Matthew Dubé

[March 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we are making a lot of exceptions about having food in the House and about photos being taken in the House. However, when it comes to the fact that we have to wear a tie to be recognized to speak in this place, could we have a little more decorum, despite the fact that we have been here for a certain amount of time?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the committee's mandate is to deal with public safety issues. Witnesses who work for the department, various agencies, and the RCMP regularly tell us they cannot provide specifics in response to a given question. That is the nature of their work. I do not always like it because those agencies certainly have transparency issues, but that is a debate for another day.

I want to set that aside for now. Those people exercise good judgment in deciding what they can and cannot say publicly. Most of the time, that is exactly why they are in those jobs. In answer to my colleague's question, it may be that the Liberals themselves doubt Mr. Jean's ability to appear before the committee and exercise his judgment about what he can and cannot say publicly. Lastly, I said it before in my speech and my response to the Liberal member and I will say it again and again: the media is the most public forum there is. When politicians are considering whether a statement is appropriate, they ask themselves if they would be comfortable saying it on the record. That often happens automatically. If Mr. Jean felt it was appropriate to say those things in a press briefing, I think he can say them to parliamentarians.

Regardless, none of that changes the fact that this whole affair shows the trip was badly managed from start to finish.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, they did not have the courage to vote it down. They adjourned debate because they did not even want to talk about it, and it was the Liberal majority on the committee that voted it down. I think we know where that comes from. At least when the Conservatives were in power they had the decency to empower the parliamentary secretaries to say that the PMO was going to run what happens at committee. Instead, now it happens in more subtle ways. However, at the end of the day, it is all the same thing, whether it is a punch in the face or a knife in the back. In this case, it is a knife in the back and not wanting to go ahead with what is going on.

Here is the problem. I have the utmost faith in the public service. This notion that we do not is ludicrous. If there truly is nothing wrong, and if we have faith in Mr. Jean, then let us have him before the committee, and he can repeat the statements that were made to the media. That is the minimum.

If this were some side conversation someone had overheard, or had these statements been obtained through some kind of subterfuge, I would understand. However, what I find extremely problematic, and it is a habit the Liberal government has gotten into, are comments being made through the media, the most public forum possible, and not having those comments made to a parliamentary committee. That includes technical briefings on legislation done for the media before they are done for MPs, and things of that nature.

Even if the Liberals want to reject the motion, they should at least have the courage to explain why, when the debate comes up, and not adjourn debate and run away with their tails between their legs.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with my dear colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I am pleased to speak today on the Conservative motion to invite Daniel Jean to provide the same briefing that he gave to the media, following the chaos of the Prime Minister's trip to India.

As I informed my Conservative colleagues on the committee when attempts were made, and as I informed the media, I will say again today that I support this motion. I do believe that parliamentary committees obviously have a responsibility to ask questions and obtain, at a minimum, the same information given to the media.

Regarding the national security advisor, concerns about having him brought before a parliamentary committee are legitimate, given how his appearance before a committee affects the ability of people who, inevitably due to the nature of their work, must work in the shadows. I understand the concern, and I take it very seriously.

However, first we need to acknowledge that greater transparency is being asked from these agencies and those working there. That goes without saying. After all, these individuals have their hands on the switch that controls very important powers that have an impact on Canadians.

Given what has been said in the media, these individuals have significant influence over public opinion and even diplomatic situations.

We saw it in 2011 when then-CSIS director Richard Fadden made controversial public comments about a situation involving Chinese spies. Without rehashing all the details, he was called before the same committee that had reported on the matter and had called for his resignation. The Liberals supported the report then. There was not just Richard Fadden; there was also a Privy Council official.

So we do not need the Liberals coming here and shedding crocodile tears about the reputation of public servants, since these officials must be held to account. We agree with the Conservatives on this. Of course, we must always be careful to ensure that these calls for accountability do not end up preventing people from doing their jobs. That is understood.

However, when someone in this position feels free to make public statements and in any circumstances—there is nothing more public than commenting to the media—, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for us to feel free to have this individual appear before a parliamentary committee to provide essentially the same information.

I must say we understand that it is problematic given a trip that went nowhere. Ultimately, we are talking about an eight-day trip, which is already a very long absence for a prime minister, since in the meantime other matters are not being taken care of.

It would have been nice if they had come back with something concrete to offer us. They did not discuss the chickpea tariffs, nor did they discuss the issue of innovation and technology development, in which India is a key player. They did not discuss certain human rights situations in the region. We have learned that very few meetings were held during the eight-day trip, considering the number of staffers who accompanied the Prime Minister and the number of days they spent there. I think there were more photos than meetings during this trip. That is the problem.

We understand that there is a certain superficial aspect to a prime minister's foreign trips. The Prime Minister is representing Canada abroad and wants to project a positive image. That is fine. I have no problem with that. However, once the photos have been taken and the nice family moments are over, which, again, are things I have no problem with, then it is time to get to work.

The results leave something to be desired.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister seems to have been using his imagination when he talked about a $1-billion investment in Canada, because it was closer to $250 million. That is not a paltry amount, but it is only a small fraction of $1 billion.

In short, the trip was a disaster from start to finish. I have been an MP for seven years, and never before have I heard so many comments about a prime minister's trip abroad. It goes to show just how much this trip has captured the public's attention. The Liberals missed a golden opportunity to talk to one of the world's largest economies about the many important matters that require discussion, including not just economic issues, but all kinds of geopolitical issues as well, such as human rights.

Getting back to the question of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the Minister of Public Safety raised a possibility during the infamous media scrum that took place under some rather crazy circumstances, and again when he appeared before the committee. He talked about the new committee of parliamentarians as a possible avenue for examining this matter. This poses a number of problems.

First of all, this committee was only recently formed. It is still finding its bearings and only recently began its work and determined its mandate. Its mandate exists, but it will be further clarified by the work it does. We cannot start throwing every file that makes the headlines at this committee. There is a lot of work to be done. Ever since the bill passed and the committee was created, barely one year ago, every time something winds up in the news, the minister says that it does not matter because the committee of parliamentarians can study it. That is worrisome for several reasons.

First of all, the committee needs to be free of all partisanship. If it starts looking at really politically controversial issues or only the ones raised during question period, it will never get anywhere and we will never have the rigorous reports we expect to get, like Commissioner O'Connor's report on the Maher Arar affair. Those are the kinds of recommendations we want to see from the committee of parliamentarians. It should not be examining every controversial issue that makes the headlines. That might be the case one day, but not in this instance. I am not saying that it would be inappropriate for the committee to examine these files, because in some cases, it would definitely be entirely appropriate.

Secondly, there is the fact that the government is using the minister to try to get out of sticky situations. The same thing happened when CSIS was taken to court for workplace harassment, discrimination, homophobia, and islamophobia. When I asked the minister about it, he initially told me he would not comment because the matter was before the courts. Then, to get out of being accountable, he said that it was not so bad since the committee of parliamentarians was going to look into it. No matter how important it may be, the committee cannot constantly be used to get out of being accountable.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has a mandate to address certain issues after all. It is not always appropriate to address the issues of the day, but in this case, it would be quite appropriate to devote an hour or two to a little meeting so that we can hear something that has already been said in public. There are some questions that we as parliamentarians have every right to ask, questions that Canadians have. No matter our opinion on the veracity of such statements, they remain important and the hon. members do have a responsibility in this regard.

Earlier, I was heckled by a Liberal member when he told me that the members had voted to adjourn debate and reject the motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, because national security issues are sensitive. Let's call Mr. Jean before the committee, and once he is there, if we deem that the discussion must remain confidential because it deals with sensitive and confidential matters that concern national security, then we can decide for ourselves. There is no need to use this secrecy as an excuse for flat out refusing to have him testify. In conclusion, I would say that this trip was a disaster, and the government missed opportunities to advance some important issues.

Now, here we are, and we are dealing with these issues that are very problematic. At the very least, I think that we can request to have someone appear before parliamentarians.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have an appreciation for the fact that memory can sometimes be a selective thing in this place.

However, the Liberals are forgetting that it is not the first time a national security adviser, or a former one, would have appeared before committee. In 2010, the same committee, despite the heckling, had a report on comments made in the media by Mr. Richard Fadden. He came before committee, clarified remarks, and then a report came out. It is not that complicated.

I know there are concerns about what it means for issues of national security. The member has quite eloquently pointed out the ability to go in camera and things like that. To just talk about the lack of respect for public servants is ludicrous.

I sit on that committee. This morning, who did we have? We had representatives from CSC and the Canadian Armed Forces. Two weeks ago, when the Minister of Public Safety was there, we had the deputy minister, folks from the RCMP, and folks from CSIS. This is a regularly occurring thing.

Certainly, if there is any kind of sensitivity, we can trust the judgment of parliamentarians to know when we need to take these things in camera, when there are questions that need to be asked.

[Privacy, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, recent scandals, such as those connected to Facebook and Equifax, have shown that the public's personal information is increasingly at risk. We are calling on the federal government to take action. However, we have to wonder whether this government is in a position to do anything, since this government itself is a sieve. Canada Post misplaced passports, Revenue Canada lost personal information, and the CSE lost confidential information.

When will the Liberals take real action to protect Canadians' privacy?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and I am pleased to support his efforts to have Mr. Jean appear before the committee, especially in this difficult situation. The Liberals do not want us to have the same briefing as the media. That is the difference. No matter one's views or party allegiance, the fact remains that the Liberals' conduct on this trip raised questions. I believe that at a bare minimum we should have the opportunity to hear from an expert who will explain how he arrived at his conclusions. I realize that we must always be prudent and careful when hearing from people who work on national security in a public forum. However, I believe that information has already been provided to the public by the media. There is nothing more public than that.

I would like to ask my colleague why he believes that the Liberals do not even want to debate the motion. In committee, they did not defeat the motion, they chose to adjourn the debate. They do not even want to talk about it. Why does he think that this is the case?

[Privacy, March 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that not only does the government not care that Facebook does not pay its fair share of taxes, but it does not seem to care if Facebook is stealing Canadians' personal information either. There is no accountability.

People all around the world and in Canada are deeply concerned about Cambridge Analytica's use of personal data from millions of Facebook users. They fear that their personal information is being used to undermine our democracy. However, it is not just elections that are being targeted. Privacy breaches adversely affect many aspects of our lives.

When will we have legislation to legally and financially punish the offending companies?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is interesting because he was talking about the pay centre that is in his riding, if I understood correctly.

Through an access to information request, we obtained the minutes of a teleconference meeting that took place in December 2015, after the Liberals took office. One of the issues raised during that meeting was the lack of resources at the pay centre, as well as the team's morale, which was already greatly affected by certain problems.

Is my colleague not aware that it was the Liberals and not the Conservatives who made this major change? There has been talk of a time bomb, but I would venture to say that the Liberals are the ones who lit the fuse.

Does my colleague not think that it is problematic that these same public servants in his riding are now suffering the consequences of a decision that was made by the government led by his party?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour for her speech. One of our biggest concerns as members of Parliament is the way in which cases are resolved. It is a question that has been raised a number of times today. There has been a lot of talk in the House about all the measures that were put in place to help members help their constituents with specific cases. Unfortunately, in actual fact, all the resources that were said to have been put in place do not amount to much. For example, in my riding, people whose cases were particularly sensitive were directed to a hotline. These are people at risk of losing their house, for example, and they are not alone of course. They got no help in the end.

All members, regardless of their political stripe, are dealing with similar cases. I would like to hear how my colleague reconciles the government's claims of the resources in place with what is really going on, given that these files remain in limbo.