Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see the government propose such an undemocratic measure on a bill that deals with democracy. What a joke.
We have a time allocation motion and an undemocratic action on a bill regarding democracy. This is just absolutely silly. I can certainly understand why the Liberals do not want to allow us the opportunity to talk more about this bill, and that is because it is so incredibly flawed and does a lot to prohibit democracy within our lovely nation.
Sadly, I see it more as a public relations exercise by the government than as an attempt to impede fraudulent action, foreign interference and foreign influence. It is certainly understandable that the Liberals would not want to continue discussion on a democracy bill that is, in fact, not democratic.
They are trying to appear to be saying that actions that impede democracy are bad, but sadly, the bill does not have the mechanisms to prevent fraud and interference. It does not go far enough, I am very sorry to say.
We put forward many amendments, on this side of the House, in an attempt to make the bill more watertight and to provide better electoral processes for Canadians, such as third parties having segregated bank accounts, as was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. However, this was another suggestion that was passed over by the government, unfortunately. In addition, there was third-party reporting between elections. These are the types of safeguards we, as the official opposition, tried to provide the Canadian public in an attempt to safeguard our democratic processes.
As for foreign influence, this bill would do essentially nothing to avoid the possibility of foreign influence. We have seen dire and negative consequences in other jurisdictions, such as the United States and in the Brexit outcome. Our very own Prime Minister said that he thought there was not much foreign influence or interference during the last federal election. How could we hope for much better, when the starting point of the Prime Minister's thinking is that there was not much, when in fact, not much was too much?
In addition, Conservatives had concerns with regard to non-residency voting requirements. We pleaded for the five-year requirement, the oath to return to Canada, and the place of residency, in addition to mentioning—