Debates of June 17th, 2024

Electoral Participation Act

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought up the point of conflict of interest, which I brought up in my speech, and I absolutely believe that these individuals who were elected in 2019, who are the ones who would benefit from this change of date with the pensions they would be provided, should not be able to vote in the House on the bill, not be able to speak in the House on the bill and not be able to even ask questions about the bill if there is any conflict of interest, and I see it with these members. I think they have a right to say that they will not speak to the bill and they will not vote on the bill because there is a definite conflict of interest. If they do not, then shame on them.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, and I know he did not really mean it when he said that I had sold my soul.

He also went on, passing misinformation that the NDP is somehow in favour of moving the election date to favour pensions. We have been very vocal about opposing that. The member can be confident that, within committee, this would be eliminated.

The member mentioned young voters, and I just wanted to ask him what he thought of the growing feeling in various countries in the world about allowing the voting age to go down to 16 so that young people would really have a reason to vote and engaging those students while they are in school. When I go to schools and talk to young people, they are engaged. They are intelligent and are very much concerned about their future.

We are voting on matters that will affect these people. They are not going to affect most of us. I am just wondering if the member would support the policy of lowering the voting age to 16 so we can get those young people voting.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a good man who I highly respect, and even more so for opposing this in committee, where it will go. On that note, I feel that perhaps the pension date may not change as long as the Liberals do not support that portion of the bill.

With respect to youth, they are becoming more vocal and more engaged, which is what I have seen in the schools that I have attended. The youth have become more engaged, because they do not have hope. They do not have hope in the future. They do not have hope in being able to buy a home. They do not have hope in being able to have the standard of living that their parents once had.

This hope is what we need to be able to instill in them to get them out to vote for a better government that would change this society and this country in order for this country to be the future of hope. That new government would have to be the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Conservative member who raised this a question.

As the member knows, the NDP are the worker bees in this Parliament. We get things done, including dental care, pharmacare, affordable housing, anti-scab legislation and “by indigenous, for indigenous” housing.

In terms of the amendment that the member is opposed to, the Conservatives did not offer any solutions. The NDP, as we always do, provided the amendment that it appears the Conservatives are going to support. Why did the Conservatives not do any work at all on this? Why do they just talk and not actually present the amendment that the NDP has presented?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think about the NDP going into this committee and opposing the date change. That is very important and I applaud them for that.

Now when it comes to the member's question on what ideas are out there, and what the Conservatives are bringing forward, perhaps I can bring an idea forward to get Canadians more engaged. Maybe we should throw a referendum question on the ballot, some type of a question in order to engage Canadians even more in the voting process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was saying.

It seems to me that virtually all the other aspects of the legislation, which enhance or give strength to the elections laws, would have more people participate. It seems to me that that is what the member was asking for, but he does not like the date that is being suggested.

Based on what the member is hearing, if the date were changed, would he support the legislation?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am all about engaging Canadians and getting them out to vote. Whatever it takes to get them out to vote, let us get them out to vote. The issue that my Conservative colleagues and I have is, again, I repeat, the date change that would create pensions for losing Liberal and NDP members. If that date changed, I would be in full support of this bill.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Bill C‑65 amends the Canada Elections Act. It seems the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. First, to be honest, it is a bill with many very interesting elements. We know that voter turnout has trended downward. When we look at long-term trends in voter turnout, we see a slight but permanent decline.

We definitely have some questions to ask ourselves. We are the representatives of a people within a democracy. We are better off when people participate in this democratic exercise. We will quite simply be stronger here if we are more represented by the public.

However, there is a catch. I would like to say that there is an elephant in the room, but it is more like a brontosaurus. It is a big deal, a huge deal. It is funny because people in my riding are not usually up in arms about a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. I would normally never hear a peep about it something like that. No one would be coming to see me. However, this time, people are going full throttle. People are coming to see me at my office. When I am out and about, people come up to me to talk about this bill. It does not happen all the time, but it does happen often. People think that this bill is shameful.

The bill says that an election can be held on another day if the original election day is “in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a provincial or municipal election”. I think that everyone agrees that the date should be changed in the case of a provincial or municipal election. It is already hard enough for people to follow one election. Following two at the same time would not be easy, especially if people also have to vote. At some point, they will lose track of everything that is going on. Let us just say that this all seems strange.

It made me think of something that sticks in my mind. At the time, I was not in politics in this Parliament; I was in Quebec City. The Prime Minister said that Canada would be the first postnational state. I do not know if anyone remembers that. I thought that was pretty rich. In order to have a postnational state, people have to forget their nation and its culture. They have to open up to other cultures and respect them. People are supposed to open up to the world while smothering their own culture and who they really are. I find that rather odd. It is called multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism means saying that we must respect cultures from other places. I have no problem with that, but things have reached the point where the cultures and religions we respect come from other places. There are many different cultures on this planet. People who travel a lot know this. There are plenty of cultures, and I hope they survive. Every time a culture disappears somewhere, history and customs disappear. That is always sad. That is why we are fighting very hard to ensure that Quebec's culture lives and survives permanently, insofar as possible.

We can all agree that there are quite a few cultures and religions in the world. There are more religions around the world than hairs on my head. Of course, I used to have more hair than I do now, but in any case, let us just say that there are a lot of them. There is even a spaghetti king or spaghetti deity. Followers of this religion spend their days eating spaghetti and meatballs. In any case, it does not matter. The spaghetti king does exist. Some people believe in it. There are all kinds of religions.

A year has just 365 days. I am convinced that if we looked hard enough, we would never be able to hold an election, because every day of the year would be a cultural or religious holiday somewhere. I do not think that is a good idea.

October 20 happens to be Diwali. I did not know that, but it sounds really fun. It is the festival of lights. Maybe the Liberals could use a little light these days. If we put up some lights, it might illuminate them a little. The last time they saw the light, I think it was a train, and it shows. Anyway, Diwali is the festival of lights for Hindus and Sikhs. I salute them. I am very fond of them.

We wondered where this was coming from, and then the truth came out. I was elected on October 21, 2019. If we do the math, we realize that October 20, 2025, is four hours short to qualify for a pension. Imagine, only four hours. Since those are the rules, we have to accept them. I accept them. There are 22 Liberals who are in the same situation as me who realize that, for the sake of four hours, they are going to lose money. It is odd that the Liberals are the ones talking about this, because the Minister of Transport keeps saying that it is the Bloc MPs who are thinking about their pensions. He is wrong. We are saying that we will play the game, even if we are just four hours short. That is the game of democracy. Win some, lose some. The Liberals need to look at the polls upside down to improve their mood. Things are not going well for them. I would say to them that they have a year to pull up their socks if they want to keep their pensions, if they do not want to be defeated. If not, at least 100 of them stand to be defeated.

Madam Speaker, I am not talking about you, my constituency neighbour. I sometimes go to restaurants in your riding, and your voters clearly adore you. You have no reason to worry. I do not go to your riding to steal votes or talk politics; I just think you have good restaurants. However, some Liberals are scared. They think they are going to lose their pensions. They can see that they are not making any headway. I have watched them over the last few months. There are people I like on the other side. I like them, but it seems as though they are deliberately trying not to win. They need to wake up. The problem is simple: They are struggling to manage and do their job. Instead of coming up with things that makes no sense, like this bill, they need to smarten up and do a good job, and perhaps they will get to keep their pensions as a reward.

I do not wish misfortune on anyone, but there are probably about 22 members who are going to lose their seat in the next election. However, using something like this to make sure that some MPs get to keep their retirement pension is dishonest, and people do not like that. People are saying that some politicians are only here to get a pension. It fuels cynicism. I think that is unfortunate, because it affects everyone here. No one is spared. Honestly, I think that the Liberals should reconsider and remove that from the bill. What is more, the change in date will mean that the federal election is closer to the municipal election in Quebec. People already do not go out of their way to vote in municipal elections. It is difficult. We need to encourage people. We need to do our part. Now, the government is saying that it is going to hold a federal election six days before a municipal election. That does not make any sense. I am seriously speaking from the heart here.

Unfortunately, this is tarnishing the reputations of the Bloc Québécois members. The Liberals could tell people who are celebrating Diwali that they think that is important and that they have a great deal of respect for them. It is true that people have the right to celebrate that holiday. However, they can vote in the advance polls and still celebrate on October 20. As things now stand, the advance polls open four days before an election, and this bill will add two extra advance polling days. That brings us to six days. The number six makes me think of something. Do you know what the number six makes me think of, Madam Speaker?

There are six days of advance polling for people who want to celebrate Diwali. Moreover, people can vote directly at the returning office at any time. They will be able to take part in the democratic activity and cannot say that they were prevented from celebrating. They will be able to celebrate. I have not done much research, but it seems to me that there was once a Jewish holiday on election day, and people in that community were encouraged to go vote in advance. I think that went quite well. Still, there are a lot of things in this bill that look very good. Advance polling will be extended from four days to six. There are also plans to make voting easier, clearer and faster by allowing people to vote at any table in four years' time. There are some interesting bits. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We have to keep this bill. We are with the Liberals, but they have to try to be better. They may yet manage to salvage their pension. That is what I wish for them, because if they are better off, Quebeckers and Canadians will be better served. We are there to help them. We have a lot of good ideas. If only they would listen to the Bloc Québécois, everything would be all right.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are getting high-centred on the one thing that it seems a lot of people would not like to see in the bill, so let us turn this inside out. I would like the hon. member to maybe talk about things that are not in the bill that he would like to see. For instance, there has been mention of voting at 16. How close are we to voting online?

Are these the sorts of things that perhaps the hon. member would like to see, or are there other things?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting question.

The Bloc Québécois has already said that we are in favour of allowing the vote starting at age 16. Have all the parties reached that point? That is up for discussion.

In terms of online voting, I do not know. There are some advances in the bill. Mail-in voting is an improvement. Other improvements relate to foreign interference and the possibility of voting in long-term care facilities, CEGEPs and universities. There are some good measures in this bill. Can more be added?

Before we talk about what more we can do, let us vote for that. Let us remove the stumbling block that everyone sees and then, at that point, we can do it. Then, we can discuss voting at age 16 and other things that we could introduce later. What a great job.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for so clearly explaining the absolutely unacceptable aspect of this bill, namely the change in the election date, which, as he said, will be very close to the date of municipal elections in Quebec. As my colleague said, there is no rush to vote at the municipal level in Quebec. I quite agree with him on that.

There is, however, one thing that has been bothering me since the beginning of his speech. The Bloc Québécois is here in Ottawa. It sees Canada as another country. However, most Bloc members are going to receive a pension from that other country.

I would like him to tell me if he thinks it is okay for him to receive a pension from another country, only to one day go back to his own country and collect a pension there, too.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are people who go to work in the United States, who drive trucks to the United States and who are paid by the Americans. What is the problem?

We are the Bloc Québécois. We represent Quebeckers, who contribute $80 billion in taxes. I work for them. I work to ensure that this money is spent wisely and that the will of Quebeckers is respected when it comes to where the money goes. That is why we are here.

We work on bills that govern Quebeckers' lives. That is why we are here. In our minds we are in foreign country, but, unfortunately, that foreign country is going to take money out of our pockets. We are here to stand up for our people and ensure that their money is spent wisely.

I do not think that I am as adored in my riding as you are in yours, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that the people in my riding are happy with the work I am doing.

During the next election, my colleagues are welcome to come to my riding to see how proud people are of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing. They say that, yes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a foreign country, according to my colleague from La Prairie. I love listening to him, but there are 700,000 Quebeckers who have benefited from dental care in this foreign country. This dental care was put in place thanks to the NDP. In the first five weeks alone, 700,000 Quebeckers have already taken advantage of this new program, which will really improve their health.

It is obvious that Quebeckers disagree with my colleague, but does he agree with the NDP amendment, which will completely fix this bill?

The Conservatives and the Bloc did not introduce any amendments. The NDP did. Does the member support the NDP amendment?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, what has the NDP done when it comes to dental coverage? We already have dental coverage in Quebec. What is going to happen is that they are going to add another structure on top of that insurance. People are going to pay—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate. The poor interpreters have had enough.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite humorous what is happening on the other side in the corner there, but I will let the two MPs continue the conversation outside the House.

On a much more serious note, and on a note of gratitude, this is the second time I have spoken today and, in case I do not have an opportunity to speak before the House rises for the summer, I wish to thank my team here in Ottawa, Sashalie and Dima, for all their hard work. I would also like to thank the team back in the city of Vaughan, in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, at the constituency office, Pina, Anthony and Francesco, for all their hard work. As we all know, our staff are the ones who do a lot of the heavy lifting for us and keep us going strong to the extent needed. To the family back home, my kids, wife and all the folks who believe in me and encourage me to do better and be better, I wish to send my thanks as well.

I am proud to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-65, the electoral participation act.

The government introduced Bill C-65 to increase participation and confidence in Canada's electoral process. This bill implements lessons learned from recent elections. It takes into account the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as the concerns and changing views of voters. It responds to the evolving threats to our democracy.

Although Bill C-65 contains many important proposals, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the provisions in this bill to strengthen the protection of Canadians' personal information by federal political parties.

I am sure my colleagues will agree that communication between parties and voters is essential to a healthy, modern democracy. Personal information contributes to this ongoing dialogue. It enables parties to communicate with Canadians and understand their views and priorities. In turn, these connections can help voters make informed choices about who they want to represent them in Parliament.

Unfortunately, we know that malicious actors can try to access or disclose personal information held by the parties. In fact, the Communications Security Establishment Canada has established that the theft and manipulation of databases containing personal information are a major threat to political parties. That is unacceptable, and we recognize that we need to do more so that Canadians know that their information is protected.

That is why, in 2018, Parliament took an important first step by passing the Elections Modernization Act, which imposed the very first privacy requirements on federal political parties by creating a condition of registration under the Canada Elections Act.

Finally, each party has been required since 2019 to provide Elections Canada with a policy for the protection of personal information that meets the requirements set out in the act. Parties that do not comply with this requirement can be deregistered or denied the right to register. Currently, under the Elections Modernization Act, all federal political parties have a publicly available policy for the protection of personal information that addresses a range of privacy issues, such as how a party collects, uses and shares data.

It was a first step in the right direction. Bill C‑65 proposes to enhance these requirements. With interactions between the political parties and the voters being increasingly focused on data, more robust, national measures for the protection of personal information are needed.

In budget 2023, Parliament took another step forward by establishing that the Canada Elections Act is a national regime that governs the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and disposal of Canadians' personal information by federal political parties and any person acting on their behalf. It was established that the same rules apply to the federal political parties and the persons acting on their behalf, regardless of the voters' place of residence or the territory where the party operates.

This also crystalized the fundamental objective of the federal political parties that collect, use, disclose, retain and dispose of personal information, which is to participate in Canadian democracy by supporting the activities of candidates who share the same values as the party.

However, we know that it is always possible to do more. That is why the government is now proposing to enhance the requirements that need to be included in each federal party's policy for the protection of personal information, so as to promote the principle of transparency, protection, accountability and compliance.

I will address each of these principles separately. Many requirements will promote greater transparency. Every party must make its policy for the protection of personal information publicly available in both French and English, and the policy must be written in plain language. In order for Canadians to better understand the elements of this policy, every party must give examples illustrating how it collects, uses, discloses and disposes of personal information.

Every policy must indicate not only the types of personal information that the party collects, as is currently the case, but also the types of personal information that it retains, uses, discloses and disposes of. However, even though transparency is important, it is not enough. Additional safeguards are needed.

First, the policy for the protection of personal information must require that personal information be protected through physical, organizational and technological security safeguards.

These safeguards can include locked filing cabinets or secure areas, document encryption, password protection and the sharing of personal information on a need-to-know basis. The level of protection must be proportionate to the sensitivity of the information.

Second, the policy for the protection of personal information will require the party to ensure that any individual or external organization that receives personal information from a federal political party, such as a supplier or contractor, has equivalent safeguards.

Third, every political party must prohibit the sale of personal information. That is an important change because, right now, the act only requires the policy to include a statement indicating the circumstances under which personal information can be sold.

Fourth, the updated privacy policies would also prohibit parties from providing false or misleading information to Canadians about why they are collecting personal information.

Finally, Bill C-65 would prohibit the disclosure of personal information with malicious intent.

All these requirements that would apply to the parties are reasonable and sensible. Requiring greater accountability also helps meet that objective. Each party should have a designated privacy officer who would be responsible for—

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is all the time. The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments the next time the bill comes before the House.

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

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, $2,600 was, according to his testimony, the hourly rate earned by one Kristian Firth on the ArriveCAN app or what many people are calling the arrive scam scandal. There was a simple question that I asked the minister, and I did not get a response. Does he think that $2,600 an hour was a reasonable rate?

As such, I am back in the House at midnight to ask the same question again.

Kristian Firth, with his partner, at a two-person company, worked out of their basement. They got this massive contract to build the ArriveCAN app, and they did not do any work on the app; they simply received the contract and subcontracted it. For their pains of getting the contract and going on LinkedIn to find people who actually did IT work and who could actually build an app, the company, GC Strategies, Kristian Firth, got $2,600 an hour.

This is at a time when many Canadians are struggling, and Canadians are paying higher taxes than ever before. The government is showing such disdain for their money that it is giving money to these well-connected insider friends of the government to simply receive contracts and to subcontract at a rate of $2,600 an hour, according to Kristian Firth's testimony. Based on some of the surrounding numbers, I would say that it is actually a fairly conservative estimate, “conservative” not in the good sense but a conservative estimate of $2,600 per hour.

I am repeating the question several times because I want to make sure that the parliamentary secretary is without excuse and that he will stand up and answer the question that has been asked, which is the question the minister declined to answer. This is the question: $2,600 per hour was the rate, according to his own testimony, that Kristian Firth earned on the ArriveCAN app. It was not for building the app and not for designing the app, but it was simply for going on LinkedIn and for finding other people to build the app, something that the public service could have likely done itself.

Does the parliamentary secretary believe that $2,600 per hour was a reasonable rate for Kristian Firth to be earning? The parliamentary secretary is without excuse. I have asked the question several times. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that $2,600 per hour was a reasonable rate for Kristian Firth to earn on the arrive scam app? Does he believe $2,600 was a reasonable rate?

I await the parliamentary secretary's response to my question.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I want to stress that this is an issue we are not taking lightly. Let me first say that I am very proud of the public servants who worked so diligently to ensure that the government could deliver services and programs to Canadians during the pandemic.

At the same time, it is clear that something went wrong with the procurement of professional services related to ArriveCAN. Our government is extremely concerned about the issues that have come to light. I want the member to know that we have taken and are taking action to improve our procurement processes, and we are holding companies accountable for their misconduct, while protecting federal expenditures. With regard to reports by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, as the central purchaser for the government, has already taken several steps to implement the recommendations and improve the processes.

For several years now, the department has been making progress in its plan to modernize procurement, which has long been a priority. Right now the government is firmly focused on improving and further strengthening processes, especially when it comes to IT procurement. We have been working for months to do just that. This includes strengthening guidance and training for those involved in the procurement process. PSPC is also improving evaluation requirements to ensure that resources are properly qualified, and is requiring increased transparency for suppliers around their price and their use of subcontractors.

It is also improving documentation when awarding contracts and issuing task authorizations, and it is clarifying work requirements and activities, specifically which activities and which projects are worked on by contractors. In addition, PSPC is updating its guidance to help other departments and agencies in procuring responsibly when using procurement instruments under their own authorities. We know that fundamentally improving IT procurement requires us to ensure that those processes are clear and transparent and that the roles, responsibilities and rules are understood, respected and adhered to.

To that end, the department is going even further in strengthening the integrity in procurement by creating a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which we know will help the government better respond to misconduct. We owe it to Canadians to preserve the integrity of federal government procurement. That is why we are taking action now to strengthen and improve procurement so that what happened in the case of ArriveCAN never happens again.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, maybe the Liberals should open a new office for answering the question that was asked, because I asked it three times at least, and the member opposite chose not to answer. It is a very simple question. Canadians are struggling. They are seeing the incredible waste and corruption within the NDP-Liberal government. In particular, they are shocked that, as part of the arrive scam scandal, over $2,500 per hour was paid out to well-connected insider consultants.

If one cannot answer the basic question about whether they think a $2,600-an-hour fee is reasonable, how can we ever see meaningful improvement under the government? I do not think we will, but I will try one last time: Does the parliamentary secretary for Veterans Affairs, who is the one here answering the questions, think that $2,600 per hour was a reasonable rate, yes or no?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are committed to preserving the integrity of federal government procurement, and that is precisely what our government is doing. Public Services and Procurement has already taken several steps to implement the recommendations of both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman. It is strengthening guidance and training in federal procurement and making great progress in our plan to modernize processes.

We will continue to explore ways to improve our procurement processes, specifically when it comes to IT procurement. We know that the newly established office of supplier integrity and compliance will help the government better respond to misconduct and further safeguard the integrity of federal procurement.

Democratic Institutions

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, on June 7, I informed an oblivious government that Canadians will never get over nor accept a betrayal of their country's democracy by traitors who willingly sell themselves out for political and financial gain. Instead of continuing a policy of denial, the Liberal government should cease resorting to any measure that could shield party colleagues who are on the payroll of foreign operators and who have willingly accepted various offers of foreign support to win party nominations and obtain electoral victory.

Canadians are wondering why the government continues to refuse to release cabinet documents to both the Hogue inquiry and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, so that any individual believed to have been a willing participant to treasonous activities can be investigated. What are the Liberals hiding? Is it the case that the Liberal Party does not want to incriminate its own members?

The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs answered my question and had the audacity to claim that I had made something up, and said that the government has “worked collaboratively” with the Hogue commission. What a joke. The minister went on to indicate that, “officials from the Privy Council Office are in regular and ongoing contact with the lawyers from the Hogue commission to ensure that they have all of the appropriate and relevant documents to do the important work that all recognized parties in the House supported.” Someone is clearly making things up, but it is not me, and it is my hon. colleague who should be careful before making things up in the House of Commons.

Most Canadians do not believe that the government has come clean when it comes to what it knows about foreign interference in our country. Indeed, we currently have the Hogue commission looking into foreign interference. We also have NSICOP. We also had a special rapporteur take a shot at it. We even had a few people in our national security agencies put their careers on the line to try to inform the public of what is known and what is being intentionally withheld by the government. There must be some fire with all this smoke.

I do not think those entities feel they are making things up, and it seems like it is only the government that wants everything to go away and for people to just get over it. Why is that the case? Why is the Liberal government withholding over 1,000 documents from the Hogue commission and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians?

It is past midnight. I am here to fight for transparency for Canadians. What does the government have to hide?