Bill C-76 (Historical)

Elections Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to establish spending limits for third parties and political parties during a defined period before the election period of a general election held on a day fixed under that Act. It also establishes measures to increase transparency regarding the participation of third parties in the electoral process. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) adds reporting requirements for third parties engaging in partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys to the reporting requirements for third parties engaging in election advertising;
(b) creates an obligation for third parties to open a separate bank account for expenses related to the matters referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c) creates an obligation for political parties and third parties to identify themselves in partisan advertising during the defined period before the election period.
The enactment also amends the Act to implement measures to reduce barriers to participation and increase accessibility. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) establishes a Register of Future Electors in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included;
(b) broadens the application of accommodation measures to all persons with a disability, irrespective of its nature;
(c) creates a financial incentive for registered parties and candidates to take steps to accommodate persons with a disability during an election period;
(d) amends some of the rules regarding the treatment of candidates’ expenses, including the rules related to childcare expenses, expenses related to the care of a person with a disability and litigation expenses;
(e) amends the rules regarding the treatment of nomination contestants’ and leadership contestants’ litigation expenses and personal expenses;
(f) allows Canadian Forces electors access to several methods of voting, while also adopting measures to ensure the integrity of the vote;
(g) removes limitations on public education and information activities conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
(h) removes two limitations on voting by non-resident electors: the requirement that they have been residing outside Canada for less than five consecutive years and the requirement that they intend to return to Canada to resume residence in the future; and
(i) extends voting hours on advance polling days.
The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) removes the assignment of specific responsibilities set out in the Act to specific election officers by creating a generic category of election officer to whom all those responsibilities may be assigned;
(b) limits election periods to a maximum of 50 days;
(c) removes administrative barriers in order to facilitate the hiring of election officers;
(d) authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;
(i) relocates the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provides that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years;
(j) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of provisions of Parts 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and certain other provisions of the Act;
(k) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to lay charges;
(l) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the power to apply for a court order requiring testimony or a written return;
(m) clarifies offences relating to
(i) the publishing of false statements,
(ii) participation by non-Canadians in elections, including inducing electors to vote or refrain from voting, and
(iii) impersonation; and
(n) implements a number of measures to harmonize and streamline political financing monitoring and reporting.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide for certain requirements with regard to the protection of personal information for registered parties, eligible parties and political parties that are applying to become registered parties, including the obligation for the party to adopt a policy for the protection of personal information and to publish it on its Internet site.
The enactment also amends the Parliament of Canada Act to prevent the calling of a by-election when a vacancy in the House of Commons occurs within nine months before the day fixed for a general election under the Canada Elections Act.
It also amends the Public Service Employment Act to clarify that the maximum period of employment of casual workers in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer — 165 working days in one calendar year — applies to those who are appointed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment contains transitional provisions, makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Special Voting Rules.

Electoral Reform

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the chamber to talk about the opportunities for youth engagement in our democracy, particularly voting in federal elections. I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the important issue of Canada's voting age.

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom states, “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote”, and all citizens do eventually. The Canada Elections Act qualifies this right by adding the age requirement that citizens must be 18 years old. This is consistent with the voting age for provincial and territorial elections and most jurisdictions around the world.

The federal voting age has not always been set at 18. In 1970, it was lowered from age 21, which had been the voting age since Confederation. Since then, Parliament has often reflected on the voting age. Indeed, this very Parliament debated the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 a few years ago. While Parliament did not agree to lower the voting age, our government and the Prime Minister in particular have made very significant efforts to ensure young people continue to have a voice in our parliamentary democracy.

I would like to highlight a few of the many opportunities available to youth for engaging in democratic life at all levels of government. For example, they can become an active member of political parties, and they can join or even launch social movements on issues of importance to them, as well as advocate for public policies.

Our government recognizes that youth participation in our democracy, which is not limited to voting, makes it healthier. This is why we have taken important steps to provide youth opportunities to participate in our democracy in recent years. For example, in 2018, the government passed Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which created a voluntary register of future electors, providing Canadians between the ages of 14 to 17 who wish to vote with the option to register early with Elections Canada. If they choose to sign up early, these youth are automatically included in the National Register of Electors upon turning 18, as well as the list of electors, so they are registered to vote and will receive their voter information card. The Elections Modernization Act also facilitated the ability of Elections Canada to hire 16- and 17-year-olds to work as election officers, giving young people an opportunity to be at the front lines of Canada's electoral process.

Our youth can and do participate in our democracy and continue to make a valuable contribution in a variety of ways. At the same time, our government recognizes that it is important that we continue to support ways to encourage participation. All of us here can and should do more to encourage the turnout of all electors. We need to be an example for our youth.

In March of this year, our government introduced Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, which seeks to enhance voter participation for all electors, including youth and students—

Electoral Participation Act

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 this evening in the House, the electoral participation act. As the title of this bill suggests, one of its key priorities is to encourage participation in the electoral process. We know that democratic engagement rests on trust in our electoral system, and that is why Bill C-65 proposes to enhance safeguarding measures in the Canada Elections Act.

As we all know, Canada's democracy is among the strongest and most stable in the world thanks in large part to the Canada Elections Act, which is the fundamental legislative framework that regulates our elections in this great nation. We have every reason to be proud of this legislation, but we are not immune to the global challenges that modernized democracies face. The integrity of the electoral process in the lead-up to, during and after elections is a prerequisite for trust in our democracy. This is why it is essential that we continue to address evolving threats to our democracy through regular improvements to the Canada Elections Act. This helps ensure that our system remains robust, resilient and equipped to keep pace with the issues of our time.

It should come as no surprise that safeguarding our elections includes measures to mitigate foreign interference. Foreign interference can take many forms, including social media campaigns designed to sow disinformation. The Communications Security Establishment's latest report highlights that online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries increasingly seeking to influence our elections. We and all Canadians have a right to be concerned about these threats. This is why the government has been proactive in taking steps to counter foreign interference.

Our government's work to protect our democracy began as early as 2016, when we tabled Bill C-22. It led to the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, a committee that assembles members from both chambers of Parliament to review matters concerning national security and intelligence.

In 2018, the government put forward Bill C-59, which enacted the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, giving the agency the mandate to review and investigate all Government of Canada national security and intelligence activities. That same year, we also introduced Bill C-76, which modernized the Canada Elections Act and introduced a number of prohibitions, including a prohibition preventing foreigners from unduly influencing electors, a prohibition against foreign third parties from spending on election-related activities and a prohibition against third parties from using any foreign funds.

In 2019, we put in place the plan to protect Canada's democracy, which included the security and intelligence threats to elections, or SITE, task force. The plan was subsequently updated in advance of the 2021 general election.

Most recently, we introduced Bill C-70, the countering foreign interference act, which complements measures to further safeguard our federal elections and mitigate foreign influence in Bill C-65, which I am speaking to today. Finally, last September, our government launched the public inquiry into foreign interference. We look forward to receiving the commissioner's final report as well as recommendations.

These substantial government-wide initiatives demonstrate this government's commitment to remaining vigilant in our efforts to protect our electoral system. This commitment is further reflected in the safeguarding measures proposed through Bill C-65. I would like to highlight how this bill proposes to better protect our elections from foreign influence, disinformation campaigns and the misuse of technology, all of which seek to erode trust in our institutions. We do this so that Canadians can feel safe and confident when participating in our democracy.

First, we know that election interference can happen at all times and not just during elections. This is why Bill C-65 proposes to extend the application of the existing ban on undue foreign influence at all times, rather than being limited to the election period. This means, for example, that the ban on foreign entities unduly influencing voters to vote a certain way or influencing them to refrain from voting would extend to all times.

Second, Bill C-65 would create a clearer and more consistent definition of foreign entity activities under the act to close any and all gaps. For example, currently foreign entities can circumvent the law by having more than one purpose, where the ban on undue influence is limited to a foreign entity whose only purpose is to unduly influence voters. That would no longer be possible under Bill C-65. The bill proposes that foreign entities who have even just one of their primary activities as unduly influencing electors would be captured.

Third, Bill C-65 proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous foreign and dark money from entering our elections. This includes banning the use of crypto asset contributions, money orders and prepaid instruments such as prepaid credit cards or store gift cards for regulated activities by third parties and political actors.

Bill C-65 would introduce important new financing rules for third parties. Allow me to explain. Bill C-65 would allow third parties to use only contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. This includes partisan activities, partisan advertising, election advertising and election surveys. This means that third parties would no longer be able to use funds received from any other third parties, such as corporations or businesses, for regulated expenses. For greater transparency, third parties would also need to report on the details of the individuals who contributed in total over $200, including names, addresses and amounts of each contribution.

We understand that third parties may not all receive contributions and may have their own revenue they wish to use for regulated expenses. In those instances, third parties who meet the threshold of 10% or less of their overall annual revenue and contributions would also be able to use their own revenues to pay for regulated activities. In addition, third parties would be required to provide financial statements to Elections Canada proving the revenue is their own.

The amendments to enhance transparency on the source of third party funding are important. Under the current rules, third parties are required to report only on contributions given to them for election purposes. Contributions received for other purposes may be mixed into the third party's general revenue, leaving a transparency gap as to where the funds came from.

The Chief Electoral Officer spoke to this concern in his June 2022 recommendations report tabled here in Parliament. He noted that the proportion of third party reporting on the use of their own funds for regulated expenses increased significantly, from 8% in 2011 to 37% in 2019 and 63% in 2021. This increasing trend in third party financing is concerning, which is why the government is taking action through Bill C-65. Let me reiterate, however, that third parties who do not meet the threshold would still be able to participate in regulated activities, but they would have to do so with the contributions they received as donations from Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

The next element I would like to speak on is disinformation. Disinformation, a key tactic by malign actors, aims to fuel discord and erode public trust in the electoral process. It seeks to manipulate voters and electoral processes through intentional falsehoods, often spread online, as well as, quite frankly, intimidation at times.

In 2022, the Chief Electoral Officer called disinformation about the electoral process the most important threat to Canada's election mandate. Security agencies have noted that disinformation is a persistent threat to election integrity. In the 2021 national electors study conducted by Elections Canada following the 44th general election, 71% of electors were concerned that the spread of false information online could have a moderate or major impact on the electoral outcome. This included 37% who thought it could have a major impact. As noted by the Chief Electoral Officer, intelligence officials and leading academics, the use and impact of disinformation is not limited to the election period.

Bill C-65 aims to build confidence in our electoral process and our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions to address these threats. In particular, the bill would introduce a ban on false statements about the voting process that are deliberately made to disrupt the conduct or the results of an election, all while respecting the principles of free expression and open dialogue.

Amendments provide clear guidance on the type of intentional false statements that could be made or published to ensure that contraventions of the act are clear and enforceable. This includes making or publishing false or misleading statements relating to who may vote in an election; the voting registration process; when, where and how to vote; whom to vote for; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated or counted; or the results of an election.

Another element I would like to address is the potential misuse of technology. Technology, as we all know, has helped revolutionize democracy, but it also gives rise to risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence is becoming harder to distinguish from reality. When paired with disinformation, artificial intelligence such as deepfakes poses a significant threat. Today, with a computer and a few keystrokes, malicious actors can generate highly realistic videos, audio and text content that can depict people saying or doing things they never said or did.

To address this emerging issue, Bill C-65 would amend existing prohibitions in the act that can lend themselves to the misuse of artificial intelligence, namely false statements, impersonation and misleading publications, to provide clarity that they apply regardless of the means used. This would mean, for example, that the prohibition on impersonating the Chief Electoral Officer, an election official, or a candidate would apply regardless of the technology that might be used now, to include deepfakes or other technologies that may evolve in the future.

Bill C-65 would also extend the scope of the existing ban on using a computer to affect the results of an election, to now apply to the use of a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election.

The last element I would like to speak about and highlight is the importance of the personal safety of those people who participate in our electoral process. As my hon. colleagues know well, the threat environment continues to evolve. There has, sadly, been a surge in vandalism at constituency offices, increasingly violent online discourse and threats made against party leaders, candidates and election officials, as witnessed during the 2021 general election.

Bill C-65 therefore seeks to address some of these concerns by providing increased privacy and safety to electoral participants. For example, returning officers' personal information would be better protected by removing the requirement for them to publish their home address in the Canada Gazette; rather, only their municipality and province of residence would be published.

We have also seen reports of or have personally experienced a growing uncivil discourse and behaviour targeting members of Parliament, including me. Members from all parties have spoken out against unacceptable harassment and threats, as well as intimidation.

Indeed, the Sergeant-at-Arms and Corporate Security Officer of the House of Commons recently noted that harassment of people elected to serve this very institution has skyrocketed, increasing 800% in the last five years. To respond to this alarming trend, Bill C-65 proposes two changes to the disclosure of requirements for regulated fundraising events over $200 that include a prominent attendee, such as a party leader. To ensure the safety of all participants, the requirement to provide five days' advance public notice of such regulated fundraising events would be repealed. To ensure ongoing transparency, precise location details for events would continue to be provided to the Chief Electoral Officer as part of the party's postevent reporting requirements under the act.

However, to protect the security of hosts of events who engage in politics or book a political event, the requirement for a public-facing postevent report 30 days later would only include the municipality and the province of the event. This approach aims to prevent bad actors from undermining the safety of participants and hosts at these events. It aims to strike an appropriate balance between the very real security threats faced and the ongoing need for transparency.

In closing, I know that safeguarding our democracy is a priority shared by all of my hon. colleagues in this House. The amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed in Bill C-65 build on existing safeguards and propose a number of targeted but critical improvements to continue to build trust in our democratic processes.

I am confident that all members of Parliament can work together to ensure that Bill C-65 is studied and passed in time for all measures to come into force before the next fixed-date general election.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite the growth in popularity of advance polls and special ballots, voting on polling day still remains the most popular option for how Canadians vote. That is why our government also wants to pave the way to make it easier and more convenient for those who vote on election day to eventually be able to vote at any polling station in their electoral district. This would shorten lineups for voting, provide more options for voting, make voting more convenient and allow election officers to make better use of their time. However, this significant change can only be done after the appropriate technology and procedures have been tested, to ensure the integrity of the voting process.

This is why Bill C-65 asks the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare two reports for Parliament on implementing voting at any polling station through a phased approach.

The first report, which must be tabled 120 days before the next fixed-date election, would outline the measures that would be put in place for the 2025 election, so that voters can vote at any table within their riding's polling station in 2025. This is a critical first step for voters, to be able to walk into their polling station and go to whoever is available to cast their ballot, rather than waiting in line based on alphabetical order of their last names. This is possible because Elections Canada has been testing the use of an electronic list of electors to ensure the success of this technology, including in the Durham by-election earlier this year.

The second report, to be tabled in 2027, would look at what is needed for voters to be able to vote at any polling station anywhere in their riding by 2029. This report would outline expected costs, new technology and any legislative amendments needed for full implementation. These are critical milestones toward giving electors the flexibility to be able to vote in person anywhere in their riding.

I also want to take a moment to highlight the targeted new initiatives that would make voting easier for post-secondary students, residents of long-term care facilities and electors who may require assistance in marking their own ballot, such as electors with disabilities.

For students, Bill C-65 would enshrine the vote on campus program that Elections Canada has offered in past general elections. Working with willing post-secondary institutions, as it did in 2015 and 2019, Elections Canada would set up offices on campus so that Canadian students studying anywhere in Canada would be able to easily vote for any candidate in the student's home riding during a general election. In 2015, close to 70,000 electors cast their votes through this initiative at 39 post-secondary campuses. In 2019, more than 110,000 electors voted at approximately 100 post-secondary campuses. Currently, an estimated 120 campuses across the country are set to host the program at the next general election.

With respect to residents in long-term care, the pandemic highlighted for all of us in this chamber the challenges faced by those residents when trying to vote. During the 2021 election, the Chief Electoral Officer rose to this challenge and established a process for those residing in long-term care facilities to vote safely. Bill C-65 would facilitate voting for the residents in long-term care homes across Canada, building on the success of the Chief Electoral Officer's temporary changes made in 2021.

First, returning officers would work with the staff of these facilities to identify the most convenient dates and times for residents to vote. Voting would continue to be 12 hours in total but could be spread over more than one day to take into account the specific needs of residents.

Second, proof of address would no longer be required for those residents choosing to vote in their long-term care facilities. Many residents have difficulty proving their residence because identity documents are often in the possession of family members, or they no longer have a driver’s licence, which is the most common proof of residence. This change removes an unnecessary obstacle to voting for those in long-term care.

In addition, the Canada Elections Act already permits electors to request and receive assistance at the polls, including to mark their ballot, from Elections Canada officials, friends or family. However, this assistance is currently limited to a friend, spouse or family member. Bill C-65 proposes to remove these restrictions and give electors the freedom to choose their assistant, including caregivers or personal support workers. To maintain both the integrity and the secrecy of the vote, a solemn declaration would continue to be required from the assistant. Election workers would also continue to be available to assist electors if needed.

The final measure to support participation in our electoral process that I will speak to is the proposal that the Chief Electoral Officer prepare a report for Parliament on a three-day election period for any general elections held in 2029 and beyond. This report would allow for a detailed consideration of the feasibility and the path forward, given the considerable operational shift and electoral integrity implications that a three-day election period would bring. It would also identify challenges and potential solutions for implementation.

The second key priority of Bill C-65 is further protecting the personal information of Canadians. In this day and age, personal information is a coveted commodity that must be protected, including in the electoral process and by federal political parties.

In order to do so, the government took a first step in 2018 through Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, introducing the first-ever policy requirements as a condition of party registration. Another step was taken last year through Bill C-47, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, to affirm that the Canada Elections Act is the exclusive and national regime applicable to federal political parties and those acting on their behalf.

Bill C-65 proposes to expand on these measures to better protect personal information. In order to be a duly registered political party with Elections Canada, each political party must already provide a policy on the protection of personal information. This condition of registration would be maintained, but Bill C-65 adds the following new privacy policy requirements.

Political parties must have the appropriate physical, organizational and technological safeguards, such as locked filing cabinets, in place and must restrict access to those who need it. It would ensure that suppliers or contractors who receive personal information from political parties have the equivalent safeguards in place. Parties must notify affected individuals in the event of a serious breach. It would also prohibit political parties from selling personal information, providing false or misleading information regarding why personal information is collected, and disclosing personal information to cause harm.

The privacy regime under the Canada Elections Act recognizes that outreach, communication and engagement between federal political parties and voters are essential to a healthy, modern democracy. Personal information is at the root of the dialogue between political parties and the Canadian electorate. It is therefore essential that this information be protected accordingly, which is exactly what Bill C-65 proposes to do.

Finally, I am proud to highlight the measures proposed in Bill C-65 to safeguard the electoral process.

This year is an important year for elections around the world. While Canada's next federal election is not scheduled until 2025, over 60 countries, encompassing almost 50% of the world's population, will have elections in 2024. I would like to highlight the elections that were just concluded this month in the largest democracy in the world, India, where about one billion people were eligible to vote, approximately 900-odd million, with about 60% turnout. I think the elections were held over a period of seven to eight weeks. Interestingly, I am told that it is proposed, going forward, that in the next general elections in India, the federal elections will be held simultaneously with about 32 states, 32 provinces, in India.

As I mentioned earlier, we are fortunate in Canada to have one of the most secure and reliable electoral systems in the world. Canada's electoral system is grounded in accessibility, fairness and integrity through the Canada Elections Act. Canadians have confidence in their electoral system. In a survey by Elections Canada following the 44th general election, 82% of participants felt that Canada's voting system was safe and reliable. Yet, Canada's democracy, like other democracies globally, is being tested. Rising security threats that undermine the credibility of democratic elections include foreign interference, disinformation, the misuse of evolving technologies and the threat against its participants.

To address these concerns, Bill C-65 introduces a series of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to further protect the integrity of the electoral system from these threats.

The Canada Elections Act already has strong and wide-ranging measures to help counter these threats to the electoral system. However, as the threats evolve, so too must our response. Currently, certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act apply only during elections. Since people and entities with ill intentions do not limit their activities to a specific time frame, Bill C-65 would expand certain provisions beyond the election period. This includes expanding existing bans so that they are not limited to the election period, specifically those against foreign influence on an elector to not vote or to vote in a certain way, and misleading publications that falsely purport to be from someone they are not, such as the Chief Electoral Officer or a political party.

Like all my hon. colleagues in this House, I have great faith in, and a deep appreciation for, Canada and its democratic institutions. Bill C-65 would further strengthen Canada's world-renowned electoral system, which is at the heart of our democratic system.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I certainly look forward to his remarks as well.

Two weeks ago, I was sitting in my constituency office when I got a message from my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He informed me that there was going to be a special meeting of a small group of us, where he would inform us of a very grave and serious situation. I do not know if one has ever received news where one was told they are the target of a cyber-attack, but I will say that it is terrifying. It is a moment in someone's life when the blood drains from one's face.

When someone is told the date of those attacks, January 2021, one wonders what they were doing that month. What was going on in their life that month? How serious is this attack? It is something I do not want anyone to ever experience again, in this chamber or anywhere else in the world, but unfortunately, it happened.

One starts to wonder if this happened to me, and this also happened to other colleagues in the House of Commons, then clearly, this is also happening within our nation. Who is attempting to obtain what information? How successful are they? How many attacks like this are going on at this time? Worse than that, the Liberal government knew about this attack, yet it did not inform me, and it did not inform my colleagues. It is reprehensible. It is absolutely horrible.

I would like to thank again the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for informing myself and my colleagues that we were the targets of such an attack. I would also like to thank the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States of America for once again doing the heavy lifting that the Liberal government should be doing. It is shameful that we were informed, through foreign governments, that we were under attack.

Unfortunately, it is not a surprise to me. It is not a surprise at all because we found out, just this past week, in the foreign interference report that the former member for Steveston—Richmond East was not successful in his election campaign as a result of foreign interference.

Last year, we saw the effects of a foreign government, the same PRC government, on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who sits in this very aisle. He was also the victim of the interference of a foreign government in an attempt to try to gain information on his family to try to intimidate him.

Unfortunately, I had the honour of being the shadow minister for democratic institutions back in 2018-19. At that time, I begged the member for Burlington to do something about it at that time, and it fell upon deaf ears.

We set up things like the Leaders' Debates Commission, which housed a member of the WE Charity scandal. The commission was overseen by the former special rapporteur, who clearly failed in his mission to try to keep this chamber and to keep Canadians safe. We saw the implementation of the toothless digital charter, which achieved nothing to protect Canadians and to protect members of the House.

We spent hours going over Bill C-76, where we talked about things like vouching. We talked about things like returning officers. We talked about things like the closing of polls across our nation, yet this did very little to solve the problem that is in front of us now, which is foreign interference.

Once again, it is the absence of responsibility of the Liberal government not only to do something about foreign interference, but also to even have the courtesy, the decency and the moral placement to let members of the House know that they were under attack and under threat. We did not get that courtesy, and it is an absolute shame.

Once again, we have seen that the government has done too little, too late. We see this time and time again. We saw this in 2019, when I would try and raise questions with the member for Burlington, with the Prime Minister of Canada, and the only response I would receive was that the Prime Minister had an indication that there had been some interference by Russia in the 2015 election, which is very cold comfort at this time, given what we know now.

The 2018-19 election was, my goodness, five years ago now. The Liberals have had five years to do something. Clearly, they have not spent their time doing anything. They are, once again, doing what they do best and that is creating the illusion of doing something when, in fact, they are happy to do nothing because, as we saw with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, as we saw with the member for Steveston—Richmond East, it benefits them to do nothing, so they have done nothing, and they will keep doing nothing.

Even if I blame the member for Burlington, I know that this direction was from the top. There is no doubt in my mind that this direction was from the top, and the same thing here. I am sure that the Liberals wanted to ignore the cyber-attack and that they wanted to ignore the potential harm it could have caused me, my family and 17 other members of the House. They wanted to turn a blind eye to that because that is what they do. They do not want to take responsibility for the types of atrocities that take place against myself, against other members of the House and against the Canadian people.

The good news about this is that this will not deter myself, and this will not deter the leader of the official opposition from continuing to stand up for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, not only in this nation, but also across the world as well. Members will continue to see us standing side by side with our allies in Taiwan, in Israel and in Ukraine. Once again, this is something that we do not see the Liberal government doing.

We see the government picking and choosing winners and losers, speaking out of both sides of its mouth, again, not only to the harm of people in the House, not only to the harm of Canadians, but also to the harm of people across the world. As I said, that is because this government will always turn a blind eye. Do members know what happens when we turn a blind eye? Evil prevails. Evil prevails in the House when the current government turns a blind eye. Evil prevails across this country when the government is not willing to take responsibility, as I begged the member for Burlington to do all those years ago; and evil prevails across the globe.

It is not a surprise that I was informed, after the fact, that this government had neglected its responsibility to keep our citizens safe and to keep members of this chamber safe, who were informed by a foreign entity, by someone else doing the work that the Liberals should be doing. Shame on them for trying to hide it from us and for keeping it from us. Once again, they would know, Canadians would know, that they had shirked their responsibility and that they had not done what they were supposed to do in overseeing the safety of the House and the safety of the members of the House.

As I said, I have, unfortunately, seen this time and time again, so it is not a surprise to me at all that we were left in this position and that we were left as targets of this foreign government and other foreign governments that are looking into us. I am not naive. I was in the Canadian foreign service, now elected to the House, and I understand that, I am sure, I will always be a target for those foreign governments. However, this government was informed by another government and was informed by another organization that is attempting to do the work that the Liberals should be doing, which is keeping Canadians safe and keeping members of the House safe.

We can refer this matter to PROC. I certainly hope that we do, but I hope it is with greater results than the previous times, when we saw Bill C-76 come out of PROC with no shield for the members of the House and no shield for Canadians. I hope, this time, that the Liberal government takes foreign interference seriously, does not pretend and actually does something about it.

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today on this important topic. I found the debate earlier quite interesting. We saw the Conservatives and the NDP fight about who did what first and who is criticizing the government more.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we are actually getting to work to make sure that our democratic institutions are protected. While we do that, the opposition parties can stand up to fight about who did what best, whose clip came first and whose motion did what.

I think Canadians expect a government that puts partisanship aside to focus on the real issues that our country is facing. The threat of foreign interference is not a partisan issue. Every single Canadian, regardless of who they vote for or what party they support, should absolutely care about this issue. That should be reflected in the House.

The issue of foreign interference in our democratic institutions is not a new one. In fact, it is not even a unique one for Canada. We have seen instances around the world, such as the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We have seen efforts of foreign interference in France, Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries have been dealing with this issue.

In fact, Canada was warned by CSIS in 2013 about the threat of foreign interference. The then democratic institutions minister, now the opposition leader, did absolutely nothing about it. The leader of the official opposition said in this place that he did not do anything about it because it did not serve his partisan interests at the time. That should indicate to Canadians the absolute basics of where the opposition parties are coming from on this issue.

We now have the report by the right hon. David Johnston, and before members have even had a chance to dive into that report, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Bloc have said no. They are going to close their eyes to facts. They do not want to receive the secure national security briefing because they want to be able to continue to still make ignorant claims. They would like to remain blind to the facts. It should not surprise anyone that a party based on conspiracy theories and clickbait would not be a mature and responsible opposition party.

Yesterday, in this very place, the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not want a national security briefing because he did not want to be silenced. That should tell Canadians the level of maturity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is not ready to lead this country. He is barely ready to lead an official opposition of this place.

For somebody to suggest that having a national security briefing silences one on this issue is not only beyond false, but also beyond comprehension. It shows how little he knows about national security matters.

I myself have national security clearance because I was a member of the NSICOP committee, yet I have debated on this issue several times. I am leading the opposition day speech in this place. I have spoken out at PROC. I have asked witnesses serious questions. In fact, in my role in the national defence committee, I brought forward a motion that we study cybersecurity. This was all while having national security briefings, sitting on NSICOP and studying foreign interference, yet I have been able to serve my constituents by raising the issues that matter.

By taking national security seriously and by understanding that one can advocate for stronger democratic institutions, one can still advocate for stronger legislation and mechanisms while also protecting the national security information of this country.

That is what responsible members do. If I can do it, as a member of this government, certainly the Leader of the Opposition should be mature enough to understand the importance of national security while still being able to advocate for stronger mechanisms and measures. The fact that he cannot comprehend how to put the national security of this country first, instead of his partisan attacks, should tell Canadians everything they need to know about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the Leader of the Opposition and, for that matter, the leader of the Bloc.

When it comes to the issues, I have heard many times in this debate that confidence in Canadians is being eroded. Is that not ironic given the members saying it are the ones who are closing their eyes to the facts? In the right hon. David Johnston's report, he specifically talks about the balance between wanting to make a report that everyday Canadians can read and access with better understand, while at the same time protecting the national security information we all rely on to keep this country safe. He acknowledges that.

David Johnston said that he created an annex to this report with all of the information he based his decisions on. He included this annex for leaders of all recognized parties, members of NSICOP and those with national security clearance that need to have access to it. He specifically said in this report for leaders of the opposition and members of NSICOP to please read this annex, the information that he based his decisions on. He said that they can read it and come forward if they believe that, based on the information, his recommendations were ill-informed or they have taken a different approach.

It is pretty open and transparent to say there is a balance between Canadians needing to understand the positions and the recent media leaks while protecting national security. He then went on to say to everybody who has that national security clearance, such as opposition parties and NSICOP, that all of the information, which he based his recommendations and findings on, is in one easy document, and that, if they disagree with those findings, then they can come forward and say so. However, this will be done while protecting the confidential information collected by the national security community. That is quite reasonable.

In fact, it was an incredibly readable report. I have read many reports of this nature. NSICOP has produced many reports of this nature, and one of the things NSICOP always tries to do in the public version of its reports is to take care and concern in making them as digestible as possible, so any Canadian picking up a report would understand the national security dynamics happening at any given time.

David Johnston suggested to read the information to determine on one's own if one thinks his findings were reasonable, so what happens? The Leader of the Opposition covers his eyes and his ears and says, “No, no, no. I don't want facts and information. I want to be able to stand up here and make fake innuendos, fake accusations and raise some money for my election campaign.” He wants to make personal attacks against the Prime Minister and the right hon. David Johnston.

What does the Bloc do? As my hon. colleague says, it is “blue light”, and it just follows suit. Then the NDP, with this motion, calls for the removal of the special rapporteur based on his report. Its leader has at least agreed to read the annex and get that national security briefing. However, before that has been done, to my knowledge, or at least before the leader of the NDP has made any assessment on the information the right hon. David Johnston used to come to the conclusions he did, and before NDP members have had a chance to really look at it to see if all the information is relevant, they say that they do not support the report. They do so without reading the basis of the recommendations.

When it comes to national security, there is a lot more context and information required than just a few media leaks. Therefore, for any responsible government to refuse to read the national security documentation in the briefings, to refuse to wait and, even for those who have agreed to read it but refuse to actually digest it, look at it or consider it and just throw the report out, is nothing more than partisan games with Canadians' national security and with our democratic institutions. Therefore, if anybody is suggesting that confidence is being eroded, I would suggest it is by the irresponsible behaviour of our opposition parties in not actually doing the work, considering the information and making informed decisions, which is something that, regardless of party, I think every Canadian would expect their MP to be able to do.

I have talked about why I find the opposition parties irresponsible and, in particular, why I find the Leader of the Opposition not only irresponsible but also incredibly immature and unfit to lead, even a party, in this place. However, I want to also talk about some of the things we have done since 2015 because, as I started with in my speech, this is not new.

The opposition party, as the previous Conservative government, knew about foreign interference in 2013. Let me just say, too, that this is this not new, and it is never going to be over. There is no silver bullet any government could implement to say that foreign interference is no longer an issue. A serious democracy is going to always have to be diligent to the foreign forces that would love to destabilize the democracy that Canadians have fought so hard for. Therefore, the important piece of dealing with our democratic institutions is to put the partisanship aside and continually work on how to adapt and change with the changing nature of the threat. However, again, we cannot even have those types of debates in this place because we are too busy hearing partisan and personal attacks from the opposition members, who should be bringing forward recommendations and suggestions to move forward on legislation or mechanisms that would strengthen democratic institutions. Because we cannot get past personal attacks, the government is going to keep working based on experts and those who have come forward making recommendations, and based on looking at other countries and some of the work that they have done.

Some of the things that we have done since 2015 include creating NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which gives national security clearance to representatives from recognized parties in the House, as well as national security briefings and documents. It is a committee that I mentioned I sat on, and it was an extremely professional and serious committee that has not only produced excellent reports for Canada but also has been recognized globally for the work it has done.

We created NSIRA, which is a review of our national security community. We have also established the critical election incident public protocol, and we have created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, often referred to as SITE.

We have established rapid response mechanisms during elections. We have also had Bill C-59 and Bill C-76, and we have created the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. That is all since 2015.

While opposition parties say that we do not take this seriously, we have right here eight examples that I have listed. I would be curious as to whether, at any point during the day, the Conservative Party will be able to name even one example of something that it did in 10 years to deal with the threats to national security and to strengthen our democratic institutions. I will wait patiently through the debate today to see if that happens.

In addition to that, I would be very curious to see whether the members opposite come forward with serious policy and a serious policy debate.

We have the Johnston report, which makes very clear recommendations, as well as criticisms, with respect to how information is being reported to those who need it. Every government needs to seriously look at and constantly review these matters. I think there has been a strong indication that we are not only taking it seriously, but that we will implement changes to make sure that, moving forward, we are constantly improving our democratic institutions and our processes, and that we are making sure that democracy is protected for Canadians. We do not own these spaces, as this is the House of Commons of Canadians, and it is our job collectively to ensure that we continue to maintain the democratic institutions in this place.

I have spoken at length about the seriousness of these issues, the fact that they are not new, and that in 2013 we had a government that did not take them seriously at all. We are now implementing several of the recommendations, as well as implementing mechanisms to constantly strengthen our democratic institutions.

I want to speak again to this, because we are going to hear personal attacks all day today on the Right Honourable David Johnston. We have already seen him referred to as a ski buddy, a neighbour, a friend, and I think it is quite interesting that Conservatives would refer to him in that way.

I would like to read a quote with respect to Mr. Johnston, which states:

Mr. Johnston has a strong record of public service, a broad base of support and an impressive list of achievements....He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him.

That was not the current Prime Minister, but the previous prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, who said that about David Johnston. Therefore, it is disappointing that the Conservatives use personal attacks to undermine not only his credibility, but his lifelong achievements, dedication to this country and public service. To erode all of that by saying he is just a ski buddy and that is how he was selected is an absolute insult to this place and to the people who serve their country. It is all being done for nothing more than partisan gain. He was good enough for Conservatives to make him the governor general. He was good enough for the former prime minister to speak of him in that way. His reputation and credibility have only come into question now that Conservatives are not getting their political way.

I have spoken a lot about the lack of maturity shown by the Leader of the Opposition. I know my time is wrapping up and I want to conclude by saying this. Canadians deserve opposition parties and parliamentarians who work hard for their constituents. We are not always going to agree, but at the very least this should be a place of adamant debate on policy. When the Conservative members opposite do not like the findings or the opinions of someone they have acknowledged and revered for years and decide to throw him away like he is no longer good enough for this country, it is an absolute shame. It shows how immature and ill-equipped the Leader of the Opposition is and that he should not be taken seriously in this country. He is clearly not ready now, nor probably ever, to lead this country, because he does not take national security seriously, but we will on behalf of Canadians.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced that I was pining over the fact that the member for Carleton or the previous government had never done anything about this. However, that was just the context I was using to set the stage for telling members about all the things we did do, as well as all the things we have done since becoming elected, that Conservatives have routinely voted against, including this member.

Bill C-22 created NSICOP, which he now speaks so highly about. Conservatives voted against it. Bill C-59 created and established NSIRA. Conservatives voted against it. Bill C-76 limited foreign ability to influence elections through monetary contributions. Conservatives voted against it.

Conservatives have routinely voted against initiatives that the government has brought forward to combat foreign interference. The fact that the previous Conservative government did nothing is just the context to set in order to highlight everything that we have done.

Could the member share with the House why he and his colleagues voted against all those measures?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, foreign interference has been reported publicly through CSIS since as early as 2013, when Conservatives were in power. The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, was then the minister responsible for receiving that report. Conservatives did nothing for two years.

Since then, we brought in Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which tightened up rules around donations to campaigns, specifically limiting foreign donations. We brought in Bill C-59, which established NSIRA, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. We brought in NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, to oversee national security.

Conservatives voted against all of that, everything, and at times they would not even vote to let the bills go to committee. How is it they can come in here and be so interested and speak so passionately about protecting democracy against foreign interference when they have routinely and systematically voted against every single initiative?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, let us just recap for a second.

In 2013, the Conservatives and the former democratic reform minister, the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition, received a report from CSIS saying that election interference was real and was going to continue. He did nothing for two years and literally sat on the report.

Later on, in 2017, after we came into government, we introduced Bill C-76, which limited funding from foreign actors. The Conservatives voted against it. We introduced Bill C-22 shortly before that, to create NSICOP. Conservatives would not even let it go to committee. They voted against it after the first or second reading.

I am wondering how the Conservatives can actually stand here and try to claim that they have any credibility on the issue of foreign interference, when they did nothing and routinely voted against every measure that we brought forward.

Opposition Motion—Interference by the People's Republic of China

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to speak to this motion. I want to say from the outset that I have the utmost respect for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. As a matter of fact, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is the only Conservative member of the House, over the last eight years, whom I have had the pleasure of going out to dinner with alone to talk about issues that we are both passionate about. I have always regarded the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as one of the most progressive voices on the other side of the House. In fairness, the bar has been set pretty low, but nonetheless, I have always had the utmost respect for him.

I sincerely apologize for the manner in which this debate got kicked off this morning. I should have perhaps chosen my words a little more closely. I have since apologized for that, but I think it is very important to reflect on what we are actually experiencing here.

We see the Conservatives, routinely, day after day, get up and directly and indirectly accuse the Prime Minister of Canada of lying. They have said so many times in this debate alone that the Prime Minister of Canada and the government have known about this particular incident with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for two years. They are saying it now. They are heckling about it now.

Why I find this to be so incredibly amazing is that, on the one hand, we all believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when he says he was not briefed on this specific matter, yet we will not afford that same luxury of belief to the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister of Canada, when he says the same thing. I cannot help but wonder where all the outrage is in the House when the Prime Minister of Canada says he did not know until Monday and, time after time, the Conservatives will get up and say, well, yes, he did know and he is lying to us.

That is the double standard around here that I am having such an incredible time wrapping my head around. I believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I will get to my previous comments, but I also believe the member for Papineau, because they are both honourable members who come before the House. I think anybody who comes in here and cries bloody foul over the idea that we have to trust every member at their word, as they are honourable, but then chooses who exactly they are going to accept that from is disingenuous at best.

I think it is important to go back and reflect. What I said earlier in this debate is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, along with 47 other members of Parliament, in 2022 alone, although for him it may have been in 2021, received defensive briefings from CSIS. Of course, we do not know what the content of those briefings was. We do not know exactly what was said, but we do know generally speaking what a defensive briefing is.

A defensive briefing is basically CSIS coming to a member of Parliament and saying that it wants to give the heads-up that they are person of interest who should be watching out for certain things. They are given some tips on how to handle this and on the things they should be looking out for, and are asked to inform CSIS when things happen. We know the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and 48 other members in 2022 alone received that particular briefing.

When the member for Wellington—Halton Hills says that he did not learn about these specific threats, I believe that. All I am trying to say is that we have to understand that these particular briefings occur on an ongoing basis. To come to the conclusion that they are one-offs is not the reality, because the CSIS report indicated that in the 2022 report.

The other thing that I am having a very hard time with is the general assertion from the other side of the House that the government has done nothing as it relates to foreign interference. That is completely and utterly untrue.

I will read the second half of what I read earlier in a question, because I think it is the most important part. It is from a 2013 CSIS report, the same one as the 2022 version from CSIS, the public report. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, who at the time was the minister of democratic reform, received that briefing, which said:

As boundaries between foreign state and non-state actors become increasingly blurred, it is particularly challenging for intelligence services to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate activities. Foreign interference in Canadian society—as a residual aspect of global or regional political and social conflicts, or divergent strategic and economic objectives—will continue in the coming years.

The member for Carleton, when he was minister of democratic reform, received this briefing in 2013 and did absolutely nothing about it. For the two more years the Conservatives remained in government, they did not act on this. As a matter of fact, shortly after we came along in 2015, we brought in a bill to tighten up the rules around funding with respect to foreign interference. Do members know who voted against it? It was the Conservatives. The Conservatives voted against Bill C-76, a bill that would specifically strengthen our ability to control foreign interference.

We have done a whole host of things in addition to that.

We established NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. There are Liberal, Bloc and NDP members, as well as Conservative members when they choose to show up and not boycott the committee, who sit on this committee. They are sworn to secrecy and receive the most sensitive information, not only for this country but indeed for our allies around the world. They have the political oversight and accountability to assess information and make recommendations to CSIS and the government on how to act on it. By the way, it is a credible tool that the United Kingdom and other Westminster parliamentary systems have, and we adopted it.

What else did we do? We brought in a special advisory panel that is activated during the writ process of an election, while everybody in this House and other candidates are running around the country trying to sell themselves and their political parties as the best choice. We do not have the time or capacity in those circumstances to act as a caretaker to watch over our democracy at that most important time, the time when an election is happening. That committee is made up of experts who are charged with reacting in real time to what is happening. It is something the Conservatives have criticized as being an almost useless tool. These people are watching our elections in real time to make sure they are not being interfered with by foreign state or non-state actors.

The Conservatives have come here and said we have done nothing, when the record clearly shows they knew about this from CSIS in 2013 and did nothing about it for two years. We came along in 2015 and have implemented policies and legislation time after time since then to strengthen our ability to control foreign interference as it relates to our democracy. It is completely unfair for the Conservatives to be making their assertions and they should know better.

I will now get to the motion we are talking about today. I will be honest with members. Of the four asks in this motion, there are three I do not see a problem with.

One is to create a foreign agent registry, similar to those in Australia and the United States. We announced months ago that this is already in process; it is already happening.

I will get to the public inquiry in a second.

Another one is to close down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China and operating in Canada. Of course, the RCMP is going to be seized with that and will do everything it can there. There is only one respected police authority in each jurisdiction in this country: the RCMP federally; the provincial police, where applicable, or the RCMP as charged by the provincial governments; and the local police. Those are the only police authorities the government or any member of Parliament, regardless of the rhetoric, will ever accept, and we of course will do whatever necessary to ensure that illegal police stations and operations like these are shut down immediately.

Of course, the motion would expel all of the People's Republic of China's diplomats responsible for and involved in the affronts to Canadian democracy. As indicated today by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, she is absolutely willing to do that where it is deemed necessary. There is obviously a process in place to do that. She has already summoned the ambassador of China regarding this issue, so I do not have an issue with that either. I think, as appropriate, that absolutely has to happen.

The part I have a problem with, which I feel is the most political, is the call for the public inquiry. I will be honest. I am on the PROC committee, and when this first came before the committee, I thought to myself that it made sense. A public inquiry would shine sunlight on this issue. Why would we not do that?

Unfortunately, this is not what we heard from the experts who came before the committee, whether it was those from CSIS, the national security experts, or the head of the RCMP. Everybody told us that we were dealing with extremely classified information. There was no way we could release that information to the public, and not just because of the effect it would have domestically. Can members imagine how our Five Eyes partners would feel if they realized we were sharing this sensitive information? We would be the laughing stock of the international community. They could never trust us with that information. We would be ostracized from the international community if we were to try to release that information.

It became very clear to those who were sitting on the committee, and those who were interested in hearing the expert advice, that a public inquiry is not the place for this sensitive information to be discussed. Rather, we were told it should be discussed in NSICOP, which is the parliamentarian committee that is established for this.

What I found to be the most interesting out of all of that, when this discussion was happening, was that the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, was told by the media that the government offered to give him a briefing, but he would have to be sworn into secrecy. He was asked if he would be willing to take that briefing. He said he did not want to know the information if he could not go talk about it. All that matters to the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, is to grandstand and get out there to politicize every single issue he can get his hands on.

As such, the member for Carleton is not interested in receiving highly classified information, even if it is for the betterment of the country. He is not interested in that because it would serve absolutely zero political gain for him. That, I think, is what Canadians should be reflecting on.

As I come to the conclusion of my speech, I want to say that there is great opportunity here for the House to work together. I understand there is a difference of opinion, when it comes to the public inquiry. I am going to respect whatever David Johnston, the former governor general, recommends to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister already said that we would accept his advice. If David Johnston says a public inquiry is the best way to go, we will do that.

However, I find it very troubling that members, primarily Conservatives, are railing against a former governor general who is so highly respected throughout this country. They talk about him as though he is a Liberal insider or something. He was a governor general who was appointed by Stephen Harper. The Conservatives should think about that.

They will stop at nothing. They are on a crusade to take down absolutely everybody, as long as it gives them a tiny bit of political gain. They would take an ounce of political gain at the expense of ruining somebody's reputation, if the opportunity presents itself to them, and they do it time after time after time.

We have an opportunity to work together to do something about foreign interference. I respect the debate between a public inquiry versus an inquiry that is not public. It is a debate that I respect. It is an issue I have found myself on both sides of, at times, and I hope we can have meaningful debates about how we can genuinely affect the security of our democracy. It is absolutely imperative. It is not something we should be playing politics with.

I will take responsibility for the way this debate started off today. I feel as though I contributed to that manner, and I apologize for that, but I really hope that, when this settles down, we can all focus on what is really important, and that is protecting the democracy we all hold so dearly.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, in 2002, I accepted an invitation to join the Canadian foreign service. My motivation was to serve the country I loved and to promote the values of freedom, the rule of law and democracy. My guiding document was the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a document revered by all nations, a universally codified agreement. The statutes within it allow the nations to conduct their diplomatic functions in a safe and mutually agreed-upon manner. To operate within it meant security, fidelity and continuity of business abroad. For me, to violate it was unthinkable. To honour it meant safe care of citizens, both at home and abroad.

In 2018, I was asked to serve as shadow minister for democratic institutions. My pleas to the then minister of democratic institutions, now Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, to protect our democracy at all costs fell on deaf ears. I am particularly offended that our current leader is accused of having done nothing, when she held the pen leading up to the 2019 and subsequent 2021 elections.

In 2018, I questioned the Prime Minister in the House, and the minister responded. I asked:

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question in New York this week, the Prime Minister admitted to knowing that foreign money had influenced the 2015 federal election. Bill C-76 was supposed to close the loopholes in the election legislation, but it does nothing to stop foreign money from influencing our elections.

When is the Prime Minister going to take this issue seriously and stop foreign interests from influencing our elections?

The minister replied:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is vital that everyone in the House work together to avoid and prevent foreign influence and interference in our elections.

I am excited to work with everyone in the House to make sure we pass Bill C-76. In Bill C-76 are tangible measures to ensure we can prevent foreign interference. I hope my colleagues on the other side will work with us to get this legislation passed quickly to ensure that our next elections are protected.

In addition to the toothless Bill C-76, the then minister gloated about the creation and implementation of the critical election incident protocol, a government body composed of five senior civil servants who all reported to the Liberal government. Be it incompetence or intention, the Liberal minister also failed, along with the Prime Minister, to keep Canadians safe and to protect our democratic institutions, but she refused to believe otherwise.

Nonetheless, here we are today, with revelations of significant interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections by the People's Republic of China, reports of money being funnelled to candidates and Canadians being intimidated. Canada's election law is very clear: “No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate”.

The Prime Minister continues to avoid questions and dismisses concerns as ill-informed or even racist. When questioned by the official opposition in November, he stated that he was never briefed on election candidates receiving money from Beijing. This was even while Global News was reporting that intelligence memos had been given to the Prime Minister months before, outlining how Beijing's consulate directed the funnelling of a large sum of money to 11 candidates in the 2019 election. When the former head of CSIS called for a public inquiry into election interference, the Prime Minister labelled that suggestion as undermining democracy. As well, after Global News alleged, in late February, that the member for Don Valley North was aided in 2019 by the Chinese consulate in Toronto, the Prime Minister dismissed questions about the situation, coming close to accusing the media of racism for even daring to ask about it, and to accusing those who were trying to get to the truth of damaging confidence in Canada's democratic institutions.

Most recently, a report published by The Globe and Mail on May 1 made the claim that CSIS documents from 2021 state that China sees Canada as a prime target for interference. It also states that the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills's family was targeted by Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei. The diplomat faced no repercussions, and the member was not made aware until the Globe and Mail story two years later. This is why Conservatives, the final defenders of freedom in this nation, have presented this motion here today.

I will now discuss each part in more detail. The motion states, “(a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America”. We have had, on this side of the House, a member bring legislation to the House, only to have it defeated by the current government, and now we see why. In 2019, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke brought similar legislation to the House, and it was voted down by the current government. The irony of other nations' having implemented such registries is that, in June 2018, the government announced, at the G7 Charlevoix summit, that it would lead on the commitment by G7 leaders with respect to the protection of democracy, by playing and coordinating a leadership function for the broader G7 network. Most recently, we have seen the Liberal member for Nepean refute the necessity of such a registry. Given the discoveries over the last few weeks, we can see why.

The motion continues with “(b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference”. All parties except the government, including its coalition partners from the NDP, are calling for this clause, yet we have learned that the government will kick and scream to avoid transparency, and, even when this is brought to pass by the House with opposition parties in agreement, will refuse to comply to provide information.

The motion then states, “(c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada”. I am sure that Canadians were in disbelief that police stations, not only from another nation but from a nation that has no regard for human rights or the rule of law, were operating within our borders, and that, in fact, the Minister of Public Safety gave us the assurance that all of these stations had been closed, yet we found out on May 1 that these continue to operate in Quebec.

Part (d) of the motion is to “expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy.” The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a cornerstone of modern international relations and international law. It states that the host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a diplomatic staff member to be persona non grata. It further states that the sending state, in that case, must recall this person within a reasonable period of time; otherwise, this person may lose their diplomatic immunity.

This is something that should have happened by now, yet the Prime Minister and the government have failed to do so for this individual. If the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is not safe, how do we know that all members of the House and their families are safe? The Vienna Convention is about honour, and so, I thought, is the House. However, in the words of the great author Lord Jeffrey Archer, there is no honour among thieves. The government should recognize the reprehensible violation of diplomatic immunity and declare Zhao Wei persona non grata.

As a former diplomat for Canada, my desire for freedom, democracy and the rule of law will never be hampered, not even by the current government. It is the raison d’être for my being here in the House of Commons and it is why I stand in support of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The Conservative Party will never back down from those who attempt to impede the fundamental freedoms of Canadians: truth, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If other members believe in those as well, they will support this legislation.

Democratic Institutions

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, since we continue to get the same question in a broken-record format, let me highlight exactly what we are doing to combat foreign interference.

We introduced Bill C-59 to give CSIS additional threat reduction measure powers. We introduced Bill C-76 to crack down on foreign funding. We introduced the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians so we could work across partisan lines. We finally introduced NSIRA to ensure transparency on how we do this work to Canadians.

What is the distinction? We did those things; the Conservatives opposed.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as I already explained, this government is truly proactive when it comes to dealing with the challenge of foreign interference.

That is why we gave more powers to CSIS. That is why we introduced Bill C‑76 to crack down on foreign contributions that could pose a threat to our institutions.

We will continue to do this important work to protect communities, institutions and, more importantly, all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member should try to educate himself on the difference between evidence and allegations.

The member used the term “mounting evidence”. Those were his words. There is no evidence to date. As a matter of fact, the RCMP has said that it does not have any active investigations ongoing. What there have been are allegations. If the member is unaware of the difference between allegations, information and intelligence versus evidence, he should really take the time to educate himself on that.

What I think is even more remarkable about the member's speech is the massive misunderstanding of the reality of the situation when he opened his speech by saying that the government has done virtually nothing. That is categorically false. As a matter of fact, this government is the only government that has ever done anything on this issue.

I will inform the member what we have done since 2015. We introduced Bill C-76, which was a bill that tightened up financing rules and tightened up on opportunities for foreign interference specifically. The Conservatives, who this member seems to be cozying up a lot to lately, actually voted against that.

The other thing we did was install a special panel of experts who have the ability to monitor, in real time, what is going on during a writ period. They have the opportunity to assess, make decisions, inform parties, gather intelligence from political parties and take action when necessary. That is a panel that never existed before. Most importantly, after the election is over, a third party prepares a report based on the panel's information. That third party concluded, both after the 2019 and 2021 election, that the elections were done in a free, fair, open and transparent manner and were not influenced by foreign interference.

Finally, on the member's issue about the public inquiry. Perhaps the member did not hear my answer to the impromptu question from the NDP member just before him, but I laid it out very clearly. On the experts that the member gave a lot of credit to in his speech, and he sang the praises of CSIS saying that we have to respect its processes, I can tell him that CSIS came to the PROC committee and specifically told us that the place to do this is not in a public inquiry. We have the established organizations, such as NSICOP, which is another thing this government put together, that specifically looks at, and has the ability for parliamentarian oversight over, highly classified information. That is the best place that we were told it should go.

However, notwithstanding that, and understanding the incredible position and incredible attention that Canadians are seized with on this issue, the Prime Minister went a step further and said that even though our experts were telling us that a public inquiry is not the best place, we understand that we need to put this in a non-partisan environment and will allow a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to determine what the best path forward is. As I said to the previous member, if it is determined that the best way forward is through a public inquiry, the Prime Minister has already said that we will accept that recommendation and proceed with it based on his advice.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, they did absolutely nothing, and we have done a number of things since then. We brought in NSICOP. We brought in a special panel that oversees elections. We brought in Bill C-76, which tightens up foreign interference and which they voted against.

Democratic Institutions

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Since we have taken the reins of government, this government has been consistently proactive in taking foreign interference seriously by giving CSIS new threat-reduction measure powers and by ensuring we crack down on foreign funding, which could be used to meddle in our elections, through the introduction and passage of Bill C-76 and through the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which has all recognized parties doing important work together to protect our democratic institutions.

That is the record of this government. I am proud of it, and we will continue to ensure that we do everything possible to protect—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon today.

I would like to start today by speaking directly to the seriousness of these allegations, the seriousness of foreign interference generally and what the government has been doing.

I would say to the member who spoke just before me that the claim that we have done nothing is absolutely ludicrous. I would remind the member that on December 18, 2020, the then minister of public safety mailed a copy of a public report regarding election interference specifically as it relates to China to every single member in this House of Commons. I am sure that she received and reviewed it, as did all Conservative MPs, yet they have the gall to stand up in this House and suggest that we are being secretive or that information is not being shared with them.

In addition to that, what has this government done? We created NSICOP, which specifically allows parliamentarians and senators to review highly classified information. We passed the Election Modernization Act to help tackle foreign interference, Bill C-76, which Conservatives voted against. We created a panel of experts to monitor in real time what was going on with respect to foreign interference during an election and gave them the ability and the power to act on it.

We put in tighter controls on advertising and online platforms. We closed fundraising loopholes to keep foreign money out of elections. We enhanced the integrity of the voters list.

Foreign election interference has been going on for about 10 years. Now, as a result of the real concerns that Canadians have, and rightly so, it is at least being talked about a lot more in the mainstream, as we have seen in other countries.

The Prime Minister and indeed this side of the House are seized with what is going on. We take this very seriously. That is why the Prime Minister empowered NSICOP and NSIRA to specifically look into the issue of foreign interference and why he has appointed an incredible Canadian, David Johnston, to look at the issue and recommend to the Prime Minister the best course of action to move forward, which very well might be a public inquiry. This government has already said, in advance of knowing what any of those recommendations might be, that we will accept and implement them.

Therefore, for the member for Thornhill to come in here and suggest that this government has done absolutely nothing about foreign interference and has been secretive is just completely untrue.

I find it very interesting that we are getting this lecture from the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, and his MPs about sending staff to committee. It was the member for Carleton who, in 2010, said this to the CBC. I will read it out again because I think it is just so telling, and the video is widely available for anybody to go back and review.

He said:

...ministers answer questions on behalf of the government and not staff. We are not going to be changing 300 years of history all of a sudden at the behest of the coalition parties. We are not going to have the staff members appear in question period to answer on behalf of the government. We are going to do it the old-fashioned way, the way it has always been done right up until the last several months. We are going to keep ministers, the guys in charge, responsible for their duties.

I always get a kick out of the use of that terminology, “the guys in charge”. Of course the member for Carleton would phrase it like that.

That was the member for Carleton when he was in government. He was answering a question as to whether staff, in particular, Dimitri Soudas, the then prime minister's director of communications, would go to committee.

I think the hypocrisy here is literally oozing out of that side of the House and dribbling down towards the aisle here when I listen to what is coming from over there.

At the time, the NDP, I believe with other political parties, were able to get through a motion to require Mr. Soudas to appear before committee, yet he never did. Do members know who appeared? Stephen Harper sent John Baird, one of his ministers at the time, to deal with the situation.

In response to Mr. Easter asking why he was there and not the person who was called to the committee, Mr. Baird said, “the government believes the opposition is playing politics with parliamentary committees and is not respecting due process and fair play.”

Does that sound familiar? “They are conducting random interrogations without due process or any rules of fairness. That might be how things work in the United States Congress, but it's not the Canadian tradition. In Canada the constitutional principle is ministerial responsibility.” That is what John Baird said when Stephen Harper defied the request of Parliament for Dimitri Soudas, the director of communications in the Prime Minister's Office, to appear before committee.

This new-found approach from the Conservatives is to suddenly be so incredibly hypocritical. I will not even hold it against the new members who have come along since 2015. However, in particular, the member for Carleton was not just an MP who happened to be around the House at the time, but he was actually leading the file. Is he suddenly standing here saying it is completely appropriate now?

I asked the member for Thornhill, just before my speech, why it is okay now, and she was totally unable to give an answer. Her answer basically was that the chiefs of staff have already come forward from the government. What she is basically saying is that we should never have set the precedent, because now Conservatives are running rampant all over it, using every possible opportunity. Where does it end from here? That is the question.

Every time Conservatives want to drum up a fake scandal, they are going to run in here and use the same language they are using now. No one is doing China's work better for them than the Conservative MPs right now, who are sowing the seeds of distrust in our democratic institutions. That is what is happening right now, and it is Conservative MPs' responsibility for all of it.

This comes down to politics, and I am not the only one saying this is politically motivated. Push aside all the people who are Liberal, NDP and non-partisan. Push them aside for a second and let us just talk about Conservatives who are calling out this rhetoric. Fred DeLorey, the campaign manager from a year and a half ago, is on nightly. It is like he is lining up to get on every talk show or every panel he can on CTV and CBC. He is everywhere right now, basically saying that the Conservatives are just trying to score political points.

Vern White, a former Conservative senator, has referred to what is going on as “BS”. That is what he actually said. He is a former Conservative senator because at some point he came to the realization that this political party is way further to the right than where it had been when he was appointed a senator, if we can believe that. Former senator Hugh Segal, who represented my area and whom I have an incredible amount of respect for, has also—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The government takes the issue of foreign interference very seriously. All of our legislation demonstrates our commitment to this issue. Consider for example Bill C‑59, which granted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service new powers to reduce threats caused by foreign interference. Another example is Bill C‑76, which targeted foreign funds that could pose a threat to our democratic institutions.

My colleague is quite right to ask questions. That is the purpose of this House. The point of this place is to shed light on how we carry out these duties. At the same time, it is fair to point out that, for the government and for everyone else, partisanship is not good for debate.

I hope we can set partisanship aside as we move forward.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the opposition for this opportunity to speak to this motion. Protecting Canadians means protecting the country's institutions. It is an important responsibility for all governments, but some are trying to exploit the freedoms we enjoy as Canadians to sow division and compromise our democratic values.

It is for that reason that this motion is so important. I assure all members in the chamber that this government takes foreign interference with the utmost seriousness. The threats that it poses to our economy, to our academic and research institutions, to our critical infrastructure and, indeed, to our democratic institutions, including most especially our elections, is of paramount importance and work in which I hope all members will be united.

Although I have identified these priorities, they are indeed the pillars of our democracy. The people who work within these institutions, Canadians who contribute, is sacred.

I understand that there has been a substantial amount of heat and passion in this subject matter. At times I think it has been regrettable to see that the discourse has strayed far too much into partisanship. I do not believe any of us benefit from that. It is my sincere hope that we would be able to have a debate on this motion, on the merits, on the principles, on civility and respect, because only together united can we fight against foreign interference and protect our institutions and our democracy.

There are two primacies to this motion. One is that we need more transparency. I am going to speak to that and about the ways in which this government is raising the bar and shining a light on the way in which we protect our national security. The second is the questions around what this government is doing to fight against foreign interference.

Let me start with the latter. Since taking the reins of government, we have been very proactive in putting in place the people, the resources, the technology, the powers and the authorities to equip all of the agencies that work within our national security and public safety apparatuses to protect our institutions.

By way of example, that includes legislation like Bill C-59, which gave CSIS new threat reduction measure powers to address and mitigate; in other words, reduce threats that may be caused by foreign interference or other hostile activities that could be used to undermine our democratic institutions. We put that legislation into place.

This government also introduced Bill C-76 to crackdown on foreign funding that could be used to interfere with our elections. It has become a useful tool to deter and disrupt those efforts as a way of safeguarding our democratic institutions.

Very recently, I launched a public consultation that will see the creation of a foreign-influenced transparency registry, so we can promote legitimate diplomacy and foreign activities on Canadian soil, while at the same time deterring and stopping any efforts that go beyond legitimate diplomatic activities here at home.

Even as we have done that, this government has raised the bar on transparency. We have done that through the creation of a number of new committees and agencies.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is there to study matters related to security and intelligence. This new committee was created by our government to increase collaboration between all recognized parties in the House of Commons and with the Senate.

Under the leadership of one of my colleagues on the government side, many recommendations were made in a unified, cohesive manner to fight foreign interference. The government is in the process of implementing some of those recommendations.

What is more, we created the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. The purpose of this agency is to review all the work that is done by our national security agencies. It has access to top secret information so that it can review our agencies' national security and public safety activities, in order to assure everyone that the work is being done properly or, if not, to provide meaningful recommendations that will benefit everyone.

By creating these bodies, we have raised the bar of transparency. We are benefiting from their work. We are doing so in a way that is bipartisan. In other words, we are finding ways to collaborate across the aisle in this chamber.

In addition to that, vis-à-vis our democratic institutions and specifically our elections, our government created the critical election incident public protocol, as well as the CEIPP panel, which is made up of our top, non-partisan, independent, professional public servants. They are there to ensure that during the course of an election that all the checks, balances and protections are doing their job to preserve the integrity of our federal elections. That is precisely what not one but two independent panels confirmed after they examined the circumstances of the federal elections in 2019 and 2021.

In short, they certified that those elections were free and fair, libres et justes, and my hope is that Canadians will take assurances in those conclusions, not to give rise to some sense of complacency but rather so we can be sure we are on the right track when it comes to putting in place the mechanisms necessary to shield our democratic institutions from foreign interference.

We need to do more. That is why, in addition to all of those mechanisms, just last week we announced the appointment of David Johnston, a former governor general appointed by Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister, and an individual with unimpeachable qualities and characteristics, to fulfill the role and to give us concrete advice on what the next best practical steps ought to be, given some of the questions around the 2019 and 2021 elections.

This builds on the two reports that were filed by James Judd and Morris Rosenberg, two former public servants with distinguished records, in a non-partisan, independent way, contributing to the dialogue in this important area with tangible, concrete recommendations on which the government has committed to act.

Indeed, in the case of Mr. Judd, we have acted on all but one of the recommendations. With regard to Mr. Rosenberg's report, we have heard my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who has committed to implementing those recommendations as well.

In the event that there are any questions about Mr. Johnston's qualifications, which I again believe are unimpeachable, let me quote from a number of Conservatives who have said the following.

I believe it was Fred Delorey, the former national chair of the Conservative Party campaign in 2021, who said that there was nobody better qualified. I believe it was Stephen Harper who said that David Johnston was the best of Canadians.

We can place trust and confidence that he will, without any pride or prejudice toward political parties or partisanship, put forward the best possible recommendations when it comes to the important subject matter of fighting against foreign interference.

I will say a few concluding words about the work that is being done by PROC, another forum in which the government is putting forward witnesses to again shed light on the way in which we are doing the work around foreign interference and national security.

Most recently PROC heard from the Prime Minister's national security intelligence advisor, the deputy ministers from Global Affairs and the former deputy minister from Public Safety, as well as from my colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. All of them were able to certify that the federal elections in 2019 and 2021 were free and fair, but acknowledged that foreign interference was a significant challenge that required a proactive posture, one that continues to study, very thoughtfully and carefully, the types of tools and mechanisms we need to put in place to combat against those hostile actors who would try to undermine our democracy.

Our government will continue to co-operate with that committee. It is important that we demonstrate a willingness to work with all parliamentarians so we can offer evidence and advice and put our collective minds together to navigate this challenge.

Beyond Parliament, it is important that we engage Canadians.

I want to take a moment to underline that in the conversations I have had with a number of communities around how we create new tools, including the foreign agent registry, expressions of concern have been articulated to me, concerns that we do this work in the right way, that we do it transparently, and that the ways that we draft and craft our laws are done consistent with the principles that are espoused in the law and in the charter. That has to be the bedrock of the way in which we put pen to paper when we draft our legislation. It is technical work. It is complex work.

It is challenging to define and get the parameters right for how these authorities are triggered, used and then accountable in the use of those authorities, to be sure they are exercised reasonably and then accountable thereafter in the public reporting of it all.

With respect to Bill C-59, that is precisely why, when we created the new threat reduction powers for CSIS, we did so concurrently with the creation of NSIRA, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, so we could be accountable and transparent, so if any questions were raised legitimately about how these powers were being used, we could make the necessary course corrections to maintain trust and confidence in all Canadians when it came to the way in which we did the work around national security.

The Conservatives have gone to some length at times to be political and to be partisan, and that is regrettable. I do not believe that any of us profit from trying to score political points. We are a democracy. This is a chamber that sees some vigorous debate every single day, and it is a privilege to be part of those debates. Through those debates, my hope is that we are able to refine our ideas and advance them for the national interest.

However, when it comes to foreign interference, whether from the People's Republic of China, Russia or any other hostile actor that would attempt to undermine our institutions, it is important we take a team Canada approach.

We all have a vested interest in protecting the rules, principles and values that underpin our democracy. My sincere hope is that we will be able to continue to do this work in a way where, yes, there is fierce debate but it does not stray into partisanship and into the unnecessary politicization of an issue that should transcend it, so that we can do whatever is necessary to protect our democracy from all the threats that lie on the horizon.

Democratic Institutions

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that, like him and all members, we take foreign interference very seriously, including as it relates to potential foreign interference through funding.

That is why the government put into place Bill C-76 to crack down on that threat. In addition to that, we set up two independent panels made up of our top public servants who verified that the elections in 2019 and 2021 were free and fair.

Now we will continue to work with public servants as well as with the independent expert in the special rapporteur to do this work together.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows well that this government takes the work of fighting against foreign interference very seriously. That is why we introduced Bill C-59, which gave CSIS the threat reduction measure powers it needed to address and mitigate that risk. That is why we introduced Bill C-76, to crack down on foreign funding that could interfere with our elections, but with the corresponding transparency to create the NSICOP and NSIRA, all of which ensures that we can be upfront with Canadians so we can defend our democratic institutions.

The Conservatives should rise above the fray and see that this is not a partisan issue—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to assure my colleague and all Canadians that we are equipping our national security apparatus with all of the tools it needs to ensure that elections are free and fair. We are cracking down on foreign funding through the introduction of Bill C-76. We are providing additional resources to backstop the cuts that were made when the Conservatives were last in government. We will do whatever is necessary to continue to have a system that is transparent and accountable. Yes, that means working with the independent bodies within Parliament so that we can have elections that are free and fair.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to the budget bill, because I have a lot of concern about the budget.

I will start with the amount of debt the government has added. The Prime Minister has added more debt to Canada than did all the prime ministers, together, since the beginning of Confederation. We are now at a debt of $1.3 trillion and the government has asked to raise the ceiling of that to $1.8 trillion.

People may wonder why that matters to me. The amount of debt that has been added to each Canadian is about $30,000. Let us think about this. That means for people who are watching, they will have to pay the government $250 a month every month for the next 10 years to pay off just what the government has spent so far. As we continue to spend, those numbers will go up. Let us think about in terms of a family. Partners and their children, everyone, will be paying $250 a month for 10 years. That is a lot of money.

There does not seem to be a plan. I asked the finance minister last night and she was unable to articulate a plan that would resolve this in the longer term. Nobody certainly expects an immediate adjustment, because we are trying to exit the pandemic, but where is the plan to exit the pandemic and restore the economy?

If we look at some of the substance in the budget, we will see that the Liberals have extended many of the programs that were put into place to help people during the pandemic, and that is great. The Conservatives always supported that. However, a lot of the programs had flaws and people were falling through the cracks. Those things were identified early on, even in April and May of last year. Therefore, I do not understand why the government has extended programs without fixing the things. Many people had start-up businesses. This was a clear area where folks who had unfortunately started up just prior to the pandemic or a few months in advance of the pandemic did not have the revenue to show for the previous year. If the government really wants to help people, why are these little holes in the programs not fixed?

It is the same situation for a lot of the women entrepreneurs. We have heard how disproportionately affected women were in the pandemic. We have seen the maternity leave issue. Women who were going to take maternity leave in the future but then had to stay home from work because of COVID were unable to get their maternity leave. The Liberals have not sorted that out in a whole year. The government knows about these issues and it needs to fix them. I do not understand why they were not fixed for the budget.

The member for Kingston and the Islands talked about the accusations that the Liberals were vote-buying and electioneering with this budget. It is hard not to think that is the case when we see money for everybody. Certainly, the Liberals will continue to give money away until they run out of the taxpayer money, and we are just about there.

I have looked at some of the promises in the budget. In particular, I want to talk about child care because that was flagged as a huge need. We have certainly heard that at the status of women committee which I chair. However, it is contingent on the provinces paying half. What if the provinces do not have the ability to pay? With the pandemic and the expenses they face, that may be the case. I asked the finance minister last night what the plan was if provinces could not afford to pay and she was not able to articulate a plan. It is very concerning when the person who is supposed to be in charge of the financial plan cannot say what it is.

We need to ensure that there is something to address the child care need because women have left the workforce and many of them will not return because they are unable to get child care.

In terms of some of the other things, this was put forward as being a growth budget. Again, last night when we looked at the estimates, I asked the finance minister about the plans for growth in the oil and gas sector and if she could point to measures that would achieve that. There was really nothing in the budget for that. It is the same for the natural resources sector. That is about 17% of our GDP. Again, there was really a blank space where there should have been some kind of a plan to grow that sector. This sector could really bring in revenue that would then pay for a lot of the social programs we are wanting.

I asked the same question about agriculture and where in the budget were the plans to spur growth in the agriculture sector. Again, there was no answer.

Therefore, this is not a growth budget. The only thing growing in this budget is the debt, and that is not what we need.

We really need to start to create jobs and get people back to work: the million jobs that were lost in the pandemic and those that will continue to be lost. We need to find help for the sectors that are struggling, and the tourism sector is well recognized as one that is struggling.

The government picked its favourite, Air Canada, and did something there, but nothing for WestJet, nothing for Air Transat and nothing for the other carriers. At the same time, the $1 billion for fairs and festivals is woefully inadequate for one of the hardest-hit sectors, which employs many people in the country. The plan needs to be realistic, and we need to appreciate that it could be a two-year recovery for the people in that sector.

At the same time, high-speed Internet is known to be a need across the country. In fact, it is essential to do business today. There is $1 billion in this budget for high-speed Internet, but I would point out that in the last few years $1.5 billion has been spent and that is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. This is something that the government is saying it wants to accelerate.

Again, in terms of the priorities of the spending, there are some things that I think we need to stop spending on and other things that we need to divert to and accelerate, like high-speed Internet.

I was happy to see long-term care being addressed, and certainly that is important. In the area of seniors, the increases to OAS that we have long been calling for are appreciated, for those over 75 years of age. We have seen that during this pandemic the government did two carbon tax increases, and the cost of everything is going up: food, groceries, etc. Seniors are on a fixed income in many cases and are very hard pressed. While the government is busy spending, why only the 75-plus? What about the people between 65 and 75? I should point out to the Liberals that those people do vote, so that could be a consideration for them.

The other thing I see here is a top-up for low-wage earners. To me, that looks like a basic guaranteed income that just was not called a basic guaranteed income.

Of course, in this long budget bill, the omnibus budget bill that the government always promised it would never do, the government has decided to sneak in something about the Elections Act, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the budget. What happened was that, in the last Parliament, Bill C-76, a bill to change the Elections Act, tried to introduce measures to make it an offence to say false things about a candidate or a public figure, but the court struck that down as being a violation of people's freedom of speech.

Instead of challenging the court's decision or respecting the court's decision, the government has decided to take the sneaky approach and stick it in a 720-page budget bill, and put the provision in there that this would take effect on any election that occurs within six months of the coming into force of this budget. Well, that certainly sounds like the Liberals are intending to have an election in the next six months, does it not? This is just more evidence that the Liberals are desperate to have an election and that they do not keep their promises, because this is an omnibus budget bill.

At the end of the day, when we look at the measures in the budget, what did we get for it? I have just a few questions that remain.

First of all, I do not see the plan to exit the pandemic. We thought maybe the vaccines would be it, even though that has been badly bungled. Now we are saying, “Well, you know what, even if you get the vaccine you might still be able to transmit COVID and might still be able to get it, so you are not going to get your freedoms back there.” I really do not have a lot of confidence that the government is going to give back Canadians' freedoms, and if it does, that it would restore the economy. Because there is no growth plan in this budget and there are no adequate sector supports defined, there may be nothing left to reopen to, if the government does not address this. The government has to come up with a plan to address the unsustainable debt. We cannot continue to operate in this way.

Finally, the government needs to stop the war on freedom of speech of Canadians in this country.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here today and to contribute to this debate on Bill C-11. I have been here for four years. It is hard to believe, as I just had my anniversary on April 3, that I have been serving the good people of Calgary Midnapore for four years, which I am so fortunate to do. At this point in my political career, if I do not believe that the messengers themselves are sincere, I have a hard time believing the message. It is really hard for me to think about and understand a policy if I do not have a lot of good faith in the individual or entity from which it is coming.

There stems one of the two struggles that I have with this bill: I do not genuinely believe in the sincerity of the current government to protect Canadians. I have seen this from many perspectives, both past and present. My second concern is a sort of generalization, but it still remains that I see the government doing things in a half-hearted effort. This is along the same lines as my first point about insincerity.

When I refer to my past experience with this, I am drawing upon my time as the shadow minister for democratic institutions. Bill C-11 is relevant to that because, during my time as shadow minister, the Digital Charter was announced. If not legislation, this was certainly an important policy announcement that was supposed to carry a lot of weight. At the time, we were debating Bill C-76, which would have major implications for future elections. The digital conversation, along with foreign interference and foreign influence, had a lot to contribute to the discussion around Bill C-76.

When the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry made his announcement at that time, along with the minister of democratic institutions, it felt very flat. It felt as though it was one of those commercials for children on a Saturday morning or, since the current government likes to insult Conservative institutions so much, perhaps a video from PragerU. It really did not come across with a lot of sincerity or a lot of teeth. It just seemed to do what the government likes to do, which is a lot of virtue signalling.

This bill also reminds me of the tribunal composition. It always concerns me a little when the government creates a body that has any type of implication in the direction of Canadians' lives or industry. I am thinking of the Leaders' Debates Commission, which I believe significantly impacted the debates framework in the last election. I recall the question from the member of Parliament for Provencher to the previous speaker. If we look back now, the debates commission included one of the Kielburger brothers. It is very interesting that we find this here today.

One thing I am concerned about within the framework of the Bill C-11 legislation is that the current government members always find a way to take care of their friends. We have seen this with SNC-Lavalin, which we are still dealing with the implications of here today as we go through the pandemic; with Mr. Baylis, the former member of Parliament; and, as has been alluded to before, the WE Charity scandal, which the previous speaker indicated. Unfortunately, this legislation is being sent to ethics rather than industry in an effort to delay that. Even in the context of Bill C-11 and what this is supposed to do, I worry about government members taking care of their friends.

I mentioned that the second part of my concern was that the current government does everything half-heartedly. I believe that includes this legislation, without question.

We look at the possibility of information being shared with other parties. The bill would allow an organization to transfer an individual's personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent. Regarding the right to have the collecting party delete collected information on request, it somewhat deals with that, but when I have tried to unsubscribe, in some situations it has definitely been unsuccessful.

We also see in the bill the right to opt out of the sale of personal information where an organization may transfer an individual's personal information to a service provider, again, without their consent or knowledge. This is a theme that I am seeing in terms of the government addressing things half-heartedly and Bill C-11 definitely falls within this.

Also, we have seen this half-hearted response with the pandemic from the very beginning in terms of the government's eliminating the warning system prior to the pandemic's arrival; the return of personal protective equipment, which showed such a lack of foresight for the necessity of its use not months later; and the slow closing of borders that we saw at the very beginning, and in my position as shadow minister for transport I have seen incredible, draconian measures that were inserted at a result of poor response earlier on. It is the same with any situation when the longer we allow something to fester, the greater the response it requires later on. Unfortunately, Canadians are paying the price of the inaction. There is also the rapid testing and of course vaccines, which is a complete failure of the government and of the Prime Minister.

I want to say to any Canadian who is listening to this speech, if they are upset because their business is closed, their children are at home and not at school, they have not seen their family in 18 months, there is a third wave, it is the fault of the Prime Minister for so poorly preparing for the later stages of this pandemic. This is another half-hearted response that I have referred to.

We have also seen this unfortunately within the defence committee. The government was willing to turn its back on women all across the country in not believing the stories and yet it is willing to investigate the unfortunate situation of the member for Pontiac, who is an incredible individual might I say. My husband and I had the good fortune of travelling to Israel with him and I will stand in solidarity with him.

In kindergarten, I was painting a picture and when I was done, I had taken off my smock and was standing there in my slip when my good friend, Kim Crocker, who I later had the pleasure of serving with in student council with in high school said to me, “You're standing there in your slip” as all the fine women of Calgary Midnapore did wear at that time. My point is the Liberals have turned their backs on women at the defence committee as well.

If there is something good to be said about this piece of legislation, in my capacity as shadow minister for transport, many right-to-repair organizations and the small repair shops across rural and suburban Canada have said that Canadians have the right to own their data.

Colleagues within the Conservative Party will argue that this is a property right and a human right. As we advance in the digital age, I believe more and more that this is a human right, that our history of data will one day be almost synonymous with our DNA.

I will leave it there. I do not believe in the government's sincerity of protecting Canadians. I believe that so much that the Liberals do is a half-hearted effort. For both of these reasons, I stand here today in regard to Bill C-11 with a lot of questions about the legislation, but the belief that I am not certain whether this legislation goes far enough.

Canada Elections Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is a really critical issue. The committee should be taking this up as one of its priorities for the legislation.

People in the House will know that I am not a wallflower when it comes to criticizing the government. However, if we look back to Bill C-76, it was a very combative way to change the Elections Act. The approach so far seems to be different, and that is important. It creates the space for the committee to do good work on this and other issues to get some changes on which we can all agree, and then proceed on that basis.

I remain optimistic in respect to this legislation that we should be able to find a path forward and get good rules in place to protect both public health and democracy in the case that we do have an election. The best option is to not have an election right now. It is not a good time.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada will remember that in Guelph we had robocalls a few elections back when Conservatives were calling people in my community saying that election locations had changed. They also went on campus to try to take one of the polling boxes from our campus.

Having consistent polling election locations for the pre-votes and the day of the vote would be important, as are the changes made in Bill C-76 to modernize the Canada Elections Act and have the Elections Canada commissioner able to communicate to Canadians the best way to vote in their communities, the locations of polling stations, and having some means to promote the vote.

Could the president comment, first of all, on how we can maintain consistency of polling locations, if that is possible, and also how Elections Canada can communicate those to our communities?

Democratic Institutions

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government says our democracy is threatened by foreign interference, but it looks like the bigger threat could be from the government.

The Liberals violated the Shawcross doctrine. They put Unifor on the media bailout fund. They introduced Bill C-76, limiting ads and free speech before elections. They tried controlling the House in Motion No. 6. They rigged the rules for their own benefit in the leaders' debates. Their Internet report is proposing what could be the largest restriction on free speech in Canadian history.

Last week, we found out the Liberals spent $430,000 of public money on partisan social media in the last election. Who is the bigger threat to Canadian democracy?

Canadian Heritage

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen a jaw-dropping erosion of rights under the Liberal government, for example, Bill C-76, which rigged election rules in the Liberals' favour, and the $600-million bailout of selected struggling newspapers.

Now the Liberals have embraced the shocking recommendation to license media companies, an Orwellian tool used by ruthless authoritarian governments. Are the Liberals so desperate to cling to power they would emulate dystopian societies in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran?

Democratic Institutions

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we have full confidence in our officers of Parliament. We have full confidence in Elections Canada and the professional men and women who administer elections. In fact, unlike the party opposite and its so-called fair elections act, we will not make it harder for Canadians to vote. We will not make it harder for Canadians to get information on how to vote. In fact, in Bill C-76 we empowered Elections Canada to do such a thing.

We hope Conservatives also think it is a good thing that Canadians have the right information on where and how to vote, because that matters for Canadian democracy.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, we will not muzzle scientists; we will not muzzle public servants, and we will certainly not muzzle Elections Canada. In fact, in Bill C-76, we empowered Elections Canada to talk to Canadians about the importance of voting. Unlike Conservatives, we are not afraid of more Canadians voting. I hope they will join us in supporting Elections Canada's good work in reaching out to vulnerable populations, reaching out to groups that do not vote and making sure that in this election more Canadians than ever vote.

News Media Industry

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the same old lines from the same old Conservative Party. What it did when it was in government is that it limited the rights of Canadians to vote. It made it more difficult for our most vulnerable to vote, and it made it even more difficult for Elections Canada to talk to Canadians about voting.

We changed that with Bill C-76. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives keep attacking our democratic institutions. They have gone after the CEO of Elections Canada; they have gone after the commissioner, and they have gone after the debates commissioner. That is unacceptable.

Here on this side, we are standing up for democracy.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. What our government did is bring in Bill C-76, which actually strengthens the rules around advertising and activities for third parties in the lead-up to the election. We brought in a pre-writ spending period, which will begin on June 30. This is the first time in Canadian history that this is being done to make sure that there is a fair and level playing field when it comes to our elections.

2019 General Election

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have just recently relocated so this is the first view I have had from this corner in eight years. I have always been in another corner and my desk may have a different microphone. We have accommodated the new Green Party member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and I have been moved to a space where I have a much better view of the Speaker and do not need my earpiece to hear discussions even with heckling all around me, as in question period.

I want to respond to the minister's comment. The minister's speech on the subject of digital platforms and how we protect ourselves during elections is a critical issue. I want to put on the record that as leader of the Green Party, I do not suspect for one minute that the current government is trying to rig the election. I was quite shocked by the comments of my friend from Calgary Midnapore. I want to put on the record that the idea that the leaders debates are being in any way rigged must be called out right here, right now.

In the 2015 election campaign, as leader of the Green Party and member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I was invited to participate in those debates by the media consortium. The Conservative leader, the prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper, said that he would not participate in the debates run by the media consortium. Joined by then the NDP, he managed to get the debates, which reached over 11 million Canadians in 2011 and had been the way in which leaders debates had been run since 1968, cancelled, depriving Canadians of the opportunity to hear leaders of the various parties state their positions and appear on the same stage in the same format.

To now have a member representative of the Conservative Party attacking an attempt to create a non-partisan panel of experts, headed by our former governor general David Johnston, saying that this is an attempt to interfere and rig an election, I am sorry. I have been in too many election campaigns as leader of the Green Party. Every time, the person and the party trying to keep the Green Party off the stage was Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. I will not stand by and pretend that it is not important for democracy that we have leaders debates and that they be televised.

I would really like to know whether the current leader of the official opposition is prepared to give his word that he will show up. The connivance and the backroom trickery around leaders debates has to come to an end. I have said this before that it would have been better if the Minister of Democratic Institutions had brought forward as a part of Bill C-76 a panel to run leaders debates.

However, I really find it offensive. I reject the notion about a panel where the debate commissioner is known to us. It is our former governor general David Johnston. That process is, by my appreciation at this moment having watched it unfold, a fair process despite missteps in not having it grounded in full consultation with all parties. It is a fair process and I want to step up and make it very clear that what the member for Calgary Midnapore said is not how I observed the process. It is an attempt at fairness after many elections that have been unfair, given connivance and backroom operations to shut down debates.

In this case, I do not see what the minister is offering as further evidence of Liberal connivance to rig the election. However, I do entirely agree with the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona that this is not enough.

This does appear to be a request of Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter to do better. It is a request of those platforms to live up to our standards. I know those operations are trying to clean up their act. I have heard apologies in various media from the U.S. Congress where they have appeared. I have heard Mr. Zuckerberg say that he is sorry that Facebook information was misused. We are in a very serious crisis for democracy if the best we can do is hope for better from multinational digital operations that will see the Canadian election as small potatoes.

Digital platforms missed the boat. They did not pull down fake platforms, fake identities and fake users, as they should have. I recently saw that although they admitted that a video of Nancy Pelosi that has been placed on Facebook was altered to make her appear disreputable, they were not prepared to pull it down.

I do not want to go into the 2019 election trusting in the good intentions of Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter. We are going to need to actually regulate. We are going to need to make sure that they pay fair taxes. There are many things we are going to need to do.

I appreciate the spirit in which the minister has brought forward this new declaration on digital platforms, sharing of information and keeping Canadians informed and up to date. However, much more is going to be required. I do not think we will get very far with kind entreaties. We are going to need to say that election campaign ads and the placement of profiles online will start requiring cleaning up the space, from abuse, misogyny and racism and giving oxygen to white supremacists.

We have to stop allowing any of the digital platforms to provide publication rights on their platforms to people who are not transparent about their names and addresses, and they must be verifiable. We must ensure that we apply the same kind of publication identity to digital platforms that our print media have from time immemorial. We do not allow someone to write to The Globe and Mail and publish something using someone else's name and identity. The newspaper requires people to give their names, addresses and daytime phone numbers. The same thing should be required for Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and any of the accounts out there that have the potential to steal an election.

By the way, as a small addendum, for anyone who does not understand the power of these entities to steal an election, I recommend the film Brexit. It was made as a dramatic film, not as a documentary. It is very close to being produced in real time. If members are is not aware of how dangerously these instruments can be used in a democracy to mislead and lie to people, they specifically target people who are prepared to believe a certain argument. They find out who they are. They run fake contests to collect people's information. That is why our dear friends in the Parliament of Westminster are in an ongoing hell on earth. It is because of the very actors we are talking about today.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has dismissed the importance of our democratic institutions over the last four years as it goes about its policy agenda.

Our democracy and our democratic institutions are the foundation of our system of governance and one of the primary reasons for our country's prosperity and success. Canadians deserve and expect a healthy democracy, which includes a competitive multi-party system, secure and regular elections as well as significant public access and transparency.

The Liberal government has failed to uphold these principles. Through Bill C-76, which received royal assent in December, it introduced a pre-election period whereby political parties are subject to numerous restrictions, including spending limits. However, during the pre-election period, the government is not subject to the same restrictions on activities. The government is still allowed to conduct numerous activities, such as town halls that are paid for by taxpayers instead of the Liberal Party. This will put opposition parties at a severe disadvantage.

The Liberal government knows that the Conservatives are its biggest threat leading up to the election, and that we have consistently out-fundraised the Liberal Party over the last several years. Liberals are using these spending cap provisions in Bill C-76 as a part of their attempt to rig the next election in their favour.

Foreign interference in our elections is a serious global threat. The Communications Security Establishment reported that there was foreign interference in the 2015 election, and it is expected that there will be more in this year's election. Every vote cast by a Canadian citizen matters, and the Liberal government should be working harder to keep foreign entities from undermining our democratic institutions. Unfortunately, the government is not taking the necessary steps to eliminate the possibility of foreign influence in future elections.

Omnibus Bill C-76 encompassed a vast number of reforms, but one of the key objectives of this bill was to implement policies that would prevent foreign interference in our elections through third party financing regulations. Canadians deserve to know where the money for elections is coming from, and it is up to the Liberal government to ensure that third party entities are being fully transparent. However, the government has left extensive loopholes, which would allow for foreign interference in our elections to still occur.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, our party put forward numerous amendments at the committee stage of this bill to fix this. Regrettably, the Liberals used their majority to vote these amendments down. If the Liberal government were serious about preventing foreign influence or interference, it would have considered and passed these amendments. Instead, it is continuing to allow Liberal-friendly foreign special interests to interfere in our elections.

On October 31, 2018, the Liberal government announced the creation of a debates commission, which is to be implemented for the 2019 election. It has essentially created a new and unaccountable office to oversee elections and interpret vague and poorly worded regulations. By unilaterally imposing new rules around televised leaders' debates, the Prime Minister is once again attempting to rig the election in his favour.

There is absolutely no reason or precedent for the executive branch of government to impose election regulations without even a debate in the House of Commons. It is an affront to our democracy.

A debates commission, as long as it is under the prerogative of the government, will have difficulty remaining entirely independent from the government of the day. Elections must be decided by Canadians in a transparent electoral system that is fair for all parties. This is not what is happening under the Liberal government. It unilaterally chose the commissioner for the debates' commission when it was recommended that it be chosen through consensus of the House of Commons.

The criteria to participate in the leaders' debates was also determined by the Liberal government, when it was recommended to be determined by an independent advisory board. How debates are formatted has a tremendous impact on elections and on how Canadians view their potential leaders. It has been made evident that the leaders' debates are best left in the hands of parties, candidates, the press and Canadian voters to negotiate, not the government.

The federal government has named the eight Canadian organizations that will sit on a special advisory panel tasked with determining the eligibility to receive part of the Liberal government's $600-million media support fund. A healthy democracy relies on an independent press, free of political influence. It should never be up to any government to determine which media outlets receive government support and which media outlets do not.

The Prime Minister is compromising both the independence of the media and the integrity of our electoral process with this election year bailout.

Including Unifor in the panel that will determine eligibility for a $595-million bailout package will also greatly undermine the credibility of this panel's work. In the 2015 general election, Unifor was a registered third party that conducted massive amounts of partisan advertising. It is an extremely partisan group and has campaigned extensively against the Conservative Party. In November, it even published tweets calling itself the “leader of the official opposition's worst nightmare”. This is just the latest example of the Liberal government trying to stack the deck in its favour to get re-elected in October.

Although the Liberal government is fighting hard against the opposition and abusing its powers, we will use every tool at our disposal to continue to hold the Prime Minister accountable when he fails to protect our democratic institutions. We will fight his desperate and pathetic attempts to rig the next election in his favour.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to share an update with Canadians on our efforts to safeguard the 2019 federal election.

As everyone knows, Canada's 43rd general election will take place this October.

Elections are an opportunity for Canadians to be heard and for Canadians to express concerns and opinions through one of the most fundamental rights, the right to vote. However, this election will also experience an unprecedented amount of scrutiny.

In recent years, we have witnessed foreign actors looking to undermine democratic societies and institutions, electoral processes, sovereignty and security.

Their malicious, multi-faceted and ever-evolving tactics constitute a serious strategic threat. Tools that were once used to strengthen civic engagement are being used to undermine and disrupt democracy.

Such malicious activity strikes at the heart of trust. It threatens to erode faith in democratic institutions. We must be prepared for this. We cannot allow this trust to be broken.

I can assure the House that our government takes this issue very seriously. A growing awareness of global cyber-threats has, if anything, strengthened our resolve to preserve the things we treasure.

We have taken steps to understand the possible threats to our democratic institutions, where they come from and how they could affect our electoral process.

We have a comprehensive and solid plan to anticipate, recognize and respond to these threats.

This plan is based on four pillars: enhancing citizenship preparedness, improving organizational readiness, combatting foreign interference and expecting social media platforms to act.

The plan builds on the important legislative changes made in Bill C-76 regarding the online ad registry, banning platforms from knowingly accepting foreign funds for ads, strengthening enforcement provisions, and clarifying the language around false statements and impersonation of candidates, parties and electoral officials.

It is impossible to halt all attacks, but we must work together to mitigate the impact of interference in our democratic processes.

This includes governments, political parties, social media platforms and citizens.

Canada has one of the most-connected populations in the world. Almost three-quarters of Canadians use online platforms regularly like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Online platforms have had a revolutionary impact on Canadians’ lives. They bring us together in ways unimaginable to previous generations. They make possible the sharing of ideas on an unprecedented level.

Yet, throughout the world's democracies, we see an online threat environment where malicious actors interfere with and try to influence the outcome of elections. These attacks are malicious. Sometimes they can be well masked and hard to detect. These threats can weaken our confidence in our democratic system and processes.

In January, as part of our plan of action to protect the election from foreign interference, we announced our expectation that digital platforms would step up their efforts to combat cyber threats and foreign attempts to manipulate their communities.

I am here today to update Canadians on our progress in securing voluntary action from major platforms. We have been engaging digital platforms in ongoing, good-faith discussions.

We have attempted to reach consensus on a common set of expectations to protect the integrity of the 2019 election.

We have had productive conversations, but these discussions have not come without challenges. Our guiding objective throughout these discussions has been simple. We want to see meaningful action to protect our democracy and our citizens.

The best way to do that is to be transparent, to be transparent about what we as a government are doing, but also insisting that platforms be more transparent with Canadians about where their information is coming from, who is behind the information they consume and with whom they are engaging online.

The better we understand the information we are consuming, the more empowered we are with how we use that information.

That is why today I am presenting Canada's declaration on electoral integrity online. It details basic responsibilities for digital platforms and the government.

To ensure the integrity of online content, we expect platforms to intensify efforts to combat disinformation and inform Canadians about efforts to safeguard the Internet ecosystem, to promote safeguards to address cybersecurity incidents, to protect against misrepresentation of candidates, political parties and key electoral officials and to ensure privacy protection.

For its part, the government will ensure that platforms have clear points of contact for election-related matters during the pre-election and election periods.

To promote greater online transparency, we expect platforms to help users to understand when and why they are seeing political advertising and to ensure that terms and conditions are easily accessible, communicated in a manner that is easy to understand and enforced in a fair, consistent and transparent manner.

For its part, the government will implement the critical election incident public protocol to ensure that public communications on potential incidents are clear and impartial.

To provide greater authenticity, we expect platforms to remove fake accounts and inauthentic content from their platforms, assist users to better understand the sources of information they are seeing and block and remove malicious bots.

In return, platforms and the government will work with civil society to support efforts aimed at improving critical thinking, digital literacy and cybersecurity practices and will facilitate the sharing of information within relevant legal mandates on emerging developments and practices that help to protect Canada's democracy.

We are encouraged that Microsoft and Facebook have agreed to support this declaration, and on behalf of Canadians, I urge other platforms to follow suit in the coming days.

I wish to stress that the wild west online era cannot continue. Inaction is not an option. Disinformation must not stand.

Our citizens demand and deserve no less.

In recent years we have seen foreign powers strive to manipulate online platforms to achieve their narrow disruptive goals.

We have seen false information presented as fact. We have seen divisions stoked. We have seen concerted efforts to undermine democracy and unravel social cohesion.

The government has a responsibility to protect Canadians from such foreign threats. We will continue our work with platforms over the next few months to measure progress against the expectations set out in this declaration. I commit to keeping Canadians informed of that progress.

This is a call to action for digital platforms, the latest call amid a growing international demand that platforms do more to protect their users.

I call upon digital platforms that are operating in Canada and that care about protecting our election to join Microsoft and Facebook and publicly commit to meeting these expectations.

Democracy is rooted in the trust people have in the process and in the legitimacy of the outcome. Canadians are knowledgeable and engaged.

Canadians can be reassured that as they prepare to exercise their right to vote, we are working hard to prepare for a free, fair and secure 2019 federal election so that we can continue to uphold the trust and confidence we all share in our democracy.

Democratic Reform

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, we categorically reject the premise of that entire question.

First, Bill C-76 was fundamental to ensuring the stability of the democracy in this country in response to the unfair elections act.

Second, when we are talking about elections and electoral fairness, we need to talk about online platforms, including social media companies.

Third, regarding notice to those companies, they have had adequate and ample notice.

Fourth, the resources of those companies are larger than those of most nations on this planet, for goodness' sake. To purport that they have not had the ability to address these issues is absolutely and categorically false.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, in all fairness, we will take no lessons from the other side about making changes to the electoral system. The legacy of the unfair elections act has been long, and we heard about it extensively in 2015. We acted promptly to deal with it.

With respect to the social media platforms and the position they are taking today, we find that disappointing. We know these social media platforms have the resources and the ability to take action, and to take action now. We know that Bill C-76 was given first reading well over a year ago and its long endurance within this Parliament is largely due to the blockage of that legislation by the Conservative Party at PROC.

Canada Elections Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank all my colleagues in this House for taking the opportunity to speak to this bill. I do not agree with all the information I have heard, but I appreciate the fact that we have had the debate.

I must take umbrage with some of the arguments that have been used against this piece of legislation. We have heard opposition MPs say that this bill is extrajudicial and would cause problems and that we cannot enforce this law outside our borders. That is simply not true. This is actually about registered third parties inside Canada and whether they accept money from overseas. That is a simple thing to do. There is no extrajudicial or extraterritorial component to this piece of legislation, because it deals with the Canada Elections Act and registered third parties in Canada.

As for the penalties, I have heard it suggested that there is no penalty section. There is a catch-all penalty provision in every piece of legislation. There does not need to be. It is just a red herring thrown in. There do not need to be any specific penalties laid out because the general catch-all provisions in the Canada Elections Act for penalties are already there.

Speakers talked about whether Bill C-76 addresses this problem. It clearly does not. Bill C-76 does not address this problem, because it actually continues to allow third parties to receive foreign funding from foreign entities, be they state actors, individuals, corporations or other third party organizations registered as charitable organizations elsewhere in the world. What it requires is that if that money is actually used for an election purpose, an investigation has to be conducted by the election officials. At that particular time, one cannot sort out the molecules of where the money actually came from, just as one cannot sort out the molecules of what oil patch the gasoline in one's car came from. One cannot sort that stuff out at that point.

Bill C-76 actually allows backdoor financing from state actors, corporations that are not registered or are not conducting business in Canada, individuals, foundations and organizations to influence Canadian elections, especially in election advertising in the pre-writ and writ periods. That is the period leading up to an election and the period of the election itself.

Why on earth would we have laws that say that only Canadian individuals are allowed to donate to political parties for the purpose of an election and then allow unions and corporate interests and other interests outside our country to fund third parties during an election in Canada to change the results, the results, by the way, that organizations like Leadnow proudly display in their campaigns?

Is Leadnow, as a Canadian organization, allowed to engage in the politics of Canada? Of course it is. All my bill is saying is that if it makes the choice to take that money from outside Canada's borders, it cannot use it anymore. It cannot be allowed to participate in the election game, because it is not fair. If it cannot convince Canadians to donate to its cause and take part in what it is trying to do, it should not be allowed to justify the ends by means of getting money from outside Canada's borders.

It is not just small groups of individuals at bake sales. Leadnow, Tides and others are using things like the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation initiative or things like the PNCIMA initiative to have massive amounts of foreign money coming into British Columbia and the eastern slopes of Alberta to block pipeline projects. It is disingenuous for the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to say that it is a couple of people and a bake sale trying to stop a pipeline. It is simply not true. It is maybe one story out of 100 about foreign money influencing that pipeline project.

This bill, Bill C-406, is a good piece of legislation. It basically says that if one is going to get involved in the election, one should know in advance that if one takes money from outside the country, one will not be allowed to play in the game anymore, because it is cheating. It is cheating because elections belong to Canadians. Only Canadians should be allowed, with their opinions, with their information and with their money, to decide the fate of our country.

One can only assume, then, why other political parties in here would not have the patriotic sense of duty to ensure that our elections are free, fair and only conducted in the realm of the Canadian intellectual space, the economic space and the debate space we have during these elections. One can only assume that if members vote against this legislation, it is because they are willing to use any means possible to justify whatever ends they want. That means that they are willing to sell Canada's soul down the road for a little bit of money to pay for an election campaign.

Every time the rules are circumvented, trust and confidence are eroded. If we are going to have trust and confidence in our electoral process, we should send a signal loud and clear to the Canadian people that we are not putting up with it anymore by voting in favour of Bill C-406.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of this bill from my colleague, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. We are getting toward the end of the second hour on this bill. I want to take a few moments and just engage and maybe deal with some of the strange things that have been said and that have come up in this debate, even so far this morning.

First, I always find it a bit ironic or strange when members of this House rise on a bill and say, “Well, we sort of agree” or “We certainly think the goal of the bill is good or at least has some merit”, but then they go on to talk about a whole series of things that are not related to the subject matter of the bill, complaining that the bill does not address these other things.

Let us be clear about the purpose of this bill. This bill's purpose is to get foreign money out of politics in Canada. That is what this bill was tabled to do. That is the question that we are going to be voting on in this House.

We may talk about a variety of other things. We might want to have a debate on another day about the relative power of Canadian businesses. That is a separate topic. It is not a reason to vote against a bill, if members believe that the bill addresses an actual problem in our country.

For a member to rise and say, “I agree with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe that we should not have foreign money in politics, but I am going to vote against his bill because it does not address Canadian funding by lobbyists for a particular policy position”, that is not a good reason to vote against this bill.

I would encourage all members of this House to support this bill for what it does and not hold against the bill other things that members would like to see another bill address.

I want to go back to some of the truly ridiculous things that the member for St. Catharines said, and there is no way to say it any more politely than that, to somehow suggest that the Conservative Party is in cahoots with the Koch brothers or the NRA. These are absurd conspiracy theory proposals from the other side.

What is not a conspiracy theory is that there are foreign entities that attempt to influence the outcome of Canadian elections. This is not a conspiracy. These organizations brag about their success on their own websites. That there are these groups out there, like the Tides Foundation, trying to influence the outcome of the Canadian election cannot be characterized as some Conservative conspiracy theory. Of course they are trying to influence the outcome of the Canadian election. That is exactly what they say they are doing, and they take credit for their success in doing so, on their own websites. I understand this has changed a little now, thanks to the work of Vivian Crouse, who has sort of untangled the money train on these matters. They talked about the Harper project and actually bragged about how they targeted specific ridings and sent money into Canadian third parties, like Leadnow, among others, which then sent canvassers into the ridings.

My friend, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, talked about advertising not being everything, and indeed he is correct. The ground game is very important, too. These groups supplied ground game to candidates who they thought would be most likely to defeat the previous government's candidate in that riding. They were successful. They have boasted of their success on their own websites to generate further support from foreigners to support their initiatives in Canada.

How can this be a conspiracy? These people are shouting from the rooftops that this is what their agenda and goals are: to landlock Alberta's oil and gas and prevent Conservatives from winning elections in Canada.

This bill is very simple. It would prevent third parties in Canada from participating in advertising if they accept foreign money. It is plain and simple. It would go beyond and actually fix a problem that Liberals have paid lip service to in debate but that their bill, Bill C-76, would not solve.

Under Bill C-76, there is no ability for Elections Canada to audit and ensure the segregation of funds in order to ensure a third party that participates in advertising and accepts foreign money does not use the money from the foreign source for that purpose. At best, Bill C-76 is lip service to the problem, which the Liberals acknowledge in their speeches but not with their votes in the chamber to support the bill from the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

Again, it is disingenuous to say that one is concerned about the problem of foreign third party funding of election activity in Canada and then to not support this member's bill.

To the more technical points, the member for St. Catharines noted the time and date when this bill was tabled and the issues around Bill C-76 and how it was amended at committee since then. That is not a reason to vote against the bill. Vote for this bill and get it to committee, and if there are some incongruities that have to be addressed to make it compatible with the correct changes necessary to Bill C-76, that is what committee work is for.

I am going to end it at that and perhaps allow other members to speak on this bill. I urge all members to vote for this bill, and let us get it to committee and get a proper regime in place to keep foreign funding out of elections.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I begin this debate with a slight bias, because the author is a friend from Red Deer—Lacombe and my wife is from Red Deer, so initially I started off wanting to support the bill, because all good things come from Red Deer, generally speaking. This might unfortunately be the exception to that rule. I am unable to support the bill, for a couple of important reasons.

I hope my Conservative friends who worry about foreign interference can understand how foreign interference, in its full measure, impacts our democracy and how it fully involves itself in the hearts and minds of Canadians over such important issues. Big pharma is certainly involved, as are multinational oil companies, the banking sector and so forth.

Let us start with what this bill attempts to do, which is to minimize or eliminate the effects of foreign money on Canadian elections. It is a laudable goal, in part accomplished by the government's much-delayed and much-amended election bill, Bill C-76, yet there is a conspiracy the bill is trying to address, which is the following.

As the former prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, said, there are foreign-funded radicals. These foreign foundations, particularly in the United States, all have environmental agendas, “agendas” being a neutral word I suppose, to try to fight climate change. The conspiracy rolls out that these foreign foundations then seek to block oil pipelines to China in order to keep oil at a cheaper rate for American consumers. To follow that again, foundations that are established to fight climate change and bring about environmental initiatives are fighting for lower oil prices for American consumers.

There are two fundamental flaws in this conspiratorial logic, if we want to call it logic. The first is that Americans are net exporters of oil. The second is, why would somebody fighting climate change seek to have lower oil prices? Under this conspiracy theory, the same groups that advocate for a price on carbon and for less use of oil in our society are advocating for more and cheaper oil, going only to the United States and not to China. The conspiracy falls apart almost immediately, because those who are advocating, Ms. Krause and others, are also funded not by foreign foundations but by oil companies. They claim to be unbiased, neutral and just good Canadians, with their hearts on their sleeves, who are talking about what is important to them and their families while taking money from oil companies all along the way.

Let us look at what the bill attempts to do. I would argue that there is a flaw in the writing of the bill, in that it addresses only political advertising. Advertising is an important part of what happens in campaigns, but certainly we as elected people know that a campaign manifests itself in part through advertising on social media or newspapers and radio, but a large part of what happens in campaigning is door to door, community events and educational material. All of that is curiously excluded from this bill, and I do not fully understand why it would be absent.

The most dramatic flaw is that the bill only seeks to go after foreign foundations but exempts all companies that “carry on business in Canada”. One would think that this must mean a Canadian business, wholly owned and operated within Canada, maybe with subsidiaries in other countries. However, that is not actually the definition of “business” under the act. A business is anybody who carries on a business in Canada. That can be a single worker in a single office of a multinational pharmaceutical company, oil company, bank or whatever. That qualifies under this bill to be exempted. That business, which is carrying on business in Canada, is able to donate to advertising and education campaigns. One might ask why they are going after the charities.

If we recall the previous government, I must take umbrage with what the last colleague from the Conservatives said. I believe he was criticizing environmental groups for not being critical enough of foreign governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and whatnot. This is coming from the same government that sold Saudi Arabia tanks, light armoured vehicles that were weaponized and used to suppress democratic rights in Yemen. Therefore, it is a bit much for the Conservatives to say the environmental groups are not doing enough to criticize Saudi Arabia, when this is coming from the same Conservatives who sold it tanks. Sure, criticism is warranted and necessary, but enabling the Saudis to kill people seems to me a higher order of severity and certainly shows itself to be hypocrisy, coming from members of the opposition who were then government.

Here is a fundamental problem that I have, and we have seen this on the ground in northern B.C., which I represent. We have had many debates over pipelines. At one point, we had 23 LNG pipelines proposed across my region. We had one significant diluted bitumen pipeline proposed to go from Alberta all the way through two coastlines and 1,100 streams and rivers into Kitimat, down the Douglas Channel, allegedly, and then off to China, supposedly. Therefore, we have had our fair share of debate. We have had our share of environmental conversations, the jobs-versus-economy/jobs-and-economy debate. We have seen it on the ground.

The example I will use is the one closest to us, which was this entire debate around Enbridge northern gateway. This is a debate that occurred in my region of the world for about a dozen years, at least. It started to heat up and had a focal point in the long campaign over a plebiscite, a vote that was being conducted in the district of Kitimat, in the city of Kitimat itself, where the terminus was meant to be located. This was the first time in Canadian history that I am aware of when a community held a referendum or a vote on a major industrial project: Do we want this oil pipeline, and the terminus and tankers associated with it, to go ahead, yes or no?

For those who have not been to Kitimat, British Columbia, this is a town where the district side was built entirely for industrial purposes. It was initiated some 60 years ago as a planned community by Alcan, now Rio Tinto. It was a planned community to support a smelter. The Province of British Columbia essentially gave the company a river to dam and then use as very cheap power to smelt aluminum and create an entire industrial complex. Therefore, if there is any town in British Columbia, if not in Canada, that is pro-industry, one would say it is Kitimat. It has had many large industrial-type projects and it is quite proud of them.

This was the vote being held. On one side was a small group of local volunteers called the Douglas Channel Watch. These would be, in the conspiracy world of some of my colleagues, the foreign-funded folks. The grand total the group spent on the referendum was $875.

On the other side was Enbridge northern gateway, a subsidiary of Enbridge but the same company. It had raised, follow the numbers, $100 million to support and lobby for its pipeline, from 10 different upstream and downstream oil companies, many of them Chinese. That is $100 million to promote one pipeline. It was not to build it. It was not for construction costs, engineering, science or anthropological work, but just for promotion. Leading up to the referendum, the company was flying in employees from all over the place. They took out advertisements in every single newspaper along our highway, all the way through to Alberta, talking about how important this vote was, even though the vote was taking place only in one town. There were full-page ads, colour ads, radio advertisements, and on and on it went.

Therefore, if anyone is talking about an unfair conversation about a Canadian democratic choice, this was it. There were millions of dollars being spent on one side from foreign sources, which would remain legal under this bill that the Conservatives have proposed. On the other side, there was a locally funded charity that was having bake sales in order to have flyers so the organizers could go door to door and talk to people about the vote that was coming.

Despite all of that, the referendum passed against this pipeline, the terminus and the tankers, because the people in Kitimat said that where they live, a diluted bitumen pipeline and the supertankers associated with it, sailing down the Douglas Channel performing three 90-degree turns through some of the worst and most dangerous water in North America out to China, is not a good proposal for them, and that the risk versus benefit was not worth it. Therefore, they took the vote despite the lopsided campaign that had been initiated.

If the Conservatives actually want to get at the heart of this, and we think it is laudable to try to distance ourselves, remove ourselves, innoculate ourselves from foreign influence when we are having a democratic election, referendum or general election of any kind, we agree. However, it has to be equal to both sides. We cannot simply go after environmental groups because Conservatives just do not like them, meanwhile turning a blind eye to the corporate sector, which has vastly larger sums of money available and has deep interests that go beyond a single election and a single referendum into many decades.

We would encourage our Conservative colleagues to come to the fulsome debate and level the playing field in our debates. Let us shut off all foreign influence, absolutely, but let us do it on behalf of all Canadians, not just on behalf of those we happen to like.

Last thing, the Conservatives I know in Alberta, and Albertans in general, are not victims. They are good, hard-working people. This bill points to them as somehow being victims of some foreign influence.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, in light of the words of the member for St. Catharines, always when we open fire on others, we have to understand that if people have a house made of glass, they do not throw stones. This is what happened with the government side. The Tides Foundation's fingerprints are everywhere in the last election and that situation continues now. This is not a time to start pointing fingers at one another.

Bill C-406 is a great example addressing the need to strengthen our system and our democracy in order to be able to protect our system from any manipulation and any interference from the other side. I was hoping that the member for St. Catharines from the government side would have taken this opportunity to appreciate the notion of the bill and what it intends to do as it is coming from the official opposition, our Conservative Party.

I am very pleased to to rise today and speak to the legislation of my colleague, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. Bill C-406, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to foreign contributions, which, if passed, would prohibit foreign entities from contributing funds to Canadian third party groups for election advertising.

This legislation is not only vitally important but is also very timely. With the next election just around the corner, this legislation is a way that we can take a tangible step to safeguard our democracy from foreign actors looking to insert themselves into our democratic process for malicious and self-serving reasons.

The world has been changing rapidly, and we now know without a shadow of a doubt that there those who are trying to undermine the political systems of democracies across the world. There are people and organizations out there that want to attack our political system and the freedom that it represents. With all the technologies that have been developed over the past decade, their access has been greater.

The time when only complex state actors can interfere is over. Small organizations can have a significant impact. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Democratic Institutions have made it clear that they are expecting foreign actors to try to interfere.

As Canadians, we have a duty to combat this, but I believe that the onus on us as parliamentarians is even greater, and I look forward to voting in favour of this legislation and encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to support it. This is a call to the government to stop playing politics with useful bills and start supporting those bills that are going to enhance our democracy and our democratic systems.

We all know why this legislation is important. Canadian elections should be decided by Canadians. It is fundamental to our political system. Bill C-406 would change the Canada Elections Act to prohibit foreign entities from donating to third parties for the purpose of advertising.

In terms of who it prevents from contributing, it uses the criteria already previously established in the act. If those contributions are made to a third party for political advertising, the official representative of that third party will have an obligation to return contributions, unused, to the contributor. If that is not possible, the same amount of the contribution or the equivalent value of it, if it is not monetary, must be paid to the Receiver General. All these things must be done within 30 days of determining that the contribution was ineligible.

This is very reasonable and will prevent a repeat of what occurred in the last election, when money was funnelled in from outside the country, largely the United States, to swing ridings in an attempt to affect our election outcome and put in place a government that these groups felt would better advance their interests.

Regardless of which party was the beneficiary of such underhanded efforts in the past, all members of the House have a responsibility to ensure that they do not occur again.

As an Albertan, I must admit that I am particularly outraged by this sort of tactic, as our province has been harmed by these types of tactics in the past. We know that corporate actors in the United States have been have long been funding anti-resource development groups in Canada to try to prevent responsible resource extraction in Canada. While I believe that many of the people here in Canada benefiting from this arrangement are generally engaged and concerned Canadians whose opinions are valid and important in increasing the quality of the national dialogue on these important issues, the fact is that millions are being pumped in by our international competitors to derail our industry and increase the profits of foreign corporations, which has been an issue for years.

We often hear people question why certain activists target the Canadian oil sands but remain silent on the industry in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Venezuela, where there are concerns about not only the environmental impact but also about labour rights and the complete lack of commitment to fundamental human rights more broadly. I believe that this is one of the main reasons, because behind the scenes, backers do not necessarily have much common ground with the groups they are funding. They are merely using them as a means to an end to advance their business interests, and they are far more concerned about preventing us from getting fair value for our resources than in addressing the issues of climate change or the denial of human rights by the world's worst offenders.

What they have been doing to attack the resource industry is not unlike what they are doing to our elections. Foreign funds have already had an impact on the last election. Some organizations have bragged about flipping dozens of swing ridings in 2015, despite the fact that they received funding from abroad for their activities. It has been well documented, and we have a duty to combat it. Therefore, I believe Bill C-406 is an excellent next step.

The first steps have been taken by the government in Bill C-76, and there are some who have suggested that Bill C-76 makes this bill redundant, such as the member for St. Catharines, who suggests we reject it completely. However, while Bill C-76 prevents the use of foreign funds for advertising, Bill C-406 would prevent a third party from accepting the funds in the first place. This is an important distinction between the two bills.

When we have potentially malicious organizations trying to undermine our electoral systems, the standard should be strengthened. Canada has weak prohibitions on foreign interference, and it is time to change this situation. Changing the standard to not allow organizations to accept funds in the first place will help prevent any uncertainty about compliance for domestic third parties here in Canada and for foreign entities elsewhere.

Protecting against this sort of uncertainty and confusion is important not just because of the value that we place on our democratic institutions and the integrity of our elections, but also from a national unity standpoint. We do not have to make the same mistakes as our allies and other established democracies in order to learn from them. Our friends and neighbours to the south continue to have an extremely important conversation and continue to investigate various levels of interference in their recent elections.

As many members in the House well know, the interference ranges from alleged direct Russian interference with the president's campaign to social media troll farms and shell organizations creating competing events in close proximity to each other with the hope of sparking conflict. We must learn from these serious matters and implement safeguards in our system in order to help prevent divisive problems of that magnitude in our society and the erosion of confidence in our institutions that would come from them.

We have a prime example of how harmful these types of incidents can be to our national unity and respectful public discourse. I think we can all agree that it is better for us to work to prevent them in the first place than to try to sort it out afterwards.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the second reading of debate of Bill C-406. This bill was introduced by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe in June 2018, and seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes.

This bill is no longer necessary, as our government has taken important steps in solving that issue that Bill C-406 seeks to address. For context, in June 2017, the Standing Committee on Legal and and Constitutional Affairs in the Senate issued a report entitled “Controlling Foreign Influence in Canadian Elections”, which expressed concern that the Canada Elections Act “does not sufficiently protect [Canadians] from improper foreign interference” and argued that the third party election advertising regime needed to be modernized to ensure transparency and fairness.

Additionally, the Communications Security Establishment has a new report entitled “2019 Update: Cyber Threats to Canada's Democratic Process”. It concluded that it is “very likely that Canadian voters will encounter...foreign cyber interference [ahead of and during] the 2019 general election”.

Bill C-406 is part of a broader conversation regarding the role of money in Canadian politics and the potential for foreign actors to influence Canadian elections. Our government takes this issue very seriously. We understand the importance of ensuring a level playing field in our elections and protecting Canadians from foreign interference.

We are taking a whole-of-government approach to protecting the integrity of Canada's democracy by implementing initiatives to defend the Canadian electoral process from hacking and malicious cyber-activities. That is why our government announced, on January 30, the Government of Canada's plan to safeguard Canada's 2019 election. This plan is built on four pillars: combatting foreign interference, strengthening organizational readiness, encouraging social media platforms to act and enhancing citizen preparedness. Furthermore, we have three world-leading front-line security agencies that constantly adapt to an evolving threat environment.

Canada has a robust political financing regime informed by decades of reform and regulation, but we recognize that we are not immune to these threats and have made it even stronger. Our government has taken further steps to protect our elections by passing Bill C-76, Elections Modernization Act, which received royal assent late last year. The act is a generational change to Canada's electoral legislation and draws on inspiration from the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner of Canada elections, studies by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as well as stakeholder engagement.

As part of her mandate, the Minister of Democratic Institutions reviewed spending limits for both political parties and third parties. This review also examined third party financing and the potential impacts of foreign contributions and interference in Canada. As such, Bill C-76 already addresses many of the same issues that Bill C-406 is trying to solve, which makes the measures proposed by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe unnecessary.

With the passage of Bill C-76, foreign entities will no longer be able to spend any money to influence federal elections, and third parties are now prohibited from using foreign funds for their partisan activities and advertising, irrespective of when it is taking place. This is key. It means that even outside of the pre-writ and writ periods, no one is allowed to use foreign funds to support partisan activities and advertising.

Bill C-76 goes further, as all registered third parties are now required to have a Canadian bank account, and any organization, online or offline, that sells advertising space is now prohibited from knowingly running advertisements paid for by a foreign entity. The investigatory powers of the commissioner of Canada elections have also been enhanced so that he has more tools to do his job of ensuring the integrity of our elections.

This is a bit self-serving, as I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but I would like to thank the members of that committee for their study of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations and Bill C-76. Our electoral system, because of that work, is more secure, transparent and protected from undue foreign influence.

Furthermore, while the spirit of Bill C-406 is laudable, the mechanisms outlined in this legislation would largely be ineffective.

Instead, we took a more pragmatic approach. Bill C-76 would prohibit Canadian third parties from using foreign contributions. With Bill C-76, we developed a more comprehensive and workable regime to support our common interests, which is to ensure that Canadian elections are for and by Canadians.

In a previous session, we noted drafting errors in Bill C-406 that make the provisions difficult to enforce. Bill C-406 refers to subsection 363(1.1) of the Canada Elections Act, which is a provision that does not exist either in the act or in Bill C-76.

Bill C-406 would also create two new prohibitions on foreign contributions but neglects to enact corresponding offences, which would lead to significant enforcement difficulties. The two must go hand in hand, and they are absent in this legislation.

Additionally, Bill C-406 misplaces the new rules regarding third party election advertising, putting them in part 18 of the Canada Elections Act, the part that deals with financial administration of political entities, and not in part 17 of the act, which deals with third party election advertising.

Bill C-76 better addresses the problems Bill C-406 is trying to resolve.

I want to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for his continued efforts in addressing the important discussion of foreign interference in our elections.

As a side note, I hope he takes these concerns to the office of the Leader of the Opposition, because we have heard troubling reports of secret meetings behind closed doors with big oil and reports of the Conservatives' ties to the United States and to the Koch brothers. We do not hear that in the speeches by the hon. members on the other side.

Now there is a lot of discussion. I think I have touched a nerve in expressing the concerns from Canadians that the Conservative Party is engaging with foreign actors. That should be worrisome to all Canadians.

I hope members on the other side will take the opportunity to speak to their leader's office and condemn those actions. There is laughter, and I do not know why, as this is a serious issue. I guess the hon. members enjoy their relationship with the Koch brothers.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a little background. Bill C-406, which was introduced by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, seeks to prohibit foreign companies, organizations and countries from participating in Canada's electoral debate. It complements Bill C-76, which has been studied by the House and by the other place.

I think everyone can agree that Canada's elections need to be decided by Canadians. Voting is important. It gives Canadians a means to express themselves and choose their leaders for the next few years as well as their vision for the country.

Sadly, over the past few years, we have seen a growing trend of foreign entities attempting to influence the electoral process in Canada. It happened in 2015, and it will happen again in 2019 unless something is done. That is why I salute my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe for his foresight in introducing Bill C-406 to counteract that foreign influence.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada's chief electoral officer from 1990 to 2007, was very clear. He summed up nicely why we must not allow foreign organizations to influence our elections in Canada. He said:

We simply cannot allow any kind of money that is not Canadian to find its way into the Canadian electoral system.... A general election is a national event, it's not an international event and foreign interests have no place and for them to have found a back door like this, that is not acceptable to Canadians.

Former Canadian Security Intelligence Service director and national security adviser Richard Fadden confirmed that it was very likely that foreign countries had attempted to influence the 2015 general election.

Here are a few examples of what happened. The Tides Foundation, which is based in the United States, donated more than $1.5 million to numerous different third party organizations in Canada. Leadnow, one such third party organization that was one of the most active third parties in the last election, attributes more than 17% of its funding to foreign sources. That is unacceptable. How can we tolerate people doing indirectly what they are not allowed to do directly? That is exactly the kind of foreign influence that Bill C-406 seeks to prevent.

Recently, the Minister of Foreign Affairs commented to the media about the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming election:

We are very concerned. Our judgment is that interference is very likely and we think there have probably already been efforts by malign foreign actors to disrupt our democracy.

She noted that various foreign bodies have attempted to interfere, and we know of several examples. The Prime Minister himself said that, over the past number of years, we have seen an increase in the interference or the implication of foreign actors in democratic processes using divisive social media campaigns. He added the following:

The election that's coming up in six months will be decided by Canadians. We're going to work very hard with all the intelligence communities and our partners around the world to ensure that our democracies stay strong for all the different voices that express themselves within it.

The government has an opportunity to work not with security intelligence agencies but with the official opposition to make a decision about eliminating the possibility of foreign actors interfering in our system.

It is great to see what is happening on social media and to fight fake news, but Bill C-406 gives us an opportunity to take direct and immediate action before the next election and to make sure that money raised outside the election period will not be used during the upcoming election campaign. This is an urgent matter because we do not want the outcome of our country's election next October to be swayed by foreign interests.

At the request of one of our colleagues, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, the Commissioner of Canada Elections did investigate the matter of foreign entities trying to influence our elections. My colleague noted that pursuant to subsection 359(4) of the act, there is no requirement for a registered third party to report to Elections Canada funds used for election advertising if those funds were received outside the period beginning six months before the issue of the writ and ending on election day.

This is a serious loophole that must be corrected, and that is why I am reaching out to the government, just as it reached out to security intelligence agencies, to ensure that we can all work together to prevent foreign entities from exerting any influence whatsoever on the upcoming October 21 election.

I urge the government to help move this bill through for further study at committee. Once again, I thank my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe for his excellent work in identifying this loophole, on behalf of all Canadians who believe in our democracy.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour, on behalf of the people of the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who work hard, play by the rules and pay their taxes, to conclude the debate on Bill C-278.

Bill C-278, which would amend the Lobbying Act, would require lobbyists to disclose whether they are funded by a foreign national, a non-resident corporation or a non-resident organization and whether they use, or expect to use, grassroots communication to seek to persuade organizations or members of the public to take measures to obstruct, delay or otherwise negatively affect any process that requires the Government of Canada to consult with the public before embarking on a specific course of action, in an attempt to place pressure on a public office holder to endorse a particular option.

It is ironic that on this day, Parliament is debating allegations of political interference by the Prime Minister in relation to the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Bill C-278 seeks to strengthen our democratic institutions from foreign influence. The controversial figure in those corruption allegations is Scott Brison, whose resignation from the Liberal cabinet is the excuse used to somehow justify how this fake feminist Prime Minister mistreats principled female members of Parliament.

I mentioned the controversial ex-cabinet minister in the context of Bill C-76, which she sponsored in the House. Bill C-76 is a regressive piece of legislation that very controversially removes the Commissioner of Canada Elections from the independent office of public prosecution. The independence of that office has proven its worth in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. What Bill C-76 also does is implement a section on foreign influence and the threat that influence poses for the democratic process in Canada. Most controversially, what government legislation Bill C-76 does not do is address the same threat between elections. Bill C-278 would fill that legislative oversight.

Bill C-278 would require transparency from foreign-funding sources. Canadians have a right to know who is trying to influence their opinions. Bill C-76 brings in a new provision that would prohibit the distribution of material intended to mislead the public as to its source. While Bill C-76 claims to be closing the loophole that has allowed foreign entities to spend money in Canadian elections, the government is allowing the biggest loophole to remain open by not identifying who these same foreign entities they will now prohibit are and what they are spending to influence Canadians between elections.

Andrew Coyne, of the National Post, wrote, which I think is worth repeating:

But let’s examine those much-hyped measures to “protect and defend” Canadian democracy. For example, we are told the bill will prohibit foreign entities “from spending any money to influence elections.” Wonderful, you say: how much were they allowed to spend until now? Er, $500.

But then, the real scandal, to borrow Michael Kinsley’s phrase, is not what is illegal—direct foreign spending on Canadian elections—but what’s legal: foreign money, by the millions, funneled through Canadian intermediaries, which pass it on to domestic advocacy groups to spend.

For the upcoming election, the government has stated that it is running on the carbon tax and man-made global warming. The government owes it to Canadians to provide information to Canadians about the environment in an unbiased way. That means free from foreign money.

In Canada's most recent reports to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Environment and Climate Change Canada listed over 300 existing federal programs and other measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Natural Resources Canada website recently listed an additional 280 programs and measures implemented by provincial and territorial governments. That is a large sum of taxpayers' dollars being spent and has caused the Canadian deficit to skyrocket.

The announced goal of Canadian climate policy is to reduce national emissions by 30% from 2010 levels by 2030 and then to go on reducing them to perhaps 50% of 2010 levels by 2050. That would mean a massive and costly transformation of the Canadian economy and a sharp reduction in transportation use and resource industry activity, with devastating consequences for consumers in provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Emissions reductions of that magnitude will not be achieved at low or moderate carbon tax levels. The taxes would need to be high enough to shut down entire industries.

Let us have an honest discussion about this policy, free from foreign money looking to cash in on Canadian climate programs.

In closing, I thank all members who participated in this debate and I look forward to a more detailed examination of Bill C-278 at committee.

Canada Elections Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a number of the points my colleague across the way raised this evening.

The first is something we do not do enough, which is to recognize the incredible role Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections play in ensuring one our fundamental pillars of democracy is healthy. I would argue that it is envied around the world.

People from many countries around the world come and visit our election officials. Apolitical election officials are often requested to visit numerous countries so they can explain why Canada has been as successful as it has been over the years at ensuring it has a very healthy and vibrant democracy.

I appreciate and recognize the importance of the independent offices, whether it is the Ethics Commissioner, or the ombudsman or Elections Canada. We appreciate their contribution to our system of parliamentary procedures and democracy as a whole.

One of the most interesting comments I heard about the bill was by the parliamentary secretary, and members should take note of it.

A great deal of effort was put into bringing forward Bill C-76. When it was debated at second reading, we clearly indicated that if members had ideas on how to improve the legislation, they should bring them to committee. We often hear that from this side of the House, something we never heard when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Prime Minister and other members have talked about bringing issues to committee.

In fact, there were a number of ideas raised at committee. It was interesting that the parliamentary secretary made reference to Bill C-76. The original bill only prohibited the use of foreign funds during an election period. However, once it went to the procedure and House affairs committee, amendments were put forward to make it illegal for third party to use foreign funding at any time to engage in partisan activities.

This brings it in line with what Bill C-406 proposes. It is not a perfect alignment, as has been pointed out. The opposition believes that if we pass a law here, we will have no issues in implementing it outside Canada's jurisdiction. That is questionable.

What Bill C-406 hopes to achieve was achieved by Bill C-76. There was debate and presentations were made at committee to enhance the bill and make it stronger. This should have been taken into consideration with respect to the bill before us now.

Bill C-76 has now received royal assent. The member who introduced Bill C-406 was not necessarily aware of that. We need to reinforce the fact that it is now the law of the land.

I have been around for a number of years. I can remember the legislation that was brought in by former prime minister Stephen Harper in regard to reforming the Canada Elections Act and the incredible resistance to the changes that the Harper government received. There was very little support for the legislation. There was a great deal of opposition from political parties. More importantly, many different political stakeholders in Canada, whether they were academics or average citizens, were talking about issues such as the identification cards and how people were being disenfranchised and so forth. That was the type of legislation that Stephen Harper brought in when he was Prime Minister.

As to the support that we have for Bill C-76, and when I say “we” I am referring to something more than just the Liberal Party or the Government of Canada, there was widespread support for many of the changes for the modernization of our elections act. It received wide support.

I talked about changes at committee stage then and it fell on deaf ears. Today we have a government that is committed to more transparency and more accountability, especially when we talk about the issue of elections—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-406, tabled by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, which would amend the Canada Elections Act to ban foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes.

Some of the comments we heard prior to my intervention go to the very reason I think this legislation is so important. I want to point to the comments from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who was very clear that he is not going to support this legislation, but then said that there is no proof whatsoever that there has been any interference in Canadian elections in the past. That just proves how naive the Liberal government is in the situation we are facing right now. We have a group out there, Leadnow, that is, on its website, bragging about how many ridings it influenced in the 2015 election. It is a third-party group that spent more than $1 million in the 2015 election, and almost 20% of those dollars were raised by foreign actors.

The government is saying, and I guess we really should not question this, because it has sort of been the government's theme all week, as well as in the last couple of weeks, when it comes to SNC-Lavalin, “There is nothing to see here, nothing to fear. We have everything under control. Just go to bed at night and sleep well.”

The proof is there that there was certainly influence in the 2015 election by foreign entities funding third-party groups in Canada that were going to specific target ridings and having an impact on the Canadian election.

If this had come up four years ago, I was one of those who would not have thought it was an issue. However, that changed significantly during the 2015 election campaign. Many of us here in this House helped our colleagues and friends in other ridings when they were doing their door knocking and canvassing. I remember going to Calgary Centre during the 2015 election, and I was shocked by the number of lawn signs I saw on public boulevards and public spaces. What surprised me was the fact that those lawn signs outnumbered every political party two to one. These signs were not Liberal, New Democrat, Green or Conservative. These lawn signs were put up by Leadnow and Tides. The amount of money those groups spent in that one riding was incredible. We had third parties spending more than $1 million in a campaign.

Let us put that in perspective. The average party in a constituency probably spends about $50,000 to $75,000. This group spent 30 times that in our election. To say that there is nothing to see here and that there is no proof of foreign funding having an impact on Canadian elections is extremely naive. It shows why this private member's bill, Bill C-406, brought by my colleague, is so important. I am very proud to support it.

When we talk about the activism that is going on in our country and having an influence on our elections, that should be extremely concerning to Canadians. In the presentations we have heard so far, I think everyone has said that Canadian elections should be decided by Canadians.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel to Brussels and meet with many of our NATO partners and representatives from those countries. We talked about foreign influence in their elections. It was a top priority for our NATO partners, who are doing everything they can to address cybersecurity and tightening up their own elections legislation to limit the opportunities for foreign influence.

Canada is not immune to this. We have a Liberal government that passed Bill C-76 with minimal strategies to address foreign funding. That is concerning. This private member's bill, Bill C-406 would close that loophole when it comes to the influence foreign funding would have on future Canadian elections. We are not immune. It has happened. If we do not do something about it, it is going to happen again. Elections are sacrosanct in a free and sovereign country.

Times have changed. Unfortunately we have seen it in the United States and in other western democracies. We have seen it in Canada. Our elections are open and vulnerable to foreign influences, whether at the cyber level or through the funding of third party organizations that are well organized and target specific ridings to make an impact.

We should not allow that to happen. Third party associations should not be allowed to accept foreign funding for use in Canadian elections. Bill C-406 would close that loophole to ensure that third party groups cannot not accept foreign funding, period. This would make things easier to enforce and track, ensuring that Canadian elections are protected.

However, we should not be surprised that the Liberals are leaving this loophole there. They have been quite clear that they have no issues with foreign entities and actors influencing Canadian policy. We have a Liberal government that ensured that Canadian taxpayer dollars were used to fund summer jobs for Leadnow and Tides, groups that actively protested against Canada's energy sector. Liberals should not allow these foreign funds to impact our decision-making on our own economy, on massive infrastructure projects, and on nation-building projects like pipelines.

We have seen what has happened with Trans Mountain, a project that is integral to Canada's economy, but they tell us not to concern ourselves with foreign actors influencing the Canadian economy and our natural resource sector, or with the more than 100,000 jobs that have been lost as a result of the activism that most often comes from foreign entities.

If Liberals are going to turn a blind eye to that, it only makes sense that they would turn a blind eye to foreign influences in Canadian elections. This is no mystery. Foreign money has been used, and as I said, these third party groups are actively, in the public and on their websites, bragging about how successful their efforts have been in influencing a Canadian election.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not speculation. It is proven. In fact, as I said, Tides spent more than $1.5 million on influencing the Canadian election. That got the attention of the Canada Revenue Agency, which is investigating Tides regarding how that money was raised and spent. For the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions to say this has never happened is very disconcerting. He is parliamentary secretary to the minister, who should be extremely concerned about the influences foreign entities and actors could have on the Canadian election. The parliamentary secretary was being quite honest when he said it was not an issue or a problem, and that we did not need any legislation to protect ourselves from this. In all honesty, I find that to be ridiculous. It is proven that this is happening.

We are now in an election year, and it is quite clear that the Liberals are not going to take this issue seriously. This is not something they are addressing earnestly. They are refusing to take steps to close the loophole.

I find it interesting that the Liberals and my colleague from the NDP keep talking about this being a non-partisan issue. I am not saying this is a partisan issue. I am saying there is a very clear void in the legislation. We are bringing forward an opportunity to correct the mistake in Bill C-76, which did not have the teeth needed to ensure that Canadian elections are protected.

Elections are a foundation of Canadian democracy, plain and simple. If we cannot trust that our elections are fair and that Canadians alone are deciding who forms our government and who represents them in their constituencies, we have a very serious problem.

Bill C-406 would end any opportunity for foreign influence in a Canadian election. The integrity of our democracy and of our electoral system is at stake, and I would ask all members of the House to support Bill C-406. It is a priority.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions and as the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park to speak to the second reading of Bill C-406, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill, which was introduced by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes.

The spirit of Bill C-406 is part of a broader conversation regarding the role of money in Canadian politics and the potential for foreign actors to influence Canadian elections. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs issued a report last year expressing concern that the Canada Elections Act did not “...sufficiently protect Canadian elections from improper foreign interference”. That said, the report further argued that the third party regime needed to be modernized to ensure transparency and fairness in our democratic system.

Our government takes this issue very seriously, and it is a pleasure to be addressing this topic in the House this evening.

When it comes to the issue of foreign interference and influence more generally, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to protect the integrity of our democracy by defending the Canadian electoral process from hacking and malicious cyber-activities.

More frequently than ever before, we are learning in the media about how western democracies are dealing with new types of threats and new types of attacks. There have been allegations of undue foreign interference in the British Brexit referendum, the United States' 2016 presidential election and the French 2016 presidential election, to name but a few. Canadians are rightly concerned about the potential impact of foreign interference in our elections as well.

I have heard from the engaged residents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, and indeed from Canadians from around the country, that we cannot be complacent. In 2019, we need to anticipate and ward off the threat of foreign interference in order to secure and strengthen our democracy.

This is why our government recently announced its plan to safeguard the upcoming election. The plan is built on four pillars. One is enhancing citizen preparedness. The second is improving organizational readiness. The third is combatting foreign interference, and the fourth is working with social media platforms. In particular, Canada's security agencies will work to prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities by foreign actors.

I would like to remind members of this House that Canada also has a robust political financing regime. We know that to date there is no evidence that foreign actors have unduly influenced previous elections in this country. As a result, Canadians can feel confident in the outcome of our past elections and in our democracy as a whole, but that does not mean we will rest on our laurels. To the contrary, we are being vigilant to address potential threats. Our government has already taken action to address potential avenues of undue influence in advance of the upcoming 2019 federal election.

In addition to the government's recent announcement, our government has passed Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which received royal assent on December 13 of last year. The Elections Modernization Act strengthens Canada's democratic institutions and restores Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes. This generational overhaul of the Canada Elections Act will allow it to better address the realities facing our democratic system in the 21st century, including requiring organizations selling advertising spaces to not knowingly accept election advertisements from foreign entities.

Our legislation draws heavily on the recommendations in the Chief Electoral Officer's report on the 2015 general election and on studies by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The member for Red Deer—Lacombe opposite has already outlined a number of measures in Bill C-406, measures that are redundant when one considers Bill C-76. This is because Bill C-406 has already been considered by our government as part of the Minister of Democratic Institutions' commitment to review spending limits for both political parties and third parties.

This review also examined third party financing and the potential impacts of foreign contributions and interference in Canada.

While Bill C-406's objective of preventing foreign interference in Canadian elections is worthy in principle, the mechanisms outlined in this legislation would be ineffective.

Allow me to explain. A major issue with Bill C-406 is that it seeks to legislate the actions of people outside Canada, such as foreign entities or persons making a contribution to a Canadian third party. These provisions have an extraterritorial aspect, which would be extremely difficult to enforce. We know of these difficulties from other acts that have attempted to legislate actions outside of Canada.

It is clear that the measures in Bill C-76 are enforceable, whereas those in Bill C-406 are problematic, because Bill C-76 addresses the problem from a different perspective. While Bill C-406 seeks to prohibit someone outside of Canada from contributing to a third party, Bill C-76, which has received royal assent, prohibits Canadian third parties from using these contributions. In this way, the problem of foreign influence is brought under the umbrella of our established domestic regulatory regime for third parties.

There are also a number of unfortunate drafting errors in the bill, which would further make the argument that the provisions are difficult to enforce. In one case, the bill refers to subsection 363(1.1) of the Canada Elections Act, which is a provision that does not exist in either the act or in Bill C-76. As well, while the bill creates two new prohibitions on foreign contributions, it neglects to enact corresponding offences, which would lead to significant enforcement difficulties. The two must go hand in hand, and the latter is absent here. There are no corresponding offences listed in the bill.

Further, Bill C-406 misplaces the new rules regarding third party election advertising in part 18 of the Canada Elections Act, the part that deals with financial administration of political entities, instead of placing them in part 17 of the act, which deals with third party election advertising. This would lead to confusion for Canadians and political actors about which sections of the Canada Elections Act apply to which entities.

I would like to mention that certain measures in Bill C-76 that have to do with foreign interference were strengthened by amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. When Bill C-406 was introduced in June 2018, the measures in Bill C-76 had not yet been improved by the committee's meticulous work.

Bill C-76 initially only limited the prohibition against using foreign funds to an election period, something I mentioned in my first contribution to this debate. However, there is now a new provision that stipulates there is no explicit time limit to this prohibition, thanks to helpful amendments brought forward at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This change brought Bill C-76 in line with the measures introduced in Bill C-406, which also do not stipulate any time limit. Canadians can therefore be assured that foreign influence will be guarded against at any time, rather than only during the pre-writ or writ periods of an election.

Strengthening and protecting our democratic institutions should not be a partisan issue. On that, there is agreement. In Canada, our free and fair elections contribute to our strong democracy, which is revered around the world. Canadians rightfully expect their elected officials to come together and work hard to ensure our elections are accessible and we are doing our utmost to ensure foreign money has no place in our elections, which is essential to the health of our democracy.

I want to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for the chance to continue this important discussion on foreign influence in our elections. We can expect that Canadians will become more interested in this topic in the lead-up to the federal election this fall.

To conclude, while Bill C-406 identifies an important issue for Canadians, the tools the bill proposes cannot be effectively enforced, which is why the government will not be supporting Bill C-406.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, the policing of this would be a lot easier.

The issue that I brought up in my remarks, the investigation initiated by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, was an inability for them to find any fault in the current legislative gambit that Elections Canada had in front of it. That is because when the money comes across the border, it becomes much more difficult to police and enforce. If we police it before it comes across the border, if we make it illegal for the foreign funding to come across the border in the first place, it is much easier to detect, much easier to track and much easier to enforce.

As I said, the legislation I am proposing, Bill C-406, builds on some of the things that were done in Bill C-76, but it would add and strengthen our elections and make them more secure. That is why I am hoping all members of the House will help pass it.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House agree wholeheartedly with the objective and the principle of the bill and what it targets, which is interference with elections that must be safeguarded here in the House.

I have a couple of clarifications I would like to make.

The member mentioned that Bill C-76, which had the same objective, is being studied in the Senate right now. The bill actually received royal assent on December 13, 2018. Therefore, Bill C-76 is now official law in Canada.

I want to make a couple of points in respect to Bill C-76.

At the time the member's legislation was originally given first reading, Bill C-76 was in committee where it was subsequently strengthened. The original incarnation of the bill talked about only prohibiting the use of foreign funds during an election period. However, helpful amendments made at PROC made it illegal for a third party to use foreign funding at any time to engage in partisan activities, bringing it into line with the very bill that he has proposed today.

Does the member agree with the changes made in committee?

Also, with respect to the extraterritorial aspect of the legislation he is now proposing, it presents a difficulty in enforcement. Does the member recognize that limitation with respect to the enforcement of this bill?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

moved that Bill C-406, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (foreign contributions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, Canadian citizens hold the basic fundamental expectation that when they vote, that when they cast their ballot to determine their local representative, the composition of the House of Commons and the political direction of our country, their voice will matter. Unfortunately, in previous general elections the voice of every Canadian citizen has been drowned out, diminished and undermined by foreign entities that would unduly influence our legitimate and democratic electoral process.

Foreign interference has been widely reported in elections in numerous other democratic countries, and Canada is by no means different. Our electoral process is just as vulnerable to the sort of undue foreign influence we have seen take place in the United States, in Britain and elsewhere.

This occurs in our country most frequently through the wilful contravention of the Canada Elections Act, whereby registered third parties receive contributions from foreign entities, which are subsequently used to fund various political activities, including for election advertising purposes.

The need to prohibit such foreign influence is clear. Canada's former chief elector officer from 1990 to 2007, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, stated unequivocally:

We simply cannot allow any kind of money that is not Canadian to find its way into the Canadian electoral system...A general election is a national event, it’s not an international event and foreign interests have no place and for them to have found a back door like this, that is not acceptable to Canadians.

I think the overwhelming majority of Canadians care about foreign money playing a role in our elections, regardless of what party they favour. This issue is about the overall fairness of our elections, about keeping a level playing field.

Last year, the former Canadian Security Intelligence Service director and national security adviser, Richard Fadden, confirmed that it was very likely that foreign countries had attempted to influence the 2015 general election.

Looking ahead, a report by the Communications Security Establishment found that foreign entities were well positioned to influence the next federal election and that Canada would not be immune from it.

Indeed, prior to and during the last federal election, numerous registered third-party organizations in Canada received significant contributions from foreign entities to achieve certain political objectives.

For instance, the Tides Foundation, which is based in the United States, donated more than $1.5 million to numerous different third-party organizations in Canada. Leadnow, one such third-party organization, which was one of the most active third parties in the last election itself, attributes more than 17% of its funding from foreign sources. Each of these groups spent thousands and thousands of dollars in elections advertising in the 2015 general election.

Meanwhile, the number of registered third-party groups is higher than ever, as are concerns about them. Between the previous two elections alone, complaints about third-party groups by everyday Canadians increased by 750%, from just 12 in 2011 to 105 in 2015. Sadly, many of the political causes advocated by these groups directly benefit the economic or political interests of foreign countries and directly disadvantage the economic and political interests of Canada.

As the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, I am particularly concerned, as are my constituents, that many third-party groups receiving foreign contributions for elections advertising purposes are dedicated solely to undermining the Canadian oil and gas sector. This is no secret. Amid record low oil prices in Canada, foreign entities like the Tides Foundation have trumpeted their accomplishments in preventing Canadian oil from reaching international markets. Their success in doing so can be attributed in part to their ability to finance the elections advertising of collaborative third-party groups.

Numerous instances of this kind of foreign influence have been revealed through the dedicated work of researcher, Vivian Krause. Vivian has worked tirelessly to follow the money trail and uncover the many connections between U.S. oil interests and Canadian environmental groups that are working together and making use of elections law loopholes against the interests of the broader Canadian public.

However, this is just one of many issues related to foreign influence. Foreign influence in all our elections should be of concern to all members of the House and all Canadians, regardless of their political persuasion.

Why are we allowing foreign entities to influence our elections in this manner?

This question was formally investigated by the Commissioner of Canada Elections at the behest of my colleague, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton. The commissioner's office determined that third parties are subject to much less stringent regulations than other political entities but concluded that there was no technical breach of the Canada Elections Act, as it is currently written.

Crucially, the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections noted that pursuant to subsection 359(4) of the act, there is no requirement for a registered third party to report to Elections Canada funds used for election advertising if those funds were received outside the period beginning six months before the issue of the writ and ending on election day. Therefore, in effect, foreign entities or organizations like the Tides Foundation are currently permitted to make unregulated financial contributions to third-party organizations for election advertising outside the pre-writ period. These sorts of contributions would otherwise be prohibited at any other time.

From this it is clear that there exists a serious loophole in the Canada Elections Act that must be addressed. We must stem the significant flow of foreign money in our elections and help restore the full sovereignty of our democratic process. It is for this reason I introduced the legislation before us.

Bill C-406 would address the growing issue of foreign influence in Canadian elections by prohibiting foreign entities from contributing to third parties for election advertising purposes at any time. Bill C-406 would also amend the Canada Elections Act to include this prohibition and would require any ineligible contributions to be either returned by the domestic third party to the contributor or to the Receiver General. With this prohibition in place, foreign entities would no longer be able to shamelessly flout the Canada Elections Act. Consequently, their ability to undermine our electoral process and unduly determine the political discourse in this country would be severely diminished. These measures would preserve the sovereign principle that Canadians, and Canadians alone, should decide who governs on their behalf.

The issue of election reform, including the undue influence of foreign entities, was debated in this chamber recently as we considered the provisions within the government's bill, Bill C-76. At that time, members on the government side explicitly stated that they consider this to be an issue of real concern. I note that the hon. member for Whitby declared that “Canadian elections belong to Canadians, and it is not the place of foreigners to have a say in who should have a place in this chamber.” Similarly, the hon. member for Humber River-Black Creek admitted that the last federal election was subjected to foreign influence and expressed her desire to see legislation that makes it “more difficult for the bad actors that we have out there to influence our elections.” Even the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions stated that she supports measures that will “prevent foreign interference in our elections that could undermine trust in our democracy.” These are Liberal MPs.

I could go on, but regardless of my objections to aspects of Bill C-76, while debating that legislation, members opposite made it clear that they believe foreign influence to be a problem that needs to be addressed, particularly as another election will soon be upon us.

Members on the government side might like to suggest that Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, which is now being studied in the other place, renders the provisions to eliminate foreign influence in Canadian elections within my bill, Bill C-406, redundant. However, I can assure members that this is not the case. While Bill C-76 contains provisions to prohibit third parties from utilizing foreign money for the purposes of election advertising, Bill C-406 would prohibit the foreign entities themselves from contributing to domestic third parties in the first place. Therefore, the enactment of the provisions in Bill C-76 and Bill C-406 would be complementary, rather than contradictory or redundant.

Given that foreign entities are currently contravening the existing prohibitions concerning elections advertising in the Canada Elections Act, having further measures in place to prevent this from happening would be the most sensible thing to do and would prevent any uncertainty about compliance for domestic third parties here in Canada and for foreign entities elsewhere.

By ensuring that the legal prohibitions apply both to the contributing foreign entities and the recipient domestic third parties, Canadians will be much more assured in the security and sovereignty of our electoral process and in the legitimacy of their government.

It is undeniable that we live in an age of rampant misinformation, political disruption and an acute lack of confidence in traditional institutions. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, Canadians' trust in media, NGOs, businesses and government declined in 2017, and more than half of Canadians lost faith in the system. This should be concerning for all members of the House, especially since the barometer also indicates that the credibility of its own leadership is also declining among Canadians.

It is for this reason that Canadians especially deserve to have full confidence that our elections will not be tampered with or interfered in by foreign entities.

Members should take their seats here following an election only because they have the confidence and trust of their constituents who placed them here. Members should not have a seat here because some foreign entity preferred one candidate or party over another to pursue its own personal objectives and was able to use its significant resources to sway certain elections from abroad.

In less than a year's time, Canadians will have returned to the ballot box once more to have their voices heard. Enacting Bill C-406 before then to prevent foreign influence in our elections would go a long way in rebuilding the trust of Canadians in their institutions and, in particular, the validity of our election process and the credibility of the government.

The alternative is troubling to consider. Without the prohibitions within Bill C-406, our elections will be determined not by Canadians alone, not by those who have a vested interest in what is best for our country, but by those who have a vested interest in their own objectives, which almost certainly will not be in the best interests of Canada.

Worse still, if this practice continues unabated, Canadians will lose all faith in their electoral process and in the government itself, regardless of which party is in power. Such a profound loss of faith will be very difficult to earn back once it has been lost.

In the past few months, we have heard from the experts and officials responsible for administering our elections, as well as those who are tasked with keeping our nation and its institutions secure. Each of them has said that the issue of foreign influence in our elections is of concern, and is something that needs to be addressed prior to the election next year. Members from both sides of the chamber have echoed this sentiment and have shown support for other measures that would help curb foreign influence in our elections.

It is my sincere hope that all members of the House will take this warning to heart and join me in supporting Bill C-406. By doing so, members of Parliament will not only be ensuring that foreign entities can no longer unduly influence our elections, but they would also be sending a clear and specific message to all Canadians, that their voices matter and their voices will not be undermined or drowned out by those who should have no place or no say in our electoral process.

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to the opposition motion that has been brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Before I make some comments on the substance of the opposition motion the House is currently seized with, I would like to take a few moments to thank two individuals. First and foremost is the member for Vancouver Granville. When she was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I served as her parliamentary secretary and I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude for her work and her contributions to that portfolio. Certainly, it speaks for itself in terms of how we advanced the overall causes toward justice, and her leadership on the indigenous file reaches beyond her time in government here.

I would also like to take a moment to express gratitude for the work of Gerald Butts. I have come to know his family. I am keenly aware of the sacrifices that both he and his family had to make in order to put country before personal time. Obviously, it goes without saying that his loss will be felt by our team. However, we will remain focused on the work he has been committed to in the public interest for many years.

Turning to the opposition motion, as I read it, it calls for two things. First, it calls on the government to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general with respect to allegations of interference as it relates to an ongoing SNC-Lavalin prosecution. Second, it urges the government to call for a public inquiry in order to provide Canadians with transparency and accountability by the Liberals as promised in the 2015 election.

Going back to those campaign promises, we have indeed made significant strides when it comes to making government more open. I highlight a number of examples, including the introduction of Bill C-58, as well as Bill C-76, which would in fact undo some of the harm caused by the last Conservative government so that we can ensure that every voter has the right and can fully appreciate the right to vote. Bill C-50 would shed more light on political fundraising activities.

As it relates to the justice system, I am very proud of the work our government has done when it comes to ensuring that our judicial appointments process is open, transparent and merit-based. We have also introduced legislation that would improve access to justice. Here, I am referring to Bill C-75, which I know is continuing to be studied by the other place. We look forward to receiving its report back so that we can ensure our justice system is serving all Canadians.

These are all concrete measures that have raised the bar when it comes to open government and having a government that is transparent and accountable to all Canadians. We have supported each and every one of these measures with full and fair debate in the House and in the other place. What did the opposition members do when they had a chance to support those measures? They voted against those measures. That is indeed regrettable, because their voting record, in standing in opposition to those measures, actually speaks much larger volumes about how they feel about open government, as opposed to some of what I have heard from the other side of the aisle today.

The allegations that have been levied against the government are indeed serious. No one on this side of the House takes them lightly. However, as in the case of any allegation, we have to begin by looking at the sources. Who are the sources? Are they reliable? Have they been independently verified? Have they been substantiated?

Here is the truth of the matter. At present, the sources of these allegations are unknown. They are anonymous. They are not corroborated. They are not verified. They are not substantiated. This should be of great concern to not only the members of this chamber who are currently debating the motion. This should be of grave concern to all Canadians. Why is that? It is because in the place of facts, evidence and circumstances that would underlie and underpin these allegations, we have the opposition embarking upon a campaign of conjecture, speculation and a rush to judgment. While indeed I will concede that this does make for good political theatre, it does not advance the pursuit of truth.

The Prime Minister has been clear that at no point did either he or his staff direct the former attorney general or the current Attorney General on the matter of SNC-Lavalin. He has been abundantly clear that at no point did either he or his staff wrongly influence the former or present Attorney General when it comes to the SNC-Lavalin matter.

I understand from the opposition that in answer to those statements made by the Prime Minister they would hear from the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville. It is not for me to speak for the member for Vancouver Granville. It is not for the opposition to speak on her behalf, as I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle purport to do over the last number of days.

I understand from media reports that the member for Vancouver Granville has sought legal advice. I imagine she is certainly taking that legal advice into consideration. Coincidentally I would note that the legal advice itself is privileged and I will come back to the importance of that principle in a moment. I want to underscore that it is a decision of her making as to if and when she will make a further comment about this matter in public.

In regard to the merits of the motion, the Prime Minister has indicated today, as has his Attorney General, that he has sought and is in the course of seeking legal advice on the matter of solicitor-client privilege as it applies to the motion. Let me say a few words about the importance of solicitor-client privilege.

This is not only a legal principle recognized in the common law. It is not only a legal principle that has been enshrined in various statutes. It is a principle that has been elevated to constitutional status by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is permanent. It survives the relationship between the parties and it is, as the Supreme Court of Canada has held, fundamental to the proper functioning of our government and to our democracy. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that without solicitor-client privilege, the administration of justice, and by extension our democracy, would be compromised. We cannot take for granted what is at stake when we put into play the questions of when solicitor-client privilege applies.

The Prime Minister and the government, as some of my colleagues will have served in the last administration will recall, some of whom indeed were in cabinet themselves, no doubt understand first-hand the importance of this principle as it relates to the day-to-day functioning of our government. It is required in order to ensure that there is an atmosphere, an environment in which the government can seek legal advice on how best to undertake policy and legislative initiatives so that they are consistent with the charter.

Without that environment, without that space, in order to have a free, fair and flowing exchange of ideas, different perspectives and different voices, there would be an undermining of the proper functioning of government. We place this privilege at the very pinnacle of our justice system and it does not just apply to government. It applies to all Canadians. If at any point in time Canadians have either retained a lawyer and have come into play with the justice system, they will understand the importance of having a confidential relationship with their lawyer so that their lawyer can best serve their interests. Canadians would understand that they would not want their lawyers to flippantly waive that privilege. We need to be sure that we put this issue into its proper context in the debate of the opposition motion that is on the floor today.

It is true that in law there are some limited exceptions to this privilege and I understand that members of the opposition are calling with great fervour for the waiver of privilege in this case as it relates to their allegations and the former attorney general of Canada. To my mind, in order to waive this privilege, we need something more compelling, more confirmed and more corroborated than the anonymous sources that have appeared in a number of media reports.

I look to my colleagues in the opposition, and in particular to those who have been called to the bar who have a deep understanding of and I would hope a profound respect for this principle, to substantiate their claim beyond the hyperbole, the exaggeration and the stretched statements that I have listened very carefully to throughout the course of this debate. I am still waiting.

The second part of the opposition motion urges the government to initiate a judicial inquiry, something that my Conservative colleagues have had some experience with themselves. In some cases, there were obvious social causes for which the public requested, of the last Conservative government, the compelling need for an inquiry and the Conservative government refused. One such case was the call for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. The last Conservative government consistently, in the face of an ongoing systemic tragedy in our justice system, refused to undertake one. I will let members opposite defend that decision, and I will stand here and explain my reasons the call for a judicial inquiry is, at best, premature.

Currently, there are a number of processes unfolding in Parliament and within the law by statutory parliamentary officers to provide a degree of accountability and transparency in response to the allegations that have been put forward by the opposition.

The first comes from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is meeting at this very moment, if I am not mistaken, to determine which witnesses it will hear from. Once more, the opposition has rushed to judgment. It has made this a partisan matter without waiting to see the full list of witnesses who will be called by that committee.

Respectfully, I would suggest that my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle let that process unfold and place faith in the independence of that committee, in which members on this side of the House place great faith, and in its members' capacity to bring their own ideas, their own thinking and their own principles. I suggest they see where that committee takes this, rather than claiming that on the one hand the committee should do its business, and on the other hand, it is essentially fraught with partisanship. It is either one or the other. Either members of the House will come to that committee with an open mind, an appreciation of independence and an understanding of the importance of this work, or they will not.

Certainly for my colleagues who work on that committee, I have faith in their independence and integrity. I speak on behalf of all members on this side of the House when I say that we all look forward to their ongoing work at committee.

We have also heard from the opposition that we need to have a judicial inquiry because the Ethics Commissioner does not have the sufficient ability or capacity, the statutory mandate, to look into the allegations that are the subject of the opposition motion. In particular, my colleagues in the NDP have expressed their concerns and frustrations regarding the Ethics Commissioner's lack of capacity to do his job.

The first observation to make is that it was the NDP members themselves who decided, of their own volition, which parliamentary official to bring this allegation to.

We are not saying, one way or the other, whether this was the right choice. That was a matter for the NDP to determine. However, listening to the NDP members today in question period, it was somewhat ironic to hear them say on the one hand that they filed a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner and then on the other hand, virtually at the same time, that the Ethics Commissioner did not have the ability to look into the very allegations that they were bringing forward. It is inconsistent and incompatible with basic logic that they would have submitted those allegations to the Ethics Commissioner in the first place if they believed that the Ethics Commissioner was unable to look into them.

We have said that we believe in the work of the Ethics Commissioner. This is a parliamentary officer. This is an officer who is independent from government. This is an officer who is not part of the partisan exercise and debate that is the sine qua non of this place. This is a parliamentary officer who has the statutory mandate to examine the circumstances and the allegations put forward by the opposition.

As we have said repeatedly, we place faith in the office and the people who serve in that office, and we will co-operate at every step of the way, as we have in the past.

There are many other fora and venues for the opposition to make their case. It is not for the government to set those steps or to provide that road map for them. The opposition will determine what it wants to do. However, in the meantime, in addition to all of the remarks that I have made about the subject of this motion, I hope Canadians view this matter as not just simply turning a blind eye. There will be transparency. There will be accountability. I am confident in what the Prime Minister says in saying that there has been no direction and no wrongful influence as it relates to the former attorney general or the present Attorney General, because I know that this is a government that has great respect when it comes to the independence of our judiciary, when it comes to the independence of the legal profession and when it comes to the independence of the administration of justice. I believe firmly that our work speaks to those values.

At the end of the day, what matters more than the theatre and the drama—which can make for good reading on a weekend or at night if there is nothing else to do—is the work, the work of the government, the work to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. It is the work to serve the most vulnerable, which was a campaign promise, a belief on which the government was elected, and work that we do each and every day, together, united in solidarity. It is bigger than any one of us. It is bigger than all of us. It is the very reason we are here: to serve the public, to serve the public interest.

For all those reasons, I am going to encourage my opposition colleagues to reconsider this motion and to put our focus and our energies back on the people who sent us here—Canadians.

Foreign Interference in Elections

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to take foreign interference in our elections more seriously. We know that it is a major threat and the Canadian security establishment has already recognized that it took place in the 2015 election. They also confirm it is expected to increase in the 2019 election, yet the Liberals refuse to take steps to ensure that our 2019 election will be free from foreign interference and influence.

As the shadow minister for democratic institutions, I am concerned not only by the lack of detail in the government's most recent proposal, but by its historic refusal to take the steps necessary to protect Canadians, as demonstrated in Bill C-76. On this side of the House, we believe that every vote cast by a Canadian citizen matters. We will continue to fight against any attempt by foreign groups to undermine democracy in this country.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to rise in the House of Commons as shadow minister for democratic institutions to speak to Bill C-278, also known as the foreign lobbyist transparency act. This private member's bill, brought forward by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, would make crucial adjustments to the Lobbying Act to counteract foreign interference in our free and democratic system. The bill would be an effective and invaluable piece of legislation that would increase transparency of foreign lobbyists and their influences, seen and unseen, on Canadian politics.

Bill C-278 would accomplish this with two primary legislative changes. First, lobbyists who are funded by a foreign national, a non-resident corporation or a non-resident organization would be required to publicly disclose that information. Second, these entities would also have to disclose whether they were using grassroots communication that could negatively impact the government's ability to consult the Canadian public on a specific course of action. Together, these changes would provide Canadians with information necessary to see how foreign lobbyists could be impacting Canadian politics.

Currently, the Canadian Registry of Lobbyists gives Canadians important information on the companies and organizations that try to influence government policy. Canadians can know who is lobbying on behalf of these organizations and see which topics are discussed, and even which lobbying activities are taking place.

This change to the Lobbying Act simply adds two new categories to the long list of information already collected by the Officer of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. It is a small change that will offer some big advantages.

When implemented, this bill will give Canadians a better overview of the lobbying done by foreign entities and a greater awareness of foreign influence over public policy-making.

Healthy democracies provide their citizens with transparency. Canadians deserve an open government that can assure them that they are not being unknowingly manipulated by foreign entities. We cannot assume that foreign corporations or organizations do not have malicious motivations. Canadians and the government need to know what organizations or corporations are foreign funded so we have a greater understanding of the possible conflicts with the issues that they may be lobbying on behalf of. We cannot have foreign lobbying groups pretending that they have domestic concerns when in reality they represent foreign interests. Canadians should be the only ones determining their domestic policies.

Foreign lobby groups can be especially malicious when using grassroots lobbying strategies. Grassroots lobbying occurs when lobbyists persuade the public on a given issue instead of government officials. Public support of an issue can aid in the persuasion of policy makers. Foreign lobbyists using grassroots strategies can be alarming since the public may not be receiving the bigger picture of the issue and can be manipulated into believing in a policy that is beneficial for these foreign entities, but bad for Canadians.

Grassroots campaigns also have the ability to interfere with government consultation processes. The government and Canadians deserve a fair and accurate consultation. If this is being impeded by groups with foreign interests, Canadians should have the right and ability to know this.

The use of grassroots lobbying is easier than ever. With social media, lobbyists can deliver information to citizens faster than ever before. Individuals are posting and sharing constantly whether the information is real or fake. Canadians deserve to know not only if foreign corporations or organizations are lobbying Canadian officials, but whether they plan to use Canadians to do their bidding. When these groups are internationally funded, their motivations should have the opportunity to be questioned. Canadians deserve transparency and the ability to know when they are being manipulated.

The government needs to start taking foreign interference seriously. The members on that side of the House tried to prevent foreign interference in Canadian elections with Bill C-76, but they left some significant shortcomings in the bill.

Canadians should be the only ones to determine the outcome of elections in Canada, not foreign entities. The Liberal government is not doing enough to eliminate the possibility of foreign interference. Canadians deserve to know where the money spent on elections is coming from, and it is up to the government to ensure that all third parties are completely transparent. If third parties decide to do any advertising during an election, they must be transparent and tell Canadians where that money is coming from.

The government is not taking foreign interference in third-party campaign financing seriously enough in Bill C-76. Today we are offering an opportunity to at least impede foreign influence exercised through lobbying. The laws currently in place simply do not go far enough. Our democracy is at stake. Canadians, and only Canadians, should have any influence over our democracy. As Conservatives, we believe that every Canadian vote counts, but the government needs to work harder to prevent foreign entities from undermining our democratic institutions.

We need to continue working on keeping our democratic institutions safe. Foreign influence in elections is a credible and global threat. The Communications Security Establishment has already recognized, as well as the Prime Minister himself, that foreign influence took place in the 2015 election and is expected to increase significantly in 2019 as it has in recent elections around the globe. We cannot have our elections or our domestic policy influenced by foreign entities. Our democratic institutions and government will begin to crumble if we let them succumb to foreign influence.

Canadians deserve a system of government they can trust. This bill put forward by my hon. colleague is a way for Canadians to be confident that Canadian policy is not being unduly manipulated by foreign entities who wish to interfere. It is essential that Canadians maintain trust in their democratic systems for our government to be effective in protecting Canadians and providing them with services. When foreign actors start having an impact on domestic policies behind closed doors, that trust begins to fade.

Canadians should be the only ones making the decisions for Canada. When foreign-funded entities are getting involved with lobbying the government or getting involved in our elections, Canadians have the right to know.

My colleague mentioned Vivian Krause, who has been researching the oil sands for nearly a decade, and this touches dearly upon my home in Alberta. She said that her studies have led her to believe that the push against the oil sands is funded by American philanthropists in an effort to landlock Alberta oil so that it cannot reach overseas markets where it would obtain a higher price per barrel. She estimates that about $90 million over the last 10 years has gone towards various efforts to restrict oil and gas development and exports from Alberta.

Again, Canadians in my home province of Alberta and also across the country have a right to know when their democratic institutions are being compromised.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

It was Disraeli. Maybe Margaret Thatcher said it afterward, while quoting Disraeli. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that he thought of all these things too, but somebody else got there before him and said it first.

As well, part of sustainable policy is not painting ourselves into a corner, not making decisions that limit our options and restrict our ability to move forward in a way that we would see as constructive and making a difference in the way we would like them to.

If we look at the record of the government with respect to sustainability, we see it failing on every front. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver effective, sustainable policy, and unfortunately, those failures are imposing major costs on Canadians.

Canadians realize that they are paying for the failures of the Prime Minister. He is failing to deliver sustainable policy, and the result of this failure is going to have negative impacts on the present and the future. There are going to be future tax increases. The government's failure to budget and plan for the challenges of the future will necessarily mean, as night follows day, higher taxes and higher costs in the future, especially if the government is re-elected. Canadians cannot afford the tax increases the government is planning on so many different fronts.

The government is failing us on the issue of environmental sustainability. It is failing on energy sustainability. It is failing on fiscal sustainability. It is failing to take the steps necessary to develop a sustainable economy. It is failing to put in place strong policies for the sustainability and strength of our immigration system. It is failing to develop a foreign policy that reflects the values of sustainability and strength I talked about. It is failing to treat our democratic institutions in a way that preserves them in good health for the future. It is failing to approach the treatment of social institutions in civil society in a way that effectively supports their sustainability.

I believe that this is one of the most, if not the most, capricious governments we have ever seen in the country. It is characterized by reckless experiment, by a lack of a plan and no regard for the future. Canadians are seeing the effects of that series of failures. They are seeing the ways in which the failures of the government impose real, concrete costs on them. The government's failures are costing all of us money and are leading to higher taxes.

Let us talk about some of the particular ways the government has failed to support the development of sustainable policy across a series of different domains. The first area is environmental sustainability. I spoke to this bill previously. I identified a series of environmental accomplishments by the previous Conservative government. From 2006, the previous government invested over $17 billion to support the environment. There were many different initiatives, and I read them before, so I will not go through all of them. Suffice it to say, we know that there were various polices, such as the green infrastructure fund, the eco-energy retrofit, clean air regulations and significant work in the area of tax relief for green energy generation. There was supporting conservation, supporting national parks, expanding snowmobile and recreation trails to improve access to the environment across the country, encouraging donations of ecologically sensitive lands, supporting family-oriented conservation by providing $3 million to allow the Earth Rangers foundation to expand its ongoing work and investing almost $2 billion in the federal contaminated sites action plan. These are just a brief sampling of the many contributions made in the area of the environment.

However, so often when we talk about the environment, we focus on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. I am proud to note that under the previous Conservative government, greenhouse gas emissions went down. I wish the Liberals were applauding. They are not. Maybe they wish it were not true. My friend from Spadina—Fort York clearly has not learned anything, because he has said that it was only because of the recession. The reality is that emissions went down while the economy grew in Canada. Meanwhile, compared to the rest of the world, other parts of the world were more severely hit by the recession, yet global emissions went up during the same period. Therefore, it is hard to use the recession to explain the reduction in emissions when in fact what was happening in Canada was that emissions were going down while the economy was growing.

The member for Spadina—Fort York and other Liberals seem to think the only way we can reduce emissions is by having a recession. It follows that they, through their carbon tax, are trying to engineer a situation in which they think emissions will go down, and they are hurting the economy in the process.

Conservatives believe that we can actually have economic growth and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Why do we believe that? It is because we have looked at our own record in this country. We have seen how it happens.

Another thing my friend from Spadina—Fort York likes to do when we have these conversations is to say that it was only because of the wisdom and foresight of Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne in the Ontario provincial government, but the reality is, first of all, that those policies of the Kathleen Wynne government were not that popular, as we saw in the last provincial election. Particularly when it comes to environmental policy, we see that in Canada over the period of the previous Conservative government, emissions went down, or they went up by less, in every single jurisdiction. Meanwhile, we had economic growth. It is hard to say that it was only because of the policies of provincial governments if we saw improvement with respect to greenhouse gas emissions in every single jurisdiction. These are facts that make members of the government uncomfortable, but they are facts that are easily verifiable nonetheless.

We have seen the accomplishments of the approach we took. How did we achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? We chose not to take the punitive approach of the Liberal government, its failed punitive approach, which is to use the environment as an excuse to impose new taxes on Canadians as a way of raising revenue for the government. That was not the road we went down. Instead, we went down a road that we thought was more effective and more sustainable, which was to provide incentives and opportunities along with the appropriate mix of regulations, which were not designed to bring about more revenue for government or engorge the size of the state. Rather, they gave people the opportunity to make environmental improvements. It was a positive, constructive approach, not a punitive approach. It was an approach genuinely focused on the environment and sustainability, not an approach like that of the government, which is to use the environment as an excuse to do what it has really wanted to do all along, which is to raise taxes.

When it comes this area, it is very clear that the Liberals intend to raise taxes further. They have been unwilling to rule out significant increases in carbon taxes after the next election. It is very telling that they do not want to talk about that now, yet they have created a big fiscal hole in the budget. They have positioned themselves for substantial increases in the carbon tax to come.

Canadians are already paying for the failures of the government when it comes to environmental and fiscal policies, but we know that they will pay substantially more. If the Liberals are re-elected, they will significantly increase the carbon tax and other taxes to pay for their failures when it comes to our fiscal policy, but also, they will use their environmental failures as an excuse. When a carbon tax fails to reduce emissions, because we know the carbon tax will not succeed in reducing emissions, they will simply say that they will have to raise the carbon tax further, and that will be their excuse.

On this side of the House, we say no. We say look at the past. Look at other countries that have removed their carbon tax. We can achieve real, concrete progress on the environment in a way that is environmentally and economically sustainable. We can do what we have done in the past, which is reduce emissions, and we can reduce them further in a way that does not use this issue as an excuse to impose punitive taxes on Canadians who are getting by. We want Canadians to not just get by. We want Canadians to be able to get ahead, and to do that, it is important to be reducing their taxes and giving them opportunities to make environmental improvements with things like we had in the past, such as eco-energy home retrofits, not the punitive approach of the government.

We can achieve technological progress. We can do it in a sustainable way instead of in a way that cuts off growth. The Liberals will tell us that the way to improve in terms of the environment is to hold back growth. We think that growth and environmental improvements can happen at the same time.

Let us talk then about why the carbon tax, in particular, will not work. There are a few fairly obvious reasons for this. One of them is elasticity. The theory of the carbon tax is that if a tax is imposed on a particular thing, people who are making economic decisions at the margins will choose less of it. However, that is highly dependent on the elasticity of the particular good we are talking about, or, in other words, how responsive people are to the price of it.

Something like a vacation on a private Caribbean island might be considered a highly elastic good. People tend to be responsive to a price signal, because they can always take a different vacation. They have a choice among different options, so it is a highly elastic good. Of course, a vacation on a private island is only an elastic good if people are paying for it themselves. If people are not paying for it themselves, they are not going to be responsive to a price signal with respect to that. This is just a hypothetical example of something that we might consider to be an elastic good.

An example of an inelastic good would be home heating. People who could afford it would never say that they would not heat their homes anymore, although maybe people in very dire situations would say that, because of the cost of home heating fuel. The only people who would make that decision would be people who could not afford to heat their homes. However, people who could afford it, regardless of the cost, would see it as necessary to heat their homes in the wintertime. People do not stop eating because the price of food has gone up.

When the government imposes a tax, as the government is doing through its carbon tax, on inelastic goods, on things that are necessities of life, the effect is not a reduction in their use. The effect is simply greater cost and greater pain for the taxpayer. The failure of the Prime Minister to see this means not a change in terms of the environment. Rather, it means the imposition of higher costs on Canadians.

What is the alternative? The alternative is trying to improve the productivity and effectiveness of the tools we are using through support for renovations, improvements in productivity, policies that encourage research and development in this area and appropriate targeted regulations.

For example, one can still drive to the grocery store but be able to do it in a more fuel-efficient way. One can have renovations to one's house so that there is less leakage. One can still heat one's home but do it in a way that is costing less and benefiting one's own pocketbook as well as the environment. We can get there, but only if people have the ability to make these renovations and if these technological improvements are happening.

The approach of the government, though, is not to facilitate the kinds of transitions that can actually bring about a change. Rather, it is to impose a punitive tax. That approach ignores the fact that without the change in technology or supports for renovations and other changes, such as the kinds of policies pursued by the former Conservative government, for many people this is simply a tax imposed on something inelastic, something they need and have to pay for regardless.

If the member for Spadina—Fort York wants to heckle, I encourage him to come a little closer so that I can hear what he is saying and respond.

Another issue with the carbon tax that we should think about is the regulatory complexity involved. The advocates of a carbon tax initially talked about it as an opportunity to reduce the regulatory burden. In fact, what we see with the government is the piling on of new regulations, in addition to the carbon tax. It is not proceeding with the tax in a way that even those who support the concept would recommend. The government is imposing a variety of other additional taxes and costs in the process.

I wanted to make another comment, when it comes to the carbon tax, about the whole area of a punitive approach. There is an interesting study that was done. It is classically called the Haifa daycare example. I have referred to it in the House before. This is an experiment that was done. Basically, a daycare centre was frustrated that parents were coming a bit late to pick up their kids.

The daycare decided to do what a traditional first year microeconomics student would recommend, and that was to impose a small fine or a tax on those who came late. What the daycare found was interesting, and that was that the rate of truancy increased after it imposed the fee. Why was that the case? When a punitive approach is imposed, people may sometimes be frustrated by it, but they also may not have a choice in a particular situation. People said that, if they were already late, they might as well be later. This shows the effect of failing to work collaboratively with people in response to a situation and preserve the kind of social incentives around changing behaviour. When a punitive tax is imposed, it reduces one's ability to build a co-operative consent.

The government has really so little credibility on this issue that people are not responding well to it. That is why voters in provincial elections across this country, in New Brunswick, in Ontario and soon in Alberta, are rejecting the carbon tax and calling instead for a more genuinely sustainable, genuinely effective policy.

What is particularly galling about the government's imposition of the carbon tax and why so many everyday Canadians in my constituency are frustrated by it is that it is not applying the carbon tax in nearly the same way or to the same degree to many of Canada's largest emitters. The Liberals do not say they want to have a tax on carbon, but they have other ways of saying it that do not involve the word tax. However, Canadians know the government is imposing a tax on everything that involves the use of carbon emissions—the food we eat, driving, home heating fuel and those sorts of things.

However, at the same time the Liberals are telling Canada's largest emitters that they do not want to impose this tax on them because they realize that having the tax imposed on them will have a negative impact on their bottom line and might hurt their ability to grow and create jobs here in Canada.

If the Liberals recognize that the carbon tax will have a negative impact on their friends, the largest emitters, the people who can afford to hire lobbyists, how is that they fail to recognize the negative impact that the carbon tax has on everybody else? I am speaking of those families in my constituency and other constituencies who are just getting by, who are struggling to get ahead, who want to have more opportunities, who want to have more money at the end of the month left over for themselves and their kids.

If the Liberals understand that the carbon tax is not helping Canada's largest emitters and therefore they want to give them a break, why do they not understand the same thing about those families who are trying to get ahead? Why do they not give those families the same break that they have given to the largest emitters?

We in this caucus want to give all of those people a complete break. We want to make sure that those families who are struggling do have that greater amount that they are looking for left over at the end of the month, so that they can use it for whatever they want, whatever their dreams and aspirations are for their families—to put a little more in the kids' education fund, to be able to take that extra vacation, not necessarily to a private island but maybe just a road trip to visit some members of the family.

If Canadians did not have to pay the carbon tax, they would be so much better off and we could achieve those environmental objectives at the same time. The government perversely understands the negative impact that the carbon tax has on some people, but it is unwilling to do what is right and necessary to help those families who would like to have a bit more in their pockets at the end of the year.

I want to read a number of quotes that highlight the problems with the carbon tax.

The first is from Massimo Bergamini, president of the National Airlines Council of Canada. He said, “A carbon tax is probably the worst tool that you can envisage for aviation if you want to reduce emissions.”

Philip Cross, a Munk senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said our society's shift to new energy sources “will be enabled by radical technological innovations not government tinkering with the tax system. Thinking otherwise reflects a refusal to learn the lessons of how foundational change occurs in our society.”

This is such an important point. The change requires technological change, and it requires the capacity for businesses to innovate. However, we have a government that calls our small businesses tax cheats and imposes punitive taxes on those who are struggling to get ahead, and at the same time gives a holiday to the largest emitters. This is not what is going to bring about a truly sustainable economy.

Dennis Darby, the CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says, “Canada already has a significant problem attracting investment from both foreign and domestic sources”. The carbon tax “weakens our investment position”.

Jeff Carr, who I am not sure is a relative of the minister of the same name, although probably not, is the environment minister in New Brunswick, and he says the Liberals are bullying New Brunswick over the carbon tax.

We see this kind of effort to impose federal policy on provinces in so many different areas. Make no mistake: the federal government is trying to raise revenue from this. It claims otherwise and yet refuses to take the GST off the carbon tax, so with any provincial carbon tax that is imposed, whether willingly or not, the federal government will be collecting more on top of that. The least the Liberals could have done, if they wanted to help families who are struggling to get ahead, was not impose the GST on top of the carbon tax. Instead, this is a tax on tax for struggling families.

We know why the government is doing this. It is because of its out-of-control deficits. We are already paying in so many different ways for the mistakes of the Prime Minister, and this will continue.

I want to read a quote from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph. “[T]he federal plan involves adding even more regulations to the mix”. I talked about this before. The promise of a carbon tax allegedly was about removing regulations at the same time. The Liberals are imposing new regulations while increasing the carbon tax, with plans after the next election, as we know, for further dramatic increases to the carbon tax to plug their deficit hole. The quote reads:

[T]he federal plan involves adding even more regulations to the mix—then sticking a carbon tax on top. This looks nothing like what economists have recommended.

In fact the economics literature provides no evidence this would be an efficient approach, and some evidence it would be worse than regulations alone.

There are many other different quotes I could read. I want to read from this article that I found, which I think is quite revealing. It is by Michael Binnion, who is the president of the Quebec Oil and Gas Association. The article is called “I believe in global warming—and even I think carbon taxes are idiotic”. “Idiotic” is a quotation. It says:

Let me preface by saying that I believe the greenhouse effect is real. Therefore, I am for sensible policies that reduce global emissions. Sadly, carbon taxes aren’t sensible if our goal is to reduce global emissions. They cost too much and do too little. So how did we go so wrong on carbon taxes?

Carbon taxation was originally based on a right-wing, free-market theory. The simple idea, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, is that if you tax something, you get less of it. It could elegantly allow the markets to find the most efficient ways to reduce carbon without the need for government regulations. Many respectable conservative-minded people bought into this theory. Let’s look at the reality in practice.

Theoretically, carbon prices are supposed to reduce regulation. However, in every jurisdiction where carbon pricing has been implemented, it doesn’t reduce regulation—it increases it. Carbon-pricing schemes in Europe, California and Canada are all very complicated. The Canadian government just recently introduced 500 new pages of legislation and regulation. Another example, the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan, has a carbon-tax-credit program, but acknowledges the cost of regulatory compliance is likely too high for all but the largest companies.

Let me say parenthetically that this is an area in which we see the failures of this government, which should be sensitive to the needs of small business.

With respect to the Alberta plan imposed by the NDP government there as well, when we talk about a credit program, we see that if the costs of compliance are too high for all but the biggest companies, then we are negatively impacting small business and creating a particular disadvantage and burden for those small businesses. It is not surprising, when we have a government that has called small business owners tax cheats, that when it tried to increase taxes on small business, until it was caught, it had to pull back to some extent from that, although we still saw many policies that had a negative impact on small business through that whole situation.

The article continues:

Another problem is carbon leakage, which occurs when production and investment simply move to jurisdictions without a carbon tax. In this case, emissions are simply displaced in whole or in part.

Carbon leakage is worse than you think, as it can actually increase global emissions. Take the case of Canadian aluminum, which produces only two tonnes of carbon per tonne, versus American aluminum at 11 tonnes of carbon per tonne. In practice, no one should have to explain to an aluminum worker that they lost their job because “after all, we all need to do our part,” only to have global emissions increase 550 per cent as a result. (To generalize this example, Canada’s economy is 70 per cent reliant on trade, and 80 per cent of our trade is with the United States, which has not imposed a carbon tax.)

To try and mitigate carbon leakage, every carbon-pricing scheme uses output-based allocations (OBAs). Industries that are energy intensive and trade exposed (EITE) are given free permits to emit or a carbon-tax rebate to allow them to compete. For example, we would give the aluminum industry a tax exemption for carbon taxes based on its output.

However, as carbon-tax enthusiasts like to point out, people like to avoid taxes, so everyone will lobby for a tax rebate based on complicated formulas and models. Since government determines who will receive these massive subsidies, and how much they will receive, the process is inevitably politicized.

Here is one more point in the article: “The other problem we find in practice: Demand for hydrocarbons is very inelastic.” I did not just make that up.

It continues:

People will pay what it takes to heat their homes and get to work. The Conference Board of Canada found that even a $200/tonne carbon tax would only reduce 12 megatonnes of Canadian emissions before carbon leakage. Global carbon would likely only be reduced by 70 per cent of this amount. Meanwhile, just one large LNG plant could achieve more than that by replacing coal in China with natural gas.

Canada has a global comparative advantage in carbon in many industries because of our high environmental standards. A global approach to capitalizing on Canada’s environmental advantage would yield a double dividend of a stronger economy and a cleaner global environment. Carbon pricing, on the other hand, may create a green paradox—policies meant to reduce emissions that not only eliminate some people’s jobs, but [actually] increase global emissions.

The article concludes:

So why do our left-wing friends love carbon taxes, when they say reducing emissions is their concern? The answer is the epitome of Reagan’s description of government, all wrapped up in one simple, marketable policy: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

I think the article lays out the arguments very well that, because of the inelasticity of many of the goods that would be implicated in a carbon tax, we can see the government is still not going to get there. However, it is setting the stage for being able to significantly increase the carbon tax. Canadians do not want to see that happen. They do not want the government to impose a carbon tax at all. They do not want to see the big increases in the carbon tax that the government is planning. It is not economically sustainable. It does not move us toward environmental sustainability.

The article talks about new production in areas like LNG displacing the less clean energy production happening in other countries. This would present a great opportunity for reducing global emissions. If we can expand our energy sector in Canada in a way that is clean and involves respecting the human rights of workers—something that happens here in Canada and does not happen in other oil-producing jurisdictions around the world—then we will have done a great deal for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

That is what a sustainable environmental policy would look like. Let us think about building things that are sustainable, about building and growing for sustainability, not cutting our economy off at the knees, not taking a punitive approach and not imposing new taxes on those who cannot afford it while giving breaks to those who have high-priced lobbyists and connections, those who, like the Prime Minister, do not have to worry about money too much.

There is more we can do when it comes to improving our environment. Our leader just made an announcement about how a Conservative government under his leadership would work to end the practice of raw sewage being dumped into Canadian waterways. That seems, intuitively, like a pretty obvious thing we should be working toward. I know it is deeply frustrating to people in my province who believe in the environment and sustainability to see the government allow its friends at the local level to dump raw sewage, with all its associated negative impacts on the environment.

It was quite striking how the environment minister allowed former Liberal MP, former mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, while he was the mayor, to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the same time the mayor was saying all kinds of terrible things about Alberta's energy sector. He was concerned that if there was a pipeline it might involve some accidental leakage of products of our energy resources. Meanwhile, he was petitioning the government to allow him to intentionally dump raw sewage. We are not talking about an accidental leak. We are talking about the intentional pouring of raw sewage from Montreal into the St. Lawrence Seaway.

That is something a Conservative government, led by our leader, would confront. That is real environmental policy. That is an effective way of moving us toward sustainability. It is so galling when people see the hypocrisy that somehow a single mom driving her kids to soccer or buying groceries has to pay more because it is apparently her part for the environment, whereas Liberal politicians dumping raw sewage into our waterways is totally fine.

Canadians object to that hypocrisy. We need a proper understanding of sustainability, of sustainable policy, and that is what we will deliver, not an excuse for raising taxes. We see how the government is failing when it comes to developing environmentally sustainable policies. It is using this area as an excuse to simply raise taxes.

Having spoken about environmental sustainability, I would like to talk a bit about building a sustainable energy system for our country.

As the member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta but also as a grandson of an engineer who worked for Syncrude in the oil and gas sector, I am very proud of Alberta's and Canada's energy sector. There are some politicians who seem embarrassed about it. They should not be. They should be proud of the technological, environmental and human accomplishments of that sector. I am proud of the legacy of my grandfather, of my province and of the country.

This is not just something that matters for Albertans. Our energy sector matters for all Canadians. All Canadians benefit from it. Albertans are happy to pay their fair share of taxes and see that money go toward helping encourage economic development and opportunity across the country.

Many Canadians who may not even know it benefit from the energy sector. People are working building pallets in Ontario, pallets that are then used to move material in our energy sector. Then there are the many people who commute. Think about the young man from Montreal who earned enough money to start a business back home, who worked in Alberta, came home and used the money to start a business employing people in Montreal. Think about the young woman from the Maritimes who was the first in her family to get an education, who had the financial security to do so because she was able to spend a few years working in the oil and gas sector. These are people from across the country who benefited from our energy sector, who were then able to build on that to create more jobs and opportunities in their regions of the country.

This is exactly what Canadians could and should be proud of, yet we have a Prime Minister who talks negatively about the impact of male construction workers who are working hard to provide for their families. Canadians found the Prime Minister's comments about male construction workers offensive. After all, these are not guys who get to sit in a heated building all day, getting paid to give their opinions. These are people who work outside in the cold, day in and day out, who are building this country. They are men and women, but in the particular example the Prime Minister used he was talking derisively about male construction workers.

The contributions to our economy and our communities that are made by working men and women should not be dismissed by a Prime Minister who had the benefit of a trust fund. These are people whose economic reality is totally different from his. The Prime Minister does not worry about their economic well-being because he never had to worry about his own, but these are people who understand what it means to pay the price for their government's failure. When new and higher taxes are imposed on them, they understand.

People in Alberta are seeing the impact of bad policies at the provincial and federal levels, but especially at the federal level, that impose new taxes on them and seek to hold them back. At every turn, the government seems embarrassed about our national success when it comes to our energy sector.

We need a Prime Minister who is not embarrassed about our energy sector. We need a Prime Minister who believes in promoting the energy sector, recognizing and promoting its successes, and who understands that a strong and sustainable energy sector is good for Canada, good for every region of Canada, good for the economy and good for the environment. The technology we develop in the oil sands can be employed around the world and the greatest possible engine for a reduction in emissions is the technological change that comes through the innovation that is happening and will continue to happen.

Unfortunately, we have a government that in many respects has a colonial mentality toward Alberta. Liberals do not take the concerns of Alberta seriously and feel they can simply govern Alberta without considering the priorities and needs of the people in my province. Our province deserves recognition and respect. Unfortunately, we have seen so little from members of the government caucus who come from Alberta. Bizarrely, we see them voting with the government against pipeline projects.

There was an opposition day supporting a major pipeline project and every single member of the government caucus, including members from Alberta, voted against that. These are people who told their constituents that they would come to Ottawa and stand up for Alberta, but they have done the exact opposite. Instead, they happily parrot the government lines with respect to our energy sector and they do not stand up for their province.

Again, it is not just Alberta that benefits from a strong energy sector. There are opportunities that spread to all regions of this country that come from having a strong energy sector. There is the benefit of people working in Alberta and bringing resources, know-how and experience back home. There are the people who work in manufacturing and value-added processes and who produce components for the energy sector or work in the area of value-added that happens afterwards.

It is interesting how the government talks about my province. It says it can give a little money here and a little money there, and very often its efforts of so-called financial support are paltry in terms of the sums. I think it was maybe budget 2017 that gave $30 million to Alberta, which is about as much as the executives at Bombardier were paid in bonuses at the same time they received a massive subsidy from the Liberal government. The sums are a pretty clear demonstration of the lack of priority that the energy sector receives from the government.

The other issue is that Albertans and people in the energy sector across the country are not looking for a little extra cash. They are looking for the opportunity to work in the energy sector. They are looking for the kinds of policies that allow the private sector-driven energy development that we have benefited from for so long to continue.

A lot of the discussion of how we build and strengthen our energy sector has recently come around the issue of pipelines. Let us review the record, often misstated in the House, when it comes to pipelines. Under the previous Conservative government, four pipelines were approved and built, and a fifth was approved with conditions but not yet built. The four pipelines built were Enbridge's Alberta Clipper, Kinder Morgan's Anchor Loop, Enbridge's Line 9 reversal and TransCanada's Keystone pipeline, which is different from Keystone XL. Northern gateway was approved, and Keystone XL was pushed hard but rejected by the American administration throughout that period.

Significant achievements were made by the Conservatives when it comes to pipelines, yet the Liberal government, bizarrely, tries to talk out of both sides of its mouth on this pipeline issue. It will sometimes oppose pipelines in its communications and other times it will suggest that the Conservatives did not build enough pipelines. Let us be clear, though, that the Conservatives approved pipeline projects that were proposed. Our friends across the way would like us to stop pipeline projects that are proposed while approving pipeline projects that have not been proposed, which I think quite clearly shows a lack of understanding of the process.

What did Liberals do on pipelines? Right out of the gate, they made sure northern gateway could not proceed. They killed northern gateway and then brought forward legislation, Bill C-48, that created a tanker exclusion zone, effectively saying that Canada's energy resources could not be exported from the Alaskan border in the north to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The effect of this exclusion zone would be, as long as it stays in place, to prevent any kind of pipeline project, regardless of who proposes it. New ideas have come forward since for new pipeline projects. For instance, indigenous communities have been actively engaged in saying they want a pipeline and want to be involved in building a pipeline, yet this is something, because of Bill C-48, that until we see a new government could not proceed.

In one letter that I read in the previous sitting of Parliament, these policies were called eco-colonialist by members of a Canadian first nation community. The government is using the environment as an excuse to impose on them policies that they do not want, to prevent them from developing their energy resources and benefiting from the prosperity associated with it.

The Liberal government used Bill C-48 and other tools to shut off the northern gateway pipeline and then imposed many new conditions to try to prevent the progress of any east-west pipeline in this country. However, after all of this, it actually wanted to look like it was playing the other side too.

The government is so disingenuous on pipelines. It is always trying to pretend to be on both sides of the question at the same time. At least with the NDP, people know what they are getting on pipelines. With the Green Party, people know what they are getting on pipelines. With the Liberals, by now, people also know what they are getting on pipelines. However, the government is not prepared to acknowledge that.

The government said that in the case of the Trans Mountain pipeline, it was not going to take the steps to allow the pipeline to proceed, but it was going to buy it. It was going to buy it without building it. People in my constituency would rather that we built it without buying it. That would have been better for the economy and less expensive for the taxpayer.

This is another example of the Prime Minister's failures. There is $4.5 billion going to a Texas-based company, which will use that money to invest in energy infrastructure in other places, not here in Canada, and to create jobs in other places, not here in Canada. Meanwhile, that company is enjoying the benefit of Canadian taxpayer dollars, and our government owns a pipeline that it does not have a plan to build.

Canadians are paying for the Prime Minister's failures. That $4.5 billion was not his money. I know he has a large trust fund, but the pipeline did not come from the trust fund. The purchase of that pipeline came from the increasing taxes that are being paid by Canadians at home who are struggling to get ahead.

The failures of the Prime Minister and the cost those failures impose on Canadians make it harder for people at home who are struggling to get ahead. This failure, in terms of the pipeline purchase with no plan to actually get it built, is yet another example of the clear, ongoing, significant failures of the government when it comes to developing sustainable energy policy.

What would a sustainable energy policy look like for this country? I would say it would look like strong transportation networks that allow us to get our resources to market and allow us to get our resources to market in the most environmentally friendly way. Pipeline transportation, of the available methods for transportation, imposes the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in the process. Why would those who claim to be concerned about emissions not actually support the development of pipelines?

There is also an opportunity in terms of the sustainability of global security when it comes to our energy resource. It was interesting to read the CBC talking about the prospective ambassador to Canada from Japan, noting how there is a real opportunity for Canada to focus more on its relationship with Japan. Hopefully we do not send John McCallum there as an ambassador, but there is an opportunity to deepen our relationship with Japan.

Japan is a country that imports the vast majority of its energy resources, and most of that is coming from the Middle East through the South China Sea. The opportunity is there for an alternative, a greater export of Canadian energy resources to Japan. I think I mentioned that I spent some time over the break in Taiwan; there is a similar opportunity for partnership in Taiwan.

If Canada can be an agent for helping to facilitate greater energy security for our like-minded democratic partners in the Indo-Pacific region, it is a great opportunity for us economically and it is a great opportunity environmentally, given how clean our energy production is, but it is also an opportunity from a global security perspective, so that these countries, these partners of ours, are not potentially vulnerable to intervention in their energy supply, which is something they obviously have to consider when it comes to their security.

One of the things that particularly frustrates my constituents when it comes to our energy resources is this area of foreign interference. The debate around how Canada develops its energy resources, how we transport our energy resources, how we use them and how we preserve the natural environment that we have been given are decisions that should be made by Canadians for Canadians, and we have every ability to make those evaluations in a responsible way. However, we continually see efforts by interest groups and entities outside of Canada to interfere with the development of our energy resources and to inappropriately influence the direction of our debates.

By the way, recognizing the problem of foreign interference in our democratic process is seen other areas. It is something that, strikingly enough, the foreign affairs minister has talked about in the past in recognizing the problem of foreign interference.

We have called for strong legislative action around things like foreign interference in elections, for example, but the government in its election bill, Bill C-76, failed to put in place any effective mechanisms to prevent foreign interference in our elections. While facially trying to block that from happening, the bill would actually allow a Canadian entity to receive money from abroad and then, as long as it receives some money from Canada, to mix that money together and use all of it in the context of a Canadian election.

If there is a hypothetical association in Canada that receives $10 million from an energy competitor and a Canadian donates $5 and that association then uses that $10 million plus $5 to be involved in the Canadian election, that is totally legal under Bill C-76 as long as the money came from abroad before the election period.

It is not hard to see what is going on here. It is not hard to see that the system that was put in place by Bill C-76 allows foreign money to come into this country and oppose the development of our energy resources, against the interests and wishes of most Canadians.

The Liberal government's failure in Bill C-76 to actually address the issue of foreign interference has significant negative impact on our economy. It tilts the discussion in our election debate when millions of dollars coming in from abroad are negatively impacting the discussion. Again, these are decisions that should be made by Canadians for Canadians. We have all of the tools here in Canada to make these decisions.

Another issue to consider in terms of foreign interference is the way in which consultations proceed for the development of our natural resource projects. Consultation is important in the development of any natural resource project. That consultation should hear from those who would be affected by the project, and we should certainly also hear from those who have expertise on the project. The approach that the government is taking with respect to consultation would effectively allow anyone and everyone—foreign interests without any direct expertise—to be able to slow down the process.

Let us have these debates here in Canada and let us make sure that we do not have this foreign interference any longer. It is deeply frustrating to my constituents and to many Canadians that our energy debates can be manipulated by foreign interests whose own economic interests are very different from ours, and yet the government is not doing anything to address that very serious problem.

What does it take to build a strong, sustainable energy sector, an energy sector that allows us to pass a strong environment and economy on to the next generation? We need to be proud of our energy sector. We need to build on those successes. We need to facilitate development of the energy sector while taking further steps by creating the right incentives for further improvement.

That does not mean imposing a punitive tax. That does not mean criticizing the energy sector. That does not mean being embarrassed by it. It means standing up for the jobs and the opportunities that are associated with that sector. I am proud to be part of a party that does that, a party that believes that Canadians want to get ahead. That means having opportunities in a variety of different sectors, and one of the key sectors is certainly the energy sector.

The clearest way in which we see the failures of the Liberal government when it comes to sustainable policies is in its failures around fiscal sustainability. This is a very clear-cut issue. We need to have a budget, a budget plan, that is sustainable in the long term, which means recognizing that whatever we spend today, we will have to pay for either today or tomorrow, and if we do not have to pay for it, then our children will have to pay for it.

Fiscal sustainability means recognizing that reality. It means balancing the budget or having a long-term plan that may involve deficits in some years, surpluses in others, but in aggregate is balanced over the medium and long term. Yes, it involves the occasional deficit in cases of severe global recession, perhaps armed conflict or natural disasters, but it does not, as a matter of course, mean just running deficits all the time. That is clearly unsustainable public policy. However, the Liberals do not understand this. They are imposing significant costs on Canadians through their out-of-control deficits, and make no mistake, we will have to pay for these deficits. If we do not pay for them now, we will have to pay for them later.

If the Liberals receive another mandate, we know they will increase taxes. They will increase the carbon tax. They will increase other taxes. They will increase taxes because they have to, as they have no fiscal plan and no capacity—no interest, even—in balancing the budget.

We have to balance the budget. We have to ensure that we have a fiscal sustainability plan.

I will make a few points clear about the government with respect to fiscal sustainability.

First, the Liberals promised during the last election that they would balance the budget this year. We are in the final year of their four-year mandate. They very clearly promised that they would balance the budget. They have no excuse for making one promise before the election and doing the opposite afterward. All the figures were public, all the information was there, and there has not been the sort of global recession that we have seen in the past. In the absence of dramatic, unforeseeable changes in the economy, and recognizing that all of the figures and information were public, they should have known and been able to act according to the plan they made. If they did not think it was good policy or that it was realistic to balance the budget in four years—even though it was already balanced at the time they took office—then they could have said so. However, they promised no more than $10-billion deficits for the first three years and a balanced budget in the fourth year. They failed to deliver on that, and now Canadians realize that since higher deficits lead to higher taxes, people who are struggling to get ahead will have to pay for the failures of the Prime Minister when it comes to delivering on the promises he made in the last election. That was a promise made by the government that it failed to deliver on.

When we do not balance budgets, it means that money that could have been going to social programs to help the vulnerable, to fighting poverty, to increasing opportunity, to cutting taxes for Canadians. Instead, that money has to be used to pay interest on debt that was accumulated previously.

The government talks about investing in Canadians and programs, but we could invest a lot more if we do not have to pay interest on debt. If we did not have the debt in this country, which was begun in a significant way during peacetime under the Prime Minister's father and which has accumulated and grown dramatically under the current government, then we could invest much more in a balanced budget framework. We could invest much more in my preferred tool, tax reduction, and give Canadians more of their money back so that they would have more left over at the end of the month. However, when we run deficits in perpetuity, when we run up massive debt and have to pay interest on it, it means that in the long term we can invest less and cut taxes less. In fact, as we have seen from the government, it means steady tax increases. When we do not have a fiscally sustainable plan and we know that voters do not want taxes increased, what we see from the government is its attempt to stealthily add tax increases everywhere by removing any kind of reasonable deductions and by adding taxes on the things that previously were not taxed.

The government had been exploring imposing taxes on the kinds of benefits employees receive. For example, if someone worked at a restaurant and received a lunch, he or she would have to pay tax on it. If some one was one of the Prime Minister's favourite male construction workers and received some kind of benefit as part of his time on the job, perhaps a meal, he would have to pay tax on it. Maybe those who had parking and had to commute long distances for work would suddenly have to pay tax on the parking spot.

We were able to push-back against the government. However, it is telling that in this area and in so many others it is trying to impose new taxes on Canadians. That is the product of not having fiscal sustainability. When the government has no plan to balance the budget, it desperately tries to increase taxes in ways it hopes people will not notice. Thankfully, we were able to call it out on that.

I asked an Order Paper question around that time about whether the Prime Minister's free nanny services he received from the taxpayers was considered a taxable benefit. Most Canadians do not receive two free nannies from their employer as a benefit of their work. I have never heard of that happening before. The Prime Minister thinks choice in child care means getting to choose which of the two nannies.

The Liberals, though, are always trying to impose new taxes on Canadians, people who are struggling to get ahead, even while not wanting those same taxes to apply to them. We can look at the approach they took to calling small businesses tax cheats and trying to increase taxes on small businesses. We saw that they were protecting their own fortunes through that process. They were not imposing new taxes on inherited trust funds, for example, but were imposing them on small businesses.

As an opposition over the last three years, we have been able to catch the government in the act on a few of these attempts to raise taxes. We have been able to work together with civil society organizations and the public to ensure the public is aware, working to put that pressure on the government. However, the public has not failed to notice how in every case, because of the lack of fiscal sustainability, because the government has no plan to balance the budget, the consequence of that is to try to impose new taxes at every turn. It is particularly instructive what the Liberals did with the small business tax rate.

The Conservatives were reducing the small business tax rate. We had a reduction to 9% booked in. Actually, in the last election, all three of the major parties, Conservatives, Liberal and NDP, agreed. In their platforms, they said that they would go to that 9% small business tax rate. The government reversed course. When it took power, it said that it would not reduce the small business tax rate, given that those plans had been booked in, effectively increasing the tax rate on small businesses.

Then the Liberals called small businesses tax cheats, attacked them and tried to propose all kinds of new ways to attack them. In response to the overwhelming response from small businesses, these great job creators, entrepreneurs who are driving the economic success of the country, in response to the objections from this community, they said that they would bring back the 9% plan. It is interesting that the government is as indecisive about the small business tax rate as some of its members are about their resignation dates.

This should not hide the general failures of the government when it comes to small business. At every turn, whether on individuals, families, people who use public transit, take their kids to sports or buy groceries, the government is increasing taxes in every way it can, at every opportunity it can, through all the means it can, and will stop at nothing because it has a massive hole in the side of its fiscal plan. We need to give Canadians an alternative to that, one which is actually fiscally sustainable. If we do not get the budget under control, this splurge of tax increases will continue. Canadians are paying for the failure of the government when it comes to the basic fiscal health of the country. Canadians know that higher deficits always mean higher taxes in the long run.

I have one more thing about balancing the budget. The government likes to invoke, directly or indirectly, the economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, who talked about stimulative spending in periods of economic challenge. Certainly, there is logic behind the idea of putting money aside during the good years and then stimulating the economy by spending more during challenging times. It ensures that the down periods in the economy are not associated with further cuts to the government. If we are in a healthy fiscal position, then we can have that kind of balance. If we are thinking ahead during the good years, then we are going to have more resources during the challenging years.

However, Canadians and others who advocated that philosophy never said that we could run deficits all the time. No economist thinks that constant never-ending deficits is the way to go. Eventually when we hit hard times, in that scenario, we may be at a point where we just cannot stimulate the economy and in fact we are forced to cut because there is just nowhere else to go.

We cannot run deficits forever. We cannot always spend more than we have. Eventually, we have to pay it back. The longer we leave it, the less we plan, the more we have to pay back in cost and interest at that point. What the government is advancing is not any kind of recognizable doctrine of economic stimulus. It is simply fiscal incontinence and there is a need for actual fiscal control when it comes to this situation. We know what the consequence of this will be. A lack of fiscal control means higher taxes tomorrow. It means Canadians paying for what the government has done.

Often when we have these discussions about debt and deficits, the government will talk about the debt-to-GDP ratio, saying that it is lower than other countries and so we are fine. However, what the government misses in those calculations is looking at the total debt-to-GDP ratio. It generally only looks at the federal debt-to-GDP ratio. Canada, as members know, is a country where many services are delivered at the subnational level. That is different from some other countries where a greater proportion of public services are delivered at the national level.

It is not at all an apples-to-apples comparison when comparing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada with the federal debt-to-GDP ratio in other jurisdictions. It makes more sense to compare our total government debt-to-GDP ratio to the total government debt-to-GDP ratio in other countries. If we make that comparison, we can see that Canadian debt is a real problem, that we have a total government debt-to-GDP ratio that is higher. It is at a level that is quite concerning. We are in a situation where what goes up must come down. What we pay in must be paid off at some point.

The Prime Minister and the finance minister are not at all what worried about this. They say that it is totally fine. Why is that? The Prime Minister has never had to worry about money himself, so he is not worried about ours. We see that. The Prime Minister is not thinking in a pragmatic, practical way about balancing the budget because that has never been part of his reality.

The people who I talk to in my constituency understand why the government has to balance the budget. Why? Because they have to balance theirs. Sure, they understand that during hard times maybe we will have to run a deficit and pay it off during good times. We save so we are prepared for a rainy day. There is some ebb and flow. This means that during a global financial crisis maybe we run a deficit, but we get back to a balanced budget and we pay off debt. People understand that. They also understand that we cannot just keep running up the credit card bill. We cannot just keep getting more and more credit cards and all will be fine in the end. That is not how it works. Canadians understand because they are already paying for the failures of the government. They understand that we cannot run up the credit card bill in perpetuity.

The Prime Minister does not understand that though. That has never been part of his reality. Therefore, when it comes to his approach to governing the country, there is no limit to what he is prepared to spend, especially on himself, on breaks for insiders and those who are well connected. He does not understand the need for balance. He does not understand the experience, which is real to most of my constituents and to everyday Canadians, which is needing to pay for the things they want and realizing they just cannot spend more than they have.

To summarize this point, we have a government that is pursuing a policy of unsustainable spending, and that will have consequences. The failure of the government to have a sustainable balance sheet will mean more costs and more taxes. It will mean the Prime Minister, if he is re-elected, will try and make life more difficult by imposing those taxes on Canadians, by increasing the carbon tax and other taxes. He will do it in the future because he has done it in the past. Perhaps he will say not to worry, that he will not increase taxes. In the last election, we heard there would be a balanced budget and that did not happen. He refuses even now to rule out significant increases to the carbon tax. This is the consequence of an unsustainable fiscal policy.

On a more broad level, we have seen a failure by the government to pursue an economic policy, a policy for productivity and growth that is sustainable. What are the characteristics of a sustainable economic policy? There are many, but what we would look for is a positive investment climate. We would look for a situation where companies from around the world say that Canada is a place they want to invest. We had that previously. Under the previous Conservative government, Canada had the best economic growth, the lowest business tax rate and the lowest unemployment in the G7. Despite the global financial crisis we saw the success of those policies, making Canada a positive investment climate.

This is not just some abstraction. This has real consequences for those Canadians who are trying to get ahead. When we have a positive investment climate in Canada, it means Canadians can be employed, because companies are bringing money here from abroad, starting businesses and offering jobs to Canadians. People who were previously unemployed are able to work and people who are working are able to get higher paying employment. They are able to have a little more money left at the end of the month. Therefore, a positive investment climate has concrete consequences.

On this side of the House, we want Canadians to get ahead. On the other side of the House, we see policies that are making Canadians pay more and more. A positive investment climate is important for a strong and sustainable economy.

Growing productivity, the growing capacity of workers, through technological improvements and investments, to be able to produce more in the time they spend at work is key for a strong economy. Economic sustainability also invites us to consider how well everyone is doing, not just a few but everyone. That is why we should look at tax reductions, especially targeted tax relief to those who need it the most.

Under the Prime Minister, Canadians are paying more. Canadians in the middle and at the bottom are paying more. They are paying more because of the carbon tax, because of things like the elimination of the transit tax credit and the tax credit on kids' sports. The increases in taxes we are seeing from the government are forcing Canadians to pay more, especially because we see the government willing to give breaks to large emitters, breaks to their friends at the top and subsidies through things like superclusters to those who are well connected. That exacerbates inequality.

Our approach is targeted tax relief to those who need it the most. We lowered the GST, a tax that all Canadians pay. We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate. We raised the base personal exemption. We targeted income and consumption tax reductions to those who needed it the most. We worked hard to ensure that those who were working to get ahead had a little more in their pockets. Under the Liberal government, that cannot happen because those same people have to pay more as a result of the failures of the government.

We need to take steps around economic equality, growing productivity and creating a positive investment climate to build a strong and sustainable economy. A big part of that means rewards for risk-taking. It means facilitating strong small businesses.

When it comes to supporting businesses, the government's approach is to give corporate welfare to well-connected insiders and friends of the government. Our approach was to try to create an environment where anyone, regardless of his or her connections, could start and grow a business, recognizing the power of small business as the engine of growth in this country.

Last summer, we had a very unfortunate situation. I think the tone and the policy from the current government put a real chill on those looking to start investing in this country. During the most focused attack on small business by the government, I talked to business owners in my riding. They were so frustrated. These are people who had given their lives to working in the small business sector. They said they were not encouraging their kids to go down the same road, or they were having a hard time encouraging their kids to go down the same road. They said that, although they love what they are doing, the piling on of new taxes, regulations and all the different tips and tricks by the government is making it harder for them to build and create jobs. The consequence is that they are not sure if they would recommend it to one of their children or to somebody else if asked. That is the effect of the approach of the current government.

When small businesses are not as able to make investments and grow the economy, when they are called tax cheats by the current government, then they choose not to make those investments or perhaps choose to make them elsewhere. That hurts the productivity of our economy. That reduces the jobs and the opportunities that are available. When we are looking for the tools that allow Canadians who are struggling to be able to get ahead, that requires more entrepreneurs creating jobs, more opportunities for employment and more competition among employers for workers.

When the Alberta economy was booming, there was real competition among employers, who were paying workers more and more as a result of how energetic the economy was. That obviously created some challenges for employers, but it created a lot of opportunities for people across the country who wanted to come and work in Alberta. However, when the government is continually making life more difficult for small business, it hurts its ability to get ahead and hurts the ability of its workers to get ahead.

We recognize that the government itself does not create jobs but creates the climate in which job creation could happen or in which job creation cannot happen. Right now, we have a government that, through its failure, is creating a climate in which it is that much harder for small business. That has real consequences for Canadians in terms of what they have to pay.

The government's approach is to support business through corporate welfare. It has superclusters, specials deals and government subsidies. It even gave government money to a company that said it did not really need it but it would be a great boost of confidence and it would love to have it. I am sure a lot of Canadians at home were thinking they would love to have a bit of extra money also. It is money that could have gone to tax reductions for Canadians, not just to boost the pockets of some of these well-connected companies. The top job creators in this country, the largest companies, are not big recipients of corporate welfare, for the most part. However, the current government does not understand that.

I say this. Instead of giving corporate welfare cheques to companies taking jobs and opportunity out of Canada, let us build an investment climate where people want to invest in Canada. We have seen this as well under the current government. We have seen the current government give big corporate welfare cheques to companies. Then we see those companies moving jobs outside of the country. Therefore, instead of giving money to companies that are moving jobs out of the country, let us create a climate in which taxes are low, regulation is streamlined and companies want to make investments in Canada. That has positive consequences for Canadians getting ahead, unlike the failures of the current government, which are imposing greater costs on those Canadians who are trying to get ahead.

On this side of the House, we believe that a sustainable economy is one with strong fundamentals. That, of course, requires the fiscal health of our economy to be strong. Investors can also look at the high deficits being run by the government, and they can see that the government intends to increase their taxes. Any potential international investor knows what all of us should know—even those who do not want to admit it—which is that higher deficits lead to higher taxes.

Investors can see that if they invest in Canada today and the government does not have a plan to balance the budget, inevitably they and all of us will have to bear the impact of eventual tax increases. Our economy simply cannot afford the Prime Minister for much longer. Our economy cannot afford to pay for the mistakes being made by the Prime Minister.

Having spoken about the sustainability of our economy, our fiscal situation, our energy sector and our environment, I would like to discuss the criteria for building a sustainable immigration system, a system that has the confidence of Canadians, that can build, grow and work for a long time into the future.

Historically, we have had a very successful immigration system here in Canada. We have had a system that was orderly, was compassionate and emphasized legal immigration. I am very proud to be part of a party that, while in government, had the highest sustained immigration levels in Canada's history up to that point. I am also proud to be part of a family that has benefited from Canada's immigration system. My wife's parents came to Canada from Pakistan. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, a refugee who ended up in Canada by way of South America.

Many of us, in our families, have benefited from the opportunities that come from Canada's immigration system, whether that be the humanitarian aspect, refugees, or the economic opportunities that are available to those who simply came here seeking a better life economically.

We benefit from a pro-immigration consensus in this country, and Canadians want us to get it right. They want us to get the details right, so that the immigration system works, is sustainable, everybody can benefit, and so that it works for those who are coming and for those who are already here.

We see how Liberals are, frankly, desperate to divide people on this issue, but the fact is that honest debate and discussion about how we get it right, how we ensure our immigration system is sustainable, by being orderly, compassionate and legal, is particularly important.

The government has not appropriately recognized the need to deal with the growing problem under its watch of illegal immigration, of people not going through the channels that are in place for application but are instead coming across the border from the United States, claiming asylum, even though the United States is well established and recognized by the UN to already be a safe country.

How did this happen? It happened, initially, in large part, because the Prime Minister put out a tweet that created misinformation around our immigration system. It implied that anyone and everyone could just show up here, and everything would be fine. Instead, the Prime Minister should be communicating in a clear tone about the importance of going through proper channels.

What we want is a sustainable immigration system that can work and that will work over the long term. A sustainable immigration system is one in which the channels that exist are working and functioning well, and in which people are using those channels. However, people lose confidence in our immigration system when they see people being able to come into the country and not follow the process.

How frustrating it must be for those many Canadians who are hoping to bring a family member from abroad, and that person does not happen to be in the United States and so cannot just walk across the border. People cannot just walk across the border if they are in India or China or the Philippines or anywhere else besides the United States.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his hard work on this file. It has been a privilege to work with him. We are here representing Canadians and it is a real honour and privilege to do just that.

In Bill C-76, there are important measures with regard to privacy, as my colleague mentioned, but also with regard to ensuring that there is no foreign funding or foreign interference in our next election. It is integral and imperative that we pass Bill C-76 in order to protect our upcoming election in the next year.

I welcome and congratulate the members of the ethics committee for their excellent report and investigation that garnered international headlines for the good work they did. I am currently reviewing their recommendations and I thank them for that work. As I have always said, I welcome further study on this issue.

I look forward to carrying on this discussion. Members from all parties did truly excellent work and I am sure that we can continue to work together in the future to ensure that we get this right.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question by the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington is at the core of what Bill C-76 is trying to do. It is trying to ensure dignity for all Canadians when they want to go to cast their ballot.

I do not know about my colleagues, but I have scrutineered at polling stations and seen someone who was going to cast their ballot being refused. It might be someone who just got the courage to vote. Even though voting is a relatively simple thing, it can actually be quite scary and daunting the first time, especially for people who do not feel like they are necessarily included in society. It is extraordinarily important to ensure that people have their dignity and feel empowered to go to vote with confidence.

Section 3 of the charter guarantees our right to vote. That is what this bill is achieving and that is what this bill is protecting and—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is confused, because he is recalling Bill C-23 from the previous Parliament that the Conservatives brought in, the so-called Fair Elections Act, which was roundly criticized across the country, indeed, around world, because it used voter suppression tactics seen in other jurisdictions.

It is extraordinarily important that we pass Bill C-76, because I, and I believe many people in the House irrespective of party, hold the principle of Canadians voting dear and believe they should go to the polls and cast their ballots.

On this side of the House, we are not afraid of Canadians going to the polls. We are not afraid of empowering more Canadians to vote. Indeed, that fundamental right is what drives this legislation, and Canadians are at the core and heart of it.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point that was brought up by the opposition House leader with respect to time allocation. To make the point, I want to go back to the throne speech in November, 2015, just after the sunny ways, which have turned into dark clouds, and the Liberal government's misleading of Canadians about its policies on multiple issues, including this particular one. This is what the Prime Minister wrote in the throne speech delivered by the Governor General:

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

Also notable are the things the Government will not do: it will not use government ads for partisan purposes; it will not interfere with the work of parliamentary officers; and it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.

We have seen a lot of that happen over the course of this Parliament in this hallowed chamber. Is it not true that the government is using Bill C-76 to mislead Canadians and to rig the next election?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 is incredibly important, because it would ensure that all Canadians would have the right to vote. I, for one, on this side of the House, firmly believe that a Canadian citizen has the right to vote, and we should ensure that it is possible. That is why Bill C-76 is important and why it would reverse many of the changes made under the previous government's so-called Fair Elections Act, which Statistics Canada estimated made it so that more than 170,000 Canadians were not able to cast their ballots. I do not think that is right, Canadians do not think that is right, and that is why Bill C-76 is so important.

I would remind my hon. colleague that this is a technical amendment from the other place because of amendments brought forward by all parties in this place at the procedure and House affairs committee. This is an amendment that we all agree on, because it is important to ensure that we do not have foreign funding. I have had great conversations with members of the Conservative Party on the procedure and House affairs committee who did a really good job bringing forward important amendments that have strengthened this bill.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to talk about Bill C-76 and the proposed elections modernization act. I know this is just as important for the New Democrats as it is for the Liberals. We have had great collaboration working with the members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Hamilton Centre. They put forward some great suggestions.

This bill is really a reflection of the hard work of parliamentarians, and particularly the procedure and House affairs committee, which spent the better part of a year studying the recommendations from the CEO of Elections Canada. Eighty-five per cent of those recommendations are in this legislation. It is precisely because of the hard work of parliamentarians on committees, in this place and in the other place that we have what is an excellent bill.

I quote the CEO of Elections Canada, who said, “Bill C-76 remains, overall, an essential piece of legislation”. He has encouraged all parliamentarians to get this done by the time this place rises for the Christmas holidays, to ensure it can be in place for 2019.

Bill C-76—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am definitely warmed by the words of that member.

It is interesting to rise in this place because so much has been done. I do know that we are able to accomplish much. Unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendment to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all the people who work around you to make this place function. I can assure the House that we will continue to try to work even better to ensure that we are serving Canadians.

Ethics

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member likes being reminded that when it comes to the RCMP, the RCMP works independently of the government.

The member started off with Bill C-76. We look forward to seeing Bill C-76 pass so that we can strengthen the rules for elections.

We want to see more Canadians working. That is what the New Democrats used to say, but something happens to them when they are in the House where they forget that we are here to serve Canadians. More Canadians working and voting is better for democracy, and we will continue to strengthen our democratic institutions.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-76, Liberals quietly doubled the threshold at which ridings are audited. In a news report out today, we learned that then-Liberal MP for Brampton East raised over $600,000 at one single event. That is curious, because that is six times the legal amount to run an election in Brampton East.

From the beginning, the only prime minister ever convicted of breaking ethics laws has claimed he knows nothing of the RCMP or ethics investigations into this MP. Is that because he sees nothing troubling with an MP being tailed by the cops or is it because the money was just too good?

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, we absolutely do not support foreign interference in our elections at all. This is something on which all colleagues in the House should get together to ensure we are not politicizing this issue.

In fact, Bill C-76 has important measures in place to ensure that we are not enabling foreign funding in any event in advertising for our elections and that we are protecting the integrity of our elections. This is something that is above partisanship and we are working hard with all our national security agencies to ensure that—

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to protecting and defending Canadians' democratic institutions. That is rich coming from the party opposite. It is the party that has been found guilty of trying to influence elections in three past campaigns, the party of in and out, the party of robocalls, the party of Dean Del Mastro.

We are protecting and strengthening our democratic institutions. Bill C-76 would do that.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we take foreign interference in democratic processes with the utmost seriousness and we will continue to work to protect our institutions and our elections.

With Bill C-76, we are putting forward the necessary measures to protect against foreign interference in our elections. Measures to ban foreign funding as well as to provide greater transparency in elections-related advertising by third parties and on digital platforms are key changes that will help close loopholes for foreign actors that have used other jurisdictions around the world.

Let me be clear. We will not tolerate foreign interference and will respond with the full weight of the law.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward Bill C-76, which will enable more Canadians to vote.

We are ensuring that Canadians who need help voting will have that access to voting. With Bill C-76 we are putting in place safeguards to protect our elections from foreign interference. We are putting forward the independent debates commissioner to make sure that all Canadians have access to watching their federal leaders debate, something that did not happen under the previous government because one political party decided not to participate.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that all Canadians are taking part in our elections, and—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure for me to get up in the House and talk about democracy. Today Bill C-76 is at third reading. This means that more Canadians in 2019, if it passes through the other place, will have an opportunity to vote than they did under the previous government.

The Canada Elections Act sets out a time period for elections and by-elections. Those will all be called within the time allocated. We are very proud of the upcoming by-election on December 3.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said to my colleague numerous times at committee and outside this House, I do believe that Bill C-76 takes an important first step when it comes to privacy, by requiring political parties to publicly post a privacy policy statement on their websites.

When we talk about concrete action and facts, shortly after Bill C-76 was introduced, the New Democratic Party actually changed their public privacy policy statement. Thus, it actually did have an effect, because prior to that there was a very weak policy statement on the New Democrat website. This will enable Canadians to look at what those privacy policies are.

In regard to enforceability, it is important to note that if a political party does not post a privacy policy, it could in fact be deregistered by Elections Canada, which is quite a significant stick.

I have also said to my hon. colleague numerous times that I think this particular issue requires more study. I am not opposed to a privacy regime for political parties. However, I think that we need to determine what exactly that would looks like in a way that political parties could conduct the important work they do in engaging with Canadians while also protecting their privacy.

When it comes to foreign interference, this bill does many important things and takes many important steps to safeguard Canadian information, to understand where influence and interference are coming from and to provide greater transparency for Canadians.

We can be very proud of this legislation and the important steps it takes ahead of 2019.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, talking about respect for the independent officers of Parliament and respect for the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner, both of them testified at committee that there are no privacy rules governing political parties in this bill, that there is one deep flaw in this bill, that political parties need to be subject to some sort of privacy rules.

My friend from Toronto would know well that all Bill C-76 says is that the parties have to put some kind of policy on their websites somewhere. The policy does not have to be enforceable. The policy does not actually have to protect Canadians' data and the integrity of our elections. They just seem to have one.

I have a very specific question for the minister. I know she prides herself on answering questions directly. Can she point to a single bit of evidence of a witness before committee saying that Bill C-76, as drawn up with regard to privacy, is sufficient? I can point to the Chief Electoral Officer, whom the minister just said she respects, and I can point to the Privacy Commissioner, whom she said she respects, and I can point to the privacy and ethics committee, which has studied this question already and has recommended, as my friend would know, that privacy should apply to political parties, including Liberals on that committee, and the Liberal sitting right beside her.

Therefore, my question is this. If Bill C-76 is our once-in-a-generation legislation to make sure that our elections are free and fair and that in order to do that there must be enforceable rules applied to all political parties that would allow the Privacy Commissioner to review and chastise those parties that break those rules—which is so fundamental to Canadians being able to cast a vote in a free and fair election and that experts from England and the United States said that if they had to do it over again, they would have had stronger privacy rules—why is the minister, with this bill, telling Canadians that when we go to vote in 2019, foreign influence, hacking our systems, and going after data from the Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP will be allowed under this bill she is forcing through Parliament, contrary to their promises in previous Parliaments?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues on this side of the House have addressed the fact that this piece of legislation has come to the House extraordinarily and unacceptably late. This should have been presented a year ago. The fact that it was so clumsily assembled is reflected in the fact that the Liberal government put forward almost six dozen amendments of its own to try to correct this clumsily written piece of legislation. Now, after only two and a half speeches by members on the opposition side of the House on this deeply flawed bill, the government has imposed the legislative guillotine of time allocation, enabled by its parliamentary majority, to cut off debate.

I know that my hon. colleagues on the government side of the House love to invoke Peter Van Loan's name. However, when this same legislation was passed by the previous government, our Harper government, a very similar piece of legislation from which, regrettably, many elements have been stripped in Bill C-76, there were many more hours and days of debate than are being allowed here today. Only three opposition speakers have risen on this side of the House and, all of a sudden, time allocation has been imposed.

How can the current government possibly look Canadians in the face with any sort of respect and say that it is working to properly defend the Canadian electoral process?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague Winnipeg Centre for the important information contained in his excellent question. He did a very good job of summarizing some of the most important elements of in this bill.

With regard to implementation, it is extraordinarily important that we pass this bill quickly. This bill has been before the House for almost six months now. The committee has conducted an extensive study of it and has brought forward important comments and amendments. We have accepted amendments to this bill by both of the main opposition parties, which is important. Of course, these are amendments that would improve the bill and not return it to its former state with the Canada Elections Act.

As my colleague noted, the former CEO of Elections Canada brought forward over 100 recommendations for how we could improve the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-76 would implement 85% of those recommendations. I think we can all agree that the CEO of Elections Canada has the best interest of Canadians and Canadian democracy at heart, and this bill would do exactly that.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know this legislation is important for our democracy. When it comes to important elements like vouching, and when it comes to ensuring that the most vulnerable among us can cast a ballot, this legislation would make that happen.

Experts across the country have called for the passage of the bill. Let us all work together and get this done. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of this place will recognize the important underlying democratic values and principles that are encompassed in Bill C-76 and will work with us to pass the bill in a timely way, because it is important for Canadians and it is important for Canadian democracy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can tolerate quite a bit from our politics sometimes, whether they have a left or centre or right perspective. One of the things I have noticed that they cannot tolerate is straight-up hypocrisy.

I am looking at the member for Winnipeg North, who has now joined us here.

The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, who was here moments ago, moved a motion a couple of years ago in this place. That motion said we should never use the guillotine of time allocation to shut down debate in Parliament on any bills that deal with our democracy, because they are so fundamental.

One would have to ask the Liberals: How did we get here? There must have been some massive impediment that made them have to go back on their word and force time allocation on Parliament.

The bill to fix the unfair elections act, which New Democrats support, was introduced almost two years ago. They must have been working hard in those two years in the hope of getting this legislation through in time for the next election.

We have now found out that they did not work on the bill. They sat on the bill month after month. We pleaded with them to show us the bill so we could debate it and pass it through the House.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-76 so late that the Chief Electoral Officer has told them they blew the deadline. A bunch of things in the bill will not even happen for the 2019 election.

Canadians are very frustrated with the Liberals, especially with respect to issues around voting and democracy. They broke their sacred promise to make 2015 the last election under first past the post. We really thought they would have learned a lesson that the urgency of now is incredibly important. It was not important to them.

Now the Liberals are introducing the exact same motion, word for word, that Stephen Harper used to ram his bill through Parliament. They want to use it to force their legislation through Parliament and are looking around for someone to blame. They cannot find anyone.

My question for the minister is simple. We had an opportunity to fix privacy rules in Canada to ensure that our democracy and our voting are free and fair. Why did the Liberals choose to ignore all the evidence that the committee heard, which screwed up elections in England and the U.S.? Why did they choose to expose Canadian elections to hacking and tampering by foreign influences because parties will not have to follow any privacy rules whatsoever under this legislation?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians know that it is neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats who are working to impede democracy, considering it was the previous government that introduced Bill C-23. In fact, most of the amendments my hon. colleague and opposition members proposed were to return this bill to Bill C-23, in which, unfortunately, the previous government went out of its way to limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our democracy. Therefore, it is a bit rich, and slightly laughable, to hear from Conservatives on the other side how strongly they value democracy and democratic participation in our country, when they did things to impede that process.

Bill C-76 would do much to repeal all those unfair elements in Bill C-23. It would ensure that the election in 2019 had the integrity Canadians deserve and expect and that the process would be fair and protected.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for the remainder of the week and next week, our focus will be on report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act.

On Monday of next week, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-84, concerning animal cruelty, and Bill C-85, concerning the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

Bill C-76—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Elections Modernization Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on October 23, 2018, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington regarding Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

The hon. member objects to an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, sometimes called PROC in this place, on the basis that it amends a section of the parent act not amended by the bill. He argues that the committee went beyond the mandate the House had given it and urges the Chair to strike the amendment from the bill. He notes that Speakers have exercised this power in the past to deal with inadmissible amendments adopted by a committee.

I am grateful to the hon. member for having raised this matter, as it affords me the opportunity to clear up a misconception about what is commonly referred to as the “Parent Act rule”.

As the hon. member no doubt noted, the passage he cited concerning this rule, found at page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, is contained in a section about relevance.

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House.

In the present case, an amendment adopted by the committee creates a new section 510.001 of the Canada Elections Act. This section would empower the commissioner of Canada elections to request and obtain certain financial documents from political parties. The hon. member made no suggestion that this amendment was inadmissible. He objects, however, to a related amendment to section 498 of the act that makes it an offence to refuse to comply with the commissioner's request. Section 498, while not originally part of the bill, is the section that spells out offences relating to Part 19 of the act, which is where the new section 510.001 would be found.

I have trouble seeing how this could be considered irrelevant to the bill. Were I to accept the hon. member's argument, we would find ourselves in the strange circumstance of allowing an amendment that creates a new obligation but refusing an amendment that spells out the consequences for failing to comply with that new obligation.

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment. Clearly, amendments that arise as a direct consequence of other admissible amendments should be considered relevant to the bill, even if they are made to a section of the parent act otherwise unamended.

The hon. member noted that our procedural authorities do not reference any exceptions, leading him to conclude that none are possible. He well knows, however, that practice and precedent are also binding. As is stated at page 274 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Where there are no express rules or orders, the House turns to its own jurisprudence, as interpreted by the Speaker, who examines the Journals and the Debates of the House to determine which rulings of past Speakers and which practices and precedents should be applied.

There are multiple examples of amendments of this nature having been accepted in the past. In 2003, Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), contained a single clause amending section 318 of the Code to change the definition of “identifiable group”. At the beginning of the report stage, on June 6, 2003, the Chair accepted amendments to sections 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code, which also dealt with hate propaganda.

On May 5, 2014, when the Procedure and House Affairs Committee presented its report on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, the report contained an amendment to section 345 of the act, which was not originally amended by the bill, but sought to clarify what did not constitute an election expense under section 376, which the bill did amend.

Just last year, in a report tabled on October 5, 2017, the health committee amended Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, by modifying section 7 of the Non-smokers' Health Act, originally untouched by the bill. This change arose out of an earlier amendment to the definition of “workplace” in the same act.

These are just a few examples where exceptions were made to the parent act rule because the amendments were clearly relevant to the bill. Given that the present amendment is of a similar nature, I have no difficulty concluding that it too should be found in order.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Democratic Reform

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I am proud of the important work we have done on modernizing our election laws.

As part of our study of the Chief Electoral Officer's report following the 2015 election, we released a series of reports containing numerous recommendations. We are pleased to have completed our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-76 and to see that the bill will be sent back to the House of Commons this week.

Could the Prime Minister tell the House about the measures our government is taking to follow through on our commitment to strengthen the openness and fairness of Canada's democratic institutions?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a few additional words about the time allotted for debate on Bill C-76.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studied Bill C-76 for a lot of hours, heard from 57 witnesses, including multiple appearances from both the Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada and the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

Prior to the introduction of Bill C-76, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs spent hours studying the recommendations from the previous chief electoral officer's report from 2015. As a result of the committee's hard work and study on those recommendations, 84% of the findings that were studied are in this legislation.

The procedure and House affairs committee worked hard on the legislation and as a result of the great collaboration and amendments brought forward from all parties, I look forward to debating this further strengthened bill at report stage very soon.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House tonight to respond to the question from the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, which the government introduced on April 30. This legislation represents a generational overhaul to the Canada Elections Act, which will improve transparency, fairness, integrity and participation in Canada's electoral system.

The proposed legislation will reduce barriers for Canadian Armed Forces members and persons with disabilities. It will establish a pre-election period with transparency requirements and spending limits for political parties and third parties. It will modernize the administration of elections to make it easier for Canadians to vote and more difficult for elections law-breakers to evade punishments.

The preamble to the question posed by the hon. member for Vancouver East referenced indigenous Canadians, which I would like to address.

Bill C-76 is aimed at reducing barriers to participation in federal elections and increasing accessibility for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples.

The former chief electoral officer's recommendations following the 2015 general federal election indicated that the proof of address requirement was difficult to meet for many and, in some cases, presented a significant barrier to voting for Canadians. Moreover, the same report stated that this was particularly true for youth, homeless electors, seniors living in long-term care facilities, as well as indigenous peoples hoping to cast their ballots.

It was for this reason that the Chief Electoral Officer authorized the use of the voter information card, commonly known as the “VIC”, in several pilot projects. When the VIC is used as proof of address, together with another document proving identity, it will help electors who otherwise may have difficulty meeting the identification requirements.

Consequently, the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that the prohibition on authorizing the VIC as a piece of identification to establish address be removed from the Canada Elections Act.

I am pleased to remind members of the House that Bill C-76 would reverse elements of the Harper Conservatives' so-called Fair Elections Act, which increased barriers to participation in our electoral process. Notably, and for the purposes of debate in the House, Bill C-76 would reinstate both the ability for electors to vouch, as well the use of the voter information card, as proof of address.

The legislation also contains many other measures aimed to ensure that barriers to electoral participation that Canadians currently face are reduced or eliminated and that our federal elections are made more accessible to voters.

I will also remind the House that the current Chief Electoral Officer, as well numerous other witnesses who testified at the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs, agreed that restoring both vouching and the use of the voter information card would return the franchise to Canadians across the country. In fact, I have heard from citizens in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets that this will indeed assist and encourage them to get out to vote during the next federal election.

Bill C-76 would also restore the communications mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer and would allow Elections Canada to conduct increased outreach initiatives, including with members of first nations communities. It would also be possible to have advance polls in different locations on each day to better serve remote and isolated communities.

I encourage all hon. members to support this legislation, which would reinforce confidence in the integrity, fairness and transparency of Canada's electoral system.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House on May 25, in regard to the government shutting down debate on Bill C-76. This week, Bill C-76 returns to the House for debate at report stage.

We are three years into the Liberal majority mandate. Canadians trusted the Liberals to follow through on their big democratic reform promises. We all remember the big promise from the now Prime Minister that the 2015 election would be the last under the first-past-the-post system.

In Vancouver East, like many MPs, I held a town hall and consulted with my constituents. Overwhelmingly, the people of Vancouver East wanted to see a new voting system. They wanted every vote to count. They wanted to see proportional representation. This was echoed through the extensive consultation the committee undertook.

Sadly, after the election, the Prime Minister suggested that Canadians, "have a government they are most satisfied with” and “the motivation to want to change the electoral system is less urgent”. ln a truly disappointing show of brazen partisan bias, the Prime Minister then abruptly abandoned the promise to Canadians.

That is not what democracy is, and I hope that this broken promise, an insult to Canadians, is not forgotten in 2019.

As I said, after three years, we are only now reaching the report stage of a democratic reform bill. One may wonder what took so long.

Stéphane Perrault, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, made it clear that any major electoral reforms needed to be passed by the end of April 2018. The 230-page Bill C-76 was not even tabled until April 30.

The Liberal government is treating democratic reform like stereotypical procrastinating high school students that no one likes working with on an important group project. They show up at the last minute. They do not do what they told everyone that they were going to do. Then they have the audacity to impose things on the rest of the group so that the work will fit into their schedule.

That is exactly what the Liberals did when they broke another democratic reform promise to Canadians by shutting down debate on an election bill.

Now that the bill is back in the House to be debated at report stage, my colleague the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has informed me that the government continues to be the group partner nobody wants.

Bill amendments are like editing our legislative work. Unfortunately, the Liberal government, after showing up at the last minute and not completing the work it said it would do, refused to accept edits to fix the holes and missing pieces in its work.

My colleague, a tireless champion for improving Canada's democracy, tried to ensure that Bill C-76 protected voter information. He tried to strengthen privacy protections to prevent election meddling in the digital age. Those were rejected.

He tried to push the gender equality initiative of Kennedy Stewart, my former colleague and now mayor of Vancouver. The government would not even talk about it.

Why has the government broken so many promises to Canadians on this issue? Why has it put partisan interests ahead of improving our institutions? Why has it failed to move on legislation on electoral reform for so long?

Officers of Parliament

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that democracy is not taken more seriously in this chamber in this regard, when we are discussing something as important as the selection process for our senior officers of Parliament. I struggle to think of something more important than this.

In addition to Bill C-76, which I touched on briefly before the Speaker so kindly asked for the respect and attention of others in the House, we are also seeing this blatantly with the office of a debates commissioner. I think this is incredibly unfortunate, because once again, the government is not only deciding that it is going to make up the rules itself to put its potential candidate in the best light, but worse than that, it is silencing Canadians. It is saying to Canadians that they do not have the opportunity to determine how they will select the next leader of their country, which is the most important office in the country. It is saying that the government will decide for them the format in which the questions are asked and how they will be asked. It is saying that Canadians do not have the right to decide how they will determine the process to determine the next leader of their country. It is absolutely shameful that this would possibly exist.

It is for these reasons, the striking void in Motion No. 170, that I cannot support this proposed legislation and that, unfortunately, my colleagues cannot support this piece of proposed legislation. As I said, where there is no process, there is a void. Where there is a void, there is the potential for partisanship and corruption, and we have seen that over and over again from the Liberal government.

I would like to finish with what I started with, which is that the motion before us, like so many things in life, is so beautiful in principle, so beautiful in theory, but in practice, not so much.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind Motion No. 170 is an absolutely beautiful one. We would all like to see a more democratic House and more democratic processes. Certainly for me, as the new shadow cabinet minister for democratic institutions, democracy and democratic processes in Canada and around the world are very close to my heart.

Unfortunately, Motion No. 170, like so many other things in life, is something which is beautiful in theory, but becomes an absolute disaster when it is applied. I believe that is what we are seeing here. We would have the romantic notion that there would be nine individuals who are appointed to this committee, which would see all sides working together from across the House to come up with the very best processes for each of the possibly most important officers in the government, certainly something which would have an incredible effect not only on the Government of Canada but also Canadian society.

Unfortunately, there are no guidelines given in the one-sentence motion that is before us. What I have learned in my experience not only in the public and foreign service but across government is that where there is no process, there is a void, and where there is a void, there is the potential for corruption. That is what we have seen time and time again from the current government, partisanship and corruption, when it is given the latitude to make decisions to choose the officers.

Let us evaluate the process at present. Why so many of my colleagues were very enchanted by the possibility of this motion, why they thought it was a great idea is that they are truly democratic. They truly want MPs to have more power to choose these officers, because what happens right now is these top officers of Parliament are appointed by the Prime Minister. As we have heard from other colleagues, usually it is a short list of, say, the name of one person. However, there is certainly the idea that there is input from all sides of the House. Now, we rarely see this happen.

I had the opportunity to provide input when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This happened after Madeleine Meilleur was to become the next official languages commissioner, but that is a whole other story I will get to later.

I remember we had the opportunity to ask Mr. Théberge questions. I knew at the time that our questions did not have much influence over the process and the outcome, because Mr. Théberge would become the official languages commissioner.

However, for at least an hour, we were allowed to feel as though we were part of the process, even though the candidate had already been chosen.

At least now this goes through a committee. We have the idea that perhaps we might be a small part of this process by which the officers of Parliament are chosen, but as I have said, unfortunately, there are no details with this motion, not one. In fact, I have a lot of fun thinking about how we might possibly choose our officers of Parliament. Maybe we would do it by playing horseshoes or a game of darts, I do not know, but there is really that much information in this motion in terms of how we would select these officers. As I have said, where there is no process, there is a void, and where there is a void, there is the potential for partisanship and corruption.

We know that the Liberal government will take the opportunity for corruption and partisanship time after time. We have seen this again and again. For example, there was Madeleine Meilleur, the best candidate.

In French, we would make a play on words with her name, saying that Madeleine Meilleur was the meilleure, or best, candidate.

Sure she was, but guess what else. She was a former Ontario Liberal MPP, someone very involved and intertwined with the party. The Liberals tried to sell it to us as the best choice of an independent candidate, when in fact, this was not the case. It was not someone from input from other parties. It was someone who was pre-selected by the government and fed to us as an independent choice, as the best choice. In fact, this was someone the government specifically chose.

Again, there is no process. There is a void in Motion No. 170, and where there is a void, there is the potential for corruption and partisanship, as we saw with Madam Meilleur.

It does not end there. We saw the same with Senate appointments. The Prime Minister decided that he would like independent Senate appointments. He made all the senators independent, and going forward, would choose senators based on merit. I will say that I was very insulted, as an Albertan, that our own democratic process in Alberta was completely ignored and denied. We had a senator in waiting who was put on the sidelines and ignored. Instead, there were the Prime Minister's favourite choices. Again, this shows that where there is no process, there is a void. Where there is a void, there is the potential for partisanship and corruption, which the government has shown time and time again.

I will also say that, unfortunately, as the new shadow minister for democratic institutions, I am seeing the same with Bill C-76, which is in the House this week going to report stage. I look forward to speaking to this tomorrow, with all of my colleagues, because we are seeing again the opportunity for the government to make the rules for itself. Its objective is very clear. It is not only to pass the bill but to win the next election and every election in perpetuity as a result of changing the rules—

Elections Modernization Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you to rule new clause 344.1 in Bill C-76, reported back from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee yesterday afternoon, out of order for offending the so-called parent act rule.

Before getting into the substance of my argument, I want to acknowledge that this is essentially an appeal of a committee chair's ruling. However, this issue falls within the allowable categories of such points of order. On April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser said:

As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

Your immediate predecessor cited this passage as an authority in a ruling he delivered in relation to the parent act rule on May 1, 2014, at page 4787 of the Debates.

Turning to the substance of my point of order, the parent act rule, page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

That latter point traces back to citation 698(8)(b) of Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, edited by Fraser, Dawson, and Holtby.

In the present case, an amendment, known in the Procedure and House Affairs Committee proceedings as “Liberal amendment 55”, purported to add a new clause to Bill C-76 for the purpose of making an amendment to section 498 of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-76, as introduced, would amend both sections 497.5 and 499 of the Canada Elections Act, the two sections that bookend section 498, but not section 498 itself.

In ruling on my point of order at committee, the chair stated that there is an exception to the parent act rule for consequential amendments, but cited no authority in that regard. An exception such as that could have wide-sweeping consequences, which merits a passing reference somewhere in our various procedural authorities so that members may be guided appropriately.

No such reference, aside, or footnote articulating this exception to such a clear-cut rule appears in a canvassing of Bosc and Gagnon, O'Brien and Bosc, Marleau and Montpetit, Beauschene's or Erskine May. However, I have found the words of Mr. Speaker Fraser, from the ruling I cited earlier:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

This sentiment was reiterated much more recently by no less an authority than this House's esteemed former law clerk, Rob Walsh. Mr. Walsh, at page 115 of his book On the House: An Inside Look at the House of Commons, published just last autumn, offered this perspective from a drafter's point of view:

An amendment to a bill amending an existing Act of Parliament, if passed, cannot amend a section in the “parent act” that may be implicated in the change but is not being amended in the bill. As a lawyer, I found this rule problematic at times. Occasionally it seemed clear that a section in the parent act, untouched in the amending bill, would need to be amended if the bill's amendments were passed. This is a “consequential” amendment, an amendment that is a consequence of another amendment. The lawyer drafting an amendment for a private member...might see that another section in the parent act would also need to be amended if the member's amendment is to work effectively, but the procedural rules won't allow the consequential amendment to be proposed.

These citations, I submit, are quite clear that consequential amendments, no matter how tempting, cannot be made to a bill if such amendments run afoul of our clear rules and procedures.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find new clause 344.1 to be out of order and that it be struck from Bill C-76. Nonetheless, should you find favour with the analysis of the member for Yukon, the chair of the committee, I would ask that the Chair's ruling in consideration of Standing Order 10 “state the...authority applicable to the case” so that all members will understand the applicable limits when contemplating amendments they might like to propose to legislation in the future.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 72nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

As we can understand, this project, with over 400 clauses, was huge. It took us over a year and there are many people to thank. I would like to thank the clerk, Andrew Lauzon; legislative clerk, Philippe Méla; researcher, Andre Barnes; the former chief electoral officer who, with his years of experience, provided the committee with 130 recommendations; the new Chief Electoral Officer and his very experienced professional staff; officials from the PCO; the minister's staff and parliamentary secretaries. I have high praise for all of the PROC committee members of all parties. During committee debate of over 300 proposed amendments, MPs from all five parties spoke and were all very professional and respectful of each other's views, even when they disagreed.

With years of wisdom from Elections Canada, the PCO, 57 witnesses, the department and ministry, parliamentary secretaries and MPs from all parties, we report a bill that we sincerely feel will greatly improve and facilitate voting and the electoral system in the dramatically changing digital world.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 73rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House, and I would like to move concurrence at this time.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.

Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House.

Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Elections Canada

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are lucky to live in a country where we have fair and democratic elections. That is why Canadians are alarmed over a serious issue raised in a Toronto Sun exclusive report. The Sun reported that a female asylum seeker, who has only been in Canada 18 months, was urged by Elections Canada to register to vote. The Elections Canada letter told the woman to register by October 23, saying, “registering in advance will ensure you're on the voters list”. This woman's asylum-seeking husband said it is not an isolated incident. He told the Sun some friends of his on work permits have also been urged to register to vote.

This is why we are so worried about the Liberal elections bill, Bill C-76. It brings back voter ID cards and vouching, which could jeopardize our electoral system. In the true north strong and free, Canadians demand fair elections.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with our colleagues across the way that there should not be any foreign interference. That is why I ask them to work with us at the procedure and House affairs committee to send Bill C-76 back to the House as soon as possible so we can pass the legislation to ensure that our elections are protected next election.

Let us work together. I hope my hon. colleagues across the way will get this done with us.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is vital that everyone in the House work together to avoid and prevent foreign influence and interference in our elections.

I am excited to work with everyone in the House to make sure we pass Bill C-76. In Bill C-76 are tangible measures to ensure we can prevent foreign interference. I hope my colleagues on the other side will work with us to get this legislation passed quickly to ensure that our next elections are protected.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question in New York this week, the Prime Minister admitted to knowing that foreign money had influenced the 2015 federal election. Bill C-76 was supposed to close the loopholes in the election legislation, but it does nothing to stop foreign money from influencing our elections.

When is the Prime Minister going to take this issue seriously and stop foreign interests from influencing our elections?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some comments I would like to make on the Speaker's ruling and on the motion that seeks to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

First, I thank my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, with whom I have the pleasure of working at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for bringing this information to the attention of the House. I also thank the Chair for the ruling that was made.

I would like to dwell on the speaker's comments because I believe that there is something worrisome, if not arrogant, about correcting a situation after the fact and claiming it is no big deal as the matter is swept under the rug. There is indeed cause for the committee to investigate further.

I would add that the government's general attitude seems to be going down the wrong path. As the speaker pointed out, there is an accountability problem within the RCMP with regard to the executive and the government. I am not criticizing the men and women in uniform who protect us. These issues come from higher up.

This morning, we debated another time allocation motion for Bill C-71. The first one was tabled at the beginning of second reading. This contempt of Parliament shows that a certain arrogance is setting in, which is problematic as it can undermine the work of parliamentarians, who want to have healthy debates on very complex matters.

It goes without saying that we support the motion to have the matter referred to the committee, who will hopefully shed light on it. I heard a member across the way saying it was an honest mistake and that they corrected the situation, but as the Chair said so well, it is not the first time it happens. Obviously, the executive and all the departments it is responsible for, including the RCMP, will have to make every effort to avoid situations like this in the future. After all, citizens use these sources of information to learn about their obligations under the law. As members of Parliament, we also have a responsibility to inform citizens. When these sources of information and legislators contradict each other, it can be a problem.

Finally, I simply want to say again that we are in favour of the motion and that we are all very concerned about what happened. We thank the Speaker since there is indeed contempt of Parliament in this case. We hope that this trend does not continue, as it did with Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. It was something I was going to raise during my commentary about how this can play out in other pieces of legislation. I thought of Bill C-76 as an example, and I failed to mention it. I thank my colleague for bringing it up.

One of the things that certainly could happen in circumstances like that, when departments, in this case Elections Canada, start to make changes to election rules that have not yet passed through the House, is that it leaves the impression among Canadians and among members in the House that we do not serve a purpose and that there is no need for democracy.

When the government has a majority and proposes a piece of legislation like Bill C-76, which is clearly slanted in a certain direction in favour of the current government, it impacts Canadians' ability to have a say in democracy and therefore causes democracy and members to be in disrepute. That is something we have to be above.

I certainly hope that the ruling made today by the Speaker will send a clear message, across all lines, across all ministries, and across all departments that until royal assent is given, there should be no presumptive action, no presumption, period, that any legislation is law until it is enacted.

Firearms Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded that my colleague from Kenora would actually accuse someone like me of having mental health issues, because I am one of the law-abiding firearms owners he is talking about. On the fact that he is suggesting that changes to the law made in Bill C-71 would address the issues in the United States, I might suggest that he would be better off pursuing a Congress seat than representing the fine folks in Kenora. To imply that making the changes we need to make here in Canada is the result of U.S. legislative policies is simply misguided.

I wish I actually did not have to rise in the House today to talk about this. I wish that the public safety committee, when the current government first took office, had been tasked with actually going across Canada and talking to people. If we were going to have a serious conversation about creating a safer Canada and increasing public safety, we could have had a thoughtful discussion. We could have had a less partisan discussion on this issue. Instead, the bill just came out of the blue. Bill C-71 came late in the mandate of the government after several years of trying to get electoral reform through. The Liberals cannot pass their marijuana legislation without the Senate pushing it back. They are trying to rig the election system again through Bill C-76.

This is where we are at. We are three years into a four-year mandate, ramming legislation through with a handful of hours at second reading, one meeting with the minister and bureaucrats at committee, and three more meetings with a handful of witnesses, a mere fraction of the number of people and organizations that wanted to be represented and have their voices heard. Now we just had notice from the government House leader that the Liberals are going to move time allocation, not only at the report stage of this bill but also at third reading, making sure that the voices that are reasonable and need to be heard will not be so that they can push through what can only be described as an emotionally based agenda when it comes to firearms.

There is not a single member of Parliament in this place who would not do the right thing if given the right options and good advice and empirical evidence to suggest that the legislation was going to improve safety for Canadians. If that actually happened, if that was the approach the government had actually taken, we might have come up with some legislation that had unanimous support. In fact, my colleague from Kenora who just spoke suggested the mental health side of things. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would actually address mental health issues. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would address any co-operation between federal investigators, law enforcement agencies, or firearms officers and anything to with any of the provincial mental health acts.

Here is why this bill is so offensive to the law-abiding firearms community. The Liberals say that nothing about this is a firearms registry. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a previous life, before I came here, I was a tenured faculty member at Red Deer College teaching systems analysis and design. I was a database architect and a database administrator before I came here. I understand information technology. I understand how to cross-reference information. Whether it is a distributed computing system or the technology we have today, with clouds of information out there, it is very easy.

The bureaucrats, the minister, and the police officers who came before the committee made it painstakingly obvious to anyone who was paying attention that with Bill C-71, every time there was a transaction and a firearm changed hands, whether through a sale, an estate inheritance, a gift, or lending or borrowing, Canadians would have to get permission from the government. If they were at a gun show on the weekend, if they were going to Cabela's, if they were selling a firearm to their neighbour, or if they were lending their rifle to their hunting buddy to go on a trip and were not on that trip too, they would have to get permission from the government to do this first.

Here is how this would work. The Liberal government today says that it is going to have someone on staff, 24/7, 365 days a year, to pick up the phone when the buyer and seller want to have a transaction. The Liberals' original legislation actually said that for every firearm that was going to be transacted, they would need a separate reference number. This is a registry, because there would be the seller's licence and the buyer's licence.

Here is my buyer's licence. It is a document. It has my licence number, my name, my address, and the type of licence I have. Every one of those reference numbers is going to transact the serial number, make, and model of that firearm, to be cross-referenced with distributed store records. I specifically asked the bureaucrats how this would work, and they said it would be no trouble for the central transaction database, with all the reference numbers, to easily go back to a store and find out where a firearm was originally purchased.

If I buy a firearm from Cabela's or another store, and I choose to sell that firearm to a hunting buddy, who then sells that firearm to someone else, and that firearm is stolen and used in a crime, the police would have the ability to implicate me and everyone in that entire chain of sales in the act that was eventually done by a criminal, rather than focusing on that criminal.

If I sold 40, 50, or 100 firearms in one transaction as a single individual and not as a business, maybe that would trigger some kind of threshold and someone would ask what was going on. Was it an estate dispersal? Was I getting rid of all my firearms? That might have done something to increase public safety, but unfortunately, this bill would not do anything.

As a matter of fact, all it would do is create more red tape, more bureaucracy, and more expense. It would make gun shows on weekends that Canadians participate in more difficult. When I asked the bureaucrats what would happen for a large gun show in Canada, they said they would need a few weeks' notice. Now it would be up to every gun show organizer in this country to let the firearms centre know that on a weekend, it would have to staff up. Do members know how many gun shows there are in Canada? Virtually every weekend of the year there is one somewhere in Canada.

We did not talk to anyone. We did not talk to any gun show organizers. We did not hear from anyone from the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, which is in the retail business. None of those organizations were brought in to testify before the committee so that the government would have an opportunity to understand what it was it was going to do.

Bill C-71 would create a registry of firearms transactions, to be maintained by the firearms centre, which would be cross-referenced with all the records that would now be mandatory for store owners to keep for a period of 20 years or more. The period would be 20 years or more, because the legislation does not say for just 20 years. It says that if Canada acceded to an international treaty that required Canadians to store the records for even longer, it would be automatic in law that those records would need to be kept longer. It would not even come back before Parliament.

We have discovered that Canada is already involved in negotiating one of those treaties, so it is very convenient that the legislation would be there so that we could keep the records even longer.

It is a $3-billion boondoggle. We have not had a single government official say how much more the government is going to spend on the firearms centre to ramp up the staff to keep track of the new gun registry.

Classification is another thing that frustrates firearms owners. Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, actually put the decisions back in the hands of elected representatives so that at least there was some recourse for law-abiding firearms owners who, by the stroke of a pen, went from one day being law-abiding firearms owners to the next day being in possession of prohibited property.

The Liberals could have adopted a very simple fix. We simply suggested taking it out of the hands of one individual and creating a panel. I put a recommendation before the committee to have five technical experts, including police, military, and civilian experts, advise us, thereby depoliticizing the issue altogether. In this way, it would not be in the hands of one entity or in the hands of politicians. We could get a panel of actual experts to make those recommendations and fix the rules.

We know that there are three basic criteria for handguns: rimfire, centrefire, barrel length, and so on. These criteria tell us if a firearm is restricted or prohibited. There is nothing that prescriptive in the long-gun classification system. It is very subjective, and that is the problem with the rules. The minister says that it can hide behind the RCMP, because the RCMP simply has to follow the rules, but the rules are not clear. They are very subjective. It is very frustrating.

Last but not least is the notion of licensing. As my colleague from Kenora rightly pointed out, if we go back to the passage of legislation in 1977, there are firearms owners in Canada who have had licences for almost 40 years. They would now, when they went to renew their licences, have to answer for everything they did back when they 18 years old, some 20 years before 1977, for example, as if the mental health issues from 60 years ago were going to be the basis for denying them a licence. Mark my words, someone is going to go back and dredge this up, and a current law-abiding firearms owner who has had a licence for 30 or 40 years is going to be denied a licence. Do members know how to appeal that? A person has to make an application before a court. A person has to hire a lawyer, go before a court, and get a judge to overrule the decision of the chief firearms officer.

We provided an amendment at committee, which the Liberals shot down. As a matter of fact, it was an amendment proposed by a rural Liberal member from Ontario, who suggested that we create a system of appeal so that law-abiding firearms owners were not caught up in being denied their licences if they had had them for a number of years.

I could go on for another couple of hours about the failures of Bill C-71, but my time is up, so I will happily answer any of the misguided questions the Liberals have for me.

Democratic Reform

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal elections bill, Bill C-76, would do nothing to modernize our democratic process. In fact, this dangerous bill would encourage foreign entities to interfere in our elections and undermine our democracy.

Other countries have seen the consequences of foreign interference in elections. It would be naive to presume Canada is immune. In fact, reports indicate that foreign third parties spent millions of dollars in the 2015 federal election. The American Tides Foundation alone donated $1.5 million to influence its outcome.

We should not allow our elections to be decided by foreign organizations or individuals with deep pockets.

I have tabled Bill C-406 to address this very issue. Bill C-406 would amend the Canada Elections Act to ban foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes.

Canadians, and Canadians only, should be determining the results of our next election. It is the right thing to do; it is the patriotic thing to do.

I look forward to the debate on this bill and seeing where the other parties in the House will put their interests, either with Canada or their own. Any member who votes against the bill is voting in favour of foreign interference in our elections. I guess we will see.

Impact Assessment Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, if only the Liberals were as efficient in governing as they are in skullduggery around such issues, Canada would be a much better place.

My colleague brings up some very valuable points. The U.S. treasury department is, right now, investigating Russian interference in its energy industry. Russia views the U.S. and Canada as major energy competitors. Without its energy industry, Russia would be bankrupt, so it is against the interests of the U.S. and Canada to grow their energy industries. Russia is funnelling money, as the U.S. treasury department says, into Tides U.S.A. Tides U.S.A. sends its money to Tides Canada, which then funnels it to Leadnow, which campaigns on behalf of the Liberal government of Canada.

Now the government is introducing Bill C-76 that will open the floodgates for more foreign money coming into Canada and Bill C-69 would also allow equal standing for radical environmentalists from the U.S., Russian activists, and a Canadian appearing before the regulatory regime.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for Edmonton West about the issue of standing in Bill C-69. Peeling that back to the last election, we saw an unprecedented assault on Canadian democracy with U.S. money funnelled to third parties that, in turn, backed the Liberal Party. Now we have Bill C-69, which opens standing up to foreign anti-oil sands activists. The government has now introduced Bill C-76, which leaves a major loophole with respect to foreign funding of third parties, which essentially says that it is open season for foreign entities to fund registered third parties if the monies are transferred before June 30.

Does the hon. member for Edmonton West think that this is all a coincidence or is this just a case of the Liberal Party trying to benefit from foreign funding to help it during elections and to advance its activist radical agenda to keep Alberta energy in the ground?

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, we introduced Bill C-76, which will create a pre-election period before the general election. We have also made commitments as a government, since the government cannot run ads in the 90 days preceding a general election.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the 41st Parliament, we have reams of quotes from Liberals regarding the use of time allocation by the then Conservative government. The quotes we have from the member for Winnipeg North would fill several pages.

What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is the government's use of time allocation and using the bare minimum, allocating five hours for debate on this legislation, on Bill C-69, which was done just before this, on Bill C-75, and on Bill C-76. The list goes on.

I have a simple question for the Minister of Public Safety. Given his party's record when it was the third party in the 41st Parliament, does he not feel the slightest bit of shame and contrition over the complete reversal of his position, now that he occupies that side of the House?

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as I told my hon. colleague in committee, Bill C-76 does not limit travel at all. When he is talking about advertising, it limits it for any party during the period, and that is only with regard to advertising. Perhaps he is thinking about a previous Conservative minister who perhaps put a CPC logo when he was delivering Canada child benefit cheques. That is why we are doing this, because Canadians want to ensure integrity in our electoral system.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we introduced Bill C-76 and we hope we can work with all of our House of Commons colleagues to improve democracy so Canadians can vote. Many Canadians, 176 in fact, were not able to vote in the last election. This is a real problem for future voters. What are we going to do about it here? We are going to work together to make sure everyone in Canada can vote.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House, on Wednesday, May 30, at 8:45. I should mention that it is 8:45 p.m., for the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who I am sure are tuning in. To all my constituents, good evening.

We are debating this evening because the Liberal government tabled very few significant government bills over the winter. Instead, they tabled an astounding number of private members' bills on things like swallows' day and beauty month. Sometimes my colleagues and I can hardly help laughing at this pile of utterly trivial bills. I also think that this process of randomly selecting the members who get to table bills is a bit past its prime. Maybe it should be reviewed. At the same time, I understand that it is up to each member to decide what kind of bill is important to him or her.

The reason we have had to sit until midnight for two days now is that, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington said, the government has been acting like a typical university student over the past three months. That comparison is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. The government is behaving like those students who wait until the last minute to do their assignments and are still working on them at 3 a.m. the day before they are due because they were too busy partying all semester. Members know what I mean, even though that paints a rather stereotypical picture of students; most of them do not do things like that.

In short, we have a government that, at the end of the session, has realized that time is running out and that it only has three weeks left to pass some of its legislative measures, some of which are rather lengthy bills that are key to the government's legislative agenda. One has to wonder about that.

The Liberals believe these bills to be important. However, because of their lack of responsibility over the past three months, we were unable to debate these major bills that will make significant changes to our society. Take for example, Bill C-76, which has to do with the electoral reforms that the Liberals want to make to the voting system, the way we vote, protection of the vote, and identification. There is also Bill C-49 on transportation in Canada, a very lengthy bill that we have not had time to examine properly.

Today we are debating Bill C-57 on sustainable development. This is an important topic, but for the past three years I have been getting sick and tired of seeing the Liberal government act as though it has a monopoly on environmental righteousness. I searched online to get an accurate picture of the record of Mr. Harper's Conservative government from 2006 to 2015, and I came across some fascinating results. I want to share this information very honestly with the House and my Liberal colleagues so that they understand that even though we did not talk incessantly about the environment, we achieved some excellent concrete results.

I want to read a quote from www.mediaterre.org, a perfectly legitimate site:

Stephen Harper's Canadian government released its 2007 budget on March 19. The budget allocated $4.5 billion in new investments to some 20 environmental projects. These measures include a $2,000 rebate for all electronic-vehicle or alternative-fuel purchases, and the creation of a $1.5-billion EcoTrust program to help provinces reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals often criticize us for talking about the environment, but we did take action. For example, we set targets. We proposed reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Liberals even retained these same targets as part of the Paris agreement.

They said we had targets, but no plan. That is not true. Not only did we have the $1.5-billion ecotrust program, but we also had a plan that involved federal co-operation.

Allow me to quote the premier of Quebec at the time, Jean Charest, who was praising the plan that was going to help Quebec—his province, my province—meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Jean Charest and Mr. Harper issued a joint press release.

Mr. Harper said, “Canada's New Government is investing to protect Canadians from the consequences of climate change, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” He was already recognizing it in 2007.

Mr. Charest said, “In June 2006, our government adopted its plan to combat climate change. This plan has been hailed as one of the finest in North America. With Ottawa contributing financially to this Quebec initiative, we will be able to achieve our objectives.”

It was Mr. Charest who said that in 2007, at a press conference with the prime minister.

I will continue to read the joint press release from the two governments, “As a result of this federal funding, the Government of Quebec has indicated that it will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent below its anticipated 2012 level.”

What is more, the $1.5-billion ecotrust that was supposed to be allocated and was allocated to every province provided $339 million to Quebec alone. That was going to allow Quebec to engage in the following: investments to improve access to new technologies for the trucking sector; a program to develop renewable energy sources in rural regions; a pilot plant for production of cellulosic ethanol; promotion of geothermal heat pumps in the residential sector; support for technological research and innovation for the reduction and sequestration of greenhouse gases. This is probably one of those programs that is helping us make our oil sands increasingly environmentally friendly by allowing us to capture the carbon that comes from converting the sands to oil. There are also measures for the capture of biogas from landfill sites, for waste treatment and energy recovery, and finally for Canada ecotrust.

I invite our Liberal colleagues to listen to what I am going to say. In 2007, Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said the following: “We are pleased to see that after negotiating for more than a year, Quebec has finally obtained the money it needs to move towards meeting the Kyoto targets.”

Who made it possible for Quebec to move towards meeting its Kyoto objectives? It was the Harper government, a Conservative government, which established the $1.5-billion ecotrust fund in 2007 with monies from the budget surplus.

Not only did we have a plan to meet the targets we proposed, but this was also a plan that could only be implemented if the provinces agreed to the targets. It was a plan that was funded through the budget surplus, that did not further tax Canadians, and that provided money directly, without any conditions, other than the fundamental requirement that it had to help reduce climate change, which was philosophically important. Any and all measures taken to reach that goal were left entirely to the discretion of the provinces.

Mr. Harper, like a good Conservative who supported decentralization and like a true federalist leader, said that he was giving $400 million to each province so it could move forward with its plan.

By 2015, after 10 years of Conservative government, the country had not only weathered the worst economic crisis, the worst recession in history since the 1930s, but it had also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2% and increased the gross domestic product for all Canadians while lopping three points off the GST and lowering income taxes for families with two children by an average of $2,000 per year.

If that is not co-operative federalism, if those are not real results, if that is not a concrete environmental plan, then I do not know what is. Add to that the fact that we achieved royal assent for no less than 25 to 35 bills every session.

In contrast, during this session, in between being forced to grapple with scandals involving the carbon tax, illegal border crossings, and the Trans Mountain project, this government has barely managed to come up with four genuinely important bills.

By contrast, we expanded parks and protected Canada's wetlands. Our environmental record is exceptional.

Furthermore, we allowed debate. For example, we debated Bill C-23 on electoral reform for four days. The Liberals' electoral reform was debated for two hours.

I am sad, but I am happy to debate until midnight because debating is my passion.

Democratic Reform

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 is a generational overhaul of the Canada Elections Act for the 21st century.

In 2014, Elections Canada struck its Advisory Group for Disability Issues to provide advice about accessibility. All Canadians have the right to participate fully in the electoral process.

Can the Prime Minister update the House on the measures introduced to ensure that more Canadians can vote?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know that the Prime Minister does not care too much for any opposition, but we are here to hold the government to account and to stand up for the interests of Canadians whether he likes it or not. It is evident that he is trying to ram through his new electoral legislation using closure, time allocation, or whatever other trick he has up his sleeve. Will the Prime Minister commit today to allowing Bill C-76 the proper due diligence and study that Canadians know it deserves?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again: another spring, another motion from the Liberal government to sit until midnight. In fact, it is exactly the same motion for midnight sittings that the Liberals used last year. It also has the same flaws that last year's motion contained, and quite frankly, the issues dominating debate in the House are pretty much the same.

Last spring, the Prime Minister was under an ethics investigation. This spring, now that the Ethics Commissioner has found the Prime Minister guilty in four different ways, it is the Prime Minister's friend, the fisheries minister, who is embroiled in what has become known as “clamscam”. Of course, the finance minister is under investigation as well. Boy oh boy, round and round we go.

Last spring, the Liberals were getting ready to ram through the House major changes to the way Parliament works, all to their benefit, of course, because the Liberals never do anything unless it is going to benefit them. Conservatives fought tooth and nail when the Liberals tried to ram through those changes that would erode our democracy. Well, this spring it is the very rules about electing members of Parliament to the House that the Liberals are trying to rig, and to rush those changes through Parliament as we speak.

We see this time and time again. When the Liberals are failing at something, they try to change the rules to benefit themselves. Last spring, the Liberals tabled a budget with a runaway deficit and no balanced budget in sight for decades. This spring, another whopping deficit and still no plan to bring the budget back to balance. Today, they made an announcement of another $4.5 billion to buy a 60-year-old pipeline, which did not need government money as we already had a private investor who was putting billions into it and creating jobs. However, now the federal government is giving them $4.5 billion to take down to Houston. Who knows what the costs will be to build this pipeline.

Let us remember that the federal government is not that good at building much of anything. We can look at its records on ships, planes, and the Phoenix system. I do not really trust the government to build anything.

I digress. My point is that more and more billions of taxpayers' dollars are being spent by the Liberal drunken sailor government. We see questionable ethics and self-serving rule rigging, taxing, and spending. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Now let me turn to the principle of government Motion No. 22. Let me be clear. Conservatives believe in hard work. We believe in doing hard work rather than just talking about it. We do not have a problem at all with working a little extra in the spring. In fact, it is something of an annual ritual around here. We usually work harder in the spring as we gear up for the summer.

The last Conservative government also asked the House of Commons to put in some extra hours in the spring, but one thing we never did in government was to steal time for government business on opposition days. The current government did this last year and is proposing to do it again. It is probably going to ram it through again this year.

Let me just explain once again, for our constituents who are watching, what this means. Paragraph (j) of Motion No. 22 would shortchange the opposition, both the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, on the only four opposition days remaining this spring. Let me just offer a quick explanation. Over the course of one year, the rules of the House of Commons require the government to set aside 22 sitting days for discussion of topics of the opposition's choosing. That is 22 days in total for the NDP and the Conservatives to talk about issues they believe are important.

We get to discuss the opposition topic all day. Regardless of whether it is a short sitting day, such as a Wednesday, when we have our caucus meeting, or a longer day, such as a Tuesday, we debate the opposition topic all day. That is why we call them “opposition days”. It simply does not matter how long the day is. We get to debate our opposition topic from the beginning of the day to the end of the day.

We have brought forward some very important topics during our opposition days, topics such as support for Kinder Morgan. Interestingly, the government voted against that topic when we brought it forward, but it is now buying the pipeline. That is quite something.

We have brought forward very important topics, such as helping Yazidi girls and women who were victims of ISIS terrorists. We have brought forward motions supporting Israel. There are a number of topics that we have brought forward on opposition days. As I said, it does not matter how long that day it is; it is our day.

If the government is asking the opposition to work longer days, we are fine with that. It only makes sense and it is only fair for the government to also be willing to discuss the opposition topics on those longer days as well, but it is not willing to do that. We have two opposition days left, and I believe the NDP has two as well. Even though we are going to be sitting longer hours, according to Motion No. 22, on opposition days the government is going to stop us earlier from talking about the issue that we have brought forward, probably at 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. The government will then continue with its business for the rest of the day, but we, the opposition, will not be able to talk about the topic we have brought forward. We do not have a lot of days to do it, and those days are important.

Again, let me remind everyone that when we were in government we did not do that. We might have sat a little longer in the spring, but opposition days also went longer in the spring. It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister, who was elected promising to respect parliamentarians, disrespects the job that we do here so much that he will not even let opposition topics be debated on these longer sitting days.

Wait, did the Prime Minister not recently fly down to New York and encourage people to listen to those who disagree with them? I think I remember that news coverage. There was our Prime Minister, standing at second base in Yankee Stadium with hand on heart, which we have come to learn is the Prime Minister's telltale sign that sanctimony and hypocrisy will soon be following. Nonetheless, there he was, telling university graduates about the importance of tolerating and listening to other people's views. However, our “do as I say, not as I do” Prime Minister has a different attitude when he comes back to his own country and our House of Commons.

Let us not forget that the Liberal Prime Minister, who claims to believe in tolerating other people's views, has imposed a values test on Canadians and organizations looking for help to hire summer students. Those views he does not want to listen to. Their views he is not going to tolerate. Their views have to be shut down because the Prime Minister does not think they are worthy of listening to. He will go to the U.S. and lecture people in the United States about listening to other people's views, but when he comes back to Canada he does the exact opposite. It is unbelievable.

The same Liberal Prime Minister surely did not seem to have tolerance for opposing views when he fired the former chair of the fisheries committee, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, because he disagreed with the Prime Minister over the summer jobs values test.

The same Prime Minister kicked the hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay off the committee as punishment for disagreeing with the Prime Minister about his dangerous and reckless plan for small business tax changes. Do members remember all that?

Do they remember the feminist Prime Minister? This one was particularly galling for me. He ordered his MPs to veto the election of the hon. member for Lethbridge, who was duly elected to the House of Commons, as chair of the status of women committee, a role which was filled by nomination of the official opposition, because he did not agree with her views on an issue of personal conscience. He was telling an elected member of Parliament what she can think, what she can believe, and what she can hold dear to her heart. It is utter hypocrisy.

Sadly, this sort of behaviour is not limited to just the Prime Minister. Let me be very clear. I do not think that all Liberal MPs are like this, but, sadly, a lot of them are seeing their leader do it, and they think it gives them permission to do the same thing.

Leadership starts at the top. This is not just a cliché; it is true. An organization's culture is often shaped and moulded, and the signal is sent by the boss. That fact of life is no different with the government. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change was on national television a few weekends ago, saying she has no time for politicians who disagree with her.

Earlier this spring, the Minister of Finance called our deputy leader, the hon. member for Milton, a neanderthal because she did not agree with him. There was no apology, no outrage. They will say one thing and do something completely different.

Now we have the government House leader bringing forward a motion that cuts off debate on opposition motions. No longer will they be opposition days, but opposition half days. The Prime Minister apparently cannot stomach having to listen to opposition ideas for a few extra hours. Maybe the Prime Minister should not have flown off to New York City to give a sermon on tolerance of different opinions. Maybe he should be reflecting on his own words, and at next week's cabinet meeting, maybe he should lay his hand on his heart and give the same speech to all of his colleagues. Certainly the disrespect the Liberals have been showing for ideas is matched by the disrespect they have for Parliament.

However, it is not just weeks of legislation that the Liberals have decided to hinder Parliament with, but also that we have not talked about recently that is incredibly important. Parliament has not been consulted on ordering Canadian troops into harms way as part of a United Nations mission in the west African nation of Mali. In a breach of tradition and practice, the Prime Minister is refusing to consult Parliament on this deployment. The seriousness of this deployment of our soldiers into an active war zone, which is widely considered to be the most dangerous UN mission in the world today, warrants a debate and a vote here in the House of Commons.

Again, the Prime Minister does not want to hear any voices that might disagree with him, that might challenge him, or that might ask him questions that he has no answer for. The Prime Minister, instead of doing what a leader does and taking the heat that comes with leadership, refuses to show the respect that this House, but mostly that our soldiers and their families, deserve.

On the security front, indeed, all Canadians have a vivid memory of the fiasco the was the Prime Minister's journey to India in February. The fumbling and flailing around that we saw from the government and the Prime Minister in the days that followed led to a full-blown diplomatic incident with our ally India, the largest democracy in the world. Conservatives wanted the national security advisor, Daniel Jean, to appear before a parliamentary committee to explain how those conspiracy theories came to be and his comments to the media. Members will recall that for weeks and weeks, because we had seen media reports about Daniel Jean telling the media that India had been part of this so-called conspiracy, we had wanted to talk to him. We wanted him to explain what was going on when a man convicted of attempted murder of a former Indian minister was invited to pal with and hang around with the Liberals at swanky parties in India.

By the way, we have a question on the Order Paper on that. The government will not tell us how much it cost. It is saying that there are just so many departments that it has to look into to find out. How much did all of those parties cost? I am pretty sure they cost a whole lot of money. We are not going to give up on getting those answers, because taxpayers deserve to know. However, the Prime Minister was going to have nothing to do with that kind of exercise and accountability.

Members will remember the Liberal convention in Halifax last month, where the party's outgoing president, the same Anna Gainey who joined the Prime Minister on his illegal vacation on the billionaire's private Caribbean island, told delegates that “now more than ever, we need to have his back”, referring to the Prime Minister. Well, just a few weeks before that, the Liberal caucus got a taste of having the Prime Minister's back. The Liberal whip told those on the Liberal backbench that they needed to have the Prime Minister's back and would have to be voting for close to 40 hours. They would have to have his back by voting down the opposition day motion to have the national security advisor appear at committee. They would have to have his back by voting for potentially up to 40 hours. That was quite something. They were not going to give in. At the end of all of that, “Oh captain our captain”, they were cheering on the Prime Minister.

Then a week later they realized they had better make sure the national security advisor appeared. He appeared, lo and behold, miraculously. I just want to know how good it felt for the Liberal back bench to have the Prime Minister's back. After all that was said and done, after the extreme pressure laid on by our amazing Conservative team, the government relented. The national security advisor appeared at the public safety committee. It must be so fulfilling, so rewarding to be part of the Liberal caucus, when things like that happen. It must make them proud to go home and tell their constituents what they were doing.

The Liberals wanted to change the way the government asks for spending permission and the way the House of Commons studies these spending proposals. That is what has brought us to where the main estimates have changed. This year the main estimates include a single $7 billion lump sum under the buzz phrase “budget implementation”. The government claimed it would be focused on initiatives announced in this year's budget. The wording provides no assurance.

Again, the Liberals are ramming this through. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, a dedicated public servant who has had a long career here on Parliament Hill, told the Senate committee he had never seen anything like it. His office stated:

While the Government has included a new Budget Implementation Vote for $7.0 billion, the initiatives to be funded through this vote are not reflected in the Departmental Plans. Hence, there remains a lack of alignment between the Budget initiatives and planned results.

Let me summarize that: Liberal slush fund. That is what the $7 billion amounts to.

There are so many more things I could go on talking about. Last year the government tried to ram through changes to the Standing Orders. It wanted to eliminate Friday sittings. The Prime Minister did not want to be here to answer questions. Of course, the list goes on.

Is there a pattern here? Yes, there is. When the chips are down for the Liberal government, its go-to move is to change the game, to rig the rules, to tilt the scales in its favour, always to regain and have its own advantage. We have seen a pattern.

I will close with this, in Bill C-76, the so-called elections modernization act, here is what is happening. The Prime Minister is having a hard time raising money, even with his cash for access. His policies are so bad, people who have supported the Liberal Party for generations cannot support it anymore. Today, I think Kinder Morgan is going to be another example for these lifelong Liberals. Liberal policy is so bad, so destructive of our competitiveness, and so destructive of our foreign relations that longtime Liberals are done writing cheques to the party. The Prime Minister cannot raise money anymore.

What is he going to do? He is changing the election rules in Bill C-76 so that third party funding can flow before the election and help him, but he is limiting the ability of parties that have raised money, who have had people donate willingly to their party. Those parties, like the Conservatives, actually have had a lot of people, hundreds of thousands of people, support them through financial donations.

The Prime Minister says that he does not like that, because he cannot raise money, because he is doing such a terrible job and is such a failure that nobody wants to donate to his party. However, the Leader of the Opposition, our leader, is doing well and the Conservatives are doing well. We have good ideas, stable, strong ideas that are getting donations from supporters right across the country.

The Prime Minister says he is going to change the rules so that the party cannot spend it. The Prime Minister has not learned that he cannot get away with it. I know he does not respect Parliament, but we do respect Parliament. I believe that members of Parliament who have been duly elected, in the end, will also respect Parliament and will follow through and do the right thing.

I hope that the government accepts our amendment. All we are asking for is that on opposition, days we have the same ability to to bring our issues forward, even if it is uncomfortable for the government. It is called democracy. Even if the Prime Minister will not respect democracy, I sincerely ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to respect democracy, support our amendment, and then we can finish the work that we are doing here in the House of Commons.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North very often makes it difficult to dignify his comments with a response, but I am going to make an exception in this case and respond to what he said, because I just think it is factually way off base.

First of all, I do not think he even realized that I moved an amendment initially, but if he did and had he been listening to what I was saying, he would know that the amendment is actually trying to establish an offer to the government to make the amendment by the Conservatives more palatable to the government.

That is a negotiation. I am not saying that there are not good ideas coming from various places in this debate, but the idea of moving the amendment was to actually try to make an offer so that we could all come to an agreement on the later sittings.

The principle of that offer is simple. It is just to say the business that comes from the opposition should not be accorded any less importance or value than the business coming from the government. That is not unreasonable.

The member will recall that many times throughout this session the NDP has proposed unanimous consent motions to move bills through many stages at once in an effort to help expedite the passage of legislation by the government. If the member, who apparently spends a lot of time in the House but not necessarily paying attention, would go back and consult the Debates, he would see that the NDP has been making many attempts on various pieces of legislation to try to expedite the passage of the government's legislation. In fact, in some cases we are more responsible for the success of the government's legislation than the government itself.

I would repeat again in this House the fact that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made an offer to the Minister of Democratic Institutions on how to move forward with Bill C-76 in a fair and timely way and allow Canadians to contribute to that conversation, but the offer was not even dignified with a response from the minister.

The Liberals say they want to work with us, but when we write to them with a proposal on how to work together, they do not even get back to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in my New Democratic friends. I would have figured that they would see the benefits of having active debate in the legislature on important pieces of legislation. Rather, what I have witnessed, which I will have the opportunity to expand upon, is a variation of different games being played.

I have spent over 20 years in opposition and I am aware of many different types of games. Having said that, I would argue that the types of legislation we are talking about are in democracy's best interest. When we talk about Bill C-76 and when we talk about other pieces of legislation, we are talking about really good stuff for Canada's middle class in many different ways, yet time and time again New Democrats and Conservatives have one objective: to not let anything pass. They work together. It is that unholy alliance. Nothing is good; prevent everything from passing.

Does the member not realize that being a constructive opposition means that at times he might have to work a few extra hours? That is really what this motion is all about. All governments of all political stripes have moved this motion in the past. Why does the NDP not want to put in those extra hours in order to pass some good legislation that Canadians will benefit from?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to the motion before the House. Of course, the essence of this motion has to do with the government's treatment of its own business and its capacity to move legislation through the House of Commons. It has certainly been the case in the past that various governments have decided to extend sittings to try to accomplish some of the business they were not able to accomplish throughout the year.

However, I think that my hon. colleague who just spoke and moved an amendment raises an excellent and fair point. His amendment is a good one in addressing one of the issues of equity in the House. We know that it is the job of the Speaker and the House to balance the needs of the minority against the majority. The amendment recognizes the fact that some people in this place have more power by virtue of the number of MPs within the governing party, and that others do not. I think that point is very well taken in the Conservative amendment. It really is just about making sure that in the government's attempt to create more time to pass more bills in the lead-up to summer that the business and the issues that matter to the opposition are given their equal due.

Of course, some members of this House will know, and certainly you, Mr. Speaker, will know, that supply days originated for the airing of grievances before the crown, before Parliament approves funding. That is why they are kind of archaically called “supply days”. We most often refer to them as “opposition days”, but they are an acknowledgement of the importance of non-government members being able to bring forward important issues for consideration by the House as part of the process of the government's hearing those concerns before Parliament grants it the authority to spend money. Supply days are not just some sort of trivial part of the process. They are not just some sort of tangent. They are certainly not a favour that the government grants the opposition and they are not something the government gets to do what it wants with willy-nilly, as it were.

The proposed amendment simply tries to give that equal weight and value to the issues being brought forward by the opposition, as well as to the government. I think that is perfectly reasonable and it is something we will be supporting.

In the absence of having that fair treatment and the right balancing between the needs of the government and the legitimate needs and purposes of opposition members of the House, it does make it really hard to support the main motion, because in that case we would fail to find that right balance, as it would somehow be implied that simply by virtue of the fact that the government is bringing certain issues forward, those issues are more important and more deserving of time in the House when I think the Standing Orders are very clear that the opposition is entitled to a certain proportion of the time in the House to bring forward the issues that matter, not just to it as the opposition but also to many Canadians whose view the opposition brings to this House and who are not represented within the government.

It is a good amendment. It is one that we will support, and I think in the absence of that amendment's going through, it would be very hard to say this is a fair and balanced motion. It is therefore hard to support.

One of the reasons we are in this predicament, of course, is that there is a lot of government legislation that has yet to be passed. One only has to look at the Order Paper and the number of bills on it, with a little bit of an understanding of where some of those bills come from, to know that the government, remarkably, has not been very ambitious with its legislative agenda. There are bills like Bill C-76, for instance, that have just rolled in other bills. While one could point to the bill number and look at all the bills that have been before Parliament, the fact is that a number of them are simply routine appropriation bills having to do with the business of supply. There are also a number of bills on public service labour issues to repeal some of the nefarious legislation of the Harper government with respect to public servants that, for all the announcements and talk about those bills for years now, have not actually gone anywhere.

One bill gets presented, it gets talked about for awhile, and then a new bill gets that does something a little differently gets presented, and that one gets rolled under, and then there is some talk by government at various events about how there is a new bill before the House and so on. For a government that has not brought a considerable amount of legislation before the House, it is somewhat surprising that the Liberals are having to resort to extraordinary measures to try to get more legislation passed before summer.

It is particularly surprising, notwithstanding some of the comments by the government House leader during the closure debate, because the fact is that our party on an important bill with a deadline, Bill C-76, which makes a large number of modifications to the elections regime in Canada, did make a proposal to government via my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to move forward with that bill in an expeditious way. By that, I mean not just in a way that allows more members to speak to it, but one that would allow a whole bunch of Canadians in their home communities to speak to the bill and the changes it proposes.

My hon. colleague presented the Minister of Democratic Institutions with a proposal for how to go out across the country, and central to that proposal was ensuring that the bill gets passed by the end of the summer. For the government to say that it sure would be nice if the opposition worked with it, I note that we have been quite willing to work with the government to get legislation passed. When my hon. colleague sent that proposal to the minister, she did not even dignify it with a response. It is hard to hear from the government that it wants to work with opposition members when it does not even bother to respond to proposals by the opposition on how to work together to get a bill passed. It is a bill that has to be passed on a timeline because the government did not act and bring that legislation forward.

Apropos to my point about bills being rolled into each other, Bill C-33 was an act to make a bunch of substantive changes to the Elections Canada Act and other acts that go together in order to, according to the government, improve our elections process. That bill sat on the Order Paper for 18 months and went nowhere. Now we are being told there is a big rush and that we have to get this bill through.

The NDP would like to see that bill passed, but it is a little cheeky of the government to wait so long to bring a bill forward to make those important changes when it knew all along, as did everyone else, that Elections Canada had been very clear about when those changes needed to be introduced and passed by Parliament to be implemented in time for the next election. The Liberals did not meet that deadline and now they are crying foul, saying that opposition parties are being obstructionist despite the fact we sent them a proposal on how to do it more quickly. We wish to goodness that they had just bothered to move it forward 18 months ago when they had a bill on the Order Paper.

None of this is rocket science. There is no black magic here. There is no opposition making unreasonable demands. It is just an opposition disappointed that the Liberals had 18 months to move forward with changes to the elections act after they tabled their own proposals. We wish they had moved forward with them. However, we did not get that opportunity, as we do not say which bills get debated during government orders.

While that was going on and we were not debating Bill C-33, we were debating some bills like Bill C-24, which was a complete and utter waste of time. I will refer members to my comments on Bill C-24. All that bill did was affirm what the government was already doing and what was clearly within its legal mandate to do. If it were not, then the government should tell us, because then it would be an issue of its acting outside its legal mandate and illegally paying ministers of state more. However, it did not seem to be doing that, so presumably we did not need a change in the law.

All the while we debated that bill, the other bill, Bill C-33, was sitting on the table. It could have been taken up and we could have been working on that and meeting the Elections Canada deadline. The government did not need to be in a panic as it is now to get that legislation passed. We could have spent time scrutinizing that legislation and trying to make it better, not just here in Parliament but also by travelling across the country to make sure that Canadians had an opportunity to weigh in on it in their home communities.

However, that was an opportunity they squandered for reasons that remain unclear. I will say that part of it has to do generally with what has become a theme of the government in terms of a serious lack of respect for Parliament. I know the Liberals will say otherwise. We hear a lot about the great respect they have for the work that is done in committees, but let us consider the fact that many committee recommendations are never taken up. We have certainly had instances where committees have amended legislation, only to see the government come in with a heavy hand at report stage and wipe out the amendments that were passed by its own members at committee. That does not make one feel that the Liberals are talking in good faith when they talk about the so-called good work of committees.

Who could forget the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, where the government did not have a majority and a number of parties came together in order to propose a way forward for the government to meet its own election commitment? Who could forget how the Liberals took that work and threw it in the garbage? The day the report was tabled, I remember the minister, with great fanfare, disrespected the work of the committee, because apparently the government thought it would fail and it did not.

Earlier today, we heard the government's own House leader get up and insinuate that concurrence debates were just a waste of time and there was no way an opposition party could move concurrence in a committee report seriously because it actually cared about what the committee said and wanted the House to pronounce on the recommendations of the committee. Of course, that is the whole reason committees do reports and report them back to the House. The current government really does not understand Parliament's place in the system and does not have a lot of respect for it.

I will come back to this theme after private members' business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House, although it is on a sombre note today, given the motion that we are debating. With Motion No. 22 again we see the government trying to do everything it can to restructure the rules of the game to compensate for its own significant failures. The opposition is frustrated and Canadians are frustrated at the many abuses we see of the parliamentary process and in the dissonance between the commitments that were made around transparency and respect for this institution and the reality we see, which is a total and unprecedented lack of respect for this place, for this institution, and for democracy itself.

I just have a few notes about where we are on this particular motion, Motion No. 22, which proposes to dramatically extend the hours of debate every day. It is an attempt by the government to try to ram through more of its legislative agenda. The Liberals brought in closure on this motion before it had even been debated. There was no debate on this motion, and the government wanted to immediately propose to bring about an end to that debate. I am actually the first person speaking to the motion. The government put forward the motion, but the government House leader cannot even be bothered to defend the approach the Liberals are taking, so debate then falls to the opposition. This shows how much respect the government has for the important debate that happens in this sacred place, the people's House. Even in the process by which the Liberals bring forward this motion, we see a lack of respect for this institution and for democracy that underlines the opposition's frustration.

I want to highlight a number of the principal grievances we have with the way the government is operating in this respect. I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would give me a signal when I have one minute left, because at that time I will be moving an amendment as well.

We have this whole issue of the government shutting down debate before it has even begun. There are important issues to be debated with respect to the structure of the motion. We do not oppose in principle any extension of the hours, but we are going to be moving an amendment, adding the idea that if the government extends hours for government orders, then a fair corollary is that we have a similar extension of hours with respect to opposition motions. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

However, the government has put forward a motion that says opposition days will remain with the limited hours that they have, while government orders will have the extended period that has been proposed with the motion. We see again a pattern from the current government, which is always setting up the rules to its advantage. We saw this pattern with the Liberals' approach to electoral reform. They wanted to change the electoral system to their advantage, and when it became clear that it was not going to work, they said, “Let's scrap the whole exercise.”

We saw it with respect to changes they wanted to make to the Standing Orders. They wanted to change the Standing Orders to weaken the role of the opposition, to make time allocation automatic and take away various important powers that the opposition has. We resisted that. We engaged public concern on that and eventually forced the government to back down.

We see Bill C-76, government legislation that is trying to make changes to the rules governing elections to the Liberals' own advantage, and we see changes with respect to the way in which the extension of hours is happening. Again, the Liberal Party is trying to change the rules to its own political advantage. We have the government shutting down debate before it started.

In this session of Parliament as well, we have expected of the government some basic level of transparency. The Liberals promised in the last election that they would go above and beyond with respect to transparency and sharing vital information with Canadians, yet we see a complete lack of transparency from the government. The most egregious case of the lack of transparency we see from the current government certainly is the carbon tax cover-up.

As the opposition, we have asked the government to give basic information about the impact its policies will have on Canadians. Here is how it works. The government has said that it wants every Canadian to have to pay a carbon tax. Wherever someone lives, it thinks that person should have to pay higher taxes, and it will not let any provincial government get away with not charging those higher taxes.

The government has said that if a province does not set up its own carbon tax, the federal government will impose a carbon tax. It has defended that as consistent with the philosophy it has, which is the government taking more money. From its perspective, a bigger government is the solution to every problem. We have said that this is not the solution to the environmental challenges we face, that there are many different ways, such as the binding sector-by-sector regulatory approach and other kinds of incentives we can use and have used in the past, to bring about environmental improvement.

The government does not think that is the right way to go. Instead, it thinks that imposing higher taxes on Canadians is the way to go. We disagree with that and we have tried to have debate about it. We have challenged the government to defend its position. It has not really defended its position, except to suggest that perhaps its plan is the only possible plan, even though its carbon tax is not even connected with specific targets. It knows it should understand that the very nature of the carbon tax as an instrument is to impose a tax but is not to set a particular total cap on emissions.

We see this policy from the government and we disagree with it. We can can have some discussion about it, but at the end of the day the government will not even release the information that would allow Canadians to understand what the impact of that carbon tax will be. The information it has released about the impact the carbon tax would have on ordinary Canadians has all the critical information blacked out. This is an issue of the taxes Canadians pay and is an issue of the impact this policy would have on hard-working families in terms of the affordability of basic needs like home heating and transportation. Absolutely, on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and families in my riding and other parts of the country who are looking for real affordability, we raise these concerns about the affordability of the carbon tax.

However, this is also an issue of respect for this institution. We have a government that does not respect this institution and is covering up key information about how much the carbon tax would cost Canadians. We have repeatedly asked the government to show the numbers and defend its policy. If it thinks a carbon tax is the right way to go, then it should release the numbers, tell Canadians how much the carbon tax is going to cost them, and make the case to Canadians about whether they think that is a good idea. Then we can have that debate.

By the way, when these questions are asked, it is very interesting. The finance minister will talk about the specific structures in place in some provinces, but then when asked about the federal carbon tax that would be imposed in jurisdictions where a province is unwilling to give in to the bullying of the government, we are not told how much individual Canadians would pay.

By the way, we know how much it would cost the Canadian economy. It is a massive cost to the Canadian economy, but the government is covering up the information about how much it would cost individuals.

In shutting down debate before it has even begun, in trying to constantly change the rules to its advantage, and in covering up key information about the policy decisions it is making, the Liberal government displays the profound disrespect it has for our democracy and for our institutions in general.

Now, in the same vein, I would like to speak as well to what is happening right now with the government's attempt to ram forward the bill dealing with changes to the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-76. We are very concerned about how this legislation would not protect Canada from foreign interference in our elections and how this legislation would create certain advantages for the government over the opposition. We have repeatedly raised these concerns, but the government has shut down debate.

Not only that: we have a situation in which the Chief Electoral Officer, on the instruction of the government, is actually already in the process of creating the mechanisms for the operation of an election on the basis of legislation that has not even passed Parliament.

The Prime Minister tells us that the government is open to amendment, but how plausible is it that the government is really open to substantial amendments when it has already asked the Chief Electoral Officer to begin the process of preparing for the implementation of the original unamended bill?

We know that when the government proposed this legislation, we were getting close to the time of the next federal election, but rather than proposing legislation earlier so that there could have been opportunities for discussion and building consensus among parties, the Liberals waited until this later stage and then pushed the Chief Electoral Officer to begin the process of quasi-implementation before the proposed legislation has even passed, which makes it very clear that they are not serious when it comes to the issue of receiving feedback from experts and receiving amendments.

I sat in on the environment committee when over 100 amendments were proposed, many of them by government members. It clearly shows that the committee process can reveal problems, even from the viewpoint of government members with government legislation. However, what happened at the environment committee is again an interesting example in terms of the way the government operates when it comes to democracy. There was a motion in place that meant that there was absolutely no discussion on many of the amendments that came forward. There were many amendments from all corners of the House, and the movers of the amendments in each case did not even have an opportunity to make their case with respect to their amendment. It was simply a matter of “Here is the amendment and here is the vote.”

This is how the government wants to operate. It wants to ram through legislation. Already we see with these electoral changes the government forcing the process of implementation through before the legislation has passed the House.

What is so concerning about Bill C-76? Well, Canadians I have talked to are very concerned about the possibility of foreign interference in our elections. Yes, the way the legislation is structured would prevent foreign entities from directly and explicitly campaigning under their own name during a Canadian election; however, there are absolutely no rules to prevent the transfer of funds from a foreign entity to a Canadian entity prior to that election period, and that money could then be used during the election for the advantage of that group and no doubt for the advantage of the foreign entity.

Let us take a purely hypothetical example. Let us suppose there was an organization called Vladimir Putin Incorporated and that it was interested in influencing the Canadian election. It transferred $5 million to a Canadian organization called Canadians Against NATO Membership, and that was mingled with $50 million raised locally. The $5 million and the $50 million were mingled, so it was totally indistinguishable as to which money came externally and which was raised by Canadian donors. That money could then be used in a Canadian election. There would be caps on the advertising that this third party could do, but it could still be doing a significant amount of activism and mobilization work under the radar.

Canadians should be very concerned about that. This is an example that could happen, and it could in fact fully conform with the law as it is written.

We think, as Conservatives, that strong measures are needed to prevent foreign interference in Canadian elections, but for whatever reason, the Liberals, although they spend some time talking about this situation in certain cases, have not brought forward legislation that would actually address it. However, again, they have now asked the Chief Electoral Officer to begin implementing proposed legislation that has not even passed the House.

There are many other issues in Bill C-76 that we could talk about in terms of ID requirements and so forth, and there is an important discussion to be had there. However, I will specifically address the artificial advantage created by the government.

The government has done this. Right now we have a writ period. It has said that it does not want the writ period to be too long. On the other hand, it has created this formalized pre-writ period, which some might argue effectively increases the writ period. We have the pre-writ period and the defined writ period, which together we might see as really forming something like what the writ period used to be.

In any event, that pre-writ period has restrictions on political party advertising, which will hit opposition parties very hard. They do not have the same resources the government has when it chooses to engage in advertising itself. The government has all the resources of being in office, of continuing to be in office, and it can continue to proceed with government advertising, as it would be able to outside of a writ period.

Therefore, we have this problem where the pre-writ period is kind of a quasi half writ period and half not. It is like the writ period insofar as there are restrictions on political parties. In particular, the impact is hardest on what opposition parties can do, but we do not have the same restrictions that would normally exist during the actual writ period with respect to the activities of government.

Therefore, we have the tilting of the scales through this bill in a way that works to the advantage of the government and foreign entities that would want to potentially influence Canadian elections and, at the same time, works to the disadvantage of the opposition. This is the consistent pattern we see from the government with respect to this issue. It is a consistent disrespect for Parliament and democracy, a consistent effort to tip the scales in the government's favour.

At the same time, I am conscious that, as we resist these efforts in Parliament, in committees, and elsewhere, Canadians will also see the importance of what we are doing and will not succumb to these attempts by the Liberals to tip the scales. They will observe the way in which the actions in Parliament do not match the high-minded rhetoric of the last election.

I think Canadians believe, when they see the way the current government acts, that “better is possible”, to coin a phrase. Better is always possible, and it is particularly possible now, when we have measures like Motion No. 22, which is again shutting down debate before it has even started.

I was going to make some comments on the pipeline issue, but I am running relatively short on time. However, briefly, it is a source of great frustration to me and my constituents that we had a government before that did not actually build four pipelines but created the conditions for the private sector to build four pipelines, which is an important difference. Now we have a government that on the one hand has created conditions that make it very difficult for private sector investors to want to proceed with pipelines. On the other hand, it has said that it will pour a whole bunch of public money into buying an existing pipeline and hopes to build onto that pipeline, undertaking the expansion.

It is perverse that before the government took office we had the private sector eager to build a pipeline. The approval of the northern gateway pipeline, energy east, and the Trans Mountain pipeline were there in process. The Conservatives approved every pipeline that was proposed, which included the construction of four pipelines. We now have a government that has made it so difficult for the private sector to build pipelines that it requires this massive multi-billion dollar bailout. Again, I think Canadians will see through the government. Something that could have been done by the private sector is being done by the public sector.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) adding to paragraph (b) the following: “and if a recorded division is demanded in respect of a motion moved pursuant to Standing Orders 78 or 57 in relation to any bill dealing with the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act, it shall stand deferred to December 5, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions; and

(b) deleting all the words in paragraph (j).

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do not talk about committee business in this place. However, now that the member opposite has welcomed the opportunity, I do so as well.

I believe that my colleagues on this side, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, has more than welcomed opportunities. However, rather than debate the important legislation that would allow more Canadians to vote in the next election, what are the opposition members doing? They are currently in committee right now filibustering rather than getting to important government legislation. That legislation is Bill C-76, which brings forward 85% of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is the right thing to do for Canadians after what the previous government did to vandalize the opportunities for Canadians to vote. We are changing that so that many Canadians can vote. The NDP, rather than stand for Canadians, is today standing with the Conservatives to take away the right of Canadians to vote. That is disappointing—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a brief remark. I have to say that I do take exception to the implication by the government House leader that there is something wrong with the House's debating and voting concurrence on committee reports. That is in fact why committees report back to the House, so that those reports can be considered. If the House decides it wants to concur in a report by a committee, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Therefore, for her to somehow suggest that there is something untoward going on, that there is something wrong in principle, or that it is a bad thing for members to be concerned about the good work they do in committee that has come before the House to be discussed at large and then voted on by the House is just ridiculous. It would be nice to have a government House leader who actually understood this place well enough to know that there is nothing wrong with moving concurrence in a committee report.

I will digress from that point and move to my main point. The government moved time allocation on Bill C-76. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed to the minister a way forward that would include the right amount of debate and consultation with Canadians. The minister said no and moved time allocation. Therefore, the demand for extra sitting time is odd coming from a government that is refusing to respond to proposals by the opposition on how to effectively study bills.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the Prime Minister has tasked me and our government to ensure that we defend Canada's next federal election against cyber-threats. It is also important that we ensure we look for new ways to deal with data and digital breaches. That is why in Bill C-76 we have a provision against the malicious use of computers.

I look forward to working with colleagues in the House to do what is necessary, as these new technologies evolve, to ensure the integrity of our elections.

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

Mr. Speaker, a while ago I received a petition about unilateral changes to our electoral system, which should not seem immediately apropos after the government backed off its initial plan to make unilateral changes to our electoral system, but in light of Bill C-76, it seems apropos again. I am pleased to table today a petition from people who are concerned about the Liberal Party trying to unilaterally change aspects of our elections to its own advantage. In particular, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass a motion affirming the need for a national referendum on any proposal to change Canada's current method of electing members of Parliament before the proposal is implemented into law.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in the House many times, the Prime Minister did not tell Elections Canada to put this bill forward. What happened is that this government, like every other previous government except the former Conservative government, consulted Elections Canada when drafting Bill C-76. Do members know why? It is because we, on this side of the House, are not afraid of Elections Canada.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 does a lot to ensure that we have integrity in our elections. In fact, it returns the commissioner of Elections Canada to Elections Canada, something the previous government took away. It also enables the commissioner of Elections Canada to lay charges, something the previous government took away. In addition, it also gives the commissioner of Elections Canada the power to compel, something that might have aided his investigations of previous scandals.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the parliamentary process is still structured so that a piece of legislation must pass the House of Commons and then the Senate and then receive royal assent before it is implemented. If that is the case, will the Prime Minister instruct Elections Canada to halt the implementation of Bill C-76 until it actually passes Parliament with amendments, instead of trying to rig the system in his favour?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite seems to have amnesia about Bill C-23. The Conservatives forget that they were the ones for whom The Globe and Mail ran a five-part series demanding that they not go forward with their elections legislation. Bill C-76 is undoing the damage that they did to our democracy.

In fact, they even went so far as to not consult Elections Canada on elections legislation. That is what we did in drafting this legislation. It was not instructing them, as the Conservatives are so falsely accusing.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will to continue. Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, would strengthen—

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague opposite remembers the previous government's Bill C-23. With Bill C-76, we are making it easier for Canadians to vote, and we are cracking down on offenders who maliciously interfere with our electoral process. Compare that to the Conservatives, who, when they were in government, made it harder for Canadians to vote and who took part in malicious schemes, like the one involving Dean Del Mastro and his robocalls, to undermine the electoral process. We do not need any lectures on democracy from the Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives wanted to protect the integrity of our electoral system, they allowed for 84 hours of debate. I repeat, 84 hours of debate. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-76 to rig the election in their favour, they invoked closure to put the bill to vote yesterday, after just two hours of debate.

What are the Liberals afraid of? Are they afraid of losing the next election?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about things broken, let us talk about broken rules. With Bill C-76, our government makes it easier for Canadians to vote and toughens the sanctions for those who break the rules. The defeated Harper Conservatives, on the other hand, made it tougher for Canadians to vote and broke the rules.

We will not be taking lessons from the Harper Conservatives, who paid a $250,000 fine for breaking the rules and used robocalls to send people to the wrong polls. The parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister went to jail.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud of Bill C-76, and I am delighted that it is going to the procedure and House affairs committee so it can get the study and the interrogation it deserves.

I am looking forward to members opposite asking questions of witnesses to ensure that we encourage Canadians to participate in our democracy, to encourage young Canadians to be registered for elections, to ensure that Canadians without identification can have vouching and can use their voter identification card, and to ensure that Canadians living abroad and every single Canadian have the right to vote.

Second reading

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem that the government has in making the case for limiting debate via time allocation now is the massive amount of time that went by when Bill C-33 did not come to second reading. There was lots of time to get Bill C-33 through, no matter how many speakers one party or another were to put up.

Bill C-76, bringing in Bill C-33 and additional measures, requires more study.

I completely agree and am not going to take a single point away from the fact that most of what is in this legislation was already recommended by Elections Canada. I have not doubt that most of what is in it will improve the health of our democracy. However, it is fundamental legislation. It takes a while to get back to the Elections Act. We should have full time to debate it at second reading.

I will admit in a non-partisan way that the use of time allocation in the 41st Parliament was much more egregious, because the legislation it applied to made it harder for people to vote. However, for the Liberals to try to reverse that legislation with time allocation because they say they are not as bad as the other guys because their legislation is better does not do away with the fundamental issue of respect for Parliament, respect for this place, and allowing Parliament to have full debate at second reading, full discussion in committees, and adequate time to go through debate at clause by clause, and adequate time at report stage and third reading.

The delay on the government side in bringing the legislation forward does not make a good excuse.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-76.

I am pleased to rise in debate today, but I regret that it is in the context of time allocation already being applied to the bill. I appreciate that the Liberal side of the House has provided time for my colleague, the hon. member for Montcalm, and for me to speak to the bill, but I regret deeply the use of time allocation. Because I was not able to get in on the debate on time allocation that occurred before the vote, let me suggest some ideas to the hon. minister, the government House leader, and others as to how we might avoid so many time allocations.

It is my belief that the ability, in votes, of all three of the larger parties, particularly the official opposition and the governing party, to put forward as many speakers as possible on any bill is a black box for our House leaders. Getting agreement is something I will leave to them. I can only assume that when we have a lot of time allocations, the coordination is not going well. I do not blame any one party more than the others. I will just say that it is not a good thing for this place when we have time allocation, particularly on a bill that is important.

I would like to suggest that the Speaker has the power, and could be encouraged by those within this place who want the place to work better, to insist on a rule that has fallen into disuse. That rule is that members cannot read speeches. If no one could read a speech, people in the back rooms could not hand a speech to someone and say, “Go give this speech. You are up next.”

They would have to call enough people forward who had read the bill and understood the bill and were prepared to debate it without notes. I am not saying that there are not many of us who are prepared to do that, but the ability of a House leader, on any side, to decide to play games with this place would be significantly minimized if we went back to that rule, which already exists.

I would urge those who think it is a good idea to perhaps speak to their own House leaders. In that case, I would just have a conversation with myself, but the rest of those assembled here should talk to their whips, talk to the House leaders, and talk to the Speaker if they think it would be a good idea to say that we do not want all the members to just read. I am not saying that members do not get up and read speeches they have written themselves. I know that happens, but a lot of times, people read something they have never seen before in their lives. We can tell by the rapt attention with which they deliver something they do not actually know much about or believe in.

Here ends the rant on how to get this place to work better. If people could only get up and speak based on what they know about a bill, we would get more interesting debates and more civilized debates, and we might have an easier time getting agreement on how many speakers there would be on legislation.

It is really tragic that we are seeing time allocation as often as we are seeing it. I do not think it is healthy for democracy, and I know it is going to be an election issue, with everyone saying, “They did it more. They did it too. They are hypocrites.” We should not live in glass houses if we are going to collect stones.

This bill is good legislation. It is very good legislation. It undoes a lot of what happened in the unfair elections act before the last election, but that does not mean that it is perfect legislation, which is why we should not be hearing from the minister that it has already been discussed at PROC. It should be discussed in this place at second reading, where all members who are engaged in the issue and know about it can participate, because not everyone is on PROC. It is a committee.

We know that Bill C-33, which was excellent legislation, languished for a year and a half. It was tabled when I was still serving on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, which was one of the more tragic experiences of my life. We were still sitting around the table putting forward good ideas, but then saying, “Oh, the minister has new legislation that just came out that has some of our ideas in it.” That was Bill C-33. It came out in December of 2016, and everything from Bill C-33 is now rolled into Bill C-76.

For those who are not familiar with the bill, perhaps who are watching from home, let me say that Bill C-33 did a lot of very good things. I know that the Conservatives will disagree. They like Bill C-23, which they called the Fair Elections Act. What it did was make it harder for Canadians to vote. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I had people come to me who were not allowed to vote.

Bill C-23 was focused on the false notion that Canada suffered from voter fraud. However, it is very clear, on the evidence, that the problem in Canada is not people who try to vote more than once; it is people who vote less than once. We do not have any voter fraud that the elections commissioner has ever really been able to find is a problem. Our problem is low voter turnout.

The Conservatives were quite self-congratulatory when we went from an average national voter turnout of 60% in 2011 to a voter turnout of 68% in 2015. They said that proved that the unfair elections act did not decrease voter turnout. In fact, I think it masked what would have been a much bigger voter turnout. Young people mobilized in 2015. There were a lot of efforts to educate people about vote mobs, advanced poll voting, and getting people who did not usually vote out to vote.

I am enormously proud to represent Saanich—Gulf Islands. In 2011, when the voter turnout nationally was 60%, voter turnout in Saanich—Gulf Islands was just a titch below 75%. In 2015, when I was re-elected, voter turnout was just a bit below 80%. Now, that is nothing compared to my friend who is leader of the Green Party in Prince Edward Island, Peter Bevan-Baker. When he was elected, voter turnout in his riding was 93%.

Let us not be satisfied with 68%. We need to see 90% or 95% of Canadians voting and feeling good about the democratic experience. I think getting back the voter registration card is important. Bringing back vouching is important, and so is bringing back the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to inform people and educate people. Warn people when voter fraud is happening.

Everything in Bill C-33 that would undo Bill C-23 is to the good and should be passed quickly. As well, I really like the idea that the Elections Canada folks would go into schools and register people who are 16 to 18 years old so that when they get the right to vote, they know what they are doing. They know where to go. They have already registered to vote. That is all in what was former Bill C-33. It is all good stuff. I wish we had already passed it.

Now we are looking at new and additional changes. I wish we had seen more. Clearly, if we are going to protect the privacy of Canadians, it is long past time that political parties were exempted from the Privacy Act. I have never heard a single good reason why we are in a special category, political parties, and Canadians' data is safe with us. Clearly, it is not safe with us. We get hacked. We hire companies and do not have any idea that they will be doing stuff like Cambridge Analytica or some of the ones that mine data and use it for other things. We are not in a position to say that it is good enough to have a voluntary code of privacy practice for every political party that we are required by law to show Elections Canada and have posted publicly.

By the way, I do not think “trust us” works terribly well for political parties. One of the best pieces of legislation from the 41st Parliament, the Reform Act, to bring about reform in this place and reduce the power of political party leaders over their MPs, which came out under the name of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, required a change in the Parliament of Canada Act. It was executed. Section 49 is new and requires parties, immediately after the election, to have a discussion in caucus and a vote to decide what the powers of the leader will be. For instance, will the power of the leader include throwing someone out of caucus?

I am reliably informed that even though that is the law of the day, two out of three recognized parties in this place skipped that step and did not think it was important to follow the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49. I am deeply dismayed that this took place. All MPs in this place should ask their party leadership if they did that. Did they file the letter with the Speaker? They should ask to see the letter filed with the Speaker to comply with section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

On to the other things in Bill C-76. I hope the government will be open to amendments. As I said, this is good legislation. It does take on things like pre-writ spending. However, why are we allowing any pre-writ spending on televised election ads that bombard Canadians with negative messages and attack ads. It is good to regulate spending before an election. Let us just say that between election day and the next time a writ drops, no one is allowed to spend any money on political ads. There is not an election going on, so no spending. I will be bringing forward things like that as amendments.

Why are we increasing the spending ability of third parties? I would love to see us go in the direction of many countries around the world, including the U.K., which prohibit spending for electronic political ads of any kind at any time. It is very useful legislation.

There are many things I would like to suggest need more work in this legislation. Getting it to committee is important, but not so important that we should have time allocation in this place.

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the heckling when “partisan games” was mentioned. It is quite telling.

The unfair elections act was enacted by the Harper Conservatives back in 2014, and it was called the low point of the legislative agenda in that year. It was said to be a partisan attack on Canada's elections rules. It ignored fact and mocked expertise.

I think it is time to get Bill C-76 out of this place—as it is a highly partisan issue, as we heard from the heckling—and get it to committee. The heckling goes on, so we need to get the bill to the experts and hear from the Chief Electoral Officer about what should happen with the rule changes that we need so that we can ensure that the electoral rules actually reflect Canadian values. I think that is what is most important to ensure that we get more people out to vote and enable young people, indigenous people, and people who have disabilities to go out and exercise their democratic right in their democracy, which is here in our country of Canada.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Net Neutrality

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Guelph in support of Motion No. 168, proposed by the hon. member for Oakville. I would like to thank him for bringing the important subject of net neutrality forward to the House floor for debate today. It is good to see that we have general support around the House. As chair of the innovation and technology caucus, I know that this issue affects not only our public discourse in many ways but also the seen and unseen things that the Internet provides to all Canadians. We must recognize the importance this policy will have on ourselves and on future generations of Canadians.

Net neutrality has been called the critical issue of our times, much like the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression that came before it. Net neutrality ensures that Internet service providers enable access to all content and all applications regardless of their source, without favouring or blocking particular products or websites. This simple and seemingly uncontroversial statement is at the centre of modern public discourse and the digital economy.

Net neutrality is a key driver of the Internet, currently the largest information-sharing system in human history. The power of this platform to shape economies and public discourse cannot be ignored. Without this standard for open and neutral Internet, we commit a double offence, first at the expense of entrepreneurs, and second at the expense of Canadian citizens. Entrepreneurs are constantly on the lookout to try to spread the word about their business. If access to the Internet is limited or controlled, small business owners who want to use the Internet to grow their business will lose one of their greatest tools for doing so. Canadians who want access to the services provided by our entrepreneurs or information provided by our colleges and universities will be denied that chance if larger firms outbid small businesses for marketing opportunities.

Net neutrality, in many ways, represents the best of capitalism and the best of our economy. Freedom of the individual, open access to markets, healthy competition, and diversity of goods and services are all values upheld by net neutrality. Protecting emerging markets for e-commerce is one crucial reason to support net neutrality. The second is preserving our democracy and the integrity of our public discourse, which depends on accurate information being available to everyone.

Information is the currency of democracy. We live in an age when new platforms for exchanging information are being developed. These new platforms can have a tremendous sway over our political system. Maintaining free and open communications is critical as we explore new ways to provide open government. Therefore, as legislators and representatives of Canadians, it is incumbent upon us to protect the avenues through which information flows. Net neutrality is a necessary tool to prevent any form of private enterprise from exerting undue control over the free flow of information. It also safeguards against attempts to bias the information available, as selected by private interests. Net neutrality provides access to public and private broadcasters alike and does not favour one political or business bias over another.

We have seen the harm done by concerted and sophisticated efforts to spread misinformation. While our government moves to make government more open and improve the democratic process through Bill C-76, we cannot simultaneously work against our own interests by limiting the flow of information on the Internet. In just over 20 years, the Internet has become the new forum for discussion on any subject. It needs to remain an open platform for public discourse, subject to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and anti-hate legislation.

It is curious that we find ourselves here defending what should be an uncontroversial idea. However, recent efforts around the world to question and erode net neutrality are cause for great concern, particularly as discourse becomes polarized. Therefore, it is good that we have the opportunity to discuss this on behalf of Canadians.

Thankfully, in Canada we have a strong network of regulations and legislation to protect net neutrality. These come in the form of the Telecommunications Act and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.

Section 27 of the Telecommunications Act prevents Internet service providers from providing undue benefit or discrimination for their services. As well, section 36 prevents Internet service providers from controlling or influencing the meaning of communications carried by them for the public. These sections need to be maintained to prevent throttling websites or blocking or in other ways controlling Internet traffic.

This legislation is backed up with a recent decision reached just last year by the CRTC, which outlined several guides and requirements. It found that charging different prices for different types of content, such as music, news, videos, or other types of content is prohibited. Consumer protection was also strengthened by mandating full disclosure of Internet traffic management practices. This ruling strengthens Canada's commitment to net neutrality by declaring that Internet service providers should treat data traffic equally. It reaffirms Canada's commitment to economic growth and entrepreneurship, and promotes the freedom of speech and diversity of views that Canadians cherish.

The Internet, as it exists now, is a shadow of its future self. It has already come to be an invaluable tool for growing commerce and spreading knowledge and culture. By its nature, the Internet is democratic. With it, musicians can gain renown and fame. Entrepreneurs can offer their goods and services at home and abroad, and Canadian culture and tourism benefit as the eyes of the world can see what Canadians have to offer.

Should Canada and other nations change their stance and participate in the emerging trend to privatize access to the Internet, we will all lose. Record labels could use their buying power to ensure that select artists are the ones available to consumers. Entrepreneurs could have difficulty competing with large firms that can afford to market themselves. Costs to promote Canadian culture outside Canada, and perhaps even within Canada, could greatly increase.

In a modern digital age, the free exchange of ideas and the free access to markets are what is at stake. Canada must take the initiative and show leadership on the international stage. Free and open access to the Internet is the cornerstone upon which democracy and the future digital economy will be relying.

Once again, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Oakville for the great work on bringing this motion forward and for having us discuss it tonight in the House. I encourage all members of the House to support this important motion.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague on this bill. I am glad he brought up the unfair elections act, because Bill C-76 does so much to reverse the changes that were put in place that limited democracy and limited people's rights to vote, and we are looking forward to working with our colleagues in the NDP to make sure that we can encourage more people to vote in Canada, get young people voting, encourage women to run for politics, and ensure that we are protecting the integrity of our electoral system.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following: “That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, in keeping with wide support for the notion that debate ought not to be curtailed for bills aimed at amending the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, a proposal brought forward by the Liberal Party on April 10, 2014, and supported by the current Prime Minister, and more recently presented to this House by the NDP House leader on May 4, 2018, no motion pursuant to Standing Orders 78 or 57 may be used to allocate a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments”.

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-377, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle. I have a lot of respect for the member for the riding. We served together for a period of time on the operations and estimates committee. While we did not always see eye to eye, I believe we did a lot of great work on that committee, whether it was Canada Post or other acts, so I do appreciate her work.

That being said, this bill is not something I can support. Those watching at home on CPAC are probably asking themselves what this bill is about, and why Parliament is debating this instead of important issues of the day, such as the question we discussed earlier in question period of why there is a known ISIS fighter walking free on the streets of Toronto after happily broadcasting how he murdered innocents abroad while fighting for ISIS in Syria. Why is he busy doing press conferences in Toronto instead of being in jail?

What about the constitutional crisis created by the Liberals in their poor handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline issue? Why are we not discussing that? Why are we not debating the issue of the border crisis in the member's own riding, where we have a flood of illegal immigrants coming in from the United States? I notice that over 20% of her riding is made up of seniors. Why are we not debating palliative care or seniors issues instead of this? None of that is going to be debated. The bill is solely about changing the name of the riding. Seriously, it is just a name change.

If people are at home watching CPAC right now, they are probably a bit more engaged than regular Canadians and would know that last week we passed changes to the names of other members' ridings. The Chief Government Whip had a bill passed, which has already gone through the House and is with the Senate, so that MPs can change the names of their ridings at will. They would not need a special private member's bill; they can just change the name.

My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill wants to change the name of his riding to Calgary West. He can go ahead and do it. I have joked in the past about changing the name of my riding from Edmonton West to Edmonton West Edmonton Mall, to honour West Edmonton Mall, the world's largest mall, which is in my riding. I mention that because, again, just last week we were able to change the names of over a dozen ridings, and it took the House just 60 seconds to do so. My point is that we do not need a private member's bill to change the name.

When MPs first get elected, at the beginning of the legislative period, they draw numbers for the order of introducing private members' bills. Those with low numbers get a chance to get their private members' bills heard and debated in the House. I drew a relatively low number and introduced Bill C-301, a bill that would reduce taxes for all seniors across the country. Unfortunately, the bill was shot down by the Liberals.

Because of time constraints, only about half of the members of Parliament will get their private members' bills introduced, debated, and heard in the House. Only about half of us get a bill through. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle was lucky enough to have that, but, instead of introducing a bill that would actually help Canada and her constituents, she wastes valuable legislative time to debate a bill to change the name of her riding, which is not even needed, because we have procedural rules to change it.

I see that today the Liberals brought closure on a bill once again, this time to limit debate on Bill C-76, where we are debating the ways we are going to conduct our elections. The Liberal bill would allow foreign funds from Tides U.S.A. to flood into Canada to alter our electoral outcomes and attack our democratic process. The bill would allow people who have not set foot in Canada for over two or three decades to still be able to vote and help decide our electoral outcomes.

We have only one hour of debate on the serious issues that affect our democracy, and yet we have just spent four hours to discuss a name change that could have been done simply with an email to the government whip. Again, I have great respect for this member, but I believe it is a great waste of Parliament's time, and it just shows once again the mixed-up priorities of the Liberal government.

Bill C-76—Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, again, I really hoped that I would not have to utilize this, but an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that information.

I would like to begin by saying that I am not a big fan of the Winnipeg Jets, unlike my colleague who spoke before me. I must admit, however, that after their win last night, knowing they are the only Canadian team still left in the running for the Stanley Cup, I was actually happy for them. It would be great to bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada, hockey being our national sport and all. That is the end of my comments on hockey. Let us get back to Bill C-49.

Mr. Speaker, you said I will not have my entire speaking time before question period. I want you to know right away that I have deliberately chosen not to use all of my time, if only for the sake of consistency when we are talking about the urgent need for action, while the Liberals insist on just talking.

This is about consistency, and I hope there is also some symbolic value here, since one cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth at the same time. One cannot suggest, as I did with my motion here this morning, to return Bill C-49 for royal assent as soon as possible by accepting the two minor amendments that remained out of the ones proposed by the Senate and, at the same time, launch into these endless, long-winded speeches on a bill that will have a real impact on the ground for those who are waiting for this to be resolved, one way or another.

I would like the Hansard to reflect the reasons why senators are insisting on these two amendments to which the Liberal government has unfortunately closed the door.

The message is that the House respectfully refuses the amendments, but I fail to see any respect in all this, except perhaps for the wording of the message. What did the senators send us as justification for insisting on these two small amendments?

I will read their reasoning, not only because I agree with it, but also because I believe that it is important to put it on the record. Why was the Senate so emphatic about its amendment? Let me quote the Senate:

That the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendment 7(c) be:

“because all regions of Canada should be treated equally, with fairness and respect. ...because shippers in the Maritimes will continue to have access to other shipper remedies in the Act. As the proposer of the Senate amendment pointed out in committee, this is unfair for the maritime region, since there are roads and therefore other modes of transportation in areas like Prince Rupert and northern Quebec where an exemption is provided.”

The House no doubt knows that NDP members are not huge fans of the Senate, and especially an unelected Senate, but since this is the way things are for now, I must recognize a job well done.

It is not true that the only job of an opposition party or member is to oppose everything, all the time. I remind members that an opposition member's job is not to oppose everything, but to point out things that could be improved in a bill, to make it as close to perfect as possible. Every bill can be improved upon, and the government that sets the legislative agenda should be open to amendments that make sense. These amendments did not pop up out of nowhere. They are the result of discussions with experts in House committees and parliamentary committees.

I want to talk about another reason why the Senate asked and insisted that its amendment no. 8 be recognized, and I say “asked” because we now know that this request has been denied. I want to share the following quote from the Senate:

That the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendment 8 be:

“because this amendment entitles a shipper to obtain a determination of the railway’s cost of transporting its goods to assist an arbitrator in final offer arbitration to determine whether to select the offer of the carrier or the shipper. By declaring that final offer arbitration is a commercially based process and not cost-based, the House of Commons has removed that entitlement from the shipper;”.

That explanation is as clear as can be, and it is indisputable. Anyone who has negotiated a contract or a collective agreement under arbitration knows that the parties are more likely to reach a fair agreement when there is a balance of power. If Bill C-49 makes that impossible, it is obvious which party stands to benefit the most. The purpose of the amendment was to restore a level playing field and ensure that the arbitrator making the final decision will have the tools to make an informed decision in the event that the process does come to fruition. Even that idea was rejected by the Liberal government.

In light of this morning's decision to reject the amendments, it is once again very clear that the Liberal government is always trying to cozy up to big business, which I imagine can be very generous when it is time to fill the campaign coffers. I suppose I could be wrong, but I will leave it up to everyone to observe the political game-playing. Later today, we will be debating Bill C-76, which is about new election rules. There again we will see how the Liberals want voters to make decisions based on money instead of the various parties' development philosophies. I will have more to say about Bill C-76 later. I will leave it at that for now.

I quoted the Senate's explanations so that they appear in the Hansard, but since I have a few minutes left, I would like to point out everything that this bill does not do. The matter of contracts is urgent, but so is the development of a passengers' bill of rights, which air travellers have been waiting for for years. In the previous Parliament, the NDP tabled a document—it was not even a bill—that sought to examine the possibility of putting regulations in place before the next election as the minister saw fit, but I would be willing to bet that the Liberals will wait until just a few months before the 2019 election is called to introduce the passengers' bill of rights.

It is clear that this government is not here to serve its constituents but to further its election strategy. Meanwhile, all this time, Canadians have been waiting for a real passengers' bill of rights that would ensure that they are compensated in situations like the one we saw here in Ottawa with Air Transat only a year ago. The passengers' bill of rights is also long overdue. When Bill C-49 finally receives royal assent, we will still not have a passengers' bill of rights. All we will have is the first step in a process to develop a bill of rights in the future.

Bill C-49 is absolutely unbelievable. If the Liberals wanted to take quick action on grain transportation, they could have done so. Let us remember that, at the beginning of the process, we proposed dividing Bill C-49 to quickly examine the aspects that addressed grain transportation, but this government refused to do that. We also proposed to extend the measures taken by the previous Conservative government so that farmers would not be left in limbo when the temporary measures ended and before Bill C-49 came into effect.

There are many causes for concern with this bill, and we cannot understand why the Liberal government is not more open to the amendments that are being proposed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will begin debate on Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. This debate will continue tomorrow, and the following week will be a constituency week.

However, if we receive a message from the Senate this afternoon about Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, this bill will get priority.

Upon our return following the constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-76 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, we will start debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

On Thursday, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, May 22, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Finance, and Thursday, May 24, for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Opposition Motion—Production of Documents on Carbon Pricing

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a charter statement on Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, it is voter turnout. Bill C-76 will bring back voter ID cards and vouching, and we are also giving Elections Canada the mandate to promote turnout.

In the last Parliament, it was a Conservative MP who had to rise to apologize for falsifying stories about electoral fraud. I would urge the Conservatives to move on and recognize that what we should be doing is encouraging people—

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

Mr. Speaker, the integrity of our elections is something most Canadians take for granted, but as Wendell Phillips said in 1852, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vigilance and a commitment to the integrity of our elections requires us to confront the Liberals' disastrous proposals in Bill C-76, proposals that will bring the integrity of our electoral process into question and weaken our democracy.

To have confidence in the results of an election, Canadians expect three simple things: that voters prove who they are; that voters prove where they live; and that our elections are free of foreign interference. Bill C-76 would weaken all three of these. It would eliminate ID requirements, ID requirements that are already among the most generous in the world. It would allow Canadians living abroad to choose which riding to vote in, whether or not they demonstrate any plausible connection to that riding. It would introduce no meaningful safeguards on foreign interference at a time when more and more foreign actors want to manipulate our politics.

The bill is a clear and present threat to the integrity of Canadian elections. We will fight it every step of the way.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister have zero credibility when it comes to talking about electoral reform, since they broke a key election promise on electoral reform. Nevertheless, Bill C-76 contains some pretty bad ideas, such as doing away with photo identification in favour of just a voter card. During the last election, one million voter cards contained errors.

Why are they playing games with democracy?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 would actually protect the integrity of our electoral system. It would also help protect the personal and private information of Canadians, and it would encourage and help more Canadians to participate in the electoral system and to vote in elections. Beyond that, there are actually measures in Bill C-76 that would ensure that foreign money is not spent in Canadians' electoral system.

We would urge the Conservatives to support Bill C-76 and to help move forward with an even stronger electoral system for Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the Liberal government's record on electoral reform, and it is not pretty. The Liberals have continuously tried to use every trick in the book to quash opposition debate and to tip the electoral scales in their favour. They tried to quell debate by introducing a motion that would allow unprecedented and undemocratic Liberal control over the ins and outs of parliamentary business. They broke their promise to Canadians on electoral reform when they could not push through an electoral system that experts said would have only benefited the Liberal Party. They have tried to force through changes in committee that would have had the Liberals skip work on Fridays and the Prime Minister show up to work only one day a week. They have used the ministers' offices and Prime Minister's Office for partisan cash for access fundraisers. Now, they are trying to force through changes in Bill C-76 that would make up to one million votes susceptible to fraud in the election. Do the Liberals not know that Canadians can see through their tricks, and simply do not trust them to make electoral changes that are in the benefit of Canadian democracy and not just of the Liberal Party?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud but voter participation. Eliminating the voter ID card does not improve the integrity of the system. It only takes away the ability of many qualified voters to vote.

In Bill C-76, we are not only restoring the use of voter identification cards and vouching, but we are also giving back the mandate for Elections Canada to promote participation. The Conservative Party's so-called Fair Elections Act was simply cover for a government determined to wring political gain from every measure.

We will take no lessons from the party opposite. We believe Canadians have a right to vote and we will continue to fight for that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions and increasing Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes.

Bill C-76 is a great example of that. The bill would increase the transparency of our electoral process. It would make elections more accessible to all Canadians. It would make the electoral process more secure and ensure political parties protected Canadians' privacy.

We believe that a whole-of-government approach is required to protect Canada's democratic institutions. We look forward to working with all members in the House to build a more open and transparent system for Canada.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-48 on the oil tanker moratorium. The debate shall continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-65 on harassment. Tuesday will be an allotted day.

Next Wednesday, in accordance with the order adopted on April 26, the House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole following question period to welcome the athletes of the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympic and Paralympic Games. Afterward, the House will proceed with debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Next Thursday, we will only begin the debate of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. As members have heard in this House numerous times, we are committed to seeing more people participate in democracy. I have always committed to ensuring that there is a reasonable amount of time to debate and also to ensure that the committee can do its work. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from all parties how much time is needed so that we can continue to ensure that legislation is advanced in a timely fashion.

Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, I want the opposition House leader and all colleagues to know that this is our parliamentary family, and we are always going to be here to work together. We know that in the days and weeks and years to come, there might be times that we need to lean on each other, and we will always be here to do that, and I know the opposition does the same. We sincerely appreciate those kind words today. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the Thursday question, I do want to just express my gratitude to the government House leader and to all our Liberal and our other colleagues for the way they responded yesterday after the sudden passing of our colleague, Gord Brown. I thank them for their response.

In regard to the business coming up, I want to specifically ask, if I could, about Bill C-76. There are some rumours that the government may be deciding to try to fast-track the bill in some way or another, so I hope that the government House leader can please clarify that the government will indeed not do that. Given the potential impact of Bill C-76 on our democracy, it is very important that sufficient time be allotted. In fact, the House would welcome a commitment from the government that respects the intent of a Liberal motion introduced and previously proposed by the House leader's colleague, the Liberal member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. This Liberal motion, proposed on April 10, 2014, sought to limit the government's ability to shut down debate on a bill regarding elections and our democracy.

That was a Liberal motion. I would ask if the government House leader could give us the update on what the business of the week will be, keeping that in mind and respecting the need we all have to debate important bills around democracy with sufficient time.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we are strengthening Canada's democratic institutions with Bill C-76, and we are increasing Canadians' trust and participation in our electoral process. We are increasing the transparency of the electoral process. We are making elections more accessible to Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities. We are making the electoral process more secure and ensuring that political parties protect the privacy of Canadian citizens. Our government is strengthening the democratic institutions that the Conservatives actually attacked throughout their time in government.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad the hon. member had a supplementary question, because there are so many things the Conservatives did to attack our electoral system that I needed more time. In fact, the parliamentary secretary to their prime minister went to jail for breaking election rules. The Conservatives attacked our democratic system; the Liberals are strengthening it. That is what Bill C-76 would do, making it easier for Canadians to vote, while strengthening our democratic system. More people voting is good for our democratic system.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-76, our government is making it easier for Canadians to vote, and tougher to break the rules. The defeated Harper Conservatives, on the other hand, made it tougher for Canadians to vote, and they broke the rules. We will not take lessons from the defeated Harper Conservatives—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the New Democrats for what they said yesterday, that they actually agree with some of the provisions in Bill C-76. In fact, they agreed broadly with the principle that Bill C-76 could actually strengthen our democratic process.

Eighty-five per cent of the recommendations of Elections Canada are in fact proposals in Bill C-76,, so we have every confidence that Elections Canada can make this work before the next election.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 would strengthen Canada's electoral system and increase the participation of Canadians in our electoral process. Yesterday, I spoke to the acting Chief Electoral Officer about the legislation. The potential to increase the transparency of our electoral process, and to make elections more accessible and the electoral process more secure, is important. That is why it is important that we pass the bill through Parliament and the Senate, and make sure it is in place for the next election. I have every confidence that it will be.

Elections Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-401, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting age).

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to introduce a new bill today. Bill C-401 will lower the voting age in Canada and create a system in which young people can vote once they turn 16.

The objective of this legislation is to increase voter turnout among young people in Canada. Across a number of western democracies, voter turnout is the weakest in the demographic where voting matters the most, the people on whose lives the decisions will have the most impact. Young people in Canada, ages 18 to 24, vote the least. Research has shown that if they start voting at a younger age they will continue voting longer. If someone has not started voting before the age of 25, that individual will not start voting at 30. The evidence is clear.

The goal of this amendment to the Canada Elections Act is to give young people the right to vote at the age of 16, knowing that in the context of still being in high school, still being at home, and being in their own community, they are more likely to vote.

I hope the House will look on this bill favourably. Some small adjustments will need to be made based on Bill C-76, which was tabled in the House yesterday.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)