SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24

Jun/17/24 11:46:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are people who go to work in the United States, who drive trucks to the United States and who are paid by the Americans. What is the problem? We are the Bloc Québécois. We represent Quebeckers, who contribute $80 billion in taxes. I work for them. I work to ensure that this money is spent wisely and that the will of Quebeckers is respected when it comes to where the money goes. That is why we are here. We work on bills that govern Quebeckers' lives. That is why we are here. In our minds we are in foreign country, but, unfortunately, that foreign country is going to take money out of our pockets. We are here to stand up for our people and ensure that their money is spent wisely. I do not think that I am as adored in my riding as you are in yours, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that the people in my riding are happy with the work I am doing. During the next election, my colleagues are welcome to come to my riding to see how proud people are of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing. They say that, yes—

212 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 11:48:00 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

8 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/17/24 11:48:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a foreign country, according to my colleague from La Prairie. I love listening to him, but there are 700,000 Quebeckers who have benefited from dental care in this foreign country. This dental care was put in place thanks to the NDP. In the first five weeks alone, 700,000 Quebeckers have already taken advantage of this new program, which will really improve their health. It is obvious that Quebeckers disagree with my colleague, but does he agree with the NDP amendment, which will completely fix this bill? The Conservatives and the Bloc did not introduce any amendments. The NDP did. Does the member support the NDP amendment?

112 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/17/24 11:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what has the NDP done when it comes to dental coverage? We already have dental coverage in Quebec. What is going to happen is that they are going to add another structure on top of that insurance. People are going to pay— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

50 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 11:49:08 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The poor interpreters have had enough. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

15 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 11:49:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite humorous what is happening on the other side in the corner there, but I will let the two MPs continue the conversation outside the House. On a much more serious note, and on a note of gratitude, this is the second time I have spoken today and, in case I do not have an opportunity to speak before the House rises for the summer, I wish to thank my team here in Ottawa, Sashalie and Dima, for all their hard work. I would also like to thank the team back in the city of Vaughan, in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, at the constituency office, Pina, Anthony and Francesco, for all their hard work. As we all know, our staff are the ones who do a lot of the heavy lifting for us and keep us going strong to the extent needed. To the family back home, my kids, wife and all the folks who believe in me and encourage me to do better and be better, I wish to send my thanks as well. I am proud to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. The government introduced Bill C-65 to increase participation and confidence in Canada's electoral process. This bill implements lessons learned from recent elections. It takes into account the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as the concerns and changing views of voters. It responds to the evolving threats to our democracy. Although Bill C-65 contains many important proposals, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the provisions in this bill to strengthen the protection of Canadians' personal information by federal political parties. I am sure my colleagues will agree that communication between parties and voters is essential to a healthy, modern democracy. Personal information contributes to this ongoing dialogue. It enables parties to communicate with Canadians and understand their views and priorities. In turn, these connections can help voters make informed choices about who they want to represent them in Parliament. Unfortunately, we know that malicious actors can try to access or disclose personal information held by the parties. In fact, the Communications Security Establishment Canada has established that the theft and manipulation of databases containing personal information are a major threat to political parties. That is unacceptable, and we recognize that we need to do more so that Canadians know that their information is protected. That is why, in 2018, Parliament took an important first step by passing the Elections Modernization Act, which imposed the very first privacy requirements on federal political parties by creating a condition of registration under the Canada Elections Act. Finally, each party has been required since 2019 to provide Elections Canada with a policy for the protection of personal information that meets the requirements set out in the act. Parties that do not comply with this requirement can be deregistered or denied the right to register. Currently, under the Elections Modernization Act, all federal political parties have a publicly available policy for the protection of personal information that addresses a range of privacy issues, such as how a party collects, uses and shares data. It was a first step in the right direction. Bill C‑65 proposes to enhance these requirements. With interactions between the political parties and the voters being increasingly focused on data, more robust, national measures for the protection of personal information are needed. In budget 2023, Parliament took another step forward by establishing that the Canada Elections Act is a national regime that governs the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and disposal of Canadians' personal information by federal political parties and any person acting on their behalf. It was established that the same rules apply to the federal political parties and the persons acting on their behalf, regardless of the voters' place of residence or the territory where the party operates. This also crystalized the fundamental objective of the federal political parties that collect, use, disclose, retain and dispose of personal information, which is to participate in Canadian democracy by supporting the activities of candidates who share the same values as the party. However, we know that it is always possible to do more. That is why the government is now proposing to enhance the requirements that need to be included in each federal party's policy for the protection of personal information, so as to promote the principle of transparency, protection, accountability and compliance. I will address each of these principles separately. Many requirements will promote greater transparency. Every party must make its policy for the protection of personal information publicly available in both French and English, and the policy must be written in plain language. In order for Canadians to better understand the elements of this policy, every party must give examples illustrating how it collects, uses, discloses and disposes of personal information. Every policy must indicate not only the types of personal information that the party collects, as is currently the case, but also the types of personal information that it retains, uses, discloses and disposes of. However, even though transparency is important, it is not enough. Additional safeguards are needed. First, the policy for the protection of personal information must require that personal information be protected through physical, organizational and technological security safeguards. These safeguards can include locked filing cabinets or secure areas, document encryption, password protection and the sharing of personal information on a need-to-know basis. The level of protection must be proportionate to the sensitivity of the information. Second, the policy for the protection of personal information will require the party to ensure that any individual or external organization that receives personal information from a federal political party, such as a supplier or contractor, has equivalent safeguards. Third, every political party must prohibit the sale of personal information. That is an important change because, right now, the act only requires the policy to include a statement indicating the circumstances under which personal information can be sold. Fourth, the updated privacy policies would also prohibit parties from providing false or misleading information to Canadians about why they are collecting personal information. Finally, Bill C-65 would prohibit the disclosure of personal information with malicious intent. All these requirements that would apply to the parties are reasonable and sensible. Requiring greater accountability also helps meet that objective. Each party should have a designated privacy officer who would be responsible for—

1082 words

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/18/24 12:00:36 a.m.
Watch

That is all the time. The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments the next time the bill comes before the House.

25 words

Minutes

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

Jun/18/24 12:00:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, $2,600 was, according to his testimony, the hourly rate earned by one Kristian Firth on the ArriveCAN app or what many people are calling the arrive scam scandal. There was a simple question that I asked the minister, and I did not get a response. Does he think that $2,600 an hour was a reasonable rate? As such, I am back in the House at midnight to ask the same question again. Kristian Firth, with his partner, at a two-person company, worked out of their basement. They got this massive contract to build the ArriveCAN app, and they did not do any work on the app; they simply received the contract and subcontracted it. For their pains of getting the contract and going on LinkedIn to find people who actually did IT work and who could actually build an app, the company, GC Strategies, Kristian Firth, got $2,600 an hour. This is at a time when many Canadians are struggling, and Canadians are paying higher taxes than ever before. The government is showing such disdain for their money that it is giving money to these well-connected insider friends of the government to simply receive contracts and to subcontract at a rate of $2,600 an hour, according to Kristian Firth's testimony. Based on some of the surrounding numbers, I would say that it is actually a fairly conservative estimate, “conservative” not in the good sense but a conservative estimate of $2,600 per hour. I am repeating the question several times because I want to make sure that the parliamentary secretary is without excuse and that he will stand up and answer the question that has been asked, which is the question the minister declined to answer. This is the question: $2,600 per hour was the rate, according to his own testimony, that Kristian Firth earned on the ArriveCAN app. It was not for building the app and not for designing the app, but it was simply for going on LinkedIn and for finding other people to build the app, something that the public service could have likely done itself. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that $2,600 per hour was a reasonable rate for Kristian Firth to be earning? The parliamentary secretary is without excuse. I have asked the question several times. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that $2,600 per hour was a reasonable rate for Kristian Firth to earn on the arrive scam app? Does he believe $2,600 was a reasonable rate? I await the parliamentary secretary's response to my question.

437 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 12:03:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to stress that this is an issue we are not taking lightly. Let me first say that I am very proud of the public servants who worked so diligently to ensure that the government could deliver services and programs to Canadians during the pandemic. At the same time, it is clear that something went wrong with the procurement of professional services related to ArriveCAN. Our government is extremely concerned about the issues that have come to light. I want the member to know that we have taken and are taking action to improve our procurement processes, and we are holding companies accountable for their misconduct, while protecting federal expenditures. With regard to reports by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, as the central purchaser for the government, has already taken several steps to implement the recommendations and improve the processes. For several years now, the department has been making progress in its plan to modernize procurement, which has long been a priority. Right now the government is firmly focused on improving and further strengthening processes, especially when it comes to IT procurement. We have been working for months to do just that. This includes strengthening guidance and training for those involved in the procurement process. PSPC is also improving evaluation requirements to ensure that resources are properly qualified, and is requiring increased transparency for suppliers around their price and their use of subcontractors. It is also improving documentation when awarding contracts and issuing task authorizations, and it is clarifying work requirements and activities, specifically which activities and which projects are worked on by contractors. In addition, PSPC is updating its guidance to help other departments and agencies in procuring responsibly when using procurement instruments under their own authorities. We know that fundamentally improving IT procurement requires us to ensure that those processes are clear and transparent and that the roles, responsibilities and rules are understood, respected and adhered to. To that end, the department is going even further in strengthening the integrity in procurement by creating a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which we know will help the government better respond to misconduct. We owe it to Canadians to preserve the integrity of federal government procurement. That is why we are taking action now to strengthen and improve procurement so that what happened in the case of ArriveCAN never happens again.

404 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/18/24 12:06:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, maybe the Liberals should open a new office for answering the question that was asked, because I asked it three times at least, and the member opposite chose not to answer. It is a very simple question. Canadians are struggling. They are seeing the incredible waste and corruption within the NDP-Liberal government. In particular, they are shocked that, as part of the arrive scam scandal, over $2,500 per hour was paid out to well-connected insider consultants. If one cannot answer the basic question about whether they think a $2,600-an-hour fee is reasonable, how can we ever see meaningful improvement under the government? I do not think we will, but I will try one last time: Does the parliamentary secretary for Veterans Affairs, who is the one here answering the questions, think that $2,600 per hour was a reasonable rate, yes or no?

151 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Jun/18/24 12:07:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are committed to preserving the integrity of federal government procurement, and that is precisely what our government is doing. Public Services and Procurement has already taken several steps to implement the recommendations of both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman. It is strengthening guidance and training in federal procurement and making great progress in our plan to modernize processes. We will continue to explore ways to improve our procurement processes, specifically when it comes to IT procurement. We know that the newly established office of supplier integrity and compliance will help the government better respond to misconduct and further safeguard the integrity of federal procurement.

109 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Jun/18/24 12:08:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on June 7, I informed an oblivious government that Canadians will never get over nor accept a betrayal of their country's democracy by traitors who willingly sell themselves out for political and financial gain. Instead of continuing a policy of denial, the Liberal government should cease resorting to any measure that could shield party colleagues who are on the payroll of foreign operators and who have willingly accepted various offers of foreign support to win party nominations and obtain electoral victory. Canadians are wondering why the government continues to refuse to release cabinet documents to both the Hogue inquiry and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, so that any individual believed to have been a willing participant to treasonous activities can be investigated. What are the Liberals hiding? Is it the case that the Liberal Party does not want to incriminate its own members? The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs answered my question and had the audacity to claim that I had made something up, and said that the government has “worked collaboratively” with the Hogue commission. What a joke. The minister went on to indicate that, “officials from the Privy Council Office are in regular and ongoing contact with the lawyers from the Hogue commission to ensure that they have all of the appropriate and relevant documents to do the important work that all recognized parties in the House supported.” Someone is clearly making things up, but it is not me, and it is my hon. colleague who should be careful before making things up in the House of Commons. Most Canadians do not believe that the government has come clean when it comes to what it knows about foreign interference in our country. Indeed, we currently have the Hogue commission looking into foreign interference. We also have NSICOP. We also had a special rapporteur take a shot at it. We even had a few people in our national security agencies put their careers on the line to try to inform the public of what is known and what is being intentionally withheld by the government. There must be some fire with all this smoke. I do not think those entities feel they are making things up, and it seems like it is only the government that wants everything to go away and for people to just get over it. Why is that the case? Why is the Liberal government withholding over 1,000 documents from the Hogue commission and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians? It is past midnight. I am here to fight for transparency for Canadians. What does the government have to hide?

453 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 12:11:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the vital, ongoing work that the Government of Canada is doing to protect Canada's democratic institutions. As all members of this House are aware, threats to Canada's democracy do not affect only some Canada; they affect all Canadians. That is why the enhancements to safeguard Canada's democratic systems and processes against foreign interference that are set out in Bill C-70 are supported across party lines. Indeed, the Government of Canada's ongoing work to protect Canada's electoral systems and democratic institutions includes efforts to maximize public transparency while protecting what and how government documents are shared. This is because the nature of some records and how they are intended to be used is fundamental to the functioning of our democratic system of government. I would like to take this opportunity to make clear what cabinet confidences are and why they are treated so carefully by the government so that any misunderstanding along these lines can be put to an end. Cabinet confidences are documents that are prepared for members of cabinet. They include memoranda to cabinet, discussion papers, records of cabinet deliberations, records of communications between ministers, records to brief ministers and draft legislation. The Canadian government is, and has been since Confederation, a Westminster system of government. This means that the principle of keeping cabinet confidences secret is older than Canada itself. It originates from the United Kingdom's Westminster Parliament, which dates back many centuries. Cabinet confidences are central to how the Westminster system functions because of another foundational principle called cabinet collective responsibility. These principles complement each other, as members of cabinet consider all material at their disposal, deliberate, and even disagree freely around the cabinet table. Once the deliberations are finished, cabinet makes a collective decision, and all members are responsible for it. The secrecy of these deliberations and of the materials that are used to make cabinet decisions is therefore paramount to the system functioning as designed. This has been long understood by successive Canadian governments, which have upheld the principle of cabinet confidences. In addition to the government, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized, “Cabinet confidentiality is essential to good government.” Protecting Canada's democracy also means protecting our democratic institutions and ensuring that they can function as intended. Protecting cabinet confidences is not a nefarious act, but rather a fulfillment of the government's duty to uphold the long-established principles of Canada's system of government. While fulfilling this duty, the Government of Canada continues to support the ongoing work of the public inquiry into foreign interference. Since the inquiry was established last year, the set of cabinet confidences specified in the terms of reference for the commission have already been provided during the commission's first phase of work. Those terms of reference were developed and agreed to by all recognized parties in the House. As it has done all along, the government will continue to provide thousands of classified documents to the commission and will continue to make government witnesses available to answer the commission's questions. The Government of Canada looks forward to the commission's final report in December and will consider how its recommendations can further help to enhance Canada's measures against foreign interference in its electoral systems and democratic institutions.

565 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Jun/18/24 12:16:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians deserve to know the truth. Canadians deserve to know who was involved, who profited politically and/or financially and how they will be brought to justice for their actions, just as much as those who have conducted foreign interference operations in our country. Why is there such a reluctance by the government to provide Canadians with evidence of foreign interference? Why is it that when the Prime Minister went on CBC earlier today and was asked if there were any Liberal MPs on the NSICOP list who had betrayed Canada, he stammered and could not answer for over 10 seconds? What is the basis for that? Is the Liberal Party afraid of where this will end if they release the names?

124 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Jun/18/24 12:16:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to support the important work of the public inquiry into foreign interference, as it has done since the inquiry was established last year. The government continues to provide thousands of classified documents and to make government witnesses available to meet with the commission to answer its questions. While supporting the commission's work, the government will continue its ongoing work to protect Canada's democratic institutions. Protecting Canada's democracy is not a partisan activity. It requires constant vigilance and ongoing effort to meet the ever-changing threats to our democratic systems and processes. The Government of Canada takes this duty seriously and welcomes the efforts of all parliamentarians who are committed to this important work.

123 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/18/24 12:17:39 a.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:17 a.m.)

41 words