Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, dear colleagues. I've been listening very carefully, not just today but at the previous meeting as well, to the arguments from both sides on whether or not we should support or be against this motion.

You know, I disagree that everything is the same when we compare back to July. Circumstances with COVID have changed everything. I think back in July the numbers were lower. We're slowly recovering from the previous shutdown of business, when everyone was told to say home. We're slowly coming back to work. Businesses are opening up. It was a different setting.

Now we're watching how the second wave is really threatening the lives of Canadians. On the one hand, we have all three levels of government discouraging people from going out for non-essential trips and really asking every Canadian to do their part to protect themselves and their loved ones by staying home. On the other hand, we're discussing a motion that has....

I know that the documents are not in our possession. It will trigger a lot of logistics in terms of actually getting the documents and put many people at risk. Then it comes down to whether or not this is essential to the priorities of our electors in this setting. Well, I would argue, just looking at some of the motions adopted in the last session, including Mr. Angus's facial recognition, which allows a very.... Right now, actually, it gives a very unique situation to do a sort of extraordinary study on this topic, because we know that for all indoor activities, people are required to wear masks. This is a very rare opportunity to see how this may impact the study on which we passed a motion in the last session. Another good example is Madam Gaudreau's motion to look at reforming the identity system, speaking to the SIN system that we have right now. That's also very important.

I'll come back to the motion I was going to move, a motion that is still waiting. That's to look at how international students are impacted by COVID. As a previous parliamentary assistant in higher education for the province, I recognize, and I've heard from our local colleges, that it is a major challenge for our public institutions. The government is doing all they can to help them in bringing in new recruits and reopening enrolments when it comes to international students. We're now seen, from how we reacted to COVID, as a top destination for international education.

If we don't seize the moment and provide sound recommendations through the House to the government, I think it's a missed opportunity. My point is that there are a lot of things we ought to be doing right now so that we can bring a positive impact through Parliament with recommendations. Instead, we're talking about this motion. Potentially it's going to put a lot of people in danger. If this motion does get passed, we are accountable. If anyone gets hurt in the process of getting the documents, releasing the documents, managing the documents and whatnot, anywhere in that process, I think we.... Well, maybe there isn't a legal obligation, but we are, in our hearts, accountable for that tragedy. That's my first point.

Also, again, the circumstance has changed. This motion will effectively open it up for staff members and a lot more people to come in physically and risk the chance of interacting and getting infected. In the House, we already have two leaders and a bunch of MPs who have tested positive and have gone through the quarantine period. We know the threat is very real. Back in July, that wasn't the situation.

I have to be honest with everyone here. I'm actually quite worried. I know my trip to Ottawa is coming up in a week and a half. I'll be in Ottawa for two weeks. Ottawa and Toronto are the high breakout cities right now in Ontario. I'm actually a lot more worried than I was back in July. The circumstance definitely has changed. We know the real risks of COVID affecting not just those on Parliament Hill but everyone involved in the process of accessing these documents.

I'm for transparency. I think Mr. Angus made a good argument as to why he sees this as an essential duty of our committee. I understand his point of view, but right now I don't think the priority, in the public's view, is to risk that many people's health and safety to look at these documents.

The other thing is that I want to repeat what my colleague Ms. Shanahan was saying, which is that there is an ongoing investigation by the commissioner. Back then, in July, when a similar motion was discussed, we didn't hear from the witnesses. We have heard from the witnesses, including the former Privacy Commissioner, and repeatedly they've said the committee is running the risk of interfering with the current investigation by running a parallel investigation. Whatever the outcome of our finding or even our discussion is, it will to some degree interfere with the opinions of the commissioner's report. I don't think that's the right thing to do. The system is set up in such a way, in my understanding, that the commissioner will do his investigation without any interference and will come out with a report, and as a committee we'll study that report. I think that's the right way to go.

I want to make a third point. Ms. Shanahan talked about the principle of having members investigating other members and their family members. In the committee I asked repeatedly whether there was any precedent of a committee or of members going to other members' family members' private information to build an argument in the public and their view on government or the leader of the government. I haven't heard that there is a precedent to that, so we are setting a precedent. This is very dangerous, because from this point on, every member and their immediate family members or their friends, because there is no clear boundary, could be on the hook. We could all be targets of the investigation.

Therefore, this is something I disagree with. I didn't have the opportunity to share my thoughts back in July, but I think in principle I can't agree with it. I would have disagreed back in July on this point. I have a lot of respect for elected members. We put our names on the ballot and we go through a very strict scrutiny process, both by the party and after we get the job, and by the electors ultimately. We bear a lot of weight on our shoulders, a lot of expectations, and our family members are affected while we're doing the job we dreamed of. I think it's wrong to have members investigating other members' family members' privacy.

Another point I want to make is that in July, when we talked about the original motion giving MPs access to these documents, I understand we talked about the measures put in place to safeguard privacy, but now this motion on the table would allow access for people or staff beyond members. Do we need to have a discussion about measures put in place to safeguard individuals' privacy now that we know the access is much wider?

To Madame Gaudreau's special committee motion, we potentially will have many people on Parliament Hill having access to these documents. Again, circumstances have changed quite a bit, and as I said, I didn't agree with the principle. For this particular process and the detail of this process, I see that we are running, as a committee, a great risk of being responsible for a leak, and should a leak happen, we all have to bear responsibility for it.

Ultimately, it's a worthy discussion, but there are many priorities in front of us that we should tackle right away. I heard opposition members talking about filibustering by Liberals. Trust me, I don't want filibustering, yet to my previous points, I'm still waiting to be convinced that this is the right thing to do and the absolute priority of this committee. I'm looking for good arguments to be convinced that this is the right way to go, if anyone wants my support as a member of this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Now we'll go to Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

We're an hour into the second meeting of this committee to deal with ordering the production of these documents. This committee previously ordered them, and the Speakers' Spotlight group came back to us and said they needed more time. For all the reasons stated, such as COVID and the time it would take, the committee granted the group its request. It was an additional three weeks, so a month in total. On the eve of the deadline requested by the organization, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament. He shut down Parliament to avoid accountability. It wasn't for a reset and it wasn't for COVID.

There were all kinds of things that could have been done. All the good things that Liberal members are talking about that this committee could be doing, we could have been doing for the last six weeks. Well, the sitting calendar said we would only have sat the last Monday in September. That's a choice of the government. We could have sat in this format by the will of the House. We could have done that. The committee could have decided that we would continue to meet.

That was all on the table. That all could have been done, but we're dealing with a situation, during a pandemic, where the government tried an extraordinary power grab to be able to tax and spend without parliamentary oversight or approval from March 2020 to December 2021. That was the first real volley from the government in dealing with this pandemic, but it still got support and much-needed help from opposition parties in improving the measures designed to help Canadians.

Here we are, after Parliament was prorogued—shut down—looking to resume the work that we were doing before. These documents were prepared and can be ordered. It is the right of this committee to request them. The motion states that they would be reviewed in camera. I can't speak to the integrity of any other member on this call, but I believe that members will act honourably. If all members on this call agree that they will act honourably, as will I, then there is no problem. If an issue arises, as is the case with any committee, with any dealing on Parliament Hill and with any breach, those issues are investigated and dealt with, and the appropriate rules, policies and laws that are in place are used.

All of that is a distraction. An organization paid members of the Prime Minister's family at least half a million dollars, and then the Prime Minister gave that organization an agreement to administer half a billion dollars. That is half a million for half a billion, while Canadians were worried about paying their bills and choosing whether to heat their homes or feed their families this fall. This is about accountability, and it's the obligation of all members.

The chair spoke yesterday about how committees afford the opportunity for members who aren't in cabinet to drive their agenda, and it is the responsibility of all members who aren't in cabinet to hold the executive accountable. The opposition parties have put forward measures to do that, and the government members, the Liberal members, have indicated they're likely to vote against them. That's fine. Everyone's going to speak. I believe very much that all members should have their say. It's fundamental.

What I expect to see happen is we'll get through this hour and there will be members of the Liberal Party who will have spoken at great length and will seek to talk the clock out. They will look to speak a second time or a third time. Yesterday, I and other members proposed very reasonable amendments. Half a loaf was proposed by Mr. Angus from the NDP. I was only too happy to further that proposal, a proposal that would have checked the boxes that had been laid out by the Liberal members. “Let's suspend, let's discuss.” The suspension happened, then we got right back into the same talking points from the Liberal members. If you don't support the motion, vote against it, but have the courage of your convictions.

Now the Liberals do not have a majority on the committee, as was the case during the previous ethical scandals involving corruption and the Liberal government, the Prime Minister twice having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. During the SNC-Lavalin scandal, it used majorities on committees to shut them down, but now the government doesn't have a majority. Canadians elected a majority opposition, so it's not for the government to use tricks to try to dodge accountability. You have to take your lumps. If you play silly games, you win silly prizes, and that's what the executive has done here: It played fast and loose. Now we've heard testimony that contradicts other testimony that's been provided at this committee, as well as at the finance committee.

We will get the answers. We will see these documents. It's a question of whether Liberal members of this committee are prepared not just to filibuster today, but to filibuster on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week, because opposition members have said that we want this information. We hold a majority on this committee. The chair will schedule meetings in accordance with the rules, I'm sure, but opposition members have other procedural tools as well. While a filibuster is a tool that members on this committee can use to avoid accountability for the government and further the cover-up, we also have the means to continue to call this committee to meet to deal with this issue. If you want to, consider the effects of unnecessary engagement, extra hours in the translation booths, extra hours for the clerk, for the technical staff who have to put these meetings on, for all of the analysts, the parliamentary staff, the legislative assistants and for all the members on this call.

There will be an increase in all of that, based on the length of the filibuster offered by the government. If government members want to continue to populate the speakers list and continue to offer the same points, we've heard it. You don't agree with the motion, and that's understood, but we'll have a recorded vote as soon as you've repeated the points you've already asserted, and then Canadians will have an answer. Canadians will know that Parliament still works and that democracy works. It's based on the number of votes, and that's how we're going to help repair some of the damage that has been done to our democratic institutions. That's part of our job here. We can do that and we can do that today. Members will say what members have to say, but what's important is that members also vote. I look forward to the vote.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think there are going to be any surprises. I have heard Liberal members say there are risks, and they have talked about the committee's time. However, it's the lengthy repeated speeches and the multiple meetings to deal with the same issue that would put people at risk and take up more of this committee's time.

Let's get down to business. I'm ready to vote, once members have had their say. It doesn't mean you're going to get your way, but it does mean you get to vote, so let's do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now we'll move on to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my other colleagues, from all political parties, who have had the opportunity to speak today about taking the floor in committee to discuss these important issues.

Before I get to the things I want to say, I must tell you, Mr. Chair, that I am always fascinated by the comments of my colleague Mr. Barrett, who accuses members who do not share his views of wasting the time of the committee and of Parliament, and of wasting resources.

I remember well, when I joined this committee...

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the member's assertion is not something I said. I was responding to comments made by his Liberal colleagues, who contended that this motion was a waste of the committee's time. I do not believe this motion is a waste of the committee's time. I believe it's in the public interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thanks, Mr. Barrett. It's not a point of order, but I understand that you wanted to make your point.

Mr. Fergus, please continue.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I insist, I was not talking about this motion; I hope the interpretation did not reflect that. I said that some members wanted to waste the committee's time.

What is interesting is that when I joined this committee at the beginning of this Parliament, Mr. Barrett himself moved a motion after we had some great discussions about collaboration. And then Mr. Barrett took the floor. He put forward a motion that was dear to his heart and he did not yield the floor to anyone throughout that meeting. Then we finished and adjourned that meeting and reconvened for a second meeting. For much of that second meeting, he repeated the same exercise.

Again, this indicates that when he shares a point of view, he supports the motions, but when he disagrees, all of a sudden the committee is wasting its time. Then we are wasting resources and doing undemocratic things.

My opposition is based on a few very clear points. I would like to take the time to explain my point of view, Mr. Chair. You are a man whom I know well, whom I respect very much and whom I hold in very high esteem, as do all my colleagues around this virtual table.

First of all, with all due respect, I hope that in the future we will be able to organize meetings bringing all the members of the committee around the table. It is your prerogative as chair to call meetings as you see fit. I hope that you can continue to do what comes naturally and instinctively to you, which is to play a collaborative role in organizing meetings.

As you know, usually House of Commons committees rarely meet on Friday afternoons to give people an opportunity to do their work in their constituencies. In my case, since I live so close to Parliament, I don't have to travel like those who have to travel for hours by plane or car. As you know, the meetings that were postponed yesterday have been scheduled today by moving other scheduled meetings. Now we have to do this a second time. That's the life of a parliamentarian. I'm not complaining, but I hope, in a spirit of collaboration, that we can do it differently in the future.

I think it's a very important file. We need to understand where we are at this point. I remember when there was no code of ethics for MPs. That was not so long ago.

Everyone had to use common sense to behave well as an MP. However, because there were abuses, we had to take matters into our own hands. So we developed a code of ethics.

When we created this code of ethics, we also created an officer of Parliament, a third party to look into these situations.

Why? The reason is very simple: MPs should not investigate other MPs. It is not because we are unable to do so, but precisely because we have an interest in the outcome. We are not neutral agents, we are people who have a great interest in the outcome.

I assume that everyone here is acting in good faith. I can bet on that. However, it is well understood that there would be pressure. Some people with perhaps greater responsibilities would want us to push things very hard and see things that don't exist. They would want us to rub salt into the wounds of others. We would not be able to come to a conclusion that Canadians could trust, one that would reflect adequate objectivity and impartiality. That's why the position of Ethics Commissioner was created.

The position of Ethics Commissioner has evolved over the past 20 years. Initially, he was an independent officer within government, but people realized that this may not be the best system. So it was proposed that it should be a broader, more independent position so that it would be that of a true agent of Parliament. I believe that Canada has one of the best systems in the world in this regard, and I'm proud of it. This officer of Parliament, in this case Mr. Mario Dion, works independently from us. He is responsible for gathering information, asking questions, making inquiries and evaluating the data he receives.

I know full well that [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. We're not hearing.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.

We can hear you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

As I was saying, we created this position to make sure we get the information. The role of the ethics committee was to make sure that the Ethics Commissioner had all the means and tools at his disposal to do his job.

This summer, we made a decision that I am not very supportive of. I'm telling you that sincerely. I am passionate about politics. I love politics. When I was 14, I subscribed to the House of Commons minutes, Hansard. Who does that? I think our system is important.

We made a decision that I'm not comfortable with. We said we were going to gather information. When that decision was made at the time, I told my colleagues around this table that if they wanted to do that, we could do that, but that we would have to take all the necessary steps to ensure that this information would go directly to the Ethics Commissioner, through the clerk. Unfortunately, I was not able to convince my colleagues. I insisted that we ourselves should ensure that this information was protected.

Some people around the table may have realized that they went a little too far. So arrangements have been made so that if you insist on getting this information, only members of Parliament can see it, behind closed doors, and their staff will not have access to it. Just to keep that door closed, members will not be able to bring their electronic devices with them when they need to access information in the presence of the clerk. Mr. Chair, I predict that this could have serious consequences in the future, not necessarily for us, since we may one day find ourselves on the opposition benches—which would be normal, and even healthy—but for other members of Parliament.

Once you are in government and that door is opened, you will see that it makes no sense for MPs to investigate other MPs. You may think that we should have put brakes on or set some benchmarks. I am repeating my plea to my colleagues to stop this while there is still time and let the Ethics Commissioner do his job. Otherwise, let us make sure that we put very strong safeguards in place to limit the release of these documents. I think that's fundamental.

It's like the law that governs the popular financing of politicians and political parties.

It's exactly the same reasoning. That's why we have a Chief Electoral Officer. We must not play with the system or play games in these matters. That would be detrimental to the system and it would not be in the public interest. We do not want to see what we see happening with our neighbours, where anything is acceptable. They have crossed the line in many areas and they are experiencing the fallout from all of this. We need to avoid that.

I think our role is to strengthen the role of the Ethics Commissioner. We can do this in a number of ways, and I would like us to do it unanimously. I sit on another committee, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which is chaired by a member of the official opposition. In the last session, that committee was chaired by a member of Parliament for whom I have a great deal of respect, much like yourself. This committee has always been able to produce unanimous reports. There is a strength behind that, especially since it deals with difficult issues. I hope that, under your chairmanship, we will succeed in doing the same thing here while always respecting standards, in a desirable and healthy context. In this way, we can do a great service to all Canadians.

As I said, and this is the common thread running through my comments, I invite you all to take a step back and see what we can do to strengthen the role of the Ethics Commissioner and see to it that he has all the tools he needs to ensure that Canadians have confidence in his work, that he can review everything, that his findings are his own and that we act accordingly. If we muddy the waters, it's going to take us in a direction that everyone will regret sooner or later.

In conclusion, I think we have demonstrated the importance of letting the commissioner do his job. Mr. Barrett, Mr. Angus, Mr. Dong, Ms. Shanahan and all those who spoke before me have made the point that there are much more important things we need to focus on. We talked about the importance of contact tracing in this pandemic.

There is an application that you can use and that is an excellent tool. It is COVID Alert. However, we have to make sure of one thing: that we always respect the personal data of individuals. I think we have done it, but we can verify it.

Ms. Gaudreau, Mr. Angus and I have all talked about the importance of conducting a study on artificial intelligence and, more importantly, facial recognition. Software already exists, but the development of this type of product was interrupted during this crisis because everyone is wearing a mask. This gives us a small opportunity to review this issue and consult with privacy experts.

As a Black Canadian, I can tell you that this type of software has a significant margin of error.

It becomes 10 times more inaccurate when it is trying to identify, frankly, anyone who isn't white.

The system that has been developed for artificial intelligence of facial recognition is not good. I can't think of a single law that I've broken in my life, but It means, Mr. Speaker, that I could be flying somewhere and all of a sudden my name's going to be flagged because of this faulty software. That will affect me and anybody who looks like me. That's just not right.

We need to establish guidelines. We identified this back in February—February 19, if I recall correctly—that this was going to be one of our priority studies for our committee. We should get to that.

We should let the Ethics Commissioner do his work and we should allow ourselves to focus on the areas where we really have an appropriate role to play. To me, that is just so important.

Mr. Speaker, I would like us to get to that point. I would like us to let the person who is charged with the responsibility of examining the affairs of members to be given that responsibility. We could play a supportive role, making sure that he has all the tools and the access to the information that he needs. If he doesn't, we should invite him to our committee to let us know where he needs help, and we could provide that help.

Mr. Speaker, if we go down the route of investigating ourselves, our families, our relatives, investigating our neighbours and friends, we're going down the wrong road. Sincerely, we are going down the wrong road.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I'll turn the floor over to you.

Thank you for giving me this time to express myself. I know you are new to this committee. I hope that you found my comments relevant and useful, and that they will help you in your deliberations leading to a decision.

Thank you very much.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Chair, I have a point of order. Could you reiterate the speaking list, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, as I have it now, Madame Shanahan, Mr. Warkentin is next, followed by Mr. Kurek, Mr. Sorbara, Madame Gaudreau, Ms. Lattanzio, Madam Shanahan, Mr. Dong and Mr. Barrett.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus.

We're now on to Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Warkentin, are you available?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It looks like he stepped away, Chair. I'm sure he'd agree to give up his slot.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, we'll proceed. Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and it is great to be a substitute on the ethics committee today—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the Liberals have been—I don't know—rather long-winded. Mr. Warkentin might have fallen asleep for a few minutes, but I certainly wouldn't want to rob him of his opportunity—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I want to raise a point of order.

Unfortunately, you have been asked several times. Bring your microphone closer, speak softly and respect the interpreters. Could you please, Mr. Angus, repeat what you said.

Thank you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, there was a point of order on a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I was just saying, in deference to Mr. Warkentin's spot in the queue, that I wouldn't want him to be robbed of his opportunity to speak because the Liberals speak so long. I'm asking if you would consider keeping him in the slot so that we get to hear from every member and not just from Liberals who are filibustering.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I will do what's appropriate and right in that concern. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is good to be back in the ethics committee, although it's unfortunate that there was a six-week delay and then another couple of weeks of organization. Certainly I, among many Canadians, was shocked and appalled when, on the day that some documents were meant to be available, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament as a cover-up.

I've heard many constituents comment on how Liberals dare to continue on that attempt to cover up this scandal. Even yesterday, when the article came out about the happenings on this committee, a number of constituents were texting me, sending me Facebook messages and calling my office. Canadians deserve answers.

I will keep my comments very brief. The point has been made by a number of members of this committee that there is an opportunity to demonstrate where one falls on this question—whether they support it or not—and then Canadians can be the judge.

The ultimate question that needs to be asked is about trust. A number of my colleagues from across the way have mentioned how important it is to focus on COVID. I agree. In many instances, a lot of collaboration has taken place. However, it is very unfortunate that the actions of the Liberal government have taken away the credibility that it has able to operate with, to the point where I hear many constituents asking how can they trust anything the government says. This is an issue of trust, and it is especially relevant at a time when Canadians are faced with the devastating consequences of a pandemic that the world hasn't likely seen in over a century.

Canadians need to be able to trust their government. This is one small step, with appropriate measures in place to ensure that if members are unable to attend in person, they are not deprived of the ability to still do their job. Canadians deserve to be able to trust their government, and this is but a small step that could be taken in that regard.

I have taken fairly extensive notes about a number of the comments my colleagues have made.

Mr. Fergus, like you, I subscribed to Hansard when I was an early teenager. In fact, I remember a moment when I got in trouble for watching question period during class when I was in grade 7 or 8. Now I get the honour of being on the chamber floor during that time. It certainly is just that, and emphasizes how important the job is that we all do here.

I would conclude my comments by saying let's vote. Let Canadians decide. We have the motion before us. I would certainly ask all members, if there is a willingness to cede time, to go forward to the vote and then let Canadians be the judge. You can vote one way or the other. I would encourage the question to be called so that we can move on with the important business that the members opposite and all members of this committee know is at hand.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I cede my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kurek.

I think you've seen in these two days that I'm a chair who hesitates to comment, because my job is really to referee the committee and make sure your voices are heard. With those last two comments, I can't help but make the observation that I thought it was only Speaker Milliken who got the procedure and House rules for his birthday. Obviously, I'm the outlier. Many people have been subscribers to Hansard and have received these books as gifts. Now I'm going to have to go back and do a lot more study. I had no idea you are all my senior.

We will now go to Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's great to see everyone this afternoon and to be with you all. Happy Friday. Obviously we're here to do the good work that the residents of our individual ridings have sent us here to do, and with that we continue.

I would like to add to Mr. Fergus's and Mr. Kurek's comments about our passion for—I don't want to call it politics; I think it's our passion for public service and serving Canadians, and trying to make this country an even better place than it is, which is very hard to do. We must continue to do that. We do live in a blessed country.

I remember the first time I visited Ottawa. For those of you who don't know this, I grew up in northern British Columbia in a small town, Prince Rupert. I went to Ottawa in grade 12 through the Adventure in Citizenship program, sponsored by Rotary. I believe it was 1989, during the Mulroney years. At that time, I sat in the House of Commons and was able to listen to many ministers. It was a wonderful experience, and it inspired me to become even more involved in public life and to volunteer in my community and do the many things that we young political wonks and geeks want to do.

To get back to today, it's obviously great to be here with everyone. I just want to spend a few moments talking about COVID-19. It's here in the province of Ontario. The pandemic has obviously and unfortunately reared its head again, and there are issues with regard to privacy, which, to my understanding, go under the umbrella of this committee and obviously under the umbrella of the motion we're debating today about individuals' privacy, which is very important.

The Premier of Ontario came out today to make some pronouncements that Ottawa, Toronto and Peel will unfortunately go back to stage two for the next three or four weeks. We always need to remember that these decisions are not easy ones to make, because they impact the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people, including small business owners, parents—you name it. It's unfortunate that we had to go back this way, but the second wave is here, and we need to make people's health and safety a paramount concern and really emphasize that paramount concern.

When it comes to the privacy of Canadians, I want to flag an article I read by an individual named Thomas Daigle. I want to give him credit for this. It's entitled “Misconceptions persist about effectiveness and privacy of Canada's COVID Alert app”. It ties into the motion about protecting people's privacy, and we need to always reference that.

According to the article, our government's COVID Alert app “has received positive reviews from privacy advocates, but myths persist about the data it collects”. Experts stress that the more people who use it, the more effective it will be. The articles notes, “The COVID Alert app is meant to notify users when they've spent time in close proximity to another user who's reported a positive coronavirus test result.”

It goes on to say, “After closing his Barrie, Ont., café for the day recently, René Segura checked his smartphone and saw a reassuring message. ‘No exposure detected,’ the screen read.” Like nearly three million, and growing, other Canadians—I think the number is actually four million now—“Segura downloaded the COVID Alert app on the understanding it would notify him if he spent time in close contact with a known coronavirus carrier.”

This app was launched by the federal government on July 31, and so far it is not in universal use in all provinces. However, I believe that B.C. and Alberta are the two outliers, although I stand to be corrected. I think la belle province also recently adopted it, so I think there are two remaining provinces.

The article continues:

...the app is designed to warn users if they've spent at least 15 minutes in the past two weeks within two metres of another user who later tested positive for the coronavirus.

Having survived a near-death encounter with COVID-19, Segura has extra incentive to use the app.

“I still have my guard up,” Segura said. “I don't want to go through the same episode again.”

The app, which works on later-model Apple and Android devices, has received positive reviews from privacy advocates

—again, something that our committee needs to be galvanized by—

but myths persist about the data it collects—and doesn't collect.

Experts in both technology and public health stress that the more people who use it, the better it will be. However, they say it doesn't need to be adopted by a majority of the population for it to have a positive impact.

The article goes on:

Using the app does not lessen requirements for public health measures like physical distancing, handwashing and wearing a mask. It's also not meant to replace manual contact tracing—where teams reach out to anyone who's been put at risk of exposure.

So far, there are few ways to measure whether it has been effective, but that appears to be the price for the software's built-in privacy measures.

Many people have indicated on social media that they got an alert from the app and got tested.

When a user of the app is diagnosed...they're given a one-time code to input, which then alerts others with whom the patient has been in close contact recently. The feature is built on a framework jointly developed by Apple and Google.

The COVID Alert app is so far only functional in six provinces—I believe now it's seven or eight—but the federal government is hopeful that all provinces will use this app.

To ensure better privacy, the data is stored on the individual devices, not on a central server. The drawback is there's no way of knowing how many users have received an exposure notification.

What's more, a user isn't told when, where or with whom any potential exposure occurred, so it's impossible to determine whether it's a real threat or the result of a glitch. The alert would direct the—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Mr. Angus has been speaking for several minutes without having turned on his audio channel.

Thank you on behalf of the interpreters.