House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wet'suwet'en.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred to the end of the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, February 24, 2020.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday at the end of Government Orders.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House at this time, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Consular AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, the Prime Minister's hand-picked choice for that post, came before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations on February 5. He spoke about his mandate. He said during his opening statement:

I want to say also that the utmost priority of my goal and objectives is to work for the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and to seek clemency for Robert Schellenberg. That's right in the headlights, and I think about that every day.

Later in his testimony he said:

Getting to my mandate and priorities in discussions with the Prime Minister and then with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the overall objective is to restore the relationship, but with three priorities, and I would argue, one very important caveat that's in that.

First and foremost is to secure the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and get clemency for Robert Schellenberg. That is core; that's a priority.

Notice that Ambassador Barton was not just speaking about his own personal priorities, he was speaking about the mandate he had been given by the Prime Minister. He returned to that specific formulation, “securing the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor and gaining clemency for Robert Schellenberg”, twice more during his remarks.

Certainly Canadians would expect the government to do all it can to secure the release of detained Canadians. However, when I asked about the case of another detained Canadian, Huseyin Celil, the ambassador initially appeared completely unaware of what I was talking about. He then said:

...Huseyin is not a Canadian citizenship holder, we aren't able to get access to him on a consular services side.

Mr. Celil is a Canadian citizen, and he has been in prison for a decade and a half in China. It is, frankly, a disgrace that we would appoint an ambassador who is so ignorant of something so basic, and he seemed similarly unaware of Canada's policy in the South China Sea.

This is not principally about Ambassador Barton. It is evident that the Prime Minister gave a specific mandate to the ambassador to secure the release of some Canadians, but not all Canadians, detained in China.

Why did the Prime Minister give Ambassador Barton a mandate to seek the release of some Canadians but not others? Mr. Celil is a Uighur Muslim and a dual national. Some have wondered if racism has informed the decision to omit securing the release of Mr. Celil from Ambassador Barton's mandate.

At a time when China's government denies dual nationality and when religious and ethnic minorities in China, especially Uighur Muslims, face horrific abuses of human rights, it might be convenient to throw this Muslim Canadian under the bus and ignore his fundamental human rights. It might be convenient, but it is deeply immoral and contrary to our values.

I have no doubt that the government, now pressed on this issue, will say that it cares about Mr. Celil, and I fully expect the parliamentary secretary to say that.

However, the government needs to explain why Ambassador Barton's mandate from the Prime Minister did not include securing the release of Mr. Celil. It needs to explain the mention four times of three other consular cases, but no mention of Mr. Celil during the introductory remarks.

The government must do more than just say that it cares. It must formally direct our ambassador to make securing the release of Mr. Celil a central part of his mandate. It must direct him to publicly clarify that he regards Mr. Celil as a Canadian citizen.

Will it?

Consular AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the issue that has been brought forward by the member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Huseyin Celil is a Canadian citizen, point final. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have consistently stated, the government continues to be seized at all levels by cases of Canadians detained in China, including the long-standing case of Mr. Celil. Mr. Celil has been in detention in Xinjiang since 2006.

The provision of consular services to Canadians in China is governed by a bilateral agreement that details consular obligations and entitlements of our two countries in order to facilitate the protection of the rights and interests of our citizens. While China has agreed to provide consular access to Canadians who entered China on a Canadian travel document, China has not granted Canadian officials consular access in cases where China does not recognize the individual's Canadian citizenship.

In the case of Mr. Celil, despite repeated and ongoing attempts, Canadian officials have not been granted consular access. The government is deeply concerned about the case of Mr. Celil and will continue to raise his case at every opportunity at senior levels, frankly, as I did myself last spring when I travelled to China on a trip of the China-Canada legislative committee, on which the Conservatives chose not to go.

The government continues to be deeply concerned. Canadian officials will continue to advocate for Mr. Celil and seek consular access to him in order that they can verify his health and well-being and to offer him assistance.

It is very well known to us that Mr. Celil is of Uighur ethnicity. Canada is deeply concerned, and any insinuation to the contrary is simply false. Canada remains deeply concerned by the mass detention of Uighurs in Xinjiang, based on their ethnicity and religion under the pretext of countering extremism.

We acknowledge the pain and hardship experienced by Mr. Celil's family as a result of his detention. Consular officials are in communication with Mr. Celil's family and will continue to provide support until they are reunited.

Uighurs have been disappearing into detention in China. Getting information about their whereabouts can be incredibly challenging. Publicly and privately, in multilateral fora as well as in bilateral conversations, Canada has consistently called on the Chinese government to address the situation.

Canada has called on the Chinese government to allow the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Special Procedures immediate, unfettered, meaningful access to Xinjiang.

Finally, I would like to extend thanks to all consular officials working in Ottawa and in our missions abroad, offering and attempting to offer consular services. I have personally been extremely impressed and moved by the commitment they have to their work, which is the best in terms of public service I have ever seen.

Our government will always stand up for Canadians in need of assistance abroad. Mr. Celil will remain in our hearts at all times.

Consular AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary and I take him at his word about his personal concern about this case.

I do think it is important to press the question about Ambassador Barton, the Prime Minister's choice, about his testimony and about his account of his mandate. While the parliamentary secretary may make the occasional trip to China along with other members, the ambassador is our most high profile man representing the Government of Canada in China.

I think the parliamentary secretary would have to acknowledge the damage done when the ambassador makes the kinds of public statements he did. We still have not seen a public statement from the ambassador, clarifying that he understands and supports the Government of Canada's position.

I would like to know why the Prime Minister's mandate to him, at least as he accounts for it, did not include any mention of Mr. Celil's case.

Consular AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, as I said, remains deeply concerned about the ongoing detention of Mr. Celil, as well as over 100 Canadians in detention in China. As with all cases of Canadian citizens detained abroad, our officials have repeatedly sought consular access in order to determine Mr. Celil's well-being.

With respect to Dominic Barton, Canada is fortunate now to have Dominic Barton as our ambassador in Beijing. He has a deep knowledge and understanding of China and its history. He has been actively advocating for Canada in Beijing everyday. He is raising the cases of Canadians detained in China at every opportunity, including Mr. Celil, and working to improve our bilateral relations at the same time, including re-establishing full commercial ties for our farmers and other sectors.

I believe all Canadians and all members of the House should be supportive of these things.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I put to the Prime Minister some time ago. It is worth repeating the question I asked at the time. The Prime Minister loves talking about politics, transparency and openness. However, he led the Liberals in voting against our motion calling for the Auditor General to investigate the Liberal infrastructure fiasco.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported on the Liberal infrastructure fiasco. He revealed that in 2017, the Liberals spent only half of the infrastructure money they had promised to invest.

In 2018, the Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote another report calling on the Liberals to release their infrastructure plan. I would remind the House that the Liberals' infrastructure plan totalled $186 billion. That is not chump change. It is a lot of money. It is Canadians' hard-earned money that they handed over to the government to take care of. Unfortunately, what was the response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's request? What response did he receive?

It does not exist.

The plan did not exist in 2018, and we are talking about $186 billion spread across 30 agencies and departments, in over 50 programs. It is no surprise that there is no trace of the money if there was no plan and the money was scattered all over the place.

In 2019, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked for the list of all of the commitments the government had made in the $186-billion investing in Canada plan, the government said that it would not be able to provide the data.

The Liberals lost track of the $186 billion they had promised to invest. That is completely unacceptable. That is why the House voted in favour of asking the Auditor General to investigate the Liberals' fiasco.

Members will recall that 166 parliamentarians voted in favour of our motion, while 152 others, namely all the Liberals who were present, voted against transparency and openness, even though that was one of their mantras in all the election campaigns. They said that they would be open and transparent, that they would open the books, that they would do things differently. They are not doing things differently. In fact, they are doing worse than all the other previous governments. Members will recall that the Liberals were elected on the promise to run small deficits. They talked about a small deficit, followed by another small deficit, and another very small deficit after which they would finally balance the budget.

The reality today is that the Liberals have not only run huge deficits, but also lost track of the money they used to rack up those deficits. I am very pleased that the Auditor General finally agreed to look into the situation. He heard the call of the House and is going to conduct an investigation. We will have the opportunity to talk about that again in a few moments.

I look forward to hearing what the Liberals have to say. They are doing everything in their power to appear above reproach, but we saw that, unfortunately, when it came time to show it, they voted against the majority of the House and lost a vote. That is how a minority government works.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government

Mr. Speaker, a joke keeps playing in my head, but it is better if I keep it to myself. We can talk about it after the debate.

It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Commons to speak to the significance of the Auditor General's role.

As everyone in the House knows, the Auditor General provides Parliament with independent, impartial audits of the management of public funds. Through audits, the Auditor General's office provides Parliament with objective, factual information and specialized advice on the government's programs and activities.

This review allows parliamentarians to monitor the government's activities and hold it to account on how it manages taxpayers' money.

It bears repeating that the Auditor General is not accountable to the government of the day. As an officer of Parliament, he reports directly to the House of Commons with objective information so that members of Parliament can hold the government to account.

The Office of the Auditor General has a legislative basis in the Auditor General Act, the Financial Administration Act and a number of other statutes. In fact, it has a long Canadian tradition. The first independent Auditor General of Canada was established in 1878, over 140 years ago. In 1977, the Auditor General Act clarified and expanded the Auditor General's responsibilities.

In addition to examining the accuracy of financial statements, the Auditor General's mandate was expanded to examine how effectively the government managed its affairs. Importantly, the act maintained the principle that the Auditor General does not comment on policy choices, but does examine how policies are implemented.

In 1995, the Auditor General Act was amended to include a specific mandate related to the environment and sustainable development. This mandate is carried out by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, on behalf of the Auditor General.

Our government appreciates the important work and the history of this institution. During the 2018-19 fiscal year, the reference levels of the Office of the Auditor General increased as a result of the greater volume and complexity of the government's operations and transactions.

This funding helped ensure that the office was able to continue meeting service standards, providing accurate and timely information regarding audits and upgrading its information technology systems.

As a result, the number of full-time employees at the Office of the Auditor General has increased in order to meet its needs.

I see I am almost out of time, but I would like to add one final point.

As my colleagues in the House will know, in order to receive additional funding, any officer of Parliament, including the Auditor General, may make a request to the Minister of Finance, and the government regularly considers such requests to ensure that the office can continue to fulfill its mandate efficiently and effectively.

As an office of Parliament, the Office of the Auditor General will then work closely with the Treasury Board Secretariat to develop a submission to access the funding. This is the standard procedure for any department or office of Parliament seeking funding.

Our government is open to having good conversations with all officers of Parliament, including the Auditor General. We want to make sure that our investments are as effective as possible so that the government continues to work effectively for all Canadians.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is true that last year's increase in the Auditor General's budget allowed the Auditor General to hire more people.

However, it is important to remember that the government, the Prime Minister, is the biggest spender in Canadian history. The Auditor General's work needs to be more and more comprehensive because more and more money is being spent. More spending means more books to open.

The government had no trouble finding $50 million to give to Mastercard. The Liberals are blithely using Canadians' credit cards without looking at what they are doing with the money being spent. They have not been able to meet 100% of the request for additional funding the Auditor General made last year based on the criteria my colleague just talked about.

Unfortunately, the Liberals were not able to respond. They did not want to respond. That did not prevent them from running a deficit of nearly $30 billion this year.

Maybe instead of talking points and a history lesson about the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, interesting though it is, my colleague should have stuck with the joke he wanted to tell me off the top rather than spouting information available to everyone on the Auditor General's website.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I completely understand why my hon. colleague does not want to talk about the history of the Auditor General. After all, his party's chapter in that history is pretty bleak. The Conservatives slashed the Auditor General's budget.

Since taking office in 2015, our government has not only increased the Auditor General's budget, but also erased the previous cuts. We also made it possible for the Office of the Auditor General to hire 38 full-time people to ensure that all Canadians can get accurate, timely and complete information about government spending.

PrivacyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, answers tabled in response to a query from my colleague, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, showed 38 government agencies reported a total of more than 5,000 incidents last year in which classified or otherwise protected documents were mishandled and stored in a manner that did not meet security requirements. In reality this number is likely much higher as Global Affairs Canada did not disclose any reported breaches, but we know in the past it has mishandled sensitive information many times.

It is disturbing that this ethical disregard for the privacy of Canadians is so widespread throughout the government. Across 38 departments, sensitive information was mishandled 20 times per working day. The ethical bar that has been set by the Prime Minister and his cabinet is so low that this should not come as a surprise.

Disregard for ethics is a top-down problem for the government, where the Prime Minister himself has twice been found to have breached ethics laws. That is a hallmark of the government. It breaks ethics laws, and then tries to cover it up. From illegal vacations on a billionaire's island, clam scam and forgotten French villas to, of course, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the government's ethical record is abysmal.

When the Prime Minister politically interfered in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin, it became clear that the government and the Prime Minister had no intention of reforming their actions and had thrown any ethical considerations by the wayside, all in the name of re-election.

The Liberals' contempt for ethics has led the Prime Minister to mandate that his ministers hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. However, they carry on their disregard for ethics by continuing to block investigations and awarding sole-sourced contracts to former Liberal MPs. It has gotten to the point that it is almost laughable, but of course it is not. Canadians are losing their confidence in public institutions, and believe that there are now two sets of rules: one for the governing class and one for those it governs.

A government ought to operate at the intersection of responsibility and principle, being responsible for its actions and being a proper steward of the trust that Canadians give it to govern both rightly and justly. Further, when a government takes a principled approach to governance, being prudent and doing the right thing, it should have no problem working within the prescribed bounds of ethical law.

There is so much work to be done to restore the public's confidence in their institutions, but the government's negligence in cultivating that trust and its continued ethical apathy are not helping. Canadians deserve better.

Since I asked my initial question in this place, we have found out this week that personal information naming more than 69,000 victims of the government's failed Phoenix payroll system was shared across the government into dozens of departments. It was seen by hundreds of staff who had no business seeing it. More than 69,000 public servants' personal information was inappropriately handled.

This same week, we found out that the Prime Minister again failed to meet his obligations as set out under the conflict of interest code for members when he failed to file his disclosures.

We continue to see examples of failures or an unwillingness to follow ethical rules, and Canadians expect more of the government. They deserve more of the government.

I would like to ask, when will the government start to treat Canadians with respect?

PrivacyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to follow up on the response that I provided to my hon. colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

The government takes protecting Canadians' privacy very seriously. This protection is part of every aspect of our decision-making process. As Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, I have seen how hard public servants work every day to protect Canadians' privacy. Many of them process and study thousands of sensitive government documents, the vast majority of the time without issue, while meeting appropriate security standards.

This is because the public servants who deal with sensitive information are required to undergo security screening and security training. This is a fundamental exercise. It establishes and maintains a foundation of trust within government, between government and Canadians and between Canada and other countries.

Allow me to provide a bit of background for the hon. member and all Canadians participating in this debate.

All public servants who handle government documents undergo a level of security screening that is proportionate to the responsibilities of their positions. For positions that deal with more sensitive information, requirements are even more robust.

Departments are required to renew the security status of employees on an ongoing basis. There are also times when enhanced security screening is required. It is undertaken when duties involve or directly support security and intelligence functions. These extensive processes help ensure the integrity of our system.

Let me stress an important point. Individuals must be officially granted a security status or clearance before they are assigned to a position and before they are granted access to sensitive information, including personal information.

Employees also take ongoing security training to better fulfill their obligations. It is important to note that public servants process a wide range of sensitive documents. Some of these documents may include personal information, others may be confidential cabinet documents, and some may be related to national security.

The vast majority of these documents are handled securely and appropriately without issue. However, when employees are found to have not followed the appropriate protocols, they are provided with additional guidance and assistance to help ensure that the mistake is not repeated. When it comes to privacy specifically, the Government of Canada also has a framework for protecting Canadians' information.

The directive on privacy practices requires government institutions to develop plans and establish procedures to manage privacy breaches and assign roles and responsibilities to that end. The directive also requires these institutions to report any substantial privacy breaches to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to answer the question.

The guidelines for privacy breaches provide explicit guidance as to what is or is not a “material” breach. These are just some of the ways the government is working hard to safeguard the privacy of Canadians. It is of utmost importance to this government, and we will continue to practise due diligence and ensure that the privacy of Canadians is protected.

PrivacyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the robust system that is in place for the public servants who are responsible for handling these files. I talked about a top-down issue that they have. He also talked about the remedial training or support that public servants would receive if they mishandled information.

Given the top-down issue I identified and the several concrete examples I cited where the Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking the rules, will any remedial training be available to the Prime Minister? If not, I would be very happy to help the government create a curriculum that I think would be of great benefit to the Prime Minister and his ministers.

PrivacyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the suggestion he has so kindly made just now. I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss it further.

As I said, the government is committed to protecting the privacy of Canadians. The Government of Canada has a very strong investigative and security system and provides extensive privacy training to its public servants. Without proper security clearance, public servants cannot be in a position where they have to deal with sensitive information.

Let me make one thing clear: The vast majority of sensitive government documents are handled securely, appropriately and without issue. It is also important to note that in the event of a privacy breach, departments must have plans and procedures in place to manage the breach. We can do even more.

Thanks to our targeted plan to manage privacy breaches in our government, I am convinced that we will be strengthening privacy and privacy breach management within policies, guidance and tools.

PrivacyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.)