Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mr. Green for his intervention.
You'll have to excuse me if I steered away from relevance in pointing out the Legion mask at the beginning of my comments, but I've always tried to stay within the purview of the motion at hand, Mr. Barrett's motion.
If there's something we disagree with, we disagree with it, but in my humble view I will try to stick within the realm of relevance. We're not here to waste anyone's time. We're not here to not debate. We are here to debate the issue at hand, and for me it goes to the heart of one word, which is “privacy”.
The need for social distancing has meant that even more of our daily life takes place via the use of technology. Instead of meeting in person, we have further shifted to working, socializing, going to school and seeing a doctor remotely. Through video conferencing services and online platforms, technologies have been very useful in halting the spread of COVID-19. By allowing essential activity to continue safely, they can and do serve the public good.
At the same time, however, they raise new privacy risks. For example, telemedicine creates risks to doctor-patient confidentiality when virtual platforms involve commercial enterprises. E-learning platforms can capture sensitive information about students' learning disabilities and other behavioural issues.
I read the Privacy Commissioner's official response to the pandemic:
In May, we issued a joint statement with our provincial and territorial counterparts, outlining key privacy principles to consider as contact tracing and similar digital applications are developed.
Privacy guardians from across the country felt it was important to issue a common statement because these applications raise important privacy risks. But the fact that such a statement was necessary is an unfortunate reminder that some of Canada’s privacy laws – certainly its federal laws – do not provide a level of protection suited to the digital environment.
Respect for privacy rights should not be a suggested best practice left to the goodwill of government officials or big tech. It should be a clearly codified and enforceable requirement. In a joint resolution last fall, our provincial and territorial counterparts also joined us in calling for effective privacy legislation in a data driven society.
Our response to the pandemic as well as how this enormous public health challenge demonstrates the importance of rights-based law reform is described in more detail in the next section of this annual report.
I'm not going to read the entire report this evening. If given the opportunity, maybe later on this evening I will, but I'm not sure.
On the motion at hand from Mr. Barrett, the privacy of a family in this most extraordinary and unique period of time needs to be respected, and it's not being respected. As I stated from the beginning, when I think about all the programs we've put in place and how we have arrived at this motion, going through the study and the work that was done during the summertime, this is not a motion.
I'm not going to use “worthy of consideration”, because all motions should be worthy of consideration by my committee colleagues. It is a motion that is a fishing expedition. If you want to call it painting a wall with a brush and just throwing paint on it, that's what it is for me. It's nothing more and nothing less.
As for the exact wording, “any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it”, I'm actually going to read the entire motion, because I do want to delve into that.
That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1)(a), an order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau—including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, provided that these documents shall be provided to the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion; and that the documents be reviewed in camera.
When I look at the line that says, “that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it”, I see that it is a very broad definition for a motion. That means that we, as a committee, can go and pick out one of 38 million Canadians, write a motion, put their name in, and say that we want to know what you've done since October 14, 2008, independent of who you are, and bingo, you're coming in front of our committee. That is terrifying. As I've said before—and this is repetition, MP Green—we're doing it to two individuals who are not public office holders. It's a mother and a brother. On that level there, I think to myself, as a member of a committee reading this motion, that any Canadian can just be put in there. You know what? Let's go do it to this business person. Let's go do it to that lawyer, or somebody who has emailed their member of Parliament asking for help or providing recommendations, or a stakeholder we have met with. This freaks me out a little bit, and again, it's fundamentally wrong.
With that, Chair, I think I've emptied out my brain cells for the last 45 minutes. As a member of Parliament sitting here tonight at 5:41 p.m.—and I have to go to a viewing after 6 o'clock for a friend's father who unfortunately passed away—I think to myself, “Why am I looking at this motion? What am I investigating? What documents are these folks after, other than going after the documents of the Prime Minister's mother and brother and wife? How is this moving Canada forward?”
I know MP Angus earlier said it was a $900-million program. No, it wasn't a $900-million program. No, there weren't any funds distributed by the federal government. No, there were not any taxpayer funds used. We know that. We know the only program that assisted students was the Canada emergency student benefit, and it was approximately 704,000 students who received funds from that. We know that.
This motion is as wide as a dump truck, and I'm talking about the big ones, not the small ones. These are the ones that you can put tons and tons of soil in or that you use when you tear down a building. Where is it going? This is basically saying that we want you, Margaret Trudeau, to empty out to us the last five years of your life when you've spoken for mental health. If someone spoke for mental health, we want to know. Whoever booked it, we want to know.
Think about that. It's pretty rotten, isn't it? It kind of smells the joint up. Sorry for using that unparliamentary language, Chair. It could be mental health, the Children's Aid Society, or if you've spoken at various causes. We know charities these days, especially in this pandemic, see a declining number of donors and people who can assist. That's what you're going. There's not even a mention of the organization that the government had spoken to to put in place the program. No, there's not even a mention.
To me, this motion here is completely different from the motion that was brought forward in July, and the intent is different. This is like digging a big circle and just digging and digging and digging until you can find one stone that doesn't match the other stones, and saying, oh, I found something. That's all it is.
It troubles me—I say this to you, Chair—when there's an opportunity cost. For me as an economist, an opportunity cost is a big thing. When we're spending our time talking about something, we're not spending our time talking about something else. When I'm spending time talking about MP Michael Barrett's motion from October 8, 2020, about this, that means I'm not spending time talking about and reading “OECD releases global tax reporting framework for digital platforms in the sharing and gig economy”. I'm not talking about “Model Rules for Reporting by Platform Operators with respect to Sellers in the Sharing and Gig Economy”. I'm not looking at things for this committee to deal with in relation to privacy so we can strengthen and improve laws for Canadians.
When I read this motion, I keep thinking about it. These documents should be provided “within 24 hours of adoption of this motion”. Is that even realistic?
For me, this motion contains a number of errors. I think I've pointed out a couple of them.
First of all, it doesn't even delve into something that Canadians are concerned about right now. Canadians are concerned. Here in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, we've had one school that had to close down because of COVID-19. If I told those several hundred parents who have their kids home right now that I'm dealing with a motion this evening to look at where the Prime Minister of Canada's mother has spoken in the last couple of years and who booked it, I think they would have a few choice words for me and my committee members. I think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I can read those tea leaves quite well, and as a parent, I know that's a fact.
When we want to talk about the issues at hand for Canadians, when we want to talk about what Canadians are worrying about, I preface this by saying I believe in full accountability, transparency and asking tough questions of the government, because I do that myself, and I've done it for the last six years.
When I think about this motion, “each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company”, what are we looking at? What are we asking here?
This says I want to go into someone's private life and get all their information because I'm going to undertake a fishing expedition and I'm going to smear you. That's what it says to me. Maybe I'm wrong, and the MPs from the other side of the aisle or even my side of the aisle can say, “No, Francesco, you're wrong.” I'm going to say that I'll listen. I'll hear you out, but that's what I get from it. That's my interpretation of it.
Chair, I don't know what other motions the opposition members plan to bring forward. We're debating this one, and I look forward to continuing to debate this one because, in my other time, when I'm not sitting on public accounts and helping out in finance, along with parliamentary secretary duties to help Canadians, I have such a privilege of being a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. I know I'm reading about things that concern Canadians today, and I would have hoped that there was a motion that was tight, that asked the questions that need to be asked on any subject. When I read this, I'm thinking, “Oh my God, what is this?”
For me, Chair, when someone puts together a motion as an MP, maybe there should be a training course, because when you're elected a member of Parliament, it's like you're going to become a father, but there's no book. No one says, “Here's the book. This is what you're going to do.” It's kind of like trial by fire. You learn as you go. You read Bosc and Gagnon. You look at the book and you think, “Oh my God, am I actually going to read that or am I going to go grab a drink with my colleagues?”, and you kind of take up the “drink with my colleagues” situation first, and then you go back and read the Standing Orders.
When you are a member of Parliament and you put together a motion, you ask, “What am I looking for? What am I asking?” This is just a broad fishing expedition. That's all it is. There's nothing more, nothing less. It does not ask any tough questions, such as whether the programs were effective and whether they helped Canadians.
We know from the testimony during the summertime that we got the information we needed. The Prime Minister—and this is me speaking as someone who was raised in northern British Columbia, whose parents were union members—owned up and said, “I didn't recuse myself. I made my mistake.” When you have someone do that, that's called leadership. That's saying, “You know what? I'll take responsibility for what I did wrong by owning up to it.” As a father, I need to do that; as a husband, I need to do that; as an MP, I need to do that, and as a person. That's the first thing you're taught in life. When you do something wrong, you say, “Hey, I made a mistake. I learned from it, but I've got to move on.”
That's what we saw this summer. That's called leadership.
In this day and age, when it's easy to use our digital platforms and put together our little five-second blurb and say you scored a political point, much like in this motion that I have in front of me, it doesn't help anyone's life, it doesn't improve our lot and it doesn't strengthen our communities. You know what does? It's when we work together.
When we take ideas from all sides of the aisle and come back, much like if we worked with the NDP on ensuring a very robust recovery benefit and we listened to their ideas, or if we listened to the Conservatives on CEBA or to other stakeholders that we all meet with, that's when we shine. That's when we come forward and say we're really proud to be a member of Parliament. I'm proud not only to be part of the governing party, but to be a member of Parliament first and foremost.
At this point, it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. Mr. Chair, I'll have one swig of water and I think I'm almost finished. I'm sure some of you will be happy with that.
Mr. Chair, on the notion of privacy, the first thing that strikes me about this motion is the privacy concerns I've raised. I think we all need to step back as parliamentarians, as Canadians and as individuals and say to ourselves that we are looking at something that, for me, impinges on a person's privacy as an individual who has a profile here in Canada whom we all know, whom many in our community have been with when, for instance, the Prime Minister's mother has spoken to us. This does not strike me as a good motion to approve in any way.
Whatever the opposition is looking to find, my hunch tells me that you're going to be greatly disappointed. The programs we put in place during the summer have a lot of moving pieces for sure. I think every government has demonstrated that across the world. Today we see cases spiking in a lot of different countries in second or third waves. We're all in this together; this isn't going away. We need to dig deeply as Canadians, as parliamentarians, and ask ourselves if we are we doing the right thing, because right now, whether it's in Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario, the United States, Europe or other countries, we are dealing with a pandemic. At the same time, this motion brought by MP Barrett, to me, completely veers us off that tangent in doing the right thing for our constituents and as Canadians.
MP Barrett, I understand your rebuttal and I empathize with you. This is politics, so we have to go ahead. There has to be something there.
Do you know what you're doing? You're going after someone's mother and brother. You're asking for this big fishing expedition, which my constituents don't like. They don't. I've heard it.
I'm going to stay focused. I'm going to enjoy this committee. I enjoy making new friends from both sides of the aisle. I'm quite honoured to say I have friends on both sides of the aisle, from whichever party. That's just the way I was raised.
However, from a basic value proposition, not even a political proposition, I look at this as going right to the heart of someone's privacy. I can't accept that. I think this motion is completely wrong. I think the intent of this motion, for me, is not in line with my values. It's just not.
It's unfortunate, but again, Chair—I'll stop in a few minutes, or I'll try to—the idea that you can ask for someone's records is.... I read this line over and over, “...in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020....”
For the Prime Minister's mother, who came to the city of Vaughan to speak to the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce event on women's issues, do you need that record? She came and told her story. Do you need that record? That is the motion. Really? Is that why we are here? We are here for someone who came to a luncheon with 1,000 other women and a few men, and this motion would capture that. It's kind of shameful.
The opposition really needs to think about this motion and really understand what this motion means, because it's easy to write something like this down and say, “We need these documents. There has to be something burning there.” Well, do you know what? You are going to get somebody who spoke to a room of 1,000 women, a couple of men and the mayor of Vaughan—