Session overview
- The dominant theme of the session was the privacy commissioner's report criticizing HRDC's collection of a comprehensive personal database â the Longitudinal Labour Force File â covering all Canadians, with opposition parties pressing Minister Jane Stewart on data security failures revealed in internal audits.
- Multiple internal audits obtained by opposition members revealed IT security weaknesses at HRDC, including inconsistent security practices, employees taking laptops home, hard drives not being erased before disposal, and staff unawareness of IT security policies.
- NDP member Bill Blaikie shifted the debate toward the broader legislative gap, eliciting a commitment from Minister of Justice Anne McLellan that the Privacy Act would be reviewed in light of new technology and the privacy commissioner's recommendations.
- The CINAR affair was raised by Bloc members who questioned why the Minister of National Revenue invoked confidentiality to withhold information from the RCMP on CINAR while simultaneously sharing tax and income data with HRDC.
- BQ House leader Michel Gauthier raised a point of order about the Bloc repeatedly losing question period slots due to disorder largely caused by government-side heckling; Government House Leader Don Boudria acknowledged the problem and apologized.
- Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Elinor Caplan reported that nearly 100 Chinese nationals had been returned to China following bilateral talks, and Secretary of State Hedy Fry announced a new trafficking offence carrying penalties up to $1 million or life imprisonment.
Minister of Justice Anne McLellan made a concrete public commitment that the Privacy Act would be reviewed, acknowledging it had been in existence for some time and that new technology made revision necessary â the first substantive policy commitment to emerge from the session's extended HRDC privacy debate.
CrĂȘte 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.
When confronted with an internal audit finding that HRDC employees were routinely taking laptops containing personal information home, Stewart deflected entirely by noting that the questioner 'used to be a Tory' and was presumably part of the government that created the system, without addressing the security concern at all.
Outstanding questions
- Miss Deborah Grey asked why the government thinks it needs to collect tax and employment information, travel details, immigration and ethnicity details, information on families, disabilities, moving patterns and education on 33 million Canadians â the fundamental purpose of the database was never explained.
- Mr. Gilles Duceppe asked why the Prime Minister took no action for two years after being informed by the privacy commissioner that the HRDC data collection practice was problematic â no direct answer was given to the two-year inaction.
- Mrs. Diane Ablonczy asked whether the minister would immediately end the practice of sharing private information about Canadians without their permission â the minister said the information is used only for research and will not be sold, but did not address the consent question.
- Mr. StĂ©phane Bergeron asked whether the Minister of National Revenue had been informed by the privacy commissioner that his department's transfer of T1 and T4 information to HRDC was at the very least inappropriate â the minister denied any impropriety but did not confirm or deny whether the commissioner had contacted him.
- Mr. Jim Abbott asked what specific steps the solicitor general was undertaking to uncover and address allegations of organized crime influence through political donations â the response addressed general anti-organized-crime measures and political financing rules without addressing the specific Sidewinder allegations.
Grey challenges why the government needs to collect sensitive information on 33 million Canadians â including tax, immigration, ethnicity, and disability details â under a minister she characterizes as a bungler.
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.
Source text
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 toâ
Oh, oh.
Stewart quotes the privacy commissioner saying the department had good reasons for the data collection, that nothing unlawful occurred, and that the file is receiving very responsible management.
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.
Source text
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 âthe very responsible management that this file is getting right nowâ.
Grey references a September 1999 internal audit on information technology security that found personnel knowledge of IT security standards and practices needs improvement, and asks the minister to defend this finding in her own department.
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.
Source text
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 defends the use of internal audits as tools for continuous improvement and turns the question back on the opposition, asking whether they would prefer the department not audit itself.
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.
Source text
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 quotes the audit finding that hard copies of IT security-related documents are regularly distributed but personnel knowledge of IT security policies and procedures is not good, and demands the minister acknowledge things are a mess under her watch.
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.
Source text
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 says she takes her job responsibly, points to five months of scrutiny as proof, and reiterates that the department uses audits to identify and make improvements.
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.
Source text
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 cites the minister's own departmental audits describing inconsistent security measures and security risks not being appropriately addressed, and asks why the minister is not concerned.
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.
Source text
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 ministerâ
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 quotes the privacy commissioner praising well-motivated HRDC staff, confirms that information is encrypted and secure, and notes the deputy wrote to the commissioner in March to invite him to join a working group on privacy.
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 â partially responsive.
Source text
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 âWe have over at HRDC right now some very well motivated public servants who are being very carefulâ. 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 lists the database's contents â address, income, employment history, marital status, living arrangements and health history â raises the risk of misuse by criminals due to lax security, and asks the minister to immediately end sharing private information without Canadians' permission.
Ablonczy enumerates specific data categories in the database â address, income, employment history, marital status, living arrangements and health history â and poses a concrete ask about ending the sharing of private information without permission.
Source text
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 accuses the member of trying to scare Canadians and states only that the information is used for research and will not be sold.
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.
Source text
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 cites the privacy commissioner's latest report noting HRDC holds comprehensive profiles on thousands of Canadians and is more concerned about security than individual privacy, and asks the Prime Minister why such a file was created.
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.
Source text
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 says the commissioner identified a problem and is ready to discuss it, notes the department has held this information for a long time predating the current government, and that discussions with the commissioner began in March.
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.
Source text
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 notes the privacy alarm was sounded two years ago and asks the Prime Minister why he sat tight, took no decision, and allowed the situation to continue for two years.
Duceppe presses on the specific timeline â that the alarm was sounded two years ago â and asks why the Prime Minister took no action for two years after knowing about the file and its potential problems.
Source text
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 says the commissioner saw a certain problem, got in touch with the department in March, and noted the department complied with the Parliament of Canada Act, without explaining the two-year inaction.
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.
Source text
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.
CrĂȘte quotes the commissioner's characterization of HRDC's data as a comprehensive, permanent and, to all intents, invisible citizen profile, notes the minister did not accept the commissioner's September 1998 recommendations, and asks her to justify refusing them.
CrĂȘte 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.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner also said, and I quote his report, that âHuman Resources Development Canada had a comprehensive, permanent and, to all intents, invisible citizen profileâ 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 says the department has taken action on the commissioner's recommendations, confirms information is encrypted with access limited to six employees, states that time-limited data management was implemented, and notes the deputy's March letter inviting the commissioner to a working group.
Stewart lists specific actions taken â encryption, access limited to six employees, time-limited data management â and references the working group invitation, partially addressing the accusation of non-compliance with recommendations.
Source text
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 protectionâ
CrĂȘte asks whether the minister is accepting her department's interpretation of the Privacy Act, which the privacy commissioner considers wrong.
CrĂȘte 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 â a clear accountability question grounded in a regulatory disagreement.
Source text
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 says the member is confusing the facts, asserts the privacy commissioner confirmed the department is working within the law and nothing is illegal, and says the department wants to work with the commissioner on ongoing administration.
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.
Source text
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 notes that cars can be financed at 1.3% and furniture at 0%, and asks why the government has fixed the cost of education at prime plus 2.5%.
McDonough poses a specific contrast â 1.3% financing for cars versus prime plus 2.5% for student loans â grounding the question in concrete numbers, though it is cut off before fully articulating the ask.
Source text
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 meansâ
Martin cites the $7.5 billion education contribution from the 1998 budget, creation of 2,000 research chairs, lifting the scholarship tax exemption from $500 to $3,000, and a student loan management program, without addressing the interest rate comparison.
Martin lists education budget measures â the $7.5 billion contribution, 2,000 research chairs, and raising the scholarship tax exemption from $500 to $3,000 â but does not address the specific interest rate comparison raised.
Source text
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 studentsâ
McDonough claims that for every dollar in new educational initiatives the government cut $2 from post-secondary education, that student debtloads have more than tripled, and asks why Canada is mortgaging our children's future.
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.
Source text
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 says the premise is simply bunk, claims the government has increased transfers to the provinces every single year for the last four years, and calls on provinces to put more money into education.
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.
Source text
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 cites the privacy commissioner's report on HRDC collecting massive personal information including tax data, marital status, and social history on one central computer, and asks how Canadians can trust the minister with their most personal information given her record of bungling.
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.
Source text
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 says the question is confusing because the process began in 1985 under that member's government, and implies the opposition is being hypocritical.
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.
Source text
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 accuses the minister of minimizing the issue as she did with HRDC funding mismanagement, notes the privacy commissioner made several very pointed recommendations, and asks whether she will agree to implement these recommendations immediately.
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.
Source text
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 affirms privacy is a priority, says the commissioner recognized information is now securely protected and encrypted, and notes the commissioner's main future concerns are why a working group with the commissioner's office is being sought.
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 â partially addressing the ask without committing to implementing all recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to say first and foremost that the issue of privacy when it comes to the information of Canadians isâ
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 cites an internal audit obtained through access to information showing that a system breakdown allows the user to compromise their system and/or engage in fraudulent activities, and asks what assurance the minister can give that the system will protect confidentiality.
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.
Source text
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 says the department took action as a result of the particular audit, listing identification of regional IT security co-ordinators, formalization of communications mechanisms, and inclusion of IT security structure in all security awareness programs.
Stewart directly references the specific audit, lists four concrete actions taken in response â regional IT security co-ordinators, formalized communications mechanisms, inclusion in security awareness programs â and frames it as the audit process working as intended.
Source text
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 quotes the audit's finding 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, and asks why access codes to confidential information are being given out at bureaucrats' parties.
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.
Source text
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 âis at the employee's going away or promotion partyâ. 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 asks why the opposition continues to look at the past and draft reports rather than actions taken, and says Canadians know that party will just remain in the past.
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.
Source text
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 asks whether the minister can seriously assure the public their privacy is safe given HRDC's record, and demands she stop collecting personal documents.
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.
Source text
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 states the privacy commissioner is not asking for a halt to data collection, that information is currently managed wisely and secured through encryption, and commits to working with the commissioner going forward.
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.
Source text
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 notes the government was warned by the privacy commissioner two years ago and signed agreements with eight provinces to collect more citizen data, asking when the minister will stop this data collection activity.
Gauthier cites a specific factâtwo years' notice from the privacy commissioner and agreements with eight provincesâgiving the question some grounding, but the ask remains a broad demand to stop data collection rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
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 reiterates that the privacy commissioner is not saying information should not be collected, only that it should be protected, and commits to continuing to work with the commissioner.
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.
Source text
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 quotes the minister's own 1999 internal audit finding that no formal national IT security awareness program had been established within HRDC, and begins to ask how Canadians can believe the minister's assurances.
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.
Source text
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 âcurrently a formal national information technology security awareness program has not been established within HRDCâ. That is from the minister's own internal audit department. I have a simple question. How can Canadians possibly believe the assurancesâ
Stewart accuses the member of selective reporting, cites the same audit's finding that IT security processes were satisfactory by risk management assessment and consistent with private and federal institutions, and claims the government is providing good 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.
Source text
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 committedâ
Harris made a dismissive remark about the minister's answer and a comment about liking puppies; no question was posed.
Exchange 19 contains no substantive question, only a procedural disruption and a remark about puppies following a point of order.
Source text
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.
No answer was provided.
No ministerial answer was given in this exchange.
Bergeron asks how the Minister of National Revenue can justify using absolute secrecy to refuse the RCMP information on the CINAR affair while simultaneously providing HRDC with T1, T4, and child tax benefit information.
Bergeron identifies a specific contradictionâthe minister citing confidentiality to refuse the RCMP while his department shared T1, T4, and child tax benefit information with HRDCâmaking this a pointed accountability question, though it blends two separate issues.
Source text
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 declines to comment on a specific case, reaffirms confidentiality as a legislative cornerstone, and explains that information sharing with HRDC is done lawfully under section 24(1)(c) for jointly administered programs.
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.
Source text
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 asks whether the Minister of National Revenue was informed by the privacy commissioner, as was the HRDC minister, that his department's transfer of information was at least inappropriate.
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.
Source text
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 deflects by asserting the information exchange cannot be described as inappropriate because it is carried out under section 214(1)(c) for jointly administered programs.
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.
Source text
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 quotes the minister's internal audit finding that HRDC hard drives containing sensitive data are not consistently erased before disposal, and asks how Canadians can trust the minister to protect their privacy.
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.
Source text
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 rejects the member's commentary, lists improvements to staff IT security knowledge and annual operational security plans, and urges working with the privacy commissioner to ensure good service continues.
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.
Source text
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 quotes the internal audit finding that it is not unusual for employees to keep HRDC laptops containing personal information at their own residences, and asks how the minister can assure security under these 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.
Source text
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 notes that audits are conducted and action is taken, then pivots to attacking the member for previously being a Tory and implying his party set up the problem.
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.
Source text
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 asks how the minister can be trusted to manage HRDC's vast personal data bank when she is unable to produce the Placeteco invoices, linking data management failures to the grants scandal.
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.
Source text
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 says only that the member is wrong and that even the privacy commissioner confirms the information is being secured.
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.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. Even the privacy commissioner says that the information is being secured.
Leung asks the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration how her bilateral talks with China will help Canada combat future unlawful migrants from China.
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.
Source text
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 reports that nearly 100 Chinese nationals who arrived in Canada have been returned to China following due process, and describes a cooperative Canada-China framework to prevent human trafficking by snake heads.
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.
Source text
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 references a CJOH news story on the Sidewinder investigation alleging organized crime and Chinese triads made political donations to influential politicians and parties, and asks what specific steps the solicitor general has taken to protect Canadians and political parties from organized crime.
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.
Source text
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 cites 13 proceeds of crime units established across the country and states the Sidewinder investigation was completed, without addressing the political donations allegations.
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.
Source text
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 cites Vancouver Province allegations that a former prime minister, his deputy, a former premier, and Liberal ministers received political donations from the Russian Mafia, and asks what specific steps the solicitor general is undertaking to uncover this problem.
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.
Source text
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 responds by explaining that political contributions to registered parties must come from Canadian sources and be made public, and accuses the Alliance of voting against third-party financing disclosure requirements.
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.
Source text
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 asks which minister is responsible for responding to the privacy commissioner's call for an updating of privacy law, arguing this is the real issue beyond the daily dispute over HRDC operations.
Blaikie identifies a specific gapâthat the privacy commissioner called for an updating of privacy law, not just operational complianceâand asks what the government will do about it, making this a substantive policy question with a clear ask.
Source text
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 says the government takes the privacy commissioner's recommendations seriously and acknowledges that the Privacy Act, which has been in existence for some time, probably warrants review given new technology.
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.
Source text
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 asks the Minister of Justice to commit that updating public-sector privacy law will be a top government priority, noting that private-sector privacy legislation has already been updated through Parliament.
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.
Source text
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 reiterates the government's commitment to privacy, praises Bill C-6, and commits to reviewing existing privacy legislation 'in a timely fashion' without specifying a timeline or confirming it as a top priority.
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'âthe very phrase Blaikie pre-emptively mockedâwithout offering a concrete timeline or priority commitment.
Source text
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 cites the privacy commissioner's report identifying the Longitudinal Labour Force File held by HRDC as a threat to privacy, and asks whether the minister will take concrete action to protect Canadians' privacy.
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.
Source text
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 agrees privacy is important, says action has been taken, and references the Minister of Justice's earlier commitment to review privacy law, without addressing the Longitudinal Labour Force File or specifying any concrete measures.
Stewart offers only vague assurancesâagreeing privacy is important, noting action has been taken, and pointing to the Minister of Justice's commitment to review the lawâwithout addressing the Longitudinal Labour Force File specifically.
Source text
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.
The member asked what the minister has been doing to protect the privacy of Canadians since last August, given she has been in her department for almost one year.
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.
Source text
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?
The minister referred to previously itemized undertakings including limiting information retention periods, and noted the deputy had written to the privacy commissioner to join a working group.
The minister references prior undertakings and mentions a specific action â the deputy writing to the privacy commissioner to join a working group â but does not enumerate all the undertakings she claims to have 'itemized already,' leaving the answer incomplete.
Source text
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.
The member asked the Secretary of State for the Status of Women what the government is doing to stop the trafficking of women and children, referencing a recent report accusing Canada of lacking a comprehensive strategy.
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.
Source text
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?
The Secretary of State described a nine department committee co-chaired by Status of Women, collaboration with experts and community groups, and a new trafficking offence in immigration and refugee legislation carrying penalties up to $1 million or life imprisonment.
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.
Source text
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.
This exchange records only a procedural acclamation by hon. members acknowledging a presence in the gallery; no question was asked and no substantive response was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) raised a point of order arguing that the Bloc Québécois repeatedly loses questions in Oral Question Period due to disorder in the House, while the Liberals do not lose theirs, and called for the original agreement among parliamentary leaders on question allocation to be respected. Government House Leader Don Boudria acknowledged there was less discipline than usual, apologized, noted that a government member also lost a question that day, and undertook to raise the issue with his colleagues to ensure the allotted questions can be asked.
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
- Lib Don Boudria
- An hon. member
Source text
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 Quebecoisâeach time it is the Blocâhas lost its seventh question. Today we lost our sixth question because, on the other side of the Houseâand they have frankly admitted itâthey 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 effectâif they are no longer in effect, I would like to be informed, and we will get that straightened out quicklyâunder 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 GuelphâWellington 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 GuelphâWellington 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 becauseâand I also recognize thatâof 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 democraciesâthey 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 HouseâI am sure the whip will agree with meâto do our best. We must all work on this, both sides of the House, all five sidesâif the House can be said to have five sidesâall five parties, with all the challenges that involves.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) followed up on his earlier point of order, acknowledging that disorder in the House today was shared by all sides, but arguing that whenever disorder occurs in roughly equal measure, the Liberal Party never loses questions while the Bloc Québécois loses them regularly.
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
Source text
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 otherâI do not want to attack you, Mr. Speakerâlet 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.
Solicitor General of Canada Lawrence MacAulay addressed a question of privilege, asking the Speaker for an additional 24 hours to gather accurate information from all people involved before responding, citing the seriousness of the situation.
- Lib Lawrence MacAulay
Source text
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.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) acknowledged that a response to the question of privilege would be forthcoming, but noted that it was one staff member in his office against the entire group of people working in the commissioner's office, and stated that he and his staff member are prepared to sign an affidavit under oath if required.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Myron Thompson
Source text
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.