put before me, especially around the foreign interference file, was that I was trying to understand what was happening without all the information. I understand that some of that information could not necessarily be shared. I think it is really important that Canadians understand that our relationship with other countries really matters. When we have information shared with us because of our partnerships with other countries, we must have a very clear process, and that needs to be protected because if it is not, it will lessen the trust other countries have in us and their ability to share information with us. Therefore, we need to assess all those things. Even if we are able, at committee, to have all the members of the committee vetted, if somebody from a particular party cannot get that vetting, then if we were to have somebody sit in their place who is vetted, that would mean the committee could actually do some of that work, and there is a transparency at least to members of Parliament. When we talk about foreign interference, we know that is part of the challenge we have been facing. People who have been specifically targeted do not have the clearance and do not have a clear process in this place that allows them to know they are being targeted, which is horrible. I know, as an MP having gone through that process, I have been very concerned about who is being targeted, how we would know if we were being targeted and what that would look like. The other part of this, and why I will be supporting this bill, Bill C-377, is that we know Parliament and government are already slow places. Things move far too slowly, and it really builds a sense of frustration sometimes for Canadians. Therefore, if we have a process whereby MPs and senators, who are either appointed or elected to their positions, could go out and do the appropriate tasks, could do the thorough assessment and could have that secret clearance, then they would be able to know information and would be able to clearly explain the process, but not the details. I think we have to be very aware of that. Parliamentarians would know things that they would not be able to tell, but they would be able to say that they saw it, that they know what is happening, and they would have information that might allay or grow people's fears. In this day and age, where we see such a vast, changing reality, and I think of last weekend when I was at the NATO Parliamentary Association where we talked about the development of AI, what that means for military action and what it means to have that information sent out to all people in the world and to have our constituents included in that, we need to assess those things and understand them. The world is becoming trickier. It is trickier for parliamentarians in our particular roles, and it is trickier for Canadians. When we look at this, we have to look at what is disinformation and what, in terms of trust, is being broken or poisoned by disinformation for everyday Canadians. It is a lot to try to understand all the different things that are happening, and it is hard sometimes to know what information is thorough, which is researched, and what is actually from bad actors selling disinformation specifically because they want to attack our democracy. This is not the only tool, and we could talk a long time about the other tools that we need, but this tool would allow parliamentarians to come together. Right now, we do have NSICOP, which is one committee where all the people in it are cleared, and they have access to information. That is a good process. I have no problem with it, but we need to have that expanded to this degree. I think this bill, Bill C-377, really does a good job of talking about how we could do that. It would not fix all the problems, but it would certainly address some of them. One thing I learned really clearly in the work I was doing around foreign interference is that particular communities are vulnerable to misinformation. I was particularly passionate because what I understood as I went through that process is that rural and remote communities are one of those areas that are more vulnerable to disinformation. The reason they are more vulnerable is that often their local media has been shut down as they do not have enough money to keep going, which means when information comes out that they may need to know, local radio stations or local newspapers may or may not be there to actually report it, and it does mean that there are particular challenges. We heard very clearly that some ethnic media was also having particular challenges. When we look at this as a whole of building trust, we want to build trust with Canadians and build trust with our institutions of government. When we look at having parliamentarians be more aware, more accountable and have tools to do that work, these things all have to come together. I appreciate that it is one part, and we need to definitely see more. As we move through this new world that we are facing, we have to look at how to educate everyday Canadians more about security measures, about what they look like and about why we have to follow them so that people understand where we should push and where we should not push. I think that is really important because those relationships, internationally, and that information can make us extremely vulnerable. I also think we need to look at education. I know that some countries are doing a phenomenal job and are starting to invest more resources into educating kids from a very young age about how disinformation is spread and about the capacity of a green screen to make things that are not real look real. Some places have colleges and universities with courses in any kind of training, from becoming a scientist, to a carpenter, to a welder, to a business person, and they actually have components where they educate people about what is happening in the world, about how to decipher misinformation and about how to develop that critical thinking process, which is so important. I look forward to supporting this bill, Bill C-377. I look forward to it going to committee to make sure it does all the things we want it to do. I also hope to see more work in this place around educating everyday Canadians as we go into a technology world that is changing so rapidly.

1479 words

C-377, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (need to know)

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/30/24 5:50:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-377

Madam Speaker, I am joining the debate on my colleague's bill, Bill C-377, this “need to know” piece of legislation that I support. In some of my work in the past, it would have been useful to have at least secret level clearance in order to be able to receive a briefing from the government or even to get information on what the current state was of parliamentary work. In my particular case, as members will know, I am one of 18 parliamentarians who were targeted by APT31, which is a specific unit of the People's Republic of China. There are many of these APTs, but this is a specific intelligence-gathering organization responsible not only for digital surveillance but also for going after politicians and activists overseas as one of its target groups. In fact, the U.S. Department of State has named about a dozen of these agents, or hackers. They are professional hackers essentially, but they are intelligence officers in the PRC. It would be useful for me to be able to apply to the Government of Canada in order to obtain a security level clearance so that I could actually get a security briefing. It has come to the point where this type of legislation is now needed. A lot of information is digital. It is not just in written format, but it is out there, and it would help us to do some of our parliamentary work. What I do like about Bill C-377 is how short it is. It would basically only add one section to the Parliament of Canada Act about access to information and would add a clarifying section on our privileges as members of Parliament, which we are simply stewards of. We do not own them. They are not for us. They are for the benefit of members of Parliament in the future. Bill C-377 would also protect senators in that other place, making sure the powers and immunities they enjoy are still protected, by us being allowed to apply for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada. Again, for the purpose of that application, we would be considered as needing to know because we need to know. Too often I have seen, at different standing committees, where officials either will skate around the question or will avoid the question entirely by saying that due to operational security reasons they cannot disclose the information. Even though we may sometimes offer, after the fact, to move a committee in camera, which means it is not in public, there is a transcript that is kept with the Journals branch, but it is only available 30 years after the fact. Even though the public does not have it, we cannot often use it. However, it is very rare, and I have actually never experienced it myself. I think I received one in camera briefing with FINTRAC at one point. One can go see it, because it was one of the publicly available meetings. We were given a public briefing and then a private briefing as well. This bill, Bill C-377, would have perhaps given us the opportunity to follow up with the Government in Canada to find out more about what exactly is going on with particular files. It all starts with little things, when we start pulling at the ball of yarn, trying to get at the answers so we can better understand an issue, both from witness testimony and from government officials who come to tell us about the work they have been doing on behalf of taxpayers. For us to be able to hold them accountable, we need to know what they know. We need to know what information they have. I have noticed that when it comes to security agencies and to those responsible for national security issues, too often there is a block, and they will say that they cannot disclose it to us because we do not need to know. My grandmother used to often say that one cannot empty the ocean with a spoon. She would say it in Polish. It turns out it is a Yiddish proverb as well. I sometimes feel like we are drowning in an ocean of information, trying to understand what is useful information and what is information that is not useful, not necessary, not relevant to the work we do. I think that is a big part of a member of Parliament's job, as well as that of senators. The second part of it is then to realize what sensitive security information is required to do our jobs. I will go back to this APT31 group. I was the target of a digital surveillance campaign, specifically one attack, and I was not told by the Government of Canada that I had been targeted. The House of Commons cybersecurity did not tell me specifically that I was one of the targets. I had to find that out from IPAC, and then I had to find out from the FBI what exactly this digital surveillance was. I received a briefing from the FBI. I did not get a briefing from CSIS, from the RCMP or from House of Commons security to tell me exactly what it was. I actually went to look for those emails, which were still in my inbox, unread, thankfully, because I did not know who they were from. I still had those two emails. Had I opened them, and had my browser settings been set to automatically open images, I would have been impacted by this digital surveillance campaign specifically. I would like to be able to go to the government and say that I need a security level clearance, that I need to know and that I would like to obtain more information. I would like to be able to ask the government what it can give me up to that level, let us say. In that particular situation, I think it would have been useful for me to be able to have it. The proposed legislation would fix that; it would give me an opportunity to go to the government and ask for that clearance. I remember being an exempt staffer. It feels like many years ago. I was dating myself with someone else, and it feels like it has been now about 16 years, so it was quite a long time ago, during the Afghan war. I know that the mover of the private member's bill is a combat veteran from Afghanistan, and around that time he was in Afghanistan. While I was at National Defence headquarters as an exempt staffer, I cleared the security level clearance for secret, but because I was born abroad, as I am a naturalized citizen of Canada, they actually had to send an agent to the Republic of Poland to do the further background checks so I would qualify for top secret-level clearance. I thought, absolutely, that is the way it should be done. Whatever they need to do, they need to do. I accept it. I remember filling out all the forms, but in the many months that it took, I actually never cleared it because my minister was shuffled out of his portfolio before I was cleared for that information. I would always be excused out of the meetings where there was top secret-level information being discussed by other exempt staffers. I thought that it was perfectly acceptable and that was the way it should be, because I did not need to know, and I accepted that. In a situation like this for parliamentarians, we are not very often told to leave a room because we do not need to know. I do not sit on the NSICOP committee, the way the mover of this particular private member's bill does, so I am not affected by that type of information that I might have to receive, but there are other situations, like the one that personally impacts me and the work I do as a parliamentarian involving this intelligence office, APT31, from the People's Republic of China, where I do have a need to know. I do have a need to know because it has impacted my work and it has impacted how I relate to human rights activists in Canada and diaspora groups. I also meet with legislators and former legislators who are sometimes members of the opposition, sometimes members of the government or out of government, or exiled to Canada. I meet with journalists who are exiled to Canada as well. One of my favourite people to speak about is Arzu Yildiz, who is a very famous Turkish journalist and is very well known in Turkey. At least, she was well known, almost a decade ago now, when she reported on activities of the Turkish government and for all her troubles, she was basically forced into exile to Canada. In my dealings with people like this, it would be good to be able to ask the Government of Canada, “I need to know. These are the types of people I am meeting with. Can the government share some information with me about their backgrounds?” I think we all have this experience if we are working with cultural communities and diaspora groups, working on legislation. We would like to have a bit more information available. What do our national security agencies know, and can they share it with us? I am glad that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has proposed now that members of Parliament be deemed needing to know so we could get that type of clearance, and it would also be extended to members of the Senate. There are two Houses of Parliament, and the Senate plays an important role as well, making sure that, in the work that we do, we get it right. It is the House of sober second thought. My grandmother used to always say to start with little bits and that we cannot empty the ocean with just a spoon. This is now that beginning. It would be increasing our capacity to obtain information that is valuable to us. We have Order Paper questions, but as public information, we can file access to information requests, which I do quite often. That is privately held information up until it appears on the Treasury Board Secretariat's website as a released ATIP. Sometimes these take several years. Some of my ATIPs are coming close to being eligible for a member of Parliament pension at this point, because I still have not obtained them, but Treasury Board Secretariat is working diligently to make sure they are further delayed. They know who they are. I support the bill. I support initiatives generally like this, for more transparency and more access, so that parliamentarians who are not members of the cabinet can get access to information they need to know. There are a lot of constituents who simply expect it now. It is an expectation in our work that we do get access to more information from our government. Members of the cabinet know a lot more, and I think parliamentary secretaries do enjoy some more access than just plain backbenchers like me. We have a role to play in this democracy, and we should be able to play it fully.

1908 words