44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one point the member referred to, because it is a really important aspect. When we think of all the information out there, it is incredible just how massive it is. Information nowadays, through technology and archives, is truly amazing. What we need to recognize right at the beginning is the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” I think “whose duties require such access” is probably the most important thing for us to recognize. How wonderful it would be to sit in any sort of meeting and get the sense that we have an entitlement to know everything that might pique our curiosity. However, I do not think that this is in the best interest of national security, in terms of things such as foreign affairs, public safety and national security.
It is interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly what is coming from the Conservatives. I say that because when I was a member of the Liberal Party when it was the third party, Bill C-51 was brought forward. At the time, Liberals were arguing that we needed to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was something that was justified, because there was a sense that parliamentarians on the committee would be able to look at anything and everything and they would have the security clearance to do so. We argued that. I argued that, 10 years ago, when I was sitting in opposition, recognizing that there is sensitive information, even back then, that not all members of Parliament should be receiving because it should be based on the need to know.
Back then, I articulated why it was so important that we establish this national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Hansard will clearly show that, back then, I said the committee should be apolitical, non-partisan, and should have representatives from all political parties. We took a lot of heat back then from the government of the day and lost. We could not convince the government to establish such a committee, in the form of an amendment to Bill C-51.
We should keep in mind the relationship that Canada has with its allied countries. When we think of security, we have to think of the Five Eyes countries, of which we are one. At the time, we were the only country in the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was one of the primary arguments I used back then. I believed that, whether there was the RCMP, CSIS or any other public agency, this committee of parliamentarians needed to be established to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. We made the commitment back in 2015 to establish that committee, and we did just that. We established the committee and joined the Five Eyes countries, our allies, in having this parliamentary committee, but members will recall it was with a great deal of protest from the Conservatives, because they did not want this committee to be established. Why is that?
A lot of politics is played when it comes to issues, whether it be foreign interference or any sort of foreign affairs. We were talking about hostages yesterday. There are a great deal of professional, civil servant-type individuals who are out there protecting us and making sure that Canadians are safe and secure. There is some information that we individually do not necessarily need to know, if that is in the best interest of public safety.
As parliamentarians, we get involved in all sorts of meetings. One could argue we could be more effective if there were no redactions done to documents brought forward to the standing committees. Even within in camera meetings, whether it is intentional or unintentional, we are going to have information being leaked.
I have listened to members opposite speak to this bill, and there was nothing said that addresses that specific concern. What I hear them say is that they are members of Parliament, so they should be able to have unlimited access if they can get a particular security clearance. If someone wants to be able to get information, they just go and ask for the security clearance.
I will go back to the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” For the people who are concerned that something is awry or something is happening that they should know about, there are other mechanisms currently in place. We have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We have representatives from all political parties who sit there, and there are no restrictions there. We also have mechanisms that have been agreed upon for when certain issues come to the attention of the House of Commons.
We can talk about the Afghan detainees issue and the great uproar that took place there. People wanted classified information. They wanted to see the words and the information. That was actually done through negotiations with the then prime minister and opposition parties. There was a consensus as to how that information could be revealed to all political parties.
We have seen other issues come up in the interim. It is interesting that when the opposition talks about, for example, the Winnipeg labs issue, this government offered the very same formula that Stephen Harper offered when he was prime minister. We offered the very same formula in trying to deal with the issue, and the opposition said no to that initially.
Why did the opposition say no to that? Why did they say no to joining what the Five Eyes and other countries around the world were doing? I suspect that it has more to do with politics than good practice. That is why, when we take a look at the legislation that is before us today, I have not heard an argument as to why we should be looking over and above the need-to-know principle. However, we are not done. There is still going to be some more debate. I will continue to have a bit of an open mind on it. I will say, to this point, I have not heard anything.
1094 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-377, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, need to know. I thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for championing this important bill to rectify an oversight that hinders the work that we do here in the House of Commons and over in the other place.
Like the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I too recently received security clearance, as have other members who have spoken to this bill. It was granted to us by the federal government for our respective roles. The sponsor of this bill received it for his work on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, known as NSICOP, and I received it for being on the special ad hoc committee tasked with investigating the Winnipeg lab documents and the espionage that took place there, which originated out of Beijing in mainland China.
The essence of this bill is simple yet important. It states that a member of the House of Commons or the other place, and I am referring here to the Senate as the other place, who applies for security clearance is deemed to need access to the information for which the application is made. That is it. It does not mean automatic access to classified information. It would merely establish a need-to-know basis for the application process. For example, when I was chosen by the official opposition to sit on the ad hoc committee looking at the Winnipeg lab documents, we were in the dark about how this was going to work, given that I would need to see classified information. The process was opaque, and we did not know where to go or where to turn. This bill would clarify that, and it is crucial for improving transparency and accountability, and for informing parliamentarians, as well as Canadians, about ever-changing and ever-evolving threats to our democratic institutions.
This is how the prevailing governing policy operates, and this is long standing. I have to say, listening to the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who just spoke, turning it into a political football and accusing members who support this bill of bad faith and Liberals of championing a system, that the approach of the Liberals is to treat parliamentarians like mushrooms: Feed them a load of bull, and keep them in the dark. That is the Liberals' approach when it comes to national security issues. On this side of the House, we think parliamentarians have a responsibility to oversee the executive, and I hope others do as well. At times, that does mean accessing classified information. The Government of Canada's current policy is problematic because it undermines the ability of parliamentarians to perform our essential function of government oversight effectively.
Recent testimony at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs highlights the need for the bill. Vincent Rigby, former national security and intelligence adviser, emphasized that increasing transparency by producing annual public threat assessments, responding to NSICOP reports, publishing intelligence priorities and sharing more intelligence with members of Parliament is important. Wesley Wark, a national security expert, stressed that Canadians lack awareness about national security, which could be improved through public hearings.
Now, before the Liberals get all alarmed that secrets will spill out, I sit on another committee. I chair the public accounts committee. Through the hard and diligent work of all members of that committee, this committee was the first committee within western countries to legally receive the vaccine contracts from the pandemic. We kept those documents secret. We reviewed them in camera, and the committee is set to table its report. It will do so in a way that respects those confidentiality agreements, and nothing has been leaked. Now, this didn't require classified information, but it did require going through a number of hoops that the government first resisted, although, by working together, we showed that these committees can do their work and keep classified information confidential. In this case, it was not so much national security but commercial interests that the government, as well as vaccine producers, were looking to protect. We wanted to, as they say, trust but verify, so we reviewed these documents.
The aim of this bill is to bridge the gap between the need for national security and the imperative of parliamentary oversight. Members of Parliament, as well as senators and representatives of the Canadian public, need access to critical information from time to time to hold the government accountable. That is what this is about. Even though this is a government that is on its way out, it is going to fight tooth and nail to the very end to prevent this from happening.
We should move ahead with this bill. We should pass this bill. I hope we have multi-party consensus to do that because the people in the chamber, elected officials, do not serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. We serve at the pleasure of our voters.
Under the existing framework, the government typically restricts access to classified information of individuals who pass the personal security screening process and who need access to the information to perform their official duties. This need-to-know principle is fundamental to protecting classified information. Applicants for security clearances undergo rigorous vetting, where their entire lives are scrutinized to ensure that they are trustworthy.
However, just so people do not think this is some small cabal, from 2016 to 2023, nearly a quarter of a million security clearance applications were processed by the Government of Canada. At the exact same time, the government's policy operates on the assumption that members of Parliament and senators do not need to know sensitive information. That is its starting point, and that should change.
As such, passing this bill is crucial for improving transparency and rebuilding trust in our democratic process and institutions, particularly at a time when foreign interference is on the rise. The government would prefer to ignore that problem, and hope and pray that it goes away, but it will not go away.
This bill would ensure that parliamentarians have the necessary clearance to access sensitive information when requested by Parliament. This is not a blank cheque. For example, while I was in my role on the Canada-China committee, an order to produce unredacted documents related to the firing of two scientists at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg was denied by the government. An identical order through Parliament was also denied by the government, and then it went so far as to sue the House and the Speaker. It is outrageous and the first time that had happened in our country's history.
At the time, the government's position was that this information was so sensitive that only it could be trusted with it. It was later determined that this was an excuse put forward to protect the government from damning evidence of bureaucratic incompetence and ministerial malaise. Their incompetence has jeopardized our relation with other Five Eyes allies because we look like a bunch of bloody fools who cannot manage a level four, top secret lab, and we somehow let in not only officials from mainland China but also officials from the People's Liberation Army who specialize in biowarfare, but I digress.
We got that information, and Canadians can now see the incompetence of the government. It is important to clarify that this bill would not guarantee that every member of Parliament or senator would obtain security clearance. It does not grant members automatic top security clearance. As well, obtaining security clearance does not grant unfettered access to information. It merely allows the individual to be considered for access. It is an on-ramp. It is the beginning of a process, but just the beginning. Applicants must still pass the security screening process, which is stringent and thorough. I can say that. I went through it.
The bill would merely facilitate the application process, ensuring that parliamentarians who need to access that classified information for their duties can apply for clearance. The primary risk associated with this bill is political. If a member's application is denied, the reason for denial will remain private and not disclosed, maintaining individual privacy and security for members of Parliament.
In conclusion, this bill aligns with the unanimous recommendation of PROC to facilitate security clearance for parliamentarians who are not members of the Privy Council, ensuring they are adequately briefed on important national security matters. Ultimately, this bill will help parliamentarians. I hope it will pass.
1454 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:20:15 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has five minutes for his right of reply.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank everybody who participated in this important debate because it actually achieved one of my aims, which I talked about in my initial speech when I introduced this bill, and that is education. I will get into the reasons why that is so important.
I am not shocked by this, but after listening to members, there seems to still be a level of misunderstanding of what exactly this bill is. I am going to talk about what it is, what it is not, and why it is so important. I will read the crux of what this bill is into the record one more time because then it will be easy to break down. It is subclause 13.1(1) of this need to know legislation, which reads, “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.” That is the important clause.
My point is that the only thing this bill would do would be to allow parliamentarians to apply for a secret security clearance. The government would not be able to deny, regardless of who is in government, a parliamentarian from applying. That is all that it would do. It would allow them to apply. I would dare say that every speaker who spoke to this during the debate on my PMB highlighted two key examples: the Winnipeg labs, most recently, and the Afghan detainee file.
A colleague just spoke to what this bill does not do. This does not guarantee a parliamentarian will pass, should they apply. They still have to go through the same security vetting and clearance process that we have been doing for decades. I have had a secret level clearance for likely 25 to 30 years now. I have been at the top secret level for 15-plus years. The clearance does not guarantee one has a need to know or that one gets access to the information because that is how the system protects it. One still has to demonstrate that to the government.
Why is this so important? We have heard a little bit about this. The world is more complicated. We have listed a couple of historical examples. The most important one, which has been highlighted numerous times, is foreign interference. When we look at foreign interference, there are lots of cases. I do applaud the government about Bill C-70. It is going to come and address some of that because it allows changes to the CSIS Act, which then allows CSIS to actually share information beyond just the federal government, not just to potential parliamentarians. Again, if they are not cleared, they still cannot get that information, but it will potentially allow CSIS to share information to other levels of government, to industry and stakeholders, but they have to have the clearance.
We have heard testimony and speeches here, so we know that parliamentarians are being targeted. We have seen the original NSICOP annual report of 2019. What was one of the key takeaways? Parliamentarians need to be briefed on the threats that they face from foreign interference. We have seen Madam Hogue's public inquiry into foreign interference. Just recently we saw the NSIRA report that came out. We are only a few days away from seeing NSICOP's latest report. However, it is not just from those agencies. I would like to read again from the recommendations that came out of PROC, with unanimous consent, just a few weeks ago. Recommendation 3 reads:
That the government work with recognized parties’ whips to facilitate security clearances, at Secret level or higher, of caucus members who are not Privy Councillors (particularly those who sit on committees with mandates concerning foreign affairs, national defence and national security), who shall be taken as satisfying requirements for a “need to know,” to ensure that they may be adequately briefed about important national security matters, including foreign intelligence threat activity directed toward Parliament, or their party or its caucus members.
The point is that this has already unanimously passed at PROC to basically implement what my bill is trying to achieve.
In conclusion, I have not heard a single criticism of the bill that is based on what the bill would do and what is contained within it. I know members from all parties who I have talked to are going to support this bill. I am hoping that, when it does come up for a vote, it will pass unanimously.
786 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:25:26 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:25 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.
Accordingly, 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.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask for it to pass unanimously, but I doubt that would work, so I am going to ask for a recorded vote.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:26:03 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There are 13 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-64.
Motion No. 7 will not be selected by the Chair as it requires a royal recommendation. Motion No. 13 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.
All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.
Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 to the House.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:29:13 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:29:13 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting the short title
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:29:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, could you clarify that the result of these Conservative motions would be to delete the entire bill at a cost of voting of about a quarter of a million dollars?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:29:24 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry but that is not a point of order. The hon. member can ask that question during questions and comments.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on another point of order.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:29:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, could you clarify whether the Conservatives could simply vote against the bill and have the same effect?
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:29:41 p.m.
- Watch
Again, that is a point of debate. I would just ask the hon. member to maybe keep those questions and comments for the appropriate time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting here in the House, the whole idea, whether the NDP-Liberal costly coalition likes it or not, of actually having a robust debate, especially when there are significant differences of opinion. Of course, that is why we are here tonight. We on this side of the House believe that legislation should be debated, and debated robustly, in spite of the fact of the trickery and antics used by the costly coalition to move closure on the bill.
On behalf of Canadians, I say that it has become fascinating to me that the notion that the House is spending other people's money has been lost, and this is a $2-billion bill where we would spend the money of taxpayers. I think we should do it with great caution. We should be prudent when we are doing it, and we should be doing things that we hear from taxpayers are important to them.
When we look across the country and hear about the things that are mentioned in the bill, we know that that is not happening. Therefore, when the hon. NDP member who is standing behind me says that what we are talking about is this or that, or some other foolish intervention, then what we end up with is just wasting more time. He has been here long enough to know the rules, or he should know the rules.
We know that when the bill was introduced there were only 10 hours of witness testimony and five hours of debate on clause-by-clause on it. Why is this important? When we begin to look at the pharmacare bill, we see that some of the amendments that were introduced originally were related to having Canadians understand that the bill really relates to only two classes of medications: contraception and medications and products for diabetes. That does not mean that those two classes are not important; they are. They involve important health states that often need the intervention of a prescription, but it means that the bill is no more than that at the current time.
It is interesting that the government, on canada.ca, puts out a list of medications that may or may not be covered by the bill, which creates hope for Canadians. Canadians will say, “Well, these are the medications that are going to be covered.” Many different groups come forward and ask, “Well, why not this and why not that?” Probably one of the most influential medications in the history of diabetes treatment besides insulin is Ozempic, but it is not on the list. People will say, “Well, why is it not on the list?” Then, of course, the government talks about the bill and says, “Well, that is not really the list; that is just a list. It is any old list.” Why did it publish it on its website, on canada.ca? Are those things important? Absolutely, they are.
When we talk about definitions, folks listening in at home will say that some of them are self-evident. They are not self-evident when we are dealing with $2 billion. For example, what is the definition of “universal”, “single-payer” and “first dollar”? Those definitions are incredibly important, so that the 70% to 80% or so of Canadians who have private insurance can be at least somewhat reassured that they would not lose private coverage.
That is the largest, most expansive and most distressing concern that we on this side of the House have. I would suggest that reassurances from the Minister of Health are just not enough for Canadians. To say, “Oh, trust me” is kind of akin to that old saying, “I'm from the government and I'm here to help”, which we all know is a difficult pill to swallow.
There was another interesting thing that, in our limited time, we did learn in committee. There were two experts. One was actually there in person and one was on Zoom, and they were both touted as Canada's experts on pharmacare. I was glad they were not in the same room, as we never know what might have happened, but that being said, the most fascinating thing was that, even though both of them are experts on pharmacare, neither one of them was actually consulted on the bill. They did not give any input whatsoever on how the bill should come to be, what should be in it or what should not be in it, and for me that is somewhat distressing.
Another somewhat distressing thing that is referenced in the bill is the committee of experts, the group that would be put forward to decide exactly which medications and which devices would be covered. Again, there are several amendments related to that. Things such as regional representation and professional representation were once again simply dismissed by the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. That creates significant problems for us on this side of the House, and it is exactly why we believe we need to be here this evening. When we know it is not a plan, not a blueprint, but is a plan perhaps to create a plan, that again creates distress on behalf of Canadians.
We know that people value the private coverage they are fortunate enough to have at this time, and we know that employers are happy to offer those benefits to their employees as a condition of their employment. Sadly, about a million people do not have coverage for medications. We on this side of the House believe there could be better ways to give them that than offering the pharmacare idea.
When we begin to look at the state of health care in this country at the current time, we know there are problems with the system we have. When one cannot access primary care, it is incredibly difficult to have a lab test done, to see a specialist or to have a diagnostic imaging test done. I say it is difficult because what happens is that people end up going to emergency rooms and urgent care centres to have some routine things done or even to have their prescriptions refilled. When we begin to look at that, in the words of former Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Katharine Smart a couple of years ago, the system is actually on the brink of collapse.
If anything, in the last couple of years we know that things have become even worse. There are now approximately seven million Canadians who do not have access to primary care, which means, as I mentioned, that they have to go to urgent care centres or emergency rooms, or go without care, which is the worst state of affairs.
Some of the other estimates would say we are 30,000 physicians short in this country. When we graduate about 3,200 every year, it seems almost an impossibility to make up the shortage. I always to try to help Canadians understand it. It is kind of like having a car that does not have any wheels on it, but wanting a new stereo in it, which is not terribly helpful. It is perhaps not a great analogy but it is something to try to help Canadians understand what is going on.
The other part is that we know that wait times in the system, if one is so fortunate enough to be able to access it, are the longest they have been in 30 years, three decades. If one is fortunate enough to have a family physician, the wait time for having specialist care is over 27 weeks, six months. We know that people on waiting lists are dying. Somewhere between 17,000 and 30,000 people are dying every year waiting for treatment in this country. The system itself is in absolutely poor shape and falling apart.
The difficulty we also see, again, is government members' being champions of photo ops. They talk about their dental program, which has significantly disappointed many Canadians. We now know that provincial dental associations are taking out ads warning people about the extra costs and the lack of ability to find a dentist.
Liberals promised a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer, which has never come to fruition at all. They promised affordable housing, and we know they are building less housing than before. They promised $10-a-day day care, and of course one cannot access it.
What we have is a government that is great at announcements and very bad at actually making anything happen. We know, on this side of the House, that Bill C-64 needs significant amendments and significant debate. On behalf of Canadians, we need to be incredibly cautious with how we are spending other people's money.
1486 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, under the statute, there would be a requirement for the government to come up with an essential drug list within a year of its getting royal assent. It would seem to me this would be a difficult process. I am sure all kinds of doctors are going to want different things to be part of the essential drug list. What does the member think about our ability to do that and to do it within one year?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:40:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, sometimes people liken getting a group of doctors angry to getting a bunch of bees angry, in the sense that if we make one mad, they all want to sting us. That interesting image would hold true in this case.
How do we decide things when a group of experts get in a room? First of all, we need to pick a group of experts, which we had some ideas on at committee. They were rejected by the costly coalition. The other part of it is asking, what is the best insulin? What is the best medication, the pills, available to treat diabetes? Why is Ozempic not here? How do we make those pharmacoeconomic decisions when we know that some medications are incredibly cheap but not as effective as the more expensive medications? Who is going to be the final arbiter of that decision-making?
I thank my hon. colleague for the question, because I think it is a very important one. Canadians need to understand that the lists published on Canada.ca are simply lists and are not worth the paper they are printed on.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:41:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have a problem here in Ottawa. Governments, particularly Liberal governments, think they know more than the provinces in fields where they are completely incompetent.
However, the NDP is breaking records. It is even worse. Not so long ago, the leader of the NPD wrote to Quebec's health minister asking for a meeting so he could teach him about the benefits of a pharmacare system. He did that even though Quebec has a system where everyone has been insured since 1996.
I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of this kind of attitude in Ottawa. How does the NDP's centralizing and equally incompetent attitude compound the already deep wrongs of Liberal governments?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
