Evidence of meeting #42 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I was speaking for all members. That's why I asked for a break.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
If you move to the part where you're talking about the amendment, then colleagues will be able to hear that. I suspect that you'll have some words on the motion, whether it's amended or not, so maybe save these comments for that point and move to the portion where you'd like to discuss the amendment.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair. I do have a bit more to say.
On that point, I wonder if we can canvass the committee members and see if we can take a half-hour break before I go on to finish my remarks.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm not getting any requests on that matter, other than from you, Mr. Dong.
I have heard from several who would like to go to the vote. Maybe I'll canvass members.
Is there any support to move to the vote on the amendment? Would any members like to do that?
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We're getting a lot of support for a vote. It's not unanimous support, but there's a lot of support for moving to a vote.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I think it's very critical to know that not only on this side do we use digital infrastructure, but also that I hear the Conservative, NDP, Bloc and Green Party members support having large databases to help them to manage their constituency work. We live in a country with 37 million people. I know that the Conservatives are fine with the idea of helping constituents, otherwise they would have recalled this committee for other purposes.
I want to again point out the fact that this meeting is not a regularly scheduled meeting. It's a special meeting called by opposition members based on what was reported in the media. I think it's fair for Canadians to have some concerns on the issues of privacy and the procurement of services for the appropriate use of these resources by parliamentarians to serve their constituents. However, to ensure that we are all able to continue our constituency work in an ethical way that is not an abuse of parliamentary resources is why the service provided by NGP VAN is completely separate from the operations of Liberalist.
We've heard that this is a program used for election purposes. They are completely separate. I understand and respect the rules around the separation of party from parliamentarian, and we still strive to be the best caseworkers for our constituents. The use of NGP VAN also has the advantage of being familiar to many members and staffers in terms of its layout, format and usability.
Thanks to the use of Liberalist in the campaign, many of the incoming staff are familiar with and know how the program functions and works. It kind of helps them to get on with this software that they have become familiar with, but with a completely different set of data. This is very important to stress: There is a fair bit of a firewall or restriction built in to protect the privacy of constituents, which I hold dear to my heart.
Of course, it would be a dereliction of duty if this committee were to ignore the Conservative Party's behaviour on this issue. We're very much aware that Mr. Barrett talked about how his management organization in his constituency office may be different from that of his colleagues, but I would like to remind the committee that in 2007 there was the discovery of gross misuse of the Conservative Party's constituency information management database by the Conservative government. That was an incident in which the Conservative Party of Canada used its constituency database to send voter information straight to its party apparatus, a party that would be fighting an election in the very next year.
To put that in contrast to the meeting that we are having today, the Conservatives—or some of the Conservative members, because I don't like to use big names that tag everybody—are making the accusation that we on this side are using the same company to separately manage constituency work and campaign work, while by contrast the Conservatives, or some Conservatives, decided to use the same companies for constituency work and for campaigning, for election purposes. Canadians who would go to their Conservative or some of the Conservative members of Parliament looking for service—looking for help that is offered by their office, their CO—have their information sent straight to the Conservative Party and its election machine.
This dishonest practice was prominently featured in the media and was also reported on by a former Conservative member of Parliament and Conservative officials in the former Conservative MP Garth Turner's report on this practice when he left the Conservative Party in 2006. He said the party had been using constituency casework that had been collected by a Conservative member of Parliament, and there was lots of evidence to support this allegation of malpractice. In 2006 several individuals made complaints about receiving Rosh Hashanah greetings from then prime minister Stephen Harper, despite not being Jewish.
Later, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, on a point of order, I believe you already ruled on a point of order dealing with the exact same subject matter that Mr. Dong is referencing. If it was to be referenced briefly as part of making a bigger case.... That's why I didn't raise the point earlier, but it seems that it will make up the substance, or the bulk of what he's offering. Again, we're digging some dry holes here, I think, to repurpose Mr. MacKinnon's phrase.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Dong, I would encourage you to move to the....
Mr. MacKinnon, please come to order. Please come to order, Mr. MacKinnon.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I didn't recognize a point for you yet.
Mr. MacKinnon has a point of order.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for granting me the same privilege that my colleague, Mr. Barrett, was arbitrarily granted. He can interrupt a member who is in the middle of making a speech to this committee—
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. MacKinnon, do you have a point of order? What is your point of order?
3 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
It really seems to bother Mr. Barrett that Mr. Dong is repeating himself and going on and on with some apparently documented allegations of the inappropriate or questionable use of software by the entire Conservative machine in Parliament. That is why he keeps rising on a point of order to interrupt my colleague's speech.
Mr. Chair, I urge you to let my colleague, Mr. Dong, finish his speech. I'm sure people want to hear the rest of his intervention.
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
The only person holding the floor at the moment is Mr. MacKinnon.
Thank you for finishing your point of order.
Mr. Dong, we will now hear from you, but I would encourage you to draw a link to the amendment in your statement.
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Dong, it hasn't been obvious to members at this table. If you struggle to make the links then I may rule it out of order. I would ask that you seek to speak to the amendment specifically.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To me the core essence of the amendment is to show the Conservative members that their service, or their usage, or their decision on a point of service from providers that previously donated to the party is also quite concerning as well. Therefore, I think the essence of the amendment is to invite their service providers. If the motion is set out to correct some bad behaviours, if you will, or some misuse of public funds, I think we should be looking at all members of Parliament.
I previously had the opportunity to share with the committee some numbers, some facts, and how according to a member's report a service provider to Mr. Barrett's office had links with the Conservative Party and had made donations. I have a few more things to share with the committee and the public. I was going to save them for later, but, respectfully, I've heard you, Chair, and you indicated that I should get to the point.
My point is that according to some of this public information, I think there are quite a few reasons why we should also hear from service providers to the Conservative members of Parliament. Gerald Soroka also has a licence contract with Momentuum BPO. We've heard that its leadership is a very generous donor to the Conservative Party—that's quite a reason—at, in 2020, on November 5, a value of $2,200. To Rosemarie Falk from Momentuum BPO Inc.—
3 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
We're talking about a very specific amendment. Could members refrain from making comments not related to the amendment? Otherwise, we could spend three days on this. I agree that this is important and interesting, but can we focus on the amendment so that we can make a decision?