44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
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
- May/30/24 6:42:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very important to respect provincial jurisdictions.
Everyone in the House knows that the province of Quebec has a drug coverage program. It is a very extensive program, but it costs too much.
We need to sit down together, talk about the problems and find solutions, especially in a case like this, where drug coverage is really a provincial responsibility.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:43:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Conservatives say they want to save money, but they are spending $400,000 on this debate tonight, which is about meaningless motions that basically delete the entire bill. There is not a single contribution the Conservative Party and Conservative MPs have made to pharmacare.
We know the Conservatives were wrong on dental care. Some 120,000 seniors, in the first three weeks, benefited from dental care across the country. Two million seniors have signed up, with tens of thousands more each and every week. Pharmacare would help six million Canadians with diabetes and nine million Canadians who buy contraceptives.
Is that not why Conservatives are wasting this debate and $400,000 of taxpayers' money tonight? Is it not because they fear the supports the NDP is providing for the Conservatives' constituents across the country?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:44:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. I do not fear anything the NDP members have to say or think. I think that is important. They fear spending money on anything except democracy. All they want to do is ram legislation through, in their costly coalition partnership, with respect to things they sadly do not understand. The only other thing the NDP members want to spend money on is delaying the date of the election by one week so that many of them can access their pensions, which is money spent on behalf of Canadians.
When we look at those kinds of things, those words do not ring true with any of us in the House.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
