Mr. Speaker, in an interview last week, the Prime Minister was asked a question that I think is very clear and straightforward. How can it be called democracy when a minority government effectively becomes a majority government through backroom deals? That is a good question. The journalist asked him if that is truly what a democracy is. I will give the Prime Minister's response. He said that it is indeed a democracy, that members find working with the government appealing and that it was their choice. He said that the Liberal Party is the party that defends the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In my view, that is exactly where the problem begins. Apparently, it all comes down to people's understanding and perspective, because democracy is not simply a matter of procedure. Respecting Canadians means more than just making nice announcements and keeping Canadians happy. It means more than doing what is allowed. It is extremely important to keep ethics in the picture.
It is a matter of respect, actually: respect for each Canadian's vote, respect for the member's role and respect for the balance between powers and freedoms. Members will soon see where I am going with all this. When Canadians vote, they put their trust in a party and its values. They elect members who will serve the community and the common good. Members are not there for themselves. They are there for their constituents. That is our democracy. The government does not have all the power. That is only natural, as the government must not have all the power. It is important to have a counterbalance, an opposition. This is precisely what the opposition is for. It is not there simply to oppose and block everything.
The opposition exists to improve and test proposals, and to ensure that opinions contrary to the opinions of decision-makers are generally represented, and that proposals can be improved, always keeping in mind that they are there for their constituents. Decision-makers work for them. Whether in everyday life or here, in Parliament, we improve when people challenge our ideas. It forces us to become better and in the end, that is better for everyone.
When the Liberals say that the Conservatives vote against everything and that they are not happy, what they are actually saying is that they want us to let them do whatever they want. They want us to let them implement their ideas however they see fit. They say that their vision and their plan are what matter. I think that is a serious problem. That is not what democracy is about.
The reason I am talking about all this today is that we are debating the balance of powers, the limits of those powers and public trust. That is exactly what lies at the heart of Bill C-22. The bill directly addresses something profoundly fundamental: the relationship between security and freedom.
Obviously, as we know, times are changing, technology is evolving and criminals are taking advantage of that technology. They use the Internet, they hide behind fake accounts and they exploit technology. Yes, our police officers definitely need access to more modern tools. However, the real question is this: How far can the government go without infringing on citizens' rights? Citizens' rights are something the Liberals seem to have taken rather lightly over the past 11 years. This is where it is important to learn from the past. In life, it is important to learn and adjust course in order to improve.
Not so long ago, the government introduced Bill C-2. According to the same Liberal government, everything had been carefully thought out, it was a good solution, and every angle and every aspect had been thoroughly analyzed. The government told us to trust them and said that this new bill was truly in the best interests of the public. They told the Conservatives to stop opposing it. In reality, we realized that the bill went too far. It granted powers that were far too broad and vague.
I will give a few examples. Both the police and Canada Post could open letters without a warrant. Cash payments over $10,000 could be banned without taking into account the fact that, in some communities, cash is still used on a daily basis. Access to information was too broad, and there were no clear limits. A wide range of personal information could be accessed. There were therefore insufficient safeguards in place. This created an imbalance and posed a potential threat to individual rights and freedoms.
This caused concern among Canadians. The Conservatives did their job then, just as we are doing today. We asked questions and pushed back on things that we did not think were in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers. When things went too far, we spoke up and said that they had to change. We spoke out against excesses, and guess what happened? The government was forced to back down and introduce a new bill, which is now Bill C-22.
Accepting that bill without question would have been a serious mistake. Today, we are seeing the result of what I was talking about. We are improving things precisely because we are able to challenge the status quo, explore other perspectives and approaches, and ultimately ensure that citizens have access to laws that meet their expectations. Today, the government is taking a new approach through Bill C-22, and let me be honest: Certain elements are actually better.
I will give some examples, because I am not just here to say that everything the Liberals do is wrong. When they do something right, we should support them. The bill is much more targeted and precise. It primarily targets telecommunications and Internet service providers, not all services. It introduces a form of oversight for ministerial orders. What a minister is or is not allowed to do is therefore clearer. Most importantly, people's browser history, social media activity and personal communications are off-limits. This was extremely important to taxpayers, who reached out to us to say how concerned they were about the former Bill C-2.
Improvements deserve to be acknowledged. However, that does not mean that everything is settled and done. Central to this bill is one extremely important question that keeps cropping up: Can we trust the government to use these powers responsibly? I think this is a perfectly valid question.
The bill makes it possible to obtain information without a warrant in some cases. Well, that raises a question. The bill makes it possible to obtain personal information in some cases. That raises another question. Even so-called “basic” information can reveal a lot about someone. Once these powers in place, the government will say they are there for the right reasons and that they are intended to keep Canadians and Quebeckers safe. However, once they are in place, to what extent will they be used even after the public no longer supports them?
There is another issue that I consider extremely important as an entrepreneur: the impact on businesses. The bill will require providers to put systems in place to store and transmit certain data. For large corporations, which could have big firms and many consultants—much like the Liberals, who use them regularly—things may be fine because they have the money to do so. However, this could place significant financial strain on SMEs, which account for 99% of the businesses in Montmorency—Charlevoix and across Quebec. It could be a major burden.
The fact is, every new regulation has an impact on businesses. It is easy to write things into laws and come up with brilliant ideas, but it is important to stay in touch with the real world and the impact these changes will have on people's lives. That should always be at the root of why we make laws. The goal must always be to serve the public. There is also a key issue concerning Quebec, and I think it is important for us to bring it up: respect for provincial jurisdiction. Issues related to privacy and digital technology fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. For Conservatives, it is very important that Ottawa not interfere in these areas, and that it manage its own affairs. Ottawa should focus on managing only a few key areas and leave the rest to the provinces, because they are the ones who truly understand their day-to-day realities.
In closing, I want to come back to something extremely important: trust in our institutions, trust in democracy and trust in rights and freedoms. A law like this one only works if citizens believe in it and if citizens agree with the decisions made by elected officials. If citizens believe that their rights and freedoms are respected, they will comply. If citizens believe that abuse will be punished, they will support what is happening here. After almost 11 years of Liberal governance, years of poorly balanced bills and decisions made without consensus, it is normal for Canadians to wonder whether things will be different this time.
We, the Conservatives, will continue to work in the interest of Canadians. We are going to study this bill seriously. We are going to propose improvements because our role is not to filibuster. Our role is to ensure that laws are better for everyone.
