Résumé de la séance
- Le thème dominant de la séance était le rapport du commissaire à la vie privée critiquant la collecte par DRHC d'une base de données personnelles complète — le Fichier longitudinal sur la population active — couvrant tous les Canadiens, les partis d'opposition pressant la ministre Jane Stewart sur les failles de sécurité révélées par des vérifications internes.
- Plusieurs vérifications internes obtenues par des députés d'opposition ont révélé des faiblesses en matière de sécurité informatique à DRHC, notamment des pratiques de sécurité incohérentes, des employés emportant des ordinateurs portables chez eux, des disques durs non effacés avant élimination et un personnel ignorant les politiques de sécurité informatique.
- Le député néo-démocrate Bill Blaikie a orienté le débat vers la lacune législative plus large, obtenant de la ministre de la Justice Anne McLellan l'engagement que la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels serait révisée à la lumière des nouvelles technologies et des recommandations du commissaire à la vie privée.
- L'affaire CINAR a été soulevée par des députés bloquistes qui ont demandé pourquoi le ministre du Revenu national invoquait la confidentialité pour refuser des renseignements à la GRC sur CINAR tout en partageant simultanément des données fiscales et de revenus avec DRHC.
- Le leader parlementaire du Bloc, Michel Gauthier, a soulevé un rappel au Règlement concernant le fait que le Bloc perdait régulièrement des périodes de questions en raison du désordre causé en grande partie par les interruptions du côté gouvernemental; le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre, Don Boudria, a reconnu le problème et présenté des excuses.
- La ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration Elinor Caplan a rapporté que près de 100 ressortissants chinois avaient été renvoyés en Chine à la suite de pourparlers bilatéraux, et la secrétaire d'État Hedy Fry a annoncé une nouvelle infraction de trafic assortie de peines pouvant aller jusqu'à 1 million de dollars ou l'emprisonnement à vie.
La ministre de la Justice Anne McLellan a pris un engagement public concret de réviser la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, reconnaissant qu'elle existait depuis longtemps et que les nouvelles technologies rendaient une révision nécessaire — le premier engagement de politique de fond à émerger du long débat de la séance sur la vie privée à DRHC.
Crête quotes the commissioner's report directly using the phrase comprehensive, permanent and, to all intents, invisible citizen profile, cites a specific September 1998 recommendation the minister refused, and asks her to justify that refusal.
Confrontée à une constatation de vérification interne indiquant que des employés de DRHC emportaient régulièrement chez eux des ordinateurs portables contenant des renseignements personnels, Stewart a complètement esquivé la question en faisant remarquer que le député «used to be a Tory» et faisait probablement partie du gouvernement qui avait créé le système, sans aborder du tout la préoccupation de sécurité.
Questions sans réponse
- Deborah Grey a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement estime nécessaire de collecter des renseignements fiscaux et d'emploi, des détails de voyage, des renseignements sur l'immigration et l'ethnicité, des renseignements sur les familles, les handicaps, les habitudes de déménagement et l'éducation de 33 millions de Canadiens — l'objectif fondamental de la base de données n'a jamais été expliqué.
- Gilles Duceppe a demandé pourquoi le premier ministre n'avait pris aucune mesure pendant deux ans après avoir été informé par le commissaire à la vie privée que la pratique de collecte de données de DRHC posait problème — aucune réponse directe n'a été donnée concernant cette inaction de deux ans.
- Diane Ablonczy a demandé si la ministre mettrait immédiatement fin à la pratique de partage de renseignements personnels sur les Canadiens sans leur consentement — la ministre a dit que les renseignements ne sont utilisés qu'à des fins de recherche et ne seront pas vendus, mais n'a pas répondu à la question du consentement.
- Stéphane Bergeron a demandé si le ministre du Revenu national avait été informé par le commissaire à la vie privée que le transfert par son ministère de renseignements T1 et T4 à DRHC était, à tout le moins, inapproprié — le ministre a nié tout acte répréhensible mais n'a pas confirmé ni infirmé si le commissaire l'avait contacté.
- Jim Abbott a demandé quelles mesures concrètes le solliciteur général prenait pour découvrir et contrer les allégations d'influence du crime organisé par le biais de dons politiques — la réponse a abordé les mesures générales de lutte contre le crime organisé et les règles de financement politique sans traiter les allégations spécifiques liées à l'opération Sidewinder.
Grey remet en question la nécessité pour le gouvernement de collecter des informations sensibles sur 33 millions de Canadiens, notamment fiscales, d'immigration et de handicap, sous la responsabilité d'une ministre qu'elle qualifie de incompétente.
The question lists categories of data collected but is primarily rhetorical framing around the minister's reputation, and is cut off before a clear ask is made.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister most famous for mismanagement and bungling is collecting sensitive information on 33 million Canadians. Tax and employment information, travel details, immigration and ethnicity details, information on families, disabilities, moving patterns and education are now under the control of the biggest bungler in this government. Why does the government think that it needs to—
Oh, oh.
Stewart cite le commissaire à la vie privée affirmant que le ministère avait de bonnes raisons pour cette collecte, qu'aucune illégalité n'a eu lieu et que le dossier fait l'objet d'une gestion très responsable.
The minister quotes the privacy commissioner directly to counter the framing, which is relevant, but does not address the substantive concern about data collection scope.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here again we have that party trying to scare Canadians. Let us look at what the privacy commissioner actually did say about the department, and I quote: I don't question that they had, and they have, good reasons for doing this and that it is useful information in terms of improving the quality of their programs. I am not suggesting either that they've done anything unlawful here. They are complying with the strict letter of the law.... The commissioner goes on to note “the very responsible management that this file is getting right now”.
Grey cite un audit interne de septembre 1999 sur la sécurité des technologies de l'information qui conclut que les connaissances du personnel en matière de normes de sécurité informatique doivent être améliorées, et demande à la ministre de se justifier.
Grey cites a specific internal audit from September 1999 on IT security and quotes its finding that personnel knowledge of IT security standards and practices needs improvement, making a clear and grounded accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us look at some irresponsible management. I have just uncovered another internal audit on the assessment of information technology security which was brought forward in September 1999. It is about information technology. The audit states: Since few people know of the existence of the IT security policies and procedures, personnel knowledge of IT security standards and practices needs improvement. This is the minister's own department. Could she stand up and defend the fact that her own department does not even need to know what it is doing in terms of information technology security?
Stewart défend l'utilisation des vérifications internes comme outils d'amélioration continue et retourne la question à l'opposition, demandant si elle préférerait que le ministère ne se vérifie pas lui-même.
Stewart defends the practice of internal auditing in general but does not address the specific finding about poor personnel knowledge of IT security standards cited in the audit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what I will stand up and defend is the fact that my department does internal audits and that these audits are very useful tools in helping us to continuously improve the operation of the programs in my department. Is she suggesting that we should not be looking at ourselves or that we should not be challenging ourselves to get better? Is that what the hon. member would like?
Grey cite la constatation de l'audit selon laquelle des copies papier des documents liés à la sécurité informatique sont distribuées régulièrement, mais que les connaissances du personnel ne sont pas bonnes, et exige que la ministre reconnaisse le désordre sous sa gouverne.
Grey quotes again from the audit document about hard copies of IT security documents being distributed while personnel knowledge is not good, but frames the ask as a rhetorical ultimatum rather than a specific accountability question.
Texte source
No. Mr. Speaker. What we would like is for the department to do the job that it was hired to do and not be so involved with political manipulation from the top. The minister needs to come forward with ministerial responsibility and accountability. I will again quote from the document: Additionally, hard copies of IT security-related documents are regularly distributed to HRDC personnel, however, their knowledge level of IT security policies and procedures is not good. Either this minister takes responsibility or she does not. Will she stand in her place today and say that things are a mess under her watch?
Stewart affirme qu'elle assume ses responsabilités, invoque cinq mois de surveillance comme preuve et réitère que le ministère utilise les vérifications pour identifier et apporter des améliorations.
Stewart asserts she takes her job responsibly and points to the department's use of audits for improvement, but does not address the specific finding about poor IT security knowledge among personnel.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will stand in my place today and say that I do take my job responsibly. If nothing else, the last five months in this House prove that. I want to remind the hon. member again that it is a department that is continuously looking at itself, using audits to identify areas where we can make improvements and it is a department that makes changes to improve the services that we provide to Canadians.
Ablonczy cite les propres vérifications ministérielles faisant état de mesures de sécurité incohérentes et de risques non traités, et demande pourquoi la ministre n'est pas préoccupée.
Ablonczy references the minister's own departmental audits citing inconsistent security measures and security risks not being appropriately addressed, giving some factual grounding, though the ask is broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty scary when a minister who has the most private information about each and every one of us says that we need to make improvements in the security arrangements with which we handle this information. This is our life. This is information about every single Canadian and the minister—
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, the minister's own departmental audits talk about inconsistent security measures and security risks not being appropriately addressed. We have a minister that cannot keep personal information secure. Why is the minister not concerned?
Hear, hear.
Stewart cite le commissaire à la vie privée qui loue le personnel motivé de DRHC, confirme que l'information est chiffrée et sécurisée, et note que le sous-ministre a écrit au commissaire en mars pour l'inviter à rejoindre un groupe de travail sur la protection de la vie privée.
Stewart quotes the privacy commissioner praising HRDC staff as well motivated and careful, and confirms encryption and security measures, as well as the March invitation to the commissioner to join a working group — partially responsive.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the context of this issue, let us again look at what the privacy commissioner said about the men and women in my department. He said “We have over at HRDC right now some very well motivated public servants who are being very careful”. He understands that the men and women in my department appreciate the issue of privacy. I want to confirm to the House that indeed we are ensuring that the information we use is encrypted, that it is secure. I would note that in March a deputy of my department wrote to the privacy commissioner and asked him to join us in a working group to ensure that we continue to provide privacy into the future.
Ablonczy énumère le contenu de la base de données et soulève le risque d'abus par des criminels en raison d'une sécurité déficiente, demandant à la ministre de cesser immédiatement le partage d'informations privées sans le consentement des Canadiens.
Ablonczy enumerates specific data categories in the database — address, income, employment history, marital status, living arrangements and health history — and poses a concrete ask about ending the sharing of private information without permission.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what the privacy commissioner did was ring some very loud alarm bells and Canadians are listening. I hope the minister is. The minister's database contains the address, income, employment history, marital status, living arrangements and health history of every single Canadian. In the hands of private business such information could keep someone from getting insurance or a job. Imagine this information in the hands of criminals because of lax security. Will the minister immediately end her practice of sharing private information about Canadians without their permission?
Stewart accuse la députée d'essayer d'effrayer les Canadiens et affirme seulement que l'information est utilisée à des fins de recherche et ne sera pas vendue.
Stewart dismisses the question as trying to scare Canadians and says only that the information is used for research and will not be sold, not addressing the practice of sharing without permission.
Texte source
Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing nothing but trying to scare Canadians. This information is used only for research. It will not be sold.
Duceppe cite le dernier rapport du commissaire à la vie privée selon lequel DRHC détient des profils complets sur des milliers de Canadiens et se préoccupe davantage de la sécurité que de la vie privée individuelle, et demande au Premier ministre pourquoi un tel fichier a été créé.
Duceppe references the privacy commissioner's latest report, notes the specific concern that HRDC prioritizes security of collected information over individual privacy, and asks a clear if broad question about why the file was created.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have learned some troubling things from the privacy commissioner's latest report, which says that HRDC has thousands of pieces of information on thousands of people. The commissioner points out that HRDC is more concerned about protecting the security of the information collected than the privacy of individual citizens. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why this file was created. Why is there such a file?
Chrétien affirme que le commissaire a identifié un problème et est prêt à en discuter, note que le ministère détient ces informations depuis longtemps avant le gouvernement actuel, et que des discussions avec le commissaire ont débuté en mars.
Chrétien acknowledges the commissioner identified a problem and notes March discussions between the department and the commissioner, but does not explain why the file was created as asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think that if one reads the commissioner's entire report, one will see that he says clearly that he thinks there is a problem there. He is ready to discuss it. Everyone knows that the department has had this information for a long time, since well before we took office. It is a question of information. My information is to the effect that, as early as March, the department and the privacy commissioner began discussions with a view to taking the necessary action to prevent any abuses with respect to this file.
Duceppe souligne que l'alarme sur la vie privée a été sonnée il y a deux ans et demande au Premier ministre pourquoi il n'a pris aucune décision et a laissé la situation se poursuivre pendant deux ans.
Duceppe presses on the specific timeline — that the alarm was sounded two years ago — and asks why the Prime Minister took no action for two years after knowing about the file and its potential problems.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, unlike the minister responsible, the Prime Minister admits that there is a problem. That is already something. What I do not understand is that the alarm was sounded two years ago. Through the privacy commissioner, the government has known that there was a problem for two years now. How could the Prime Minister stand by and do nothing when he has known about the existence of such a file, with the potential problems, for two years? Why did he sit tight, take no decision and allow such a state of affairs to continue? Could I hear from the Prime Minister on this?
Chrétien affirme que le commissaire a vu un certain problème, a contacté le ministère en mars, et a noté que le ministère respectait la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada, sans expliquer l'inaction de deux ans.
Chrétien restates what the commissioner said about compliance with the Parliament of Canada Act and notes the March contact, but does not explain why no action was taken for two years.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member read the entire report, all that the commissioner said was that he saw a certain problem. He said he had already got in touch with the department in March in an attempt to resolve the situation. He said he fully realized that the department has to have this sort of data, that in general the department and the other departments involved complied with the Parliament of Canada Act.
Crête cite la description du commissaire du fichier de DRHC comme un profil complet, permanent et, à toutes fins pratiques, invisible du citoyen, note que la ministre n'a pas accepté les recommandations du commissaire de septembre 1998, et lui demande de justifier ce refus.
Crête quotes the commissioner's report directly using the phrase comprehensive, permanent and, to all intents, invisible citizen profile, cites a specific September 1998 recommendation the minister refused, and asks her to justify that refusal.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner also said, and I quote his report, that “Human Resources Development Canada had a comprehensive, permanent and, to all intents, invisible citizen profile” although the commissioner had already made recommendations to the minister in September 1998, which the minister did not accept. Given that the commissioner considered the responses of the minister unsatisfactory, how can she justify her refusal to take the commissioner's recommendations into account?
Stewart affirme que le ministère a donné suite aux recommandations du commissaire, confirme que l'information est chiffrée avec accès limité à six employés, précise que la gestion des données dans un délai défini a été mise en œuvre, et mentionne la lettre du sous-ministre en mars invitant le commissaire à un groupe de travail.
Stewart lists specific actions taken — encryption, access limited to six employees, time-limited data management — and references the working group invitation, partially addressing the accusation of non-compliance with recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have taken action with regard to the commissioner's recommendations. It is very important to note that the information is secure, it is encrypted and access to data that is not encrypted is available to only six employees in the department. I would also note that the commissioner recommended that the information contained in these files should be managed within a contained timeframe, and we have done that. I also remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister said that the deputy wrote to the privacy commissioner in March and asked him to join us in a working group to ensure that in the future we will continue to improve the privacy of this information for the protection—
Crête demande si la ministre accepte l'interprétation de son ministère de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, que le commissaire à la vie privée juge erronée.
Crête poses a pointed yes/no question about whether the minister accepts her department's interpretation of the Privacy Act, which the privacy commissioner found to be wrong — a clear accountability question grounded in a regulatory disagreement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Minister of Human Resources Development is accepting her department's interpretation of the Privacy Act, an interpretation that is wrong according to the privacy commissioner?
Stewart affirme que le député confond les faits, soutient que le commissaire à la vie privée a confirmé que le ministère respecte la loi et qu'aucune illégalité n'existe, et dit que le ministère souhaite travailler avec le commissaire sur l'administration continue.
Stewart asserts the department is working within the law and that the commissioner confirmed nothing illegal occurred, but does not directly address whether she accepts her department's interpretation as distinct from the commissioner's.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again, we have an hon. member confusing the facts. The privacy commissioner made it very clear that we are working within the law. There is nothing illegal here. We are complying with the law. The issues of privacy are tremendously important to Canadians, particularly these days with changing technology. That is why we are working and want to work with him to ensure that in the ongoing processes we have an administration in place that makes sense to him and to Canadians.
McDonough note que les voitures peuvent être financées à 1,3 % et les meubles à 0 %, et demande pourquoi le gouvernement a fixé le coût de l'éducation à taux préférentiel plus 2,5 %.
McDonough poses a specific contrast — 1.3% financing for cars versus prime plus 2.5% for student loans — grounding the question in concrete numbers, though it is cut off before fully articulating the ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who perhaps shares some of our concerns about the adverse impacts of higher interest rates, for example, on students who were forced to take out huge loans to pursue the education they need in the 21st century. When Canadians can buy a car with 1.3% financing or a chesterfield with 0% financing, why has the government fixed the cost of education at prime plus 2.5%, which today means—
Martin cite la contribution de 7,5 milliards de dollars à l'éducation du budget de 1998, la création de 2 000 chaires de recherche, le relèvement de l'exemption fiscale sur les bourses de 500 $ à 3 000 $, et un programme de gestion des prêts étudiants, sans aborder la comparaison des taux d'intérêt.
Martin lists education budget measures — the $7.5 billion contribution, 2,000 research chairs, and raising the scholarship tax exemption from $500 to $3,000 — but does not address the specific interest rate comparison raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me answer, at least in the time permitted, the first part of the question in terms of students. The hon. member will know that in the 1998 budget we brought down a $7.5 billion contribution to education, including loans to students. In the most recent budget, there was not only the creation of 2,000 research chairs, but we lifted the exemption on scholarships from taxation from $500 to $3,000. We have brought in a program that will enable students to handle their loans. In other words, the focus on education has been very important for this government in order to help students—
McDonough affirme que pour chaque dollar de nouvelles initiatives éducatives, le gouvernement a réduit de 2 $ les dépenses d'enseignement postsecondaire, que les dettes étudiantes ont plus que triplé, et demande pourquoi le Canada hypothèque l'avenir de nos enfants.
McDonough asserts that for every dollar in new educational initiatives the government slashed $2 from post-secondary education and that student debtloads have more than tripled, but does not provide a source and the ask is rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us talk reality. The reality is that for every dollar in new educational initiatives, this government has slashed $2 from the post-secondary education system, with the result that student debtloads have more than tripled. Other governments around the world are increasing their investments in education. Why is Canada mortgaging our children's future?
Martin affirme que la prémisse est tout simplement fausse, soutient que le gouvernement a augmenté les transferts aux provinces chaque année pendant les quatre dernières années, et demande aux provinces d'investir davantage dans l'éducation.
Martin flatly calls the premise bunk and claims increased transfers to provinces every year for four years, but provides no specific numbers to rebut her figures and deflects to the provinces.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is simply bunk. The fact is that since this government took office we have put more money into helping students finance their education and more into ensuring that post-secondary educational institutions have the labs and facilities in which to do it. We have increased the transfers to the provinces every single year for the last four years. I would certainly stand in this House and ask the provinces to continue to put more money into education and to join with the federal government in a partnership to help us build the strongest economy that we have ever seen.
MacKay cite le rapport du commissaire sur la collecte massive d'informations personnelles par DRHC sur un ordinateur central, et demande comment les Canadiens peuvent faire confiance à la ministre avec leurs informations les plus personnelles étant donné son bilan d'incompétence.
MacKay lists data categories in the HRDC database and references the minister's record on mismanagement of over a billion dollars, but the ask is primarily a rhetorical trust question rather than a specific accountability demand.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the leadership race has begun. The privacy commissioner's report highlights that HRDC has been collecting massive amounts of personal information on millions of Canadians, including but not limited to tax information, marital status, employment and social history. One concern is that the information is available on one central computer. Canadians have borne witness to the HRD minister's mismanagement of over a billion dollars. With this record of bungling, how can Canadians trust the minister to protect their most personal of information?
Stewart affirme que la question est confuse car le processus a débuté en 1985 sous le gouvernement de ce député, et sous-entend que l'opposition fait preuve d'hypocrisie.
Stewart deflects entirely by noting the process began in 1985 under the member's own party's government, turning the question back without addressing the current security concerns.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I find it a very confusing question because it was indeed in 1985 when this process was begun. It was under that member's government that this undertaking began. Is he saying now that it is not the right thing to do?
MacKay accuse la ministre de minimiser le problème comme elle l'a fait avec la mauvaise gestion des fonds de DRHC, note que le commissaire à la vie privée a formulé plusieurs recommandations très précises, et demande si elle acceptera de les mettre en œuvre immédiatement.
MacKay references the privacy commissioner's several very pointed recommendations and asks the minister for a concrete commitment to implement them immediately, making a specific and answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, throughout this process what is encryptic is the minister's constant responses. As she did with the mismanagement of the HRDC funding, the minister is trying to minimize the magnitude of the issue. However the privacy commissioner has raised the alarm and made several very pointed recommendations. The HRDC information has to be secure to ensure Canadians' personal information is not misused. Will the minister agree to implement these recommendations immediately?
Oh, oh.
Stewart affirme que la protection de la vie privée est une priorité, dit que le commissaire a reconnu que l'information est maintenant bien protégée et chiffrée, et note que les préoccupations futures du commissaire justifient la création d'un groupe de travail avec son bureau.
Stewart confirms that privacy is a priority and that the commissioner recognized information is now securely protected and encrypted, and references the working group proposal for future concerns — partially addressing the ask without committing to implementing all recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to say first and foremost that the issue of privacy when it comes to the information of Canadians is—
Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm again that the issue of privacy when it comes to information with regard to individual Canadians is a priority for this government. I want to make it clear that the privacy commissioner recognized that the information is now securely protected. It is encrypted. I want to draw attention to the fact that the privacy commissioner is more concerned about what may happen in the future. In that regard that is why we think it would be important to have a working group between my office and his to deal with those issues.
Kenney cite un audit interne obtenu par accès à l'information montrant qu'une défaillance du système permet à l'utilisateur de compromettre leur système et/ou de se livrer à des activités frauduleuses, et demande quelle assurance la ministre peut donner que le système protégera la confidentialité.
Kenney cites a specific access to information document revealing an internal audit finding that a system breakdown allows the user to compromise their system and/or engage in fraudulent activities, and asks for a concrete assurance about confidentiality protection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again we hear from the HRD minister all sorts of happy talk about the systematic compromise of Canadians' private information. We have just received an access to information request from the department on an internal audit of HRD which says that because of a breakdown in its system it allows the user to compromise their system and/or engage in fraudulent activities. This is what an internal audit in her own department shows. What assurance can she give Canadians that the system is going to protect confidentiality?
Stewart affirme que le ministère a pris des mesures à la suite de cet audit précis, en mentionnant l'identification de coordonnateurs régionaux de la sécurité informatique, la formalisation des mécanismes de communication et l'intégration de la structure de sécurité informatique dans tous les programmes de sensibilisation à la sécurité.
Stewart directly references the specific audit, lists four concrete actions taken in response — regional IT security co-ordinators, formalized communications mechanisms, inclusion in security awareness programs — and frames it as the audit process working as intended.
Texte source
Because, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a particular audit to which the hon. member makes reference we have taken action. I would note that we have identified respective regional IT security co-ordinators and we have defined their mandate. I would note that we have formalized the communications mechanism across HRDC, so everyone knows how the information is to be managed. I would also note that we have included an IT security structure and organization in all our security awareness programs. We did an audit, we found shortcomings and we took action. That is how it is supposed to work.
Kenney cite la constatation de l'audit selon laquelle, d'après un administrateur de réseau, la principale façon d'apprendre les changements d'accès au réseau d'un employé est lors de sa fête de départ ou de promotion, et demande pourquoi des codes d'accès à des informations confidentielles sont distribués lors de fêtes de fonctionnaires.
Kenney quotes directly from the audit a network administrator's statement that the main method of finding out about changes to an employee's network access is at the employee's going away or promotion party, a vivid and specific finding demanding a direct response.
Texte source
That is just great, Mr. Speaker. But what the minister does not tell us is the audit says that according to one network administrator, the main method of finding out about changes to an employee's network access “is at the employee's going away or promotion party”. Unfortunately not all network administrators are invited to these parties, particularly in larger offices. Why is the government giving out access codes to confidential information for Canadians at bureaucrats' parties?
Stewart demande pourquoi l'opposition continue de regarder le passé et les rapports préliminaires plutôt que les mesures prises, et affirme que les Canadiens savent que ce parti restera dans le passé.
Stewart deflects entirely by accusing the opposition of looking at the past and draft reports rather than addressing the specific party-based access code disclosure described in the audit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would ask why is that party continuing to look at the past? I would point out that time and again that party decides to look at draft reports. It continues to look at old audits. It refuses to look at the actions that have been taken as a result of these tools to move us forward. It is very clear that party will just remain in the past, and Canadians know it.
Gauthier demande si la ministre peut sérieusement rassurer le public sur la protection de sa vie privée compte tenu du bilan du DRHC, et exige qu'elle cesse de collecter des documents personnels.
The question references the privacy commissioner's concerns and the HRDC scandal but the ask is vague and rhetorical ('can the public rest easy?') rather than a specific accountability demand.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in response to the serious concerns of the privacy commissioner, the Minister of Human Resources Development is saying that her department's laws, internal policies and professionalism are enough to protect personal information on the public. Do we laugh or cry at this? The minister responsible for the greatest administrative scandal ever to shake this government tells us to be calm. Can the minister tell us in all seriousness that the public can rest easy? Does she not understand that the Canadian public will rest easy only once she stops this hateful collecting of documents?
Stewart affirme que le commissaire à la vie privée ne demande pas l'arrêt de la collecte de données, que l'information est bien gérée et sécurisée par chiffrement, et s'engage à continuer de travailler avec le commissaire.
Stewart partially engages by noting the privacy commissioner is not calling for a halt and claims information is secure through encryption, but does not address the specific call to stop collecting documents.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would note that not even the privacy commissioner is asking us to stop collecting and using this information. I want to make it clear that I agree with the privacy commissioner that right now the information is being managed wisely and well. Through encryption and other mechanisms, the information is secure. I would also agree with the privacy commissioner that we have to be careful as we move forward into the future to ensure that we have appropriate mechanisms in place to make sure this information continues to be secure. We will do that.
Gauthier souligne que le gouvernement a été averti par le commissaire à la vie privée il y a deux ans et a signé des ententes avec huit provinces pour recueillir davantage de données, demandant quand la ministre mettra fin à cette collecte.
Gauthier cites a specific fact—two years' notice from the privacy commissioner and agreements with eight provinces—giving the question some grounding, but the ask remains a broad demand to stop data collection rather than a precise accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, two years have passed since the privacy commissioner informed the government that this practice made no sense. However, according to the rule that people are not guilty until they are caught, nothing happened, as usual in the other files. The minister signed agreements with eight provinces to obtain even more information on the citizens of Canada. That stopped with Quebec, it did not work with Quebec, because the law in Quebec does not permit this sort of data collection. When will the minister stop this data collection activity?
Stewart réitère que le commissaire à la vie privée ne dit pas que l'information ne devrait pas être recueillie, seulement qu'elle doit être protégée, et s'engage à poursuivre sa collaboration avec le commissaire.
Stewart again invokes the privacy commissioner's position on collection versus protection but does not address the two-year timeline, the provincial agreements, or the Quebec comparison raised by the questioner.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again I want to point out that the privacy commissioner is not saying the information should not be collected. What he is saying is that it should be collected in a fashion so that the information is protected. We are doing that now. We will continue to work with the privacy commissioner to make sure that into the future the same confidence that Canadians need to have in this process will be sustained.
Harris cite l'audit interne de 1999 de la ministre indiquant qu'aucun programme national formel de sensibilisation à la sécurité informatique n'avait été établi au DRHC, et commence à demander comment les Canadiens peuvent croire les assurances de la ministre.
Harris quotes directly from a 1999 internal audit stating 'currently a formal national information technology security awareness program has not been established within HRDC,' providing specific documentary grounding, though the question was cut off before the full ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister when confronted about constant problems in her ministry always says that they are taking steps and never mind what happened and the mismanagement that went on. We are not talking about an old internal audit; this was in 1999 and it says “currently a formal national information technology security awareness program has not been established within HRDC”. That is from the minister's own internal audit department. I have a simple question. How can Canadians possibly believe the assurances—
Stewart accuse le député de sélectivité, cite la conclusion du même audit selon laquelle les processus de sécurité informatique étaient satisfaisants selon l'évaluation de gestion des risques et conformes aux pratiques des institutions privées et fédérales, et affirme que le gouvernement assure une bonne administration.
Stewart accuses the member of taking things out of context and cites other portions of the audit showing satisfactory results, but does not address the specific finding quoted about the absence of a formal IT security awareness program.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again we see members of that party taking certain things out of context. They are very selective in the kinds of things that they report. Again when we are talking about this particular audit, we see that the survey says that our information technology security processes were satisfactory by the risk management assessment. It says that HRDC security processes were consistent with what private and federal institutions use. Those members do it over and over again. They try to scare Canadians when indeed what is happening here on this side of the House is that there is good administration, an administration that is committed—
Harris a fait une remarque désobligeante sur la réponse de la ministre et un commentaire sur les chiots ; aucune question n'a été posée.
Exchange 19 contains no substantive question, only a procedural disruption and a remark about puppies following a point of order.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if that was her final answer, she needs a lifeline perhaps from the lapdog who shares her desk.
Oh, oh.
First, Mr. Speaker, I actually like puppies.
Aucune réponse n'a été fournie.
No ministerial answer was given in this exchange.
Bergeron demande comment le ministre du Revenu national peut justifier le recours au secret absolu pour refuser à la GRC des renseignements sur l'affaire CINAR tout en fournissant simultanément au DRHC des données T1, T4 et sur la prestation fiscale pour enfants.
Bergeron identifies a specific contradiction—the minister citing confidentiality to refuse the RCMP while his department shared T1, T4, and child tax benefit information with HRDC—making this a pointed accountability question, though it blends two separate issues.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for weeks now the Minister of National Revenue has been using confidentiality as his justification for refusing to provide the RCMP with information on the CINAR affair. How could the Minister of National Revenue decently use the argument of absolute secrecy to justify his refusal to provide the RCMP with information on CINAR, when all this time his department was providing Human Resources Development Canada with T1 and T4 income information, as well as information on child tax benefits?
Cauchon refuse de commenter un cas précis, réaffirme la confidentialité comme pierre angulaire législative, et explique que le partage d'informations avec DRHC est effectué légalement en vertu de l'alinéa 24(1)c) pour des programmes gérés conjointement.
Cauchon explains the legal basis for sharing with HRDC under section 24(1)(c) and affirms confidentiality as a cornerstone, but does not address the contradiction between refusing the RCMP and sharing with HRDC.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself once again, part one of the answer is that I cannot comment on a specific case, as the hon. member of the opposition has just done. Part two is that I would like to tell the Canadian public that the element of confidentiality found in the legislation is a cornerstone, one we as a government are going to protect. Part three is that, in reference to sharing information with Human Resources Development Canada, this is done according to the act, section 24(1)(c) in particular, for programs we administer jointly with Human Resources Development Canada.
Bergeron demande si le ministre du Revenu national a été informé par le commissaire à la vie privée, comme l'a été sa collègue du DRHC, que le transfert d'informations par son ministère était au moins inapproprié.
Bergeron asks a specific yes/no question about whether the minister was informed by the privacy commissioner that his department's information transfers were inappropriate, grounding it in a parallel with HRDC.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, since the minister can never give an answer in this House and everything is done behind the scenes, can he tell us whether he has been informed by the privacy commissioner, as was his colleague at Human Resources Development Canada, that this transfer of information by his department was, at the very least, inappropriate?
Cauchon esquive en affirmant que l'échange d'informations ne peut être qualifié d'inapproprié puisqu'il est effectué en vertu de l'alinéa 214(1)c) pour des programmes gérés conjointement.
Cauchon does not answer whether he was informed by the privacy commissioner, instead asserting the transfers were lawful under section 214(1)(c), which deflects the specific question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not see how an exchange of information could be described as inappropriate when it is carried out in connection with programs jointly administered by Human Resources Development Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, particularly when this is all being done under section 214(1)(c) of the act.
Reynolds cite l'audit interne de la ministre indiquant que les disques durs du DRHC contenant des données sensibles ne sont pas effacés de façon uniforme avant leur élimination, et demande comment les Canadiens peuvent faire confiance à la ministre pour protéger leur vie privée.
Reynolds quotes directly from the minister's own internal audit finding that hard drive erasure is inconsistently practised within HRDC, providing strong documentary grounding for a clear accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here is another quote from the minister's own internal audit: There is no assurance that all hard drives are erased of potentially sensitive HRDC data prior to disposal since the cleaning process is inconsistently practised within HRDC. The privacy commissioner is concerned. Canadians are concerned. How can Canadians trust the minister to protect their privacy when she is so unconcerned about what is happening in her own department?
Stewart rejette les commentaires du député, énumère les améliorations apportées à la connaissance des politiques de sécurité informatique du personnel et les plans annuels de sécurité opérationnelle, et préconise de travailler avec le commissaire à la vie privée.
Stewart rejects the characterization and lists general IT security improvements being made but does not address the specific finding about inconsistent hard-drive erasure practices cited in the audit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I reject outright the commentary of the hon. member opposite. I would draw attention to some of the other things we are doing as a result of the internal audit, the survey of the department, with regard to information technology. Aside from the things I have already mentioned in the House, we have also improved staff knowledge of IT security policies and procedures. We are preparing annual operational security plans which will ensure that staff are aware of security and the current year's initiatives on IT security. A number of things are being implemented in this very important and new territory in development. In the context of the work of the privacy commissioner, I want to say to the hon. member that surely the right thing to do is to work with him and to look at aspects of privacy in the context of these particular issues so that in the future the good service we provide to Canadians can be continued.
Reynolds cite l'audit interne indiquant qu'il n'est pas rare que des employés gardent chez eux des ordinateurs portables du DRHC contenant des informations personnelles, et demande comment la ministre peut garantir la sécurité dans ces conditions.
Reynolds quotes another specific passage from the internal audit about HRDC laptops being kept at employees' residences, presenting a clear and factually grounded question about security assurances.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to make out like it is old news. We have the freedom of information available to us today. The privacy commissioner brought his information out yesterday. Let me give another quote from her own internal audit: It is not unusual for employees to have in their possession an HRDC laptop, desktop or other IT equipment located at the employee's residence. A laptop is in their own residences. That is a quote from her own internal audit. How can the minister assure security when the personal information of Canadians is being taken home every night from their place of business?
Oh, oh.
Good.
Stewart note que des vérifications sont effectuées et que des mesures sont prises, puis s'en prend au député pour son passé de conservateur, laissant entendre que son parti est à l'origine du problème.
Stewart's answer pivots entirely to attacking the member's past as a Tory and making a partisan attribution, providing no substantive response to the laptop security concern raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to convey to the House that we do audits. We do take action as I have shown. In the context of the files we are talking about here, the work of the privacy commissioner, I would point out that the hon. member used to be a Tory. I suspect he was part of the government that put this all together in the first place.
Picard demande comment on peut faire confiance à la ministre pour gérer la vaste banque de données personnelles du DRHC alors qu'elle est incapable de produire les factures Placeteco, établissant un lien entre les défaillances de gestion des données et le scandale des subventions.
Picard juxtaposes HRDC's massive personal data holdings with the Placeteco invoice scandal to question the minister's trustworthiness, but the ask is compound and partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has the most complete file of personal data in Canada. She says that we can trust her because of the professionalism of her employees and her department's internal policies. How can we trust a minister who is unable to produce the Placeteco invoices? How can she be trusted to properly manage a data bank such as the one at her disposal, when she is not even able to manage her grant files?
Stewart dit seulement que la députée a tort et que même le commissaire à la vie privée confirme que l'information est sécurisée.
Stewart's one-sentence answer dismisses the member as wrong and simply invokes the privacy commissioner's statement, failing entirely to address the Placeteco comparison or the specific trust question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. Even the privacy commissioner says that the information is being secured.
Leung demande à la ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration comment ses entretiens bilatéraux avec la Chine aideront le Canada à lutter contre les migrants illégaux en provenance de Chine à l'avenir.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to describe positive outcomes from her own bilateral trip to China, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Two weeks ago you returned from bilateral talks on immigration with the Chinese government. Could the minister tell the House how your trip to China will help Canada to combat future unlawful migrants from China?
Caplan signale que près de 100 ressortissants chinois arrivés au Canada ont été renvoyés en Chine après un processus régulier, et décrit un cadre de coopération Canada-Chine pour prévenir la traite des personnes par les passeurs.
Caplan provides specific information about outcomes: nearly 100 Chinese nationals returned to China following due process, and describes the cooperative framework with China to combat human trafficking.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. In fact the level of co-operation as a result of my meeting with senior Chinese officials, I must say, has resulted in the return to China of almost 100 Chinese nationals who arrived in Canada, received due process and were ready to return home. As a result of these initiatives to prevent, to interdict, and to ensure due process and timely return, Canada and China together will make sure that those who would traffic in human lives, the snake heads, do not succeed. We understand that it is important to work together co-operatively to achieve that end. I believe that is good for Canada and good for China.
Abbott fait référence à un reportage de CJOH sur l'enquête Sidewinder alléguant que le crime organisé et les triades chinoises ont fait des dons politiques à des politiciens et partis influents, et demande quelles mesures précises le solliciteur général a prises pour protéger les Canadiens et les partis politiques du crime organisé.
Abbott cites a specific news story (CJOH's Sidewinder report) and raises concrete allegations about political donations from organized crime, but the ask is broad and compound rather than focused on a single answerable commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last night Charlie Greenwell at CJOH news in Ottawa ran a story on Sidewinder, the investigation into the organized crime and Chinese triads influence in Canada. What was new were amazing allegations of political donations made to politicians and political parties which have great influence in Canada. What specific steps has the solicitor general or his department taken to protect Canadians and all political parties from the scourge of organized crime?
MacAulay cite 13 unités de produits de la criminalité établies partout au pays et déclare que l'enquête Sidewinder a été menée à terme, sans aborder les allégations de dons politiques.
MacAulay lists 13 proceeds of crime units and notes the Sidewinder investigation was completed, but does not address the specific allegations about political donations or what steps protect political parties from organized crime influence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be a wide open question if the hon. member were asking me what we have done to combat organized crime. For example, 13 proceeds of crime units have been established across the country to make sure the profit was taken out of organized crime. I understand the Attorney General of Ontario caught up to this too, yesterday. On the Sidewinder investigation, the investigation was done and it was completed.
Abbott cite des allégations du Vancouver Province selon lesquelles un ancien premier ministre, son adjoint, un ancien premier ministre provincial et des ministres libéraux ont reçu des dons politiques de la mafia russe, et demande quelles mesures précises le solliciteur général prend pour dévoiler ce problème.
Abbott escalates with specific allegations from the Vancouver Province about a former prime minister, his deputy, a former premier, and frontbench Liberal ministers receiving donations from the Russian Mafia, giving the question some factual grounding, but the ask remains broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is a very shallow answer from the minister. This has to do with the very core of democracy in Canada. These allegations of political influence by organized crime are unbelievably serious. In the Vancouver Province story on the same issue it is alleged that a former prime minister, his deputy and a former premier also received donations. There were recent revelations that the Liberal Party and some of the frontbench ministers received political donations from the Russian Mafia, which just shows how far this problem has gone. I want to know what specific steps the solicitor general is undertaking to uncover this problem,
Oh, oh.
Boudria répond en expliquant que les contributions politiques aux partis enregistrés doivent provenir de sources canadiennes et être rendues publiques, et accuse l'Alliance d'avoir voté contre les exigences de divulgation du financement par des tiers.
Boudria deflects entirely to a discussion of public disclosure rules for registered party contributions and attacks the Alliance for voting against third-party financing disclosure, not addressing the organized crime allegations at all.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, political contributions to registered political parties in Canada have to be made from Canadian sources and have to become public. Only third party financing in Canada is not subjected to that law. We put it in our bill and the member across and his party voted against making that a public declaration.
Blaikie demande quel ministre est responsable de répondre à l'appel du commissaire à la vie privée pour une mise à jour de la loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, soutenant que c'est le véritable enjeu au-delà du débat quotidien sur les opérations du DRHC.
Blaikie identifies a specific gap—that the privacy commissioner called for an updating of privacy law, not just operational compliance—and asks what the government will do about it, making this a substantive policy question with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government. The Minister of Human Resources Development would have been better to have acknowledged not just that the privacy commissioner said they were operating within the law but also that it might say something about the law. That is what the privacy commissioner said, and he called for an updating of the law. I want to ask whichever minister is responsible, trying to get out of this daily cat fight between the minister and her detractors, what the government will do about the call by the privacy commissioner for an updating of privacy law in the country. That is the real issue here and we need a response from the government on the particular issue.
McLellan affirme que le gouvernement prend au sérieux les recommandations du commissaire à la vie privée et reconnaît que la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, en vigueur depuis un certain temps, mérite probablement d'être révisée à la lumière des nouvelles technologies.
McLellan acknowledges the Privacy Act may need reviewing given new technology and commits to that review, engaging the substance of the ask, though without a timeline or specific commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we take the recommendations of the privacy commissioner very seriously. In fact my colleagues and I understand that the Privacy Act, as it exists, has been in existence for some time. With the advent of new technology indeed it probably is time to review the existing Privacy Act.
Blaikie demande à la ministre de la Justice de s'engager à faire de la mise à jour de la loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur public une priorité absolue du gouvernement, notant que la législation sur la vie privée dans le secteur privé a déjà été mise à jour par le Parlement.
Blaikie presses for a specific commitment that reviewing public-sector privacy legislation will be a top government priority, drawing a parallel with the recently passed private-sector Bill C-6, making this a reasonably focused follow-up.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at least the minister did not say in a timely fashion, which we often hear. Will the Minister of Justice do this in a timely fashion? Will she commit to the House that they will do what they have already been done in the private sector? We just passed laws in the House updating privacy legislation with respect to the private sector. We now need it to happen in the public sector. Can we have a commitment from the minister or the Prime Minister that this will be a top priority of the government and that it will happen soon?
McLellan réitère l'engagement du gouvernement envers la vie privée, fait l'éloge du projet de loi C-6, et s'engage à réviser la législation existante sur la protection des renseignements personnels « en temps opportun » sans préciser d'échéancier ni confirmer qu'il s'agit d'une priorité absolue.
McLellan reassures the member the government takes privacy seriously, commends the work on Bill C-6, and commits to reviewing existing privacy legislation 'in a timely fashion'—the very phrase Blaikie pre-emptively mocked—without offering a concrete timeline or priority commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that we take the privacy of all Canadians very seriously. I am glad the member has commended my colleague, the Minister of Industry, for the very fine work he did on Bill C-6. Let me reiterate that we on this side of the House take privacy concerns very seriously. We will review the existing privacy legislation in a timely fashion.
Dubé cite le rapport du commissaire à la vie privée identifiant le Fichier longitudinal sur la main-d'œuvre détenu par le DRHC comme une menace à la vie privée, et demande si la ministre prendra des mesures concrètes pour protéger la vie privée des Canadiens.
Dubé cites the privacy commissioner's specific concern about the Longitudinal Labour Force File as a threat to privacy, grounding the question in a named document, but ends with a partisan jab about 'another mafia boy' that undermines its accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner's report is alarming. The commissioner reports that the sole file on each and every Canadian citizen is in fact held by HRDC. This file is known as the Longitudinal Labour Force File. The commissioner feels that this file represents a threat to privacy. Does the minister intend to take any concrete action to protect the privacy of Canadians from possible intrusion by another mafia boy?
Stewart convient que la vie privée est importante, affirme que des mesures ont été prises, et mentionne l'engagement antérieur de la ministre de la Justice de réviser la loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, sans aborder le Fichier longitudinal sur la main-d'œuvre ni préciser de mesures concrètes.
Stewart offers only vague assurances—agreeing privacy is important, noting action has been taken, and pointing to the Minister of Justice's commitment to review the law—without addressing the Longitudinal Labour Force File specifically.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the issue of privacy is important to all Canadians. We take it seriously. I would note that we have taken action. I would also note the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to review the law. We take this issue seriously and we will continue to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is maintained.
Le député a demandé ce que la ministre a fait pour protéger la vie privée des Canadiens depuis le mois d'août dernier, compte tenu qu'elle est en poste depuis près d'un an.
The question identifies a specific timeframe (since last August) and asks a clear accountability question about what the minister has done to protect privacy, though it lacks citation of specific documents or data.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in her department for almost one year and yet has to take action to protect the personal and private information of Canadians. Could the minister please tell us what she has been doing to protect the privacy of Canadians since last August?
La ministre a mentionné des engagements déjà énumérés, notamment la limitation de la durée de conservation des renseignements, et a indiqué que son sous-ministre avait écrit au commissaire à la vie privée pour qu'il se joigne à un groupe de travail.
The minister references prior undertakings and mentions a specific action — the deputy writing to the privacy commissioner to join a working group — but does not enumerate all the undertakings she claims to have 'itemized already,' leaving the answer incomplete.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have itemized already the undertakings that we have made to date, not the least of which includes recognizing that we should only keep information for a predictable period of time. I also want to say, very specifically, that the deputy has written to the privacy commissioner and asked him to join us in a working group to continue to ensure that the safety the information now has can be confirmed into the future.
La députée a demandé à la secrétaire d'État à la Condition féminine ce que le gouvernement fait pour mettre fin au trafic de femmes et d'enfants, en faisant référence à un rapport récent accusant le Canada de ne pas avoir de stratégie globale.
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing a recent report but not naming it, with an open-ended ask that invites the minister to showcase government action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in a recent report Canada was accused of not having a comprehensive strategy to respond to the global trafficking of women and children. My question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. Could she tell us what we are doing to stop this horrific practice of the trafficking of women and children?
La secrétaire d'État a décrit un comité de neuf ministères dont la Condition féminine est coprésidente, une collaboration avec des experts et des groupes communautaires, ainsi qu'une nouvelle infraction de traite dans la législation sur l'immigration et les réfugiés, assortie de peines pouvant aller jusqu'à 1 million de dollars ou l'emprisonnement à vie.
The Secretary of State provides substantive information: a nine department committee co-chaired by Status of Women, work with experts and community groups, and a specific new offence in immigration and refugee legislation with penalties of $1 million or life imprisonment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government considers this form of trafficking to be the most despicable form of exploitation in the world. We have taken steps. There is a nine department committee, of which the Status of Women is co-chair, that is looking at setting up legal and other social solutions. We are working with experts and with community groups to devise solutions. I want to point out one solution which was recently made in the immigration and refugee legislation. There is a new offence against trafficking that will increase the penalty to $1 million or life imprisonment for people who resort to this kind of exploitation.
Cet échange ne consigne qu'une acclamation procédurale des députés soulignant une présence à la tribune; aucune question n'a été posée et aucune réponse de fond n'a été donnée.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
M. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) a soulevé un rappel au Règlement en faisant valoir que le Bloc Québécois perd régulièrement des questions à la période des questions orales en raison du désordre à la Chambre, alors que les libéraux ne perdent pas les leurs, et a demandé que l'entente originale entre les leaders parlementaires sur la répartition des questions soit respectée. Le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre, Don Boudria, a reconnu qu'il y avait eu moins de discipline qu'à l'habitude, s'est excusé, a noté qu'un député ministériel avait également perdu une question ce jour-là, et s'est engagé à soulever la question auprès de ses collègues pour que le nombre de questions prévu puisse être posé.
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
- Lib Don Boudria
- An hon. member
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I rise in this House to raise a point of order. I am deeply distressed by the events in this House yesterday. At the start of this parliament, an agreement was reached among the parliamentary leaders, which we passed on to you, to the effect that the order of oral questions is always prepared in advance to ensure the House functions better. There was also an underlying principle, which was that a political party wasting the time of the House, using up time in question period for other purposes, would be penalized in the number of questions available to it. There have been quite a few Oral Question Periods in which the Bloc Quebecois—each time it is the Bloc—has lost its seventh question. Today we lost our sixth question because, on the other side of the House—and they have frankly admitted it—they were happy to take fewer questions because the minister, who was in an awkward situation, had fewer answers to give. The Liberals have two questions in Oral Question Period. I do not understand why, under a principle of fairness, under the agreements reached among the parliamentary leader, which must still be in effect—if they are no longer in effect, I would like to be informed, and we will get that straightened out quickly—under what principle did the Bloc Quebecois today lose not only its seventh question but its sixth as well, whereas the Liberals had all theirs, but they wasted the time of the House by standing up, heckling, applauding and fooling around, while we were discussing a matter of great importance? Mr. Speaker, I call on you and ask the following: What sort of rules will it take for us to also be entitled to the number of questions set out in the original agreement? It always comes just before the Bloc Quebecois' question and it is beginning to get under our skin in a big way, to put it frankly.
Mr. Speaker, I am the first to admit that today there may have been less discipline than usual in the House. I readily recognize that fact. If some of my colleagues have slowed down the proceedings, I apologize for that. However, let me say that this is certainly not happening only on one side of the House. We know that some questions are provocative and can sometimes trigger answers that are also provocative. I recognize that those who engage in provocation are not necessarily those who suffer the consequences. Sometimes, there are third parties involved, particularly in a House with five political formations. I also recognize that, because it is true. I would add that, based on our usual way of doing things, three questions are asked every day by government members. Today, the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington was not recognized. In other words, the same thing also happened on our side of the House.
We lost two.
Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of providing an explanation and apologizing. I was polite to the hon. member and I hope his colleagues will show the same courtesy. As I just indicated, the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington wanted to ask a question on the university in her riding, one of the most important institutions in the country, particularly in the agricultural sector. She was not able to put her question because—and I also recognize that—of the disturbance in the House today. I undertake to raise with my colleagues the fact that we must do our part to ensure that the allotted number of questions can be asked, or better yet supplementaries. I think that questions and answers in the House are a fundamental principle of democracies—they make the government accountable to the public. I will raise this issue. Naturally, I urge the others to do the same, obviously so that we can work together toward a co-operative atmosphere, notwithstanding our disagreements as to substance, because there will be such disagreements, we admit. That is only fair and it is good for democracy. I undertake to do my part as well. Once again, I wish to point out that, notwithstanding the enthusiasm of some people sometimes, a number of parliamentarians on this side also felt hard done by today. Considering that there are in fact more so-called eligible members on our side of the House than in any party on the other side, we too have parliamentarians who are disappointed at not being able to ask their questions. I admit that the questions are different in nature. I admit that, by the very nature of things, they are perhaps less pointy, less partisan. But this does not mean that members on this side with questions to ask feel that their concerns are not important. They are important regionally, in terms of their riding, or when it comes to whether or not to support the government. Questions are just as important on this side of the House. I too have spent many years on the other side. I know about the frustration of getting ready to make the government accountable and being unable to speak at the appointed time after having done all the groundwork for this exercise which is so fundamental to democracy. That is why I have raised this point today and it is one in which I believe deeply. I think that the Bloc Quebecois House leader will agree that I am being sincere because I too believe in this fundamental principle of democracy. I will close by repeating the undertaking being given by our side of the House—I am sure the whip will agree with me—to do our best. We must all work on this, both sides of the House, all five sides—if the House can be said to have five sides—all five parties, with all the challenges that involves.
M. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) a donné suite à son rappel au Règlement précédent en reconnaissant que le désordre à la Chambre aujourd'hui était partagé par tous les partis, mais en faisant valoir que chaque fois que le désordre est à peu près équivalent des deux côtés, le Parti libéral ne perd jamais de questions tandis que le Bloc québécois en perd régulièrement.
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a number of things. I know very well that today was frightful and trying for everyone, probably more so for the Speaker than for the others. I have done my part to try to stay calm as much as possible. But I, like others, have been known to heckle a bit in this House. In the worst case scenario, let us be frank, we will understand each other—I do not want to attack you, Mr. Speaker—let us say that today half of the trouble came from this side and half from the other. This was not the case, but let us say we all caused about as much trouble. I just want to humbly submit to you that, each time we cause trouble about equally, the Liberal Party never loses questions, while we lose them regularly.
Le solliciteur général du Canada Lawrence MacAulay a répondu à une question de privilège en demandant au Président un délai supplémentaire de 24 heures pour recueillir des renseignements exacts auprès de toutes les personnes concernées avant de répondre, invoquant la gravité de la situation.
- Lib Lawrence MacAulay
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, due to the seriousness of the question of privilege, I would ask that you give me another 24 hours to get all the accurate information from all the people involved. I also consider it a very serious situation, and I want to ensure that I have all the appropriate information before I respond to you, Mr. Speaker.
M. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Alliance canadienne) a pris acte qu'une réponse à la question de privilège serait fournie, mais a souligné qu'il s'agissait d'un seul membre du personnel de son bureau contre l'ensemble des personnes travaillant au bureau du commissaire, et a déclaré que lui-même et son employé sont prêts à signer un affidavit sous serment si nécessaire.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Myron Thompson
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that there will be a response. However, I would like to point out that it is one staff member in my office versus the entire group of people who were working in the commissioner's office. My staff member and I are prepared to sign an affidavit under oath, if so required.