Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely 100% agree, as do all members on this side of the House, that the swastika does represent hate and is certainly a repugnant, abhorrent symbol. However, on Wednesday, we witnessed what I would say was one of the worst incidents of an attack on a member in my six years in the House. We saw the Prime Minister attack a Jewish member of the House, the member for Thornhill, who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors. He suggested she was standing with those who were displaying the swastika. It was the Prime Minister who said this. Will the member condemn the Prime Minister for that statement?

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last couple of days, I know my office has been receiving literally thousands of emails. I suspect that colleagues across all parties are receiving the emails, particularly as they relate to the Emergencies Act and the concern that Canadians are now waking up to as they start to better understand just the expansive overreach of the state into their lives. I just wonder if the member can comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, the member for the Bloc laid out perfectly why this was an expansive overreach on the part of the government. One of the things that is extremely concerning to me, and I think the Deputy Prime Minister actually confirmed this the other day, is that the government is intending to impose some of the measures in the Emergencies Act on a more permanent basis, including financial tracking of individuals. This causes a problem not just here in Ottawa but right across the country, including in Quebec. Is the fact that she is talking about a more permanent measure of tracking the bank accounts and the transactions of Canadians disturbing? It should be.

Mr. Speaker, at one point the hon. member asked how we got to this point. She then proceeded to blame everybody else, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, but failed to place any blame on her own Prime Minister for wedging, stigmatizing and dividing people, calling them racist, misogynist and extremist, and asking whether we have to tolerate these people. What we are seeing in this country, in the manifestation of protests across the country, is a logical conclusion to the identity politics the Prime Minister has played. I want to ask a question specific to the Emergencies Act. The order in council released by the government authorized the government to impose other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known, which basically gives the Prime Minister and the executive branch of government unfettered power over their citizens. How could anyone, even on that side, logically support that?

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics with him, and I would like to say that he is a very honourable man. I am very worried. The order issued by the government authorizes it to impose other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act, which are not yet known. The Prime Minister is basically asking the House to grant him limited powers, but that, actually, is quite broad. Is the member also worried?

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice revealed yesterday that the financial provisions of the Emergencies Act were aimed more at punishing political opponents than at actually fighting crime. Can members imagine living in a country like Canada where a law or an act is designed to beat down political dissent on the part of opposition parties. That could include the Bloc Québécois, for example. I am interested in the member's comments on that.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP rose on a point of order, and we are certainly sympathetic to the member for Yukon. However, the easiest way we can resolve the situation with interpreters is to get back to normal Parliament so that we are all here. The debate we are having in this place, whether we agree or not with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, is probably and arguably one of the most important debates we are going to have in a generation, or at least my generation. As the eyes of the nation are upon us, I ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your ruling concerning a key procedural aspect of the very important and historic debate the House will be having this week. On Monday, the Prime Minister announced that Canada was under a public order emergency, invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in that law's existence. That will require a debate in the House to confirm the government's declaration of emergency, a debate we expect to start later this week. I wanted to rise on this point of order at the earliest opportunity to allow you as much time as possible to prepare a ruling. Subsection 58(6) of the Act requires that the motion “shall be debated without interruption until such time as the House is ready for the question”. That is a legal requirement, yet there is some difference of opinion within this building about how to give it effect. I understand there is a head of steam building up behind the view that the words “without interruption” unbelievably allows for interruptions for members' statements, question period and nightly adjournment. However, when my predecessor, now the leader of the official opposition, sought the advice of the table concerning a potential debate under a different statute, a debate that did not happen, but if it had, would also have been without interruption, the advice she received from the clerks at the table was that it would override S. O. 31s and QP, and see us sit into the night until completed. Members can appreciate that this is something that needs clarity, and quickly. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines the verb “interrupt” as, “act so as to break the continuous progress of (something) temporarily”. That is in line with the advice the table gave my predecessor three years ago. To my mind, this means that nothing could or should get in the way of the debate once it has been launched, regrettably not members' statements, certainly not the evening adjournment, and definitely not the upcoming constituency week. That, I would submit, aligns with both the letter and the spirit of the Emergencies Act. The government has said this country, the whole of it, is in a state of emergency. That is a big deal. A situation so serious and grave requires a dedicated and determined focus by the Chamber on it, and I think our constituents would expect no less. We must vote on the Prime Minister's emergency. Very few of the debates the House has held have been governed by rules written into statute rather than our Standing Orders. Those debates are enumerated at pages 709 and 710 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Of these, only four have been held under a law that required the debate to be held without interruption, according to my office's research. The first was held in November 1974 under an Act to Amend the Veterans’ Land Act. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 714, describes the second and third of these cases: Many statutes that prescribe provisions for statutory debates also stipulate that the debate may not be interrupted. Nevertheless, in 1977, debate on the motion pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act, which took place over four days, was interrupted on three occasions for the Adjournment Proceedings, after which the motion to adjourn was deemed withdrawn and debate continued, pursuant to an Order of the House adopted on May 30, 1977. In 1985, the debate held pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act was interrupted for a ministerial statement by the Minister of Finance pursuant to an Order made by the House. The most recent of these without-interruption debates was held in December 1992 under the provisions of the Special Economic Measures Act. There are also key distinctions between the relevant legal provisions and the context of those four debates and our current circumstances. While subsection 1(3) of an Act to Amend the Veterans' Land Act, which governed the 1974 debate, required the debate to occur without interruption, it was also to be held “in accordance with the rules of the House”, and was to be concluded “not later than the end of the first sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered”. The 1974 debate was meant to be subject to all of the Standing Orders of the House, along with the concept of being divided between sitting days as well as providing a cut-off for the debate. None of those three concepts is found in subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. Those concepts did, however, appear in subsections 46(6) and 46(7) of the Anti-Inflation Act as amended by subsection 11(2) of an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, which required the 1977 debate to happen without interruption, but also that the debate was limited to four sitting days and would occur “in accordance with rules of the House”. Again, these additional concepts are missing from subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. As for the 1985 debate held pursuant to subsection 62(6) of the Western Grain Transportation Act, the law actually specified that the debate would occur “For a period not exceeding the duration of the normal business hours of the House on that day”. That is rather cut and dried, and it is also different from subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. Finally, the 1992 debate pursuant to subsection 7(4) of the Special Economic Measures Act was also held without interruption but, importantly, “for not more than three hours”. As I have established, there is no time limit in subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. Essentially, we are left with a situation where we need to square two different sets of rules that have been adopted by the House, one being the Standing Orders and the other being the Emergencies Act. Page 267 of Bosc and Gagnon notes that: In the case of statutory provisions, the House of Commons endeavours to ensure that its Standing Orders and practices are consistent with statutes while retaining the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions of a statute apply to its proceedings. I would respectfully argue that the distinctions between the Emergencies Act, on the one hand, and the laws under which all of the other without-interruption debates were held rendered those debates inappropriate precedents to follow to the letter. A critical maxim applied judicially in statutory interpretation cases would be instructive here. It is that “Parliament does not speak in vain”. That touchstone is elaborated upon in various entries in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, which is the leading Canadian authority on the interpretation of laws. I will simply offer two short quotes from the 6th edition. First is paragraph 814, which says, “Although ordinary speakers or writers require much co-operative guesswork from their audience, a legislature is an idealized speaker. Unlike the rest of us, legislatures are presumed to always say what they mean and mean what they say. They do not make mistakes.” Then there is paragraph 8.32, which I believe speaks to Parliament's use of caveats and the requirements of some debates to be held without interruption. There are no such qualifications on the requirements in the Emergencies Act. It reads, “It is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument, the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings. Another way of understanding this presumption is to say that the legislature is presumed to avoid stylistic variation and once a particular way of expressing a meaning has been adopted, it is used each time that meaning is intended. Given that practice, it follows that where a different form of expression is used, a different meaning is intended.” Page 122 of Bosc and Gagnon instructs us that, “The right to regulate its own internal affairs does not mean that the House is above the law. However, where the application of a statute law relates to a proceeding in Parliament, it is the House itself which decides how that law is applied.” In this case, I believe the path forward is that we must apply the rules set out in the Emergencies Act to this week's debate. The Standing Orders obviously can supplement all of those areas where the act is silent, such as the maximum length of speeches or how long the bells for a vote would ring, to name just two examples. Ultimately, the statutory rules that apply to this specific debate must, I would respectfully submit, trump the general provisions of the Standing Orders where there is any conflict. Nonetheless, the House's authority to interpret the law leaves it open to the House to adopt a special order through unanimous consent to structure the terms of the debate in a way that suits the House best. That was certainly the case, for example, in 1977 and 1985, when the House had adopted special orders, as I cited from page 714 of Bosc and Gagnon. I also understand that the 1992 debate was guided by a special order. That would be the correct approach to the House exercising its privileges to determine how to regulate our procedure and how to interpret the law. It would be correct for the House collectively to reach that decision. Let me stress that again: It is for the House. It would not, though, be for any single member to substitute, and certainly not for the government House leader to dictate, new interpretations of a simple phrase like “without interruption”. The Prime Minister today said that the government would follow the letter of the law. I cannot believe I am going to say this, but I agree with him. Let us follow the letter and the spirit of the law, and ensure that the House takes up this declaration of emergency debate with the urgency a supposed national emergency should naturally require. The last thing we need to do is leave here at 2:30 on a Friday for a 10-day vacation, as much as I am sure the Prime Minister would like that. Let us debate the emergency, let us air the concerns of our constituents and their views, and then let us have the vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing profound disappointment on the part of the official opposition for what is effectively a hammer being dropped on a very important bill, limiting debate and limiting parliamentary scrutiny. Last week, we proposed what I thought was a reasonable amendment to the motion. The amendment would have allowed an expedited process of parliamentary scrutiny and would have allowed timely and thorough examination of this bill. The challenge we have is that we are seeing this pattern when it comes to dealing with legislation. We have a two and a half billion-dollar bill that is being supported by all sides. That makes it even more important that we provide scrutiny by having the committee look at this and be able to provide reasonable amendments if required and, more important, have the minister come to committee to answer the questions of parliamentarians. After all, that is our job. It is our job to provide oversight on spending. I will remind the Speaker as well that the Senate is not even sitting this week so there is really no reason for this bill to be rushed. Therefore, we have an opportunity to look at the bill and provide some reasonable amendments. Given all of the circumstances we are dealing with, including that the Senate is not sitting and the fact that it has all-party support, can the minister give me one coherent reason why we would need to rush this bill at this point and not have parliamentary oversight over this piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, which he tells me is the number one riding in all of Canada. I happen to think Barrie—Innisfil is. Let me begin by noting how profoundly disappointed I am with the results of what I thought was a reasonable request on the part of the opposition, through our opposition day motion, to ask for a plan from the government, by February 28, for coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and limiting or cancelling all of the restrictions and mandates. We are seeing a cascading effect across the country in the provinces, with premiers coming out and telling their people that by a certain date, this is going to happen. This is causing any cynic to be concerned that perhaps the Liberal government does not want to end the federal restrictions and mandates, does not want to unite Canadians and does not want to provide hope to Canadians. After two years of lives and livelihoods being lost and businesses being decimated, somehow they cannot support this, and it only speaks to the fact that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party want this to continue, for whatever reason. I am profoundly disappointed that we are at this point in this country. I rise today to speak to the Liberals' latest attempt to run roughshod over Parliament. Today the House is considering government Motion No. 8, which sets out draconian terms by which the House would dispose of Bill C-10. The bill is laudable in that it would give the Minister of Health the ability to purchase 2.5 billion dollars' worth of COVID-19 tests, the majority of which would be rapid tests. It would also grant the minister the power to start distributing those tests on April 1 of this year. Throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Party has consistently and persistently called for greater access to rapid tests for all Canadians. In fact, in April 2020, I was approached by a rapid test distributor and he told me that he was being bogged down at Health Canada and that the approvals process for these rapid tests was not moving as quickly as it should, despite the fact that they were approved by the U.S. FDA on an emergency-use basis and also by CE bodies in the European Union. Arguably, these blue-chip regulators are the best regulatory agencies in the world. That is not to discredit Health Canada, but it was a problem in April 2020 that I was highlighting, and I know that my colleagues were as well. In the election, we promised to break down the bureaucratic delays that were preventing the approval of rapid tests in Canada, and at that time, tests approved for use in the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union were not approved in Canada. Why was this so, when these blue-chip regulators were already approving them? We promised to make at-home test kits readily available to all Canadians, to deploy rapid tests to the border and other points of entry and to provide provincial governments with enough tests to keep schools open. Our support for the widespread use of rapid tests has been unwavering, and our support stands today. Despite the fact the Liberals did drag their feet in getting these essential tools into the hands of Canadians, they can count on our support for this legislation. We are not trying to stop the legislation. We are just trying to get some oversight, because we believe this bill could be strengthened and we would like to propose three common-sense amendments. For starters, if the minister has the ability to deploy the tests sooner, we would support an amendment that would allow him to do so. That is reasonable. Second, we would propose an amendment to require the contracts for these tests to be tabled in the House. That is another reasonable request. Let us remember why we are asking for this. These are the same Liberals who found time, at the height of a pandemic, to hand $900 million in a contract to their friends at WE charity and another $237-million sole-sourced contract to former Liberal member of Parliament Frank Baylis. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect there would be some oversight and scrutiny on these contracts. The government, and indeed these Liberals, should not enjoy the blind trust of the House. They have proven in the past that this trust needs to be questioned. As such, we should require the highest level of transparency, especially when it comes to urgent spending related to COVID-19. Third, the Conservatives would propose an amendment that would require the minister to report on the deployment of these tests to ensure they are being used as part of a plan to ease COVID restrictions. In short, we want to ensure that this investment of taxpayer money is used to help Canadians get back to their normal lives. I would love nothing more than to debate the merits of these amendments, but the Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP are teaming up to ram this bill through the House. Government Motion No. 8 provides for a shortened debate at second reading and a single vote that would be applied to the remaining stages of the legislative process. If the Liberals get their way, there will be no further debate, no ministerial accountability at committee, no testimony from stakeholders and no opportunity for the opposition parties to make amendments. The government House leader is offering the House a binary choice, and under this motion, we can either take the bill as it is or leave Canadians with fewer available COVID tests. The government House leader is trying to deny the House a third option: to support a strengthened bill by incorporating amendments from the opposition. Instead, without as much as one word of debate on the bill, the House leader has moved to pre-emptively shut down debate. This motion is a flagrant abuse of power, and the Liberals are being aided and abetted by a hapless coalition partner. That said, I recognize the need to pass this legislation quickly through the House, and on Friday, I sent a letter to all House leaders proposing a plan to dispose of Bill C-10 by Wednesday of this week. The proposal would have provided for a debate at second reading today, an abbreviated committee study tomorrow and final passage on Wednesday. It also included an order for the Minister of Health to appear at committee and for the amendments to be proposed during the usual clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. My proposal would allow the opposition to apply appropriate scrutiny and to propose improvements to the legislation without sacrificing the government's overall timetable to turn the bill into law. The House should also be made aware that the Senate agreed to a government motion to adjourn the other place for the entirety of this week. As a result, whether the bill passes in the House today or Wednesday, it will not be considered in the other place until next week. Any due diligence that we apply to this legislation in the House this week will do nothing to delay it from receiving royal assent. I will now take a couple of moments to address our colleagues in the NDP. I am calling on them to remember that they are the party of Jack Layton and Tommy Douglas. Back in the day, theirs was a party that stood for workers, for low-income Canadians and for the democratic rights of members of the House of Commons. It is not so anymore. The NDP have abandoned their first principles. Perhaps it is because they have a leader who is more interested in his own social media than he is in social policies and how they impact Canadians. For example, the NDP openly fights against jobs for unionized pipefitters and steelworkers every time they oppose new environmentally safe pipelines. They applaud the Prime Minister every time he talks about phasing out the jobs of hard-working Canadians in the oil and gas sector. In recent days, they have refused to defend the minority rights of workers who lost their jobs to discriminatory government mandates. They support the Liberal carbon tax that disproportionately hurts the poorest in our society. They support hikes in payroll taxes that make it harder for low-wage earners to make ends meet. The list goes on. Inside the House of Commons, they have allowed themselves to be the moderate wing of the Liberal Party, and they should be ashamed for that. The Liberals can count on the loyal support of the NDP whenever they move to ram their agenda through the House. Since 2019, when the Liberals were reduced to a minority government, the NDP has supported the shutting down of debate on 14 different occasions. It is high time that the NDP distances itself from the tired Liberal government that is demonstrably anti-working class and increasingly anti-democratic. Perhaps its members can start by standing against this undemocratic motion in the House today. In June 2019, the NDP House leader argued against the Liberal majority government when it moved to curtail debate. Back then, he said the Liberals “promised to work with the opposition parties and all members. Instead, they are imposing gag orders”. At a time when tensions are rising in this country, let us take the opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that their elected officials can collaborate in the national interest. We can and should stand together to get the best results for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was listening to what I said. I have been advocating for rapid tests since April 2020, a month after the COVID pandemic started storming around the world. I actually sent letters to the Minister of Health asking for the approval of certain types of rapid tests that had been approved by other blue-chip regulatory bodies, like the U.S. FDA and CE bodies in the European Union. There is no question that rapid tests work; otherwise, they would not have been approved by Health Canada. However, that is not the issue here. The issue here is that we are debating a bill that the Liberals have dropped the hammer on, and it is a multi-billion dollar piece of legislation that at least requires some sense of scrutiny by MPs.

Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. I do not think I can be any clearer than that. However, we are saying that we cannot bring the hammer down. Our job as members of Parliament is to provide oversight and scrutiny on the money that is being spent by the government to make sure it is effective and make sure it is being spent in the best manner it can be. All we are asking for, and the only compromise I propose, is that we have one day to scrutinize this. We were not going to hold up the bill. The Senate is not sitting until next week, so if the bill gets approved tonight, it just sits there for five days. What damage can be done by providing a little oversight or some scrutiny on a multi-billion dollar bill? It does not make any sense. We support the piece of legislation, but we also support accountability.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have found with these Liberals is that they are always a day late but they are never, ever any dollars short. They have never found a problem that they cannot throw money at. However, it does speak to the issue of scrutiny. If the member recalls, we had four hours to deal with a $57-billion bill at one time during the pandemic. Again, as I have talked about several times in the House, this speaks to a pattern of overreach, a pattern of control by the government, instead of letting us do our jobs, especially at a point when the Senate is not sitting. To let us do our job is not an unreasonable request.

Madam Speaker, I will be moving a unanimous consent motion, but on the business of the day, let me say that I am extremely disappointed, as I mentioned yesterday in the Thursday question, that the government is effectively using a hammer to propose and fast-track two pieces of legislation that are important but that come at a significant cost in the multi-billions of dollars. Effectively, the Liberals are not allowing for any parliamentary scrutiny, not allowing for committees to have a look at this and not allowing for any ministerial accountability or transparency. We understand that these are important bills. We want to move them through the process quickly. However, there is no reason for this type of tactic to be used by the government, a tactic that has shown its pattern, over the course of this pandemic, of ramming pieces of legislation through. The Senate is not sitting next week, so even if this tactic is successful, the challenge is that the two pieces of legislation will sit there and will not be able to go through the Senate. There have been discussions among the parties, and the Conservatives are proposing this unanimous consent motion for a timely and thorough examination of these two pieces of legislation. I move that, notwithstanding any order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, be disposed of as follows: (a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage on Monday, February 14, 2022; (b) at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, February 14, 2022, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment provided that if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred; (c) if the bill is read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, consideration in committee shall take place on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House before 6:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2022, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House provided that the Minister of Health be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved and the Chair shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; (d) no notice of motions in amendments shall be allowed at report stage; (e) the report stage and third reading stage of the bill be ordered for consideration on Wednesday, February 16, 2022; and (f) when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division. I hope this is considered by other parties. It is in the best interests of our democracy, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight to make sure that we have time, and it is a very reasonable request.

Madam Speaker, Canadians need and want a clear plan to end the mandates and restrictions. This week, four Liberal MPs came out against their own government and are demanding that the mandates be removed. I agree with them, and I also completely agree with the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert, who said that the Prime Minister has intentionally stigmatized and divided Canadians for political gain. The Prime Minister has stopped basing his decisions on science. He is now basing them on political science, doing whatever it takes to save his own political skin. When will Canadians have a clear plan to end the mandates?

Madam Speaker, it is not based on science. It is based on political science. Yesterday at the ethics committee, Ann Cavoukian said she found it disturbing that the government collected phone data without informing the public first or, worse, without their consent. Serious questions remain about whether the privacy rights of Canadians have been protected. The Privacy Commissioner has received so many complaints that he has opened an investigation. Canadians want answers. They also want PHAC to halt this program until their privacy can be guaranteed. Will the government respect the decision of the House of Commons to immediately suspend this data-gathering program until we are sure the privacy rights of Canadians have—

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Like my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, I kind of jumped the gun. Let me begin by stating that I am really looking forward to working with you and the government House leader. Despite any preconceived or misplaced characterizations he may have about me or my leadership team colleagues, which he so willingly shared with his caucus and publicly, he should not mistake our passion, our pride and our desire for only the best outcomes for our country and Canadians as any other emotion. If he would like to apologize, I am sure my leadership colleagues would gladly accept. I note the government House leader gave notice of government Motion No. 7 and Motion No. 8 to schedule a program for Bill C-10 on rapid tests and for Bill C-12 on old age security. Under the terms of these motions, the sponsoring minister will not have to defend their legislation in committee, no stakeholders will be able to testify and no amendments can be made to improve the legislation. I want the government House leader to understand that the official opposition supports both bills, but his proposed approach is not acceptable. I call on him to abide by the time-tested procedures of the House and make sure the government legislation holds up to parliamentary scrutiny. With that, I ask the government House leader the Thursday question: What is the order of business we can expect?

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise and speak to a very important and critical debate in this place. I would suggest it is somewhat historical in the sense that we are trying to move forward from an incredibly tough couple of years for Canadians. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton. I have been a member of Parliament now for six years. In my 57 years, I do not think I have ever seen the country as divided as it is today. It is divided along regional lines, divided along race lines and divided along faith lines, and we are now pitting neighbours against neighbours on the basis of their health status. That is not the way the country should be governed. Over the last six years, we have seen the divisive nature of a Prime Minister who does everything he can not to unite Canadians but to divide Canadians. We have seen it in some of the language that has been used. This is why Conservatives have really tried to take a solution-oriented approach to this crisis to work with the government. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Prime Minister that asked him to convene a meeting of the opposition parties with him to try to come up with a solution and try to work through this problem. Even today, the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois brought it up several times in question period and was trying to get the government and the Prime Minister to meet with opposition parties. Emergency services are stretched out. They are stressed. They are doing everything they can to deal with not just the manifestation of that frustration and that anger here in Ottawa but what is also now cascading across the provinces. We are seeing blockades at critical entry points, not just for our infrastructure but also for our supply chain. There are blockades at the Ambassador Bridge; in Emerson, Manitoba; and in Coutts, Alberta. I want to say that I appreciate that level of frustration. As the member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil, over the last two years I have certainly heard from businesses and people whose lives and livelihoods have been affected. I have heard about businesses that have been lost, about mental health issues among young people and about the mental health crisis that exists. People are tired and frustrated and angry. They are lashing out. They are protesting. They are calling and emailing members of Parliament. It is our job to listen to every single one of those voices. That is our job, regardless of whether we agree with them, regardless of whether we form the same ideology. It is our job to listen. In listening to all of this frustration that is being manifested through these protests, we need to come together as leaders in Parliament to find a solution, and we need to work together to do that. I will say that this morning the Leader of the Opposition called out and made a plea for the protests to end. We have heard what people are going through. We know what they want. It is up to us as leaders in this country to work to find those types of solutions so that people can go home, so that they know that their political leaders are working together. That is what this motion is all about; it is about creating a plan, a strategy, an exit strategy so that we can get back to some sense of normalcy. At this point, 90% of Canadians are vaccinated. I understand there are still some issues and some challenges; however, people are tired and weary of the restrictions and lockdowns and the types of things we are seeing being implemented and continued by the government, whether it is border testing or many of the other measures it has implemented. We need an exit strategy. We need to make sure that our economy is functioning on all cylinders. We cannot just go to restrictions and lockdowns by default. We have to use every tool in our tool box that we can. Vaccinations are one, and rapid tests and masking. I think it is up to Canadians now to make their health choices, to determine how we are going to get back to some sense of normalcy, and the government can facilitate that. The government can do that by ending the lockdowns, ending the restrictions and ending the mandates. I have been dealing with a situation at the ethics committee where we are seeing what seems to be a pattern of massive overreach from a privacy standpoint on Canadians in the collection of data without the consent of Canadians. If we start connecting the dots, as I said yesterday in question period, it is becoming increasingly concerning to Canadians what is happening with respect to their privacy rights. We have to take down the temperature. We have to stop the inflammatory language, the incendiary language that oftentimes is coming from the government. In fact, we had one of their MPs earlier this week talk about a concerted effort to stigmatize Canadians and to create this division. This is not a time for us to be divided. This is a time for us to be united in our cause, and that cause is to ensure that these lockdowns and these mandates end so that Canadians can get back to some sense of normalcy in their lives, so that businesses can function and so that lives and livelihoods are not lost. That is what we are talking about today. We need a plan and we need that exit strategy. I know the Prime Minister today, even through question period and all day yesterday, was talking about science and evidence-based decision-making. Even the chief public health officer of Canada is saying that we have to get back to some sense of normalcy. In fact, there are public health officers right across the country, premiers, who are announcing no more lockdowns, no more mandates and no more vaccine passports. They understand that we have to get back to some sense of normalcy, if not for the economy of this country then for the mental health of our nation because people are suffering. Sadly, as I sit here and I listen to the Prime Minister speak day in and day out about science and evidence-based decision-making, the reality is that the only science the Prime Minister understands is political science. That is the only science that he understands, political science and how to keep his job, instead of worrying about the people that he represents. He does not just represent people who agree with his ideology. He is the Prime Minister of the entire country. He is not supposed to just represent the people who agree or disagree with him. He is the Prime Minister of all Canadians. That, I think, is what is seriously lacking here, and I do not know why. This is despite the calls from the opposition parties, all of the opposition parties. Even the leader of the NDP today talked about convening a meeting so that we can work together to find a solution to this crisis, which is not just seizing our country but starting to paralyze our country. However, there are still more political games. A unanimous consent motion today by the Liberals just poured more gas on the fire. I am sick of it and Canadians are sick of it. They want their leadership and they want leaders in this country to be working together. Today's motion to direct the government to create this exit strategy, to create this exit plan, is one of prudence. It is one that is necessary and it is one that Canadians are desperately hoping for. I know the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil are fed up. They are tired. They are angry. They want to get back to some sense of normalcy. They want to be able to travel again. They do not want to have to pay $600 for a family of four for a PCR test. We need to get back to some sense of normalcy. I pray and I hope that the government is listening to what we are proposing, because it is done with sincerity and it is done on behalf of Canadians, the same Canadians who sent us here.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition was quite clear in her statement this morning. In fact, I was quite clear in my statement just now that these protests do have to end. Canadians have been heard, and it is up to the government. We are not the government. We are members of the opposition. The Liberals are the government, and they have all of the tools and all of the levers of power to choose from instead of, as I said earlier, inciting with incendiary and inflammatory language and trying to pour more gas on the fire. If the Liberals wanted to really work together, leveraging all the tools of power that they have, they could work to end this. As I said, Canadians are frustrated. They want the mandates to end. They want to get back to some sense of normalcy. They want life to resume, and they do not want their kids to suffer anymore from the mental health crisis that they are already suffering from. The Liberals have the power. They have the tools and they can work collaboratively to try to find a resolution to this problem, but the protesters do have to go home and we have to get back to some sense of normalcy.

Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the crafting of the motion. The initial crafting of the motion was somewhat prescriptive in the sense that maybe it was a bridge too far to start, and this is why we brought it back a little bit to talk about the government developing a plan by February 28. We are not naive. We do not think that things are just going to all of a sudden stop. There has to be some period of transition, but we need an exit plan and we need an exit strategy. That is what this motion is calling for on the part of the government, to use those levers of power in order to ensure that we develop this type of plan so that Canadians can get back to some sense of normalcy.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it that there has to be a vaccine plan globally, because there are risks associated with other types of variants that are going to develop in these nations. It is up to the global community to come together and make sure that, for those countries that are vulnerable and susceptible to these types of variants manifesting themselves, we come together and really work as a global community to make sure that those countries are safe. By extension, Canada becomes safe as well. We do need domestic capacity as well and I really want to emphasize the need for biopharma. Pharmaceutical technology in this country needs to be developed, not just talked about but actually done.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the ethics committee, including all Liberal committee members, unanimously agreed that a tender should be postponed in order to stop the Liberals from secretly collecting the mobility data of Canadians until MPs could be sure that the privacy rights of Canadians were not being violated. However, in an unbelievable move yesterday, the entire Liberal caucus, including the same members who voted for it, voted against stopping the RFP. What a disgrace. Why would the Prime Minister vote against the committee's recommendations to make sure that the privacy of Canadians was protected?

Mr. Speaker, why was this vote so important yesterday? It was because the Liberals, with their “no” vote, have signalled that they will continue collecting this data without the consent of Canadians. If we connect the dots, we see a pattern of the Liberals using the distraction of a pandemic as an opportunity for massive expansion and overreach to abuse the rights and freedoms of Canadians, including their privacy rights. Would the Prime Minister at least provide a coherent reason for why he thinks it is a bad idea to pause this tender until we can ensure that Canadians' privacy protection rights are protected?

Mr. Speaker, January job numbers came out and they were really bad. They show 200,000 Canadian jobs gone, higher unemployment and an inflation rate that is out of control. This has turned into a disaster, and Canadians are paying the price. Will the minister finally admit that her plan is not working and come up with a plan that includes dealing with the costs of gas, home heating, groceries and life becoming unaffordable for Canadian families and seniors?

Mr. Speaker, it is cold comfort for Canadians who are losing their jobs and seeing the prices of everything go up. Prices are skyrocketing, yet the Liberals keep pretending that everything is fine. Let us be clear: Things are not fine. Canadians are struggling and it is getting almost impossible for many families to put gas in their cars, to put food on their tables or to heat their homes. Will the minister own up to her mistakes and apologize to the 200,000 Canadians who saw their jobs disappear last month?

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues we are dealing with here today, not the least of which is the request to put off the RFP. However, the real challenge is in this de-identified data being collected by telecom companies and the transfer of that information. It may be that when the Public Health Agency of Canada gets that information, it is aggregated and de-identified, but the challenge exists when those companies collect that data. There is another challenge with this, and that is the consent of the users. There was no consent given by users to allow the telecom companies to collect this data. It is a challenge that we heard from the Privacy Commissioner this morning. There is a real risk to de-identifying this data. Given that consent was not given, we have to get to the bottom of what security measures and what protocols were put in place to ensure this data was protected. Does the parliamentary secretary not see that as a concern, and not see it as a reason to hold off on the RFP until the ethics committee does its work and can be assured that the privacy of Canadians was protected?

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois‑Rivières for moving this motion in the House today. Before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics did its study, I texted my colleague to say I was looking forward to hearing what he had to say about this because he had a lot of experience and knew the subject matter well. I would like to thank him. We are really seized with this issue, as Canadians have been, since it was first identified in the month of December that the RFP had been issued. The RFP was to continue a practice that many Canadians, in the distraction of a pandemic, had no idea was going on. It was that their mobility data was being collected, in this case by Telus, without their consent or implied consent, and was being utilized to determine a public health response to the COVID-19 crisis. We have, for the last several days, been studying the impacts of this at the ethics committee. I will say that there have been some very serious concerns that have been brought up by the experts we have been hearing from, including the Privacy Commissioner. That is why this is such an issue as it relates to the motion that we are dealing with today. We have not gotten to the bottom of the fact of whether this data has been protected in the manner that would be the gold standard for protecting the privacy and security of the data of Canadians. This is why we are focused on this study. During a pandemic, with all of the distractions that are going on, it would be very easy for this information to be utilized in a way that does not protect the privacy of Canadians. The RFP was originally to be finalized by January 21. It got pushed back to February 4, and now it has been pushed back even further. At committee, when we dealt with the motion that was presented by my Bloc colleague, there were very solid arguments made as to why this RFP should be pushed back. In fact, the entire committee voted 10 to nothing to push this RFP off until we completed this study, so that not only parliamentarians but Canadians can be assured that the information that was gathered was, in fact, protecting the privacy of Canadians. We heard at committee from members of the Liberal Party that the Prime Minister came out in 2020 or 2021 and talked about this information being gathered. It is not an issue of whether the information was gathered. There are governments around the world using data and information to inform their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but this one speaks to the fundamental tenet of democracy to make sure that we protect the privacy rights of Canadians. Parliamentarians wanted to get to the bottom of this to make sure that we were protecting those privacy rights. The story came out in December that this RFP was being proposed to be extended, and not just in the way it was designed in the first place, which was really for a couple of months, where it was a sole-source contract that was given to, as we found out, Telus. It was going to be extended for up to another five years and collect even more mobility data to determine, as they said in the RFP, the public health response and to determine trends to deal with public health issues going forward. It was disturbing not only that this was happening without really the knowledge of Canadians who were distracted during this pandemic, without the consent of Canadians to have their mobility data tracked, but that this was going to go on for another five years. That is why it is important that we get to the bottom of this issue to really be sure and determine whether that mobility data was being protected on behalf of Canadians. My colleague from the Bloc was talking about his initial concern when he saw the RFP. I saw the RFP just a couple of days before Christmas because it was reported in Blacklock's, which, by the way, does great work digging into government contracts. I know that maybe the government does not like the work that it does, but it does great work digging into these contracts. I would hope that if Conservatives were in government, we would be held to the same account on these types of contracts. I saw the story and we had discussions among ourselves. As we were heading to the Christmas break, it was awfully difficult, because Canadians were distracted by Christmas, to really push this issue. I determined, as the newly appointed critic for ethics and accountable government, that we were going to wait until after Christmas before we called an emergency meeting of the ethics committee. We did, the meeting was granted and, subsequent to that, the study was supported by all members of the committee to make sure that it looked at not just the RFP but another part of this too, which was an update to privacy laws. We heard from the Privacy Commissioner this morning that there does need to be an enhancement of privacy laws. We heard from an expert from the University of Ottawa as well that, as this data is collected, an enhancement of those privacy laws is needed to protect the privacy of Canadians for this data, which can be very useful but comes with some significant pitfalls and risks as well. The issue that we are really dealing with is how this information was de-identified and aggregated. The minister was at committee last week and if we were playing the de-identified and aggregated drinking game, we would have been drunk very quickly because that was all we heard from the minister. We did not get any evidence of how this information was de-identified and aggregated. All we got were assurances. Assurances are not enough for the committee. This is why we are asking today that this RFP be cancelled until we find out exactly what is going on. We have requested that the telecom companies come in, particularly Telus, to discuss how this information is de-identified and what security measures and protocols are put in place to assure us, as MPs, and Canadians that their information and privacy is being protected. I am looking forward to hearing from the telecom companies, including Telus through its data for good program, how that is done. I am learning a lot about this, as members can imagine, but the information that they collect, as I understand it now, is definitely identifiable. The question that we have is what happens to that information when it is identified and what is the process to de-identify it. I have heard from security experts and read reports from around the world. A New York Times report, whose reporters we have asked to come and speak to the ethics committee, talked about being one to two to four points of data away from having that information reidentified. It really is a fascinating subject, but, more importantly, it is important to find out and determine whether that information is being properly protected from the point that it is collected to the hands that it is being passed through. We also found out in the course of our study, and it was the parliamentary secretary who wrote us a letter to tell us, no pun intended, just so I am clear, that there was a company that was consolidating all of this data and presenting that information to the government. The company is called BlueDot. My understanding is that it is coming to committee on Thursday and we are going to have a lot of interesting questions to ask. As we can see, the information is being collected, de-identified, aggregated and passed on to other hands. If those security measures and protocols are not put in place, and again I am not an expert on this but I have been listening to experts, there is a real risk that information can be commercialized, monetized, reidentified and that personal identifiers and information from that data can be known. It is fairly simple to do. Proposing, as the motion did, to suspend the RFP in my opinion is the right move to make until we find out more. I did not get any comfort from the presentation of the Privacy Commissioner when he appeared at committee today. If anything came out of that meeting today, it is that it really informs the need for us to do a deeper dive on this and suspend the RFP. I pulled off some of the questions that were asked of the Privacy Commissioner, and if what the Privacy Commissioner said this morning does not concern the tin-foil hats on this side of the House, as the members of the government like to call us, or the conspiracy theorists, it should be worrisome to members of the government. I will read it into the record, because I think it is important for us to inform our decision in this debate as we vote on this motion when it does come to a vote. Daniel Therrien, who is the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the de facto standard by which privacy protection is utilized in this country, said today that: In the case of PHAC's use of mobility data, we were informed of their intent to use data in a de-identified and aggregated way. Okay, he was informed. He went on to say that: We offered to review the technical means used to de-identify data and to provide advice, which PHAC declined. PHAC declined the offer by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to look at the methodology and to provide advice on how this data was being utilized or protected. He went on to say that: The government relied on other experts to that end, which is their prerogative. It is their prerogative, there is no question about it. My view, and I know the view of the members of our committee, because we spoke afterwards, is that regarding the de facto standard by which privacy legislation is defended and protected, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada should have at least been included in the process so that PHAC, which was accepting this data, and perhaps Telus and BlueDot would have known what proper privacy measures, protocols and security should have been put in place. It may cause a level of concern that his office was merely notified, “Oh, by the way, we're going to be doing this.” “Do you want any help?” “No, we don't want any help.” That is effectively what PHAC was telling the Privacy Commissioner. I am not surprised that he also went on to say the following, given the reaction among Canadians and just how troubling this information is as it has become publicly known and people's attention has been given to it: Now that we have received complaints alleging violations of privacy, we will turn our attention to the means chosen for de-identification and whether they were appropriate to safeguard against reidentification. Since this is under investigation, he obviously was not able to provide us with intimate details of where that investigation lies at this point, but the Privacy Commissioner of Canada was not even notified. The government relied on other security experts and privacy experts. Who were they? I think that is a fair question. What qualifications do they have that are greater than the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's? It was really concerning. The Privacy Commissioner went on to say, in this line of questioning from our committee, that, “This practice raises legitimate concerns by consumers, particularly when their personal information is used without their knowledge for purposes other than they expect.” We have heard from members on the other side about the ways of all the different apps, but the difference between that and what we are talking about is that the users provide consent to those applications to use the tracking of their mobility. In the case that we are talking about today, which involves anywhere from 14 million to 33 million users, it would be a hard argument to suggest that every one of those users provided consent. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner said today that it would be impossible for 33 million users to provide consent so that collection of their data could be used for the purposes that PHAC was dealing with. The issue of meaningful consent becomes a critical component of this. I received a letter from OpenMedia.org talking about the ethics committee looking into this issue. The company suggested three fundamental questions, which we are trying to get to the bottom of, that are extremely important in this case. Number one: How did Telus obtain meaningful consent for the collection, use and disclosure of this mobility data? I spoke about the importance of that earlier. OpenMedia suggested that when Telus comes to the committee, it needs to answer questions such as whether an individual who agreed to the sharing of their mobility data understood this use by the Public Health Agency of Canada. I suggest it would be impossible for 33 million people or fewer to really understand that this was being used by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The second most important question that needs to be asked is this. Does the consent that Telus relied upon extend to the context in which the Public Health Agency of Canada used this data? Privacy and consent, it says, are highly contextual. If we, as users, give limited permission to Telus to collect, use in a limited way, and disclose some of our mobility data, that cannot and should not be an open-ended carte blanche for Telus to be able to provide this data to other people, including the Public Health Agency of Canada. The next is the most important question of all. I heard universally from security and privacy experts, not just here in Canada but around the world. They asked how exactly this data had been securely de-identified. There are really two issues here: first, de-identification and the risk associated with reidentifying this data; and second, user consent. My office has received correspondence. We have heard from experts, and as I said earlier we heard from a University of Ottawa expert this morning, about the risks of de-identifying data. I want to read out what some of the security experts are saying in the context of this RFP, and why it is so important that the government hold off on it until we get the answers to the questions. Dr. Ann Cavoukian, the former Ontario privacy commissioner, said that without a strong de-identification framework and without de-identification protocols one can reidentify this data. There is a whole collected literature on de-identification of data and the way to easily reidentify it. One has to go to great lengths to de-identify, and I am sure the government has not done this. I go back to what we heard from the Privacy Commissioner today, who said that he was merely informed and not consulted, despite the fact that the Minister of Health last week said that the government were having biweekly meetings with the Privacy Commissioner on this issue. We found out this morning these were not related to the gathering of mobility data, but related to other things happening in the context of the pandemic response. Dr. Cavoukian went on to say that the government should be the greatest concern. Its ability to usurp our information, to tell us what to do and expect us to accept that, in my view, is due to the fact that it is seeking greater control. If we want to connect the dots, and look at some of the patterns created as a result of this pandemic, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned, and I would say they are concerned at this point, about the expansive overreach by the government. It is using the pandemic to curtail the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We saw the government, at the beginning of the pandemic and through the initial build, try to seize control and get spending and taxing power without parliamentary approval. We have seen this and other sole-sourced contracts that have gone out throughout the course of the pandemic to who I would call well-connected Liberal insiders and friends. I am not suggesting that in this case, but when one starts connecting the dots with this expansive overreach, we can see a pattern with the government. It is causing me great concern, as it is many Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to that because we are simply not at the point of understanding how this data was collected, whether it was properly de-identified, what the risks of reidentification are, and why the Privacy Commissioner was not involved in the process and providing guidance to PHAC. The Privacy Commissioner would have provided guidance to Telus as well. I have trouble understanding the actual risk, in the collection of this data, to the privacy rights of Canadians. The reason I am troubled by that is because there are other programs in place that the Public Health Agency of Canada could have utilized if it wanted to determine public health response, or even the future of public health response. It has access to data within its public health networks, provincially, territorially and municipally. It has hospitalization data. It could have used other government resources without risk to the privacy protections of Canadians by using this as a means, especially without enhanced privacy laws.

Madam Speaker, my colleague posed a very important question. We heard members at committee say that the Prime Minister made people aware this was going on and that the government was transparent about it, but it really boils down to the issue of consent. It can be as transparent as it wants, but the bottom line is that if users and Telus customers did not provide their consent for this information to be utilized in the manner in which PHAC did, that calls into question not an issue of transparency, but an issue of whether I am confident in my privacy rights being protected at a time when I should be consenting to that information. We heard from the Privacy Commissioner that there may be other circumstances that allow for privacy to be determined, but we have to increase those privacy laws. We have to enhance privacy laws in order to protect for the purposes that PHAC determined.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her kind words. Everybody was saying that this new position as opposition House leader is like drinking water from a fire hose, and as a former firefighter, I never drank water out of a firehose in the way I am today. It has been quite a day. It is an important question, because what we want to be focusing on is not just how the data was collected and what security protocols and privacy protections were put in place; we also, as a committee, determined that we need to move forward, and the Privacy Commissioner was a very important part of this process this morning about enhancing privacy laws. In fact, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Privacy Commissioner wrote to the government and said that in the context of a pandemic, we not only have to make sure that our privacy laws are upgraded, for lack of a better term, but also that there has to be that enhancement in protecting privacy. I am looking forward to the report of the committee, because I think we can present some forward-looking things to the government so that it can enhance those privacy laws in what is becoming an increasingly important part of data collection to determine health responses, but we have to be assured that privacy rights are upheld in the context of that information being gathered.

Madam Speaker, I believe the information and the data that are collected do have to be destroyed, but I need assurance and members of the committee need assurance—and this is why we are here today—that the data is being collected in an appropriate manner, a secure manner, with proper security protocols in place, but more importantly, that the information is protected. I would not go so far as to say that it needs to be destroyed. Without looking at that, we have to step back and ask if this was done in a proper manner with proper securities and protocols in place to protect the privacy of Canadians. In the context of the vaccine passports, I have seen the same studies and reports as the hon. member has, and the Privacy Commissioner was quite clear in his statements that this information must be destroyed. We have to make sure that it is not commercialized, not monetized, and, more importantly, that it is not de-identified in a manner that offends the privacy rights of Canadians, which are a fundamental tenet of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, this is a false narrative. Barrie house prices in December have averaged $855,000, which is a year-over-year increase of 30%, putting more and more young people out of the housing market. The price of gas this morning at Costco in Barrie was $1.488. A year ago, it was $1.068. This is not a false narrative. Families and seniors are anxious about the growing cost of groceries, heating and life. Their budgets are being stretched. Affordability anxiety is real and Canadians feel it getting worse. The Liberals have created this problem. Why are they not solving it? Is it because their rich friends are getting rich by—

Mr. Speaker, in December we found out that the Liberals were secretly tracking the mobility data of 33 million Canadians during the pandemic. The only reason Canadians found out is that a request for proposal was issued to continue tracking the mobility data for another five years. Serious concerns have been raised by security and surveillance experts on what security measures and protocols were put in place to protect the personal privacy data of 33 million Canadians who were spied on. On Monday, the ethics committee unanimously passed a motion to postpone the RFP. Will the Prime Minister respect the committee's decision and cancel the RFP?

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister felt that way about the Winnipeg lab documents. Security and privacy experts are concerned about the security protocols and measures that were put in place to protect the privacy of Canadians in this data scoop. Why was it done in secret without the users' consent? Why was the Privacy Commissioner not consulted? Where a Canadian eats, where they get gas, what family members they visit and how many times they go to Costco is no business of this government, especially in a pandemic. Does the Prime Minister not understand that personal privacy protection is the foundation of our democracy?

Mr. Speaker, last night the Afghanistan committee started really digging deep into the situation in Afghanistan. We are hearing horrific stories of desperation, despair and an economy that is collapsing, and that there was lack of preparation on the part of the Canadian government to really be prepared for that crisis developing. Based on what we are hearing so far and what the member has heard from his constituents, how much did the Canadian government let down not just the people of Afghanistan but Canadians who are in Afghanistan?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rob Warman who passed away on January 15. Originally from Fredericton, New Brunswick, Rob joined the RCMP in 1951 out of high school and was posted to Newfoundland. Later, he would fondly share stories of chasing rum runners from St-Pierre and Miquelon. In 1954, Rob joined the RCAF service police, later the MP, beginning an association that would last over 60 years. Never one to slow down, Rob joined the law and security program as a professor at Georgian College. He was a city builder, serving on Barrie city council for 21 years. He volunteered for many organizations, including the Royal Canadian Legion, and was instrumental in Barrie's becoming a twin city of Zweibrücken, Germany. Rob returned to his air force roots, proudly serving as honorary colonel of 16 Wing at Base Borden from 2006 to 2010. On behalf of everyone in Barrie—Innisfil who knew and loved Rob, I want to extend my sincere condolences to his wife of 60 years, Alice; his children, of whom he often said have not turned out half-bad; and five grandchildren. Per ardua ad astra. Rest easy, our friend.

Mr. Speaker, 33 million Canadians had their mobility data secretly tracked by the Public Health Agency of Canada without their consent. This unprecedented level of surveillance on our citizens came to light when the Liberals admitted not only that they did it, but also that they planned to continue spying on Canadians for another five years. Protecting the privacy of Canadians is the foundation of our freedoms. Sadly, under these Liberals, the foundations of our democracy are crumbling when this type of massive overreach happens. My question is a simple one: Who authorized the secret spying on Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, instead of being focused on normalizing lockdowns, maybe the Liberals should have been focused on keeping our economy open. If someone were to connect the dots, they would see a pattern of massive overreach by the Liberals. They tried to seize control of Parliament at the beginning of the pandemic to completely control spending and taxing. They got caught secretly collecting banking data. They attempted to limit speech and what Canadians can see on the Internet, and now this. This pattern of control is only seen in countries that many Canadians have fled from. How could anyone think that secretly gathering this data without the consent of Canadians was a good idea?

With regard to the development of Snapchat filters by or for the government, including agencies, Crown corporations, and other government entities, since January 1, 2018: (a) what amount has been spent developing the filters; (b) what is the description or purpose of each filter; and (c) for each filter developed, what are the details, including the (i) amount spent on development, (ii) date of launch, (iii) analytic data or usage rates, (iv) campaign for which the filter was developed, (v) locations where filters were available?

With regard to the Governor in Council appointments and the appointment of the Clerk of the House of Commons: (a) is the clerk, as a Governor in Council appointee, subject to the Privy Council Office's Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders, and, if so, (i) is the position considered, for the purposes of the guidelines, to be a quasi-judicial one which is subject to a much more stringent standard and should generally avoid all political activities, (ii) is the clerk subject to the general principle of refraining from participating in political activity, including expressing partisan views in a public setting where this may reasonably be seen to be incompatible with, or impair the ability to discharge, the office holder's public duties, (iii) are the guidelines considered to be a term and condition of appointment, (iv) did the current clerk certify that he will comply with the guidelines; (b) is the clerk, as a Governor in Council appointee, eligible for a Governor in Council appointee performance pay, and, if so, (i) what was the maximum performance pay he was eligible for, since 2017-18, broken down by fiscal year, (ii) what performance award was he provided (did not meet, succeeded, surpassed, etc.) each fiscal year since 2017-18, (iii) what performance pay was he provided each fiscal year since 2017-18, broken down by fiscal year, (iv) is the clerk required to deliver on the government's objectives and corporate commitments in order to receive a performance award, and, if so, what objectives and commitments, (A) was the clerk required to meet, (B) did the clerk meet, broken down by fiscal year since 2017-18, (v) who provided input or feedback, or was otherwise consulted, on the clerk's performance, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18, (vi) who approved the clerk's performance awards, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18?

With regard to the statement in the Chamber on December 9, 2021, by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Disability Inclusion that "my office and my department follow up on every allegation of fraud, and this would be no exception": what specific actions did the (i) minister's office, (ii) department take to follow up on the allegation made on a Calgary radio station about the member from Calgary Skyview, and when was each action taken?

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the parliamentary secretary just said. He talked about this piece of legislation and its intent, in his words, to create “disposable income” for people. We have gone from providing supports to people to protect their lives and livelihoods to now providing them with disposable income. I guess the new Liberal economic recovery plan is to use government money to pay people to go out and buy things instead of what this bill is intended for. I am just wondering this. Did the hon. member pick up on that, and does he have any comments on it?