Debates of May 22nd, 2018

Elections Modernization Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, think about this. In 2011, we actually had the voter ID card. It was working quite well. Elections Canada did not have a problem with it. Stephen Harper came by and did have a problem with it. He took it away. In the last election, over 150,000 Canadians did not—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, it is right. Check with the procedure and House affairs committee. Mr. Speaker, they do not even know the facts and they are voting against it.

The point is that 150,000 Canadians did not have the type of ID that was necessary. This is something that ensure that more people participate in democracy. Why does the Conservative Party not stay in touch with what Canadians want? This legislation would strengthen Canada's democracy. It is legislation they should be voting for. Could the member clearly indicate why, specifically, they are voting against this legislation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am sure, has an answer, and I would like to hear it. I really had to struggle to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I do not expect that anyone will run interference.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, in 45 seconds or less, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way is clearly full of shiftiness in terms of the question he is posing. I spoke specifically about the issue of identification and the long list of forms of ID available, things like a letter from a soup kitchen or a student ID card. The member should not be giving Canadians misinformation about the present realities of the law. All Canadians either have the ID they need or can get it very easily.

The voter information card is an information card. We know that we have significant evidence of these being sent out in error, being sent to people who are not citizens, and being sent after there is a change of address. We know that there are problems with the voter information cards, so we set up a system in which anyone can prove his or her identity, but people have to prove their identity. They have to actually get that letter, bring that prescription bottle, or bring that Métis card or citizenship card, whatever it is. There are many different ways people can prove their identity, but they should have to prove who they are in order to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-76, a bill that would, among other things, make changes to the way political parties, election candidates, and third parties could spend money both before and during elections.

Spending limits on candidates and parties for elections is not new. These have been around for decades. Contribution limits are a little more recent. Many Canadians remember the days when political fundraising was wide open. There was a time when political parties could hold a dinner in Toronto and banks, law firms, and lobbyists could buy tables at $10,000 a pop, paying for them with company money, and perhaps even deducting the cost as a business expense, which it was, rather than as a political contribution.

Eventually, successive governments changed the rules to diffuse political financial support away from Bay Street and toward individual Canadians, more typically motivated by personal conviction, as it should be, rather than by self-interest.

It was the Chrétien government that brought in the first contribution limits. With the Federal Accountability Act of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reduced the limit to $1,500 per person and banned contributions from corporations, unions, and charities. Later, he also got rid of the per-vote subsidy, recognizing that paying political parties for each vote rigs the system in favour of perpetuating the winner.

Another thing Prime Minister Harper did was tell his cabinet that he would not tolerate fundraising by his ministers from stakeholder groups that had dealings with their own departments. In other words, he would not tolerate cash for access fundraising.

The reason I bring up this brief history of political party fundraising is that the most important aspect of Bill C-76 is the way it would deal with election and pre-election spending.

The environment this bill is tabled in cannot be separated from the spending and fundraising environment the present governing party finds itself in. Make no mistake, the Liberals have struggled to raise money in the post-corporate-donation and post-per-vote-subsidy era, while at the same time, they have greatly benefited from spending by third parties. Some third parties are virtually Liberal proxies, and others are foreign entities with an agenda hostile to Canada's best interests.

When elected, the first thing these Liberals did was start holding these secret cash for access fundraisers, and we are not talking about a one-off. We are talking about a fundraising system wherein a significant part of Liberal fundraising relied on these kinds of events.

When the media and opposition parties criticized this practice over a period of months, the government House leader said, at least some 200 times in this House, that Canada's fundraising laws are among the strictest anywhere in the world. I agree with her. We have already mentioned this. I agree with her that the fundraising rules are strict. The problem is that the Liberals have tried to get around the rules, to get around the spirit, and in some cases the actual letter, of the existing elections law and fundraising practices.

Here are today debating Bill C-76, knowing that Canada, as she has said, already has very strict fundraising rules that make it very difficult to raise money any way other than through small donations from individual Canadians motivated by support for a party's ideas or its candidates.

What can a party in government do when it cannot raise enough money on the strength of its ideas and when it is carrying around the weight of its own dubious track record? When it is struggling to raise money, it can do two things: limit expenditures by political parties; or make it easier for third-party proxies, who are not subject to the same rules as a political party, and have these third parties do its job for it.

This bill would enable both of these things to happen. On the expenditures side, this bill would create a pre-writ expense restriction, which would help the Liberals, who are struggling to raise money. At the same time, this bill would allow registered third parties a similar cap during the pre-writ period, but then it would nearly double the amount these third parties could spend during the writ period itself, while doing nothing, absolutely zero, to address the broader issue of how foreign funding of registered third parties distorts our democracy.

This is the most important part of the bill. At an absolute minimum, the changes to the spending rules contained in Bill C-76 are a cynical attempt to compensate for the Liberals' inability to raise money on their own. At worst, this bill represents a wilful refusal to deal with attempts by foreigners to influence Canadian elections. The bill contains token lip service to the problem by creating a pre-writ election period in the summer before a scheduled fall election and by banning foreign contributions by third parties during that time. This bill would create an expense limit during that time, which, by the way, for third parties, would be nearly the same limit a political party would have. The government will, no doubt, claim that it has now addressed the problem by doing so, but nothing could be further from the truth. This bill would nearly double the amount third parties could spend during the writ itself, and again, would do absolutely nothing to address the much more serious problem of the way foreign organizations are undermining Canadian democracy.

How serious is the issue of foreign-funded third parties in our elections? How do we know that foreign interests are exerting influence in Canada's elections? The answer is simple. We know this because registered third parties that receive millions of dollars in foreign money openly bragged about their success in influencing the outcome of the last election. In the case of the Tides Foundation, which is the foreign paymaster of at least eight domestic third parties that campaigned in the last election, it openly states that its agenda is to shut down Canada's resource industry. Likewise, it claims credit for the substantial success that anti-energy agenda is currently enjoying under the current government.

Take the example of Leadnow. That is an organization funded by the anti-Canadian Tides Foundation. It boasts about the role it played in defeating the previous government. Its own published report following the 2015 election claimed, “We selected target ridings with field teams run by paid Leadnow organizers”. This post-election “Defeating Harper” report went on to detail how it systematically targeted ridings based on detailed, extensive, and expensive professional polling research and focused its attention on those critical ridings. It further took credit for the defeat of Conservative candidates in 26 out of 29 targeted seats and for having a 96% success rate for its endorsed candidates.

There is no mystery. It received foreign money and is bragging about how effective it was in using it to pay organizers to help defeat the previous government. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not speculation. Foreign-funded third parties are out there bragging about how effective they are at influencing election outcomes.

If the Liberal government agrees that such interference is a problem, or if it is in any way uncomfortable with the prospect of foreign money compromising the integrity of Canadian elections, it should have used the opportunity before it to actually engage in meaningful reform of how third parties engage with the public during and between elections. The government could have, for example, made registered third parties subject to audit between elections. It could have banned foreign contributions altogether by making it an offence for a third party that participates in an election campaign to receive money between elections instead of simply during the summer pre-writ period.

The government could prevent third parties from colluding to defeat the intent of the law. It could reduce, instead of increase, the limit on third parties during the writ period.

However, the Liberals have chosen not to do any of these things, because these Liberals have proven over and over again how much they prefer a rigged game when it comes to elections. They are the same Liberals who wasted enormous energy on their absurd electoral reform program, which they actually used to suck in various activist groups like Leadnow, Fair Vote Canada, some union groups, and The Council of Canadians. They used that issue to gain support from these third parties and then did absolutely nothing to follow through on their promise. These are the same Liberals who relied on secret cash for access fundraising until they were caught, the same Liberals who tried to eliminate opposition tools through standing order changes, and the same Liberals who tried to give themselves a $7-billion slush fund through their so-called estimates reform. They are the same Liberals who are now trying to compensate for their failure to raise money through this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the debate we just heard really underscores why this legislation is so important. This discussion has turned into “My wallet is bigger than your wallet, so if you want something I'm going to fight against you to get that”, when really that is what we should be fighting against: getting the money out of politics.

To that end, I personally, speaking as an individual, tend to agree with some of what I have heard from the NDP today about the per-vote subsidy and taking money out of politics, because as long as we keep the money in politics like this we are going to continue to hear this rhetoric about “My wallet is so much bigger than your wallet, and therefore I'm going to be able to do this to you during the election.” It does not serve Canadians to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, the per-vote subsidy is a way to prop up a party in power. The more votes it gets, the more money it has, and so the more it is able to defeat the opposition. I reject the whole philosophy of the per-vote subsidy for that reason, and that in part is why the previous government got rid of it.

As for money in politics, there is a difference with small amounts. We know the fundraising rules are strict. We know that the spending limits are relatively low. These are tools through which money is taken, relatively speaking, out of politics. This bill makes the money in politics problem worse by allowing third parties, compensating for the fact that regular people motivated by ideas in Canada are not giving to this party.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech on the Liberals' bill to rig the Canada Elections Act and I heard him talk about how foreign entities or foreign companies or governments try to influence our elections by sending money to a particular party or in favour of a particular party. I would like to know how foreign companies or countries stand to benefit from donating money to a particular party through these circuitous means, and also how this could affect the everyday average Canadian worker.

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

Madam Speaker, in my riding I have seen first-hand the effects of the damage that has happened to our resource sector through the unemployed energy workers, and we have to look at this. We have groups like the Tides Foundation that want to keep energy resources in the ground, an environmental movement that has an interest in shutting down our industries and seeing our workers thrown out of work. Foreign energy companies also benefit from our oil not getting to market and staying in the ground. It is potentially like an unholy alliance of environmentalists and industry that both want to shut down the Canadian oil industry, and by funding foreign third parties to help elect a government like this one, they got exactly what they had hoped for.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague how he could possibly defend the so-called Fair Elections Act, which did its best to disenfranchise disabled people, young people, and Canadians living abroad, and ask him about the strong and swift reaction we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope the member listened to my speech and found that I really feel very strongly about the financial aspects of this bill, but I also have to reject the premise of her question that the bill from the previous government did any of the things she has described.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:46 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of Motion No. 168 on net neutrality.

Net Neutrality

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has seven minutes, since he already started his speech.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pick up where I left off on the important issue of net neutrality.

We have all experienced the message of “This content is not available in your country” when content distributors or creators have used various technologies to figure out where a user is and limit a user's access in order to drive a user to a different provider or place for that particular content, or to block a user from it altogether. Indeed, a lot of Canadian-produced content is virtually impossible to access in Canada while being available in much of the rest of the world. Try watching Canada's Mayday, for example, without a Bell account. It cannot legally be done. It makes me wonder on what grounds vertical integration of the media market is legal. The neutrality of the net is under threat from all sides already, and it will take a concerted effort to protect it.

Removing net neutrality gives companies that control over people's Internet access and control over their Internet content. Once they do that, companies can start shaping a consumer's opinion, tune marketing, and sell access to the consumer for a much reduced cost.

With the current Cambridge Analytica controversy surrounding Facebook, themselves the king of those who control what consumers do, see, think, and feel on the Internet, we can see that this is not just some kind of vague theory. It is important to remember that if one is not paying for a product, then one is the product. This data gathering and control is not conducted just for the fun of it. People's data is not being stored in a cloud. There is no cloud, just other people's computers, and they want your data for a reason.

Without mandated net neutrality, there is nothing to stop a company from paying someone's ISP to increase access to their own services or decrease access to their competitor's services. To my point the last time I spoke on this about overselling Internet connections, I do not have much sympathy for ISPs in that situation, and so the argument that net neutrality has to go because of capacity issues is spurious. In my view, ISPs should be required to market minimum, not maximum, sustained-speed capability to their first peer outside of their network at typical peak usage times.

Xplornet, for example, markets 25-megabit satellite service, but will not tell us that for most customers, this speed only applies at 3 a.m. on a clear night with no northern lights, and even then only during the full moon. I may be exaggerating, but only a bit. It is not that the satellites and ground stations cannot handle an individual connection at that speed most of the time, but that the connections are oversold, resulting in constant, bitter complaining in my riding from rural Internet users who are stuck between the Xplornet rock and the dial-up hard place.

It is not the service that bothers me, since it is essential to have companies like Xplornet provide service to remote regions that have no other options, and we need it. Rather, it is the honesty about what the customer is getting for their money, what is advertised to them versus what they actually get, that needs to be rectified. The company justifies all this very carefully, and in my years in politics as a staffer and in this role, it is the only company I have ever encountered that only lobbies with senior counsel present. I think that speaks for itself.

The highly profitable telecommunications giant Bell, which broke $3 billion in profit in 2016 and built most of its infrastructure on public money in the first place, and Rogers, which made $1.8 billion in net profit last year, are upping their Internet connection prices by as much as $8.00 per month per customer, but are not investing significantly in deep rural Canada unless they get gifts from various levels of government to do so. These companies and the other large Internet providers will not even look at investing in a project unless they can get a return on investment in less than three years. I know of no other legal business that operates on quite such an efficient return on investment.

This brings us to another important net neutrality issue that was recently brought to my attention by a professional digital rights advocate.

Net neutrality can, and perhaps should, be expanded further to encompass investment neutrality. It is not just access to Internet service that is important. Equal, or at least equivalent, access for Internet users is also vital.

Choosing to invest in a gigabit-speed network in a city and fobbing off the regions with five megabits is not neutral. Specific users are being limited instead of specific services, but the outcome is the same.

If we tell residents in the regions that we cannot give them access, it is not Netflix that is being limited, it is the entire Internet. It is their access to services. It is their access to the economy. It is their ability to participate in modern society. That is why we cannot say that we really have net neutrality until we also have neutrality in terms of Internet access, which will surely take billions more in investment from all levels of the private sector.

Let us imagine for a moment what would happen if access to electricity were viewed in the same way as Internet access is today. The regions would not always have full power, and remote communities would have no power whatsoever unless they had access to a river they could build a dam on.

As a society and as a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure neutral access, to invest in a neutral way, and to give every Canadian a chance to get connected. We will need the participation of government organizations to achieve that equality, as we did in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle with the Antoine-Labelle telecommunications co-operative.

If members would like to know what losing net neutrality looks like, try using an iPhone or an iPad, assuming that Apple has not slowed it down yet to coax people to buy a new one. If members have ever plugged an iPhone into a non-Apple laptop or wanted to copy pictures to a USB stick or watch something paid for through iTunes on an Android, Windows, or other non-Apple device, it is very difficult to do.

If one wants to use an application not approved by Apple, forget it. It is, by its very definition and design, not neutral. By giving itself the power to censor, Apple has found itself with the obligation to censor. In the words of Richard Stallman, the father of the free software movement, either the user controls the program or the program controls the user.

Apple, like many American corporations, strives not only to sell a product but to control what is done with it after purchase, just like region-encoded DVDs and players, which in my view should not even be legal. In essence, nothing that a person buys actually becomes theirs; rather, the person is paying for the dubious privilege of becoming a part of Apple's network.

John Deere, the tractor and farm equipment maker, is jumping on this bandwagon too, claiming that it is against copyright for farmers to fix their own equipment. The copyright issue and the DMCA and our equivalent Canadian Copyright Modernization Act's effects relating to technological protection measures, are a deeply worrying symptom of a wide-ranging offensive by corporate America against individual rights for people to use what they have bought and paid for.

If members think that has nothing to do with net neutrality, they would be mistaken. It is part of the same basic principle. If I buy a tractor, an iPhone, or an Internet connection, I expect to be able to use it where, when, and how I see fit, even if it was not part of the original design of the product.

Reverse engineering something one has bought and running a gopher server off their home Internet connection, if one feels like being that retro, are, at their core, the same right. Port or service blocking by ISPs is to me a violation of net neutrality, as is refusing to sell someone a static IP address or letting someone otherwise do what they want with the connection.

Ending rather than entrenching net neutrality would end the Internet as we know it, and we need to make a strong statement supporting the principle of net neutrality by supporting this motion.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to talk to Motion No. 168. I would like to thank the member for Oakville for bringing the motion forward. I would also like to thank the member for Beauce, who is our critic for innovation, science, and economic development, for supporting it.

Motion No. 168 is about net neutrality. It is about equal opportunity and equal access to information and the Internet.

Net neutrality is the notion that Internet service providers should treat all content that runs on their networks equally. That includes whatever the source or application is, in any direction the content is headed.

All content on the Internet should be available to consumers and it needs to be available at an equal cost and speed. These consumers include youth and people with disabilities. That is why equal access to information is so important.

I look to my own riding and to southwestern Ontario where we have seen an investment by the federal and provincial governments as well as the different wards throughout the region in the neighbourhood of $200 million to $300 million to ensure that high speed Internet access is provided. This investment mirrors what happens in many urban centres where we see infrastructure on smaller levels present for pre-WIFI and other opportunities to have free access or equal access to the Internet.

The reality is that much of the infrastructure that is brought forward and installed or implemented throughout Canada has some sort of source of government dollars. For this reason, the citizens of Canada are the ones who are actually investing in this infrastructure to begin with. We are the ones who are making it so that the Internet can be seen by so many across the country.

As the critic for youth sport and disability, I understand the positive impacts that net neutral brings for young Canadians and Canadians living with disabilities. The motion would help both groups overcome barriers they often had to deal with by allowing greater access and more equal access.

The motion calls on the House of Commons to recognize the importance of net neutrality as a main reason for the ongoing success of the Internet. Net Neutrality has the potential to significantly continue to benefit Canadians. It allows Canadians to access their content of choice without having unnecessary restrictions put in place by Internet service providers.

I will get into some specifics of the motion.

It is important for the House to recognize that the Internet has continued to thrive due to the principles put in place by net neutrality. These principles are transparency, freedom, and innovation. The motion is set to recognize Canada's strong net neutrality rules already in place. The rules are grounded in the Telecommunication Act and are enforced by the CRTC.

With an open Internet, there is a free flow of information for Canadians. The free flow of information is key for many aspects of a Canadian's life, and those are only becoming greater and greater year after year. They include freedom of expression, diversity, education, entrepreneurship, innovation, and democracy. These are the skills that youth can carry forward into their personal development, their business development, and their educational development. Access to more education online is vital to the development of our young people and vital to our ability to compete around the world. This is beneficial for the future economic and social prosperity of all Canadians.

We have no reason to limit the freedom of Canadians when it comes to access to the Internet. It would not make sense. The House must express its firm support for net neutrality and the continued preservation of open access to the Internet, of equal access to the Internet.

The House must continue to support the Internet free from unjust discrimination and interference so people can access the content of their choice at the rate they choose.

There is not just bipartisan but multi-partisan support for the motion. Un a sense, we have an obligation to see this motion pass. Members among all parties have supported and continue to support net neutrality. A Liberal member has written and moved this motion. Members from the NDP support Motion No. 168. Members from the Conservative Party support the motion. Net neutrality is one of the reasons for the continued success of the Internet, and it is getting support from all parties. It is up to us to ensure the next generation of Canadians has equal access to the information and opportunities that are found online.

We all have the opportunity to make a positive change in the lives of Canadians, especially youth and people living with disabilities, ensuring they have an equal opportunity to access all the information needed for the different matters they go through in their lives, and we have to do this collectively.

In order for this to happen, it is essential that we continue to support Motion No. 168 today and, quite frankly, in the future, at every opportunity reinforcing our support. All Canadians should have access to the content of their choice in accordance with the law. I feel this is something on which everyone in the House of Commons can probably agree.

Through our collective support, it also gives us an opportunity for net neutrality to expand in the future. It is important for net neutrality to be a guiding principle in both the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act. It should explore opportunities to further enshrine legislation and protect the equal opportunities that Canadians have. If this is to happen, the principles behind net neutrality must be included in new legislation. Principles of freedom must be enshrined.

We do not want to waste this opportunity. Our collective support would be for nothing and future generations, quite frankly, would be at risk. This is something simple that we can use to help our youth and certainly those living with disabilities.

Just a few weeks ago, we debated a motion regarding access to services for persons living with disabilities and having a single website. The motion was moved by the New Democratic Party to allow people at home to access a single website to find out what services would be available to them. This further falls in line with what we see with respect to net neutrality, ensuring that when they access that space, they are not overcharged because it is not perhaps something that falls in line with what the Internet service provider would want to put at a high speed or a low rate.

There is no reason for us to limit the freedom of Canadians to access information. As young people go through the education system, they need to be able to access information around the world to ensure they are competitive in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It is becoming more and more critical that this net neutrality be maintained. That is why we are calling on the government to continue working on this important issue. I, along with many others, will keep a close eye on the government's next steps.

I would like to thank all members of the House for listening to my speech. It is an important topic that will influence the lives of many Canadians. Youth will have more access to education. People with disabilities will have a greater quality of life and easier access to government programs. We can make a positive change for people in our constituencies and around the country. Net neutrality is a way to give Canadians more freedom and more information to make better decisions.

With better access to the Internet, Canadians are able to educate themselves more, innovate more, and freely express themselves in the means they choose. I thank everyone for listening to the importance of net neutrality today. I look forward to working with members to better the lives of Canadian citizens and maintaining equality in access to information.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 168 on net neutrality and to support its sponsor, the hon. member for Oakville.

What is this motion about? It refers to the net neutrality that applies in Canada. Actually, we have a long history of supporting net neutrality. In fact, the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay introduced a first bill in Parliament in May 2008, Bill C-552. In May 2009, there was Bill C-398, the purpose of which was to protect Canadians by demanding net neutrality. This, therefore, is not new. We have been talking about this for a long time.

The hon. member for Windsor West has done an excellent job on the net neutrality file. He took part in developing the regulations related to the Telecommunications Act that has been protecting Canadians since 2009.

On November 22, 2017, this MP said the following about net neutrality:

The NDP reaffirms our support for net neutrality for the economic and social benefits for the entire online community. We call on the Government of Canada to advance this policy domestically and begin the discussion on how to protect Canadians against repercussions from global decisions that erode this right.

What is he referring to? To what has happened in the United States. As we know, Donald Trump has unfortunately threatened net neutrality. There is concern that this first breach could spread to other countries and that Canada could be contaminated by this problem.

What does the NDP want? We want the government to reaffirm its commitment to Canadian consumers through rigorous regulations that protect our right to net neutrality.

As mentioned, all we have right now is a hodgepodge of rules in the Telecommunications Act. There is nothing that is very clear, very specific, very robust, outside of the CRTC decisions. it is time to amend the act as promised in budget 2017, and to add a section on net neutrality. We would like these amendments to give the CRTC more teeth. Instead of waiting for consumers to complain and before launching an inquiry, we would like it to immediately apply the regulations to ensure that net neutrality is respected.

What is net neutrality? It is what we call the open Internet, which means that its content, no matter the form or source, is treated equally by the service provider. It is extremely important because the goal of net neutrality is to guarantee freedom of expression, stimulate innovation, and promote competition.

Imagine if there were websites that people had to pay a separate fee to access, sites that were not automatically available through our Internet service providers. That would have major implications for free and open access to information. This is an extremely important issue.

There are rules that prevent discrimination and content blocking, but, as I said, the CRTC does not enforce those rules unless a consumer, a citizen, complains. That is what we find so unfortunate and problematic.

We also need to consider Internet access in rural areas. I represent the riding of Drummond, where people in some areas still do not have high-speed Internet or have a hard time getting Internet at all.

There are some major plans in the works to expand Internet access. The Drummond regional government has a plan to bring Internet access to the whole RCM, and I hope the federal government will get on board. Let us remember that Internet access should not be restricted to the wealthy. It should be available to everyone because it has become so important to people and is practically an essential service. People need this service, and they need affordable access to reliable broadband service, to high-speed Internet. There are 18 mainly rural municipalities in Drummond, where I am from. Providing adequate service to those municipalities is extremely important. They must have access thanks to net neutrality.

Speaking of Drummond, I would just like to mention that, on Saturday, I was at the second joint annual review of Drummondville's cadet units. The parade included over 100 cadets. The event highlighted over a century of sea cadets history.

Two sea cadets had some experiences worth mentioning. The first is Valeria Aristizabal, who was chosen along with three other sea cadets from Quebec to work for five days as a sailor on the HMCS Calgary, a Canadian Armed Forces frigate based in Esquimalt, British Columbia. Congratulations to Valeria on being selected for this great opportunity.

I also want to talk about Mike Gagnon from the Drummondville sea cadets who qualified to represent the Quebec delegation at the national cadet marksmanship championship, which was held in British Columbia from May 6 to 11. Congratulations to Mike Gagnon on that achievement. I also want to commend all those involved, including Peter Catwright, Raymond Ouellet, Jean-Marc Chartier, and many others. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about these individuals.

Why is access to net neutrality important? As I mentioned, such access is extremely important for our regions, for example, to ensure that everyone has access to all the information they need at a reasonable price. We want the government to reaffirm its commitment to Canadian consumers that it will maintain strong rules that protect their right to net neutrality. Unfortunately, right now, all we have is the CRTC, which only takes action if someone files a complaint. The CRTC is not proactive. It has to wait until a complaint is filed, which is currently affecting net neutrality. As part of the amendments, we would like the CRTC to be able to enforce the rules right away. That would be a tremendous asset.

I want to reiterate that many Canadians are concerned because, in the fall of 2017, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, under the direction of President Donald Trump, changed the rules to do away with net neutrality in the United States. Canadians are very concerned because they are wondering what will happen next. Will Canada also adopt that approach? Could Internet service providers start exerting pressure that would result in a breach of net neutrality? That is not something we want to happen. We are completely against such breaches, because net neutrality allows all Canadians to have access to regional content, which is important for our regions, as well as any other content that they want to access.

[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.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to articulate our government's position on this important issue. I thank the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for bringing forth this motion. I think the member for Guelph will agree with me when I say that we miss him at the INDU committee.

It is clear that the open Internet is a remarkable platform for economic growth, innovation, and social progress in Canada and around the world. It is essential to a modern digital economy and society. Many activities depend on it, including access to health care, education, employment, entertainment, and more. More broadly, it is vital for freedom of expression, diversity, and our democratic institutions. A flourishing and vibrant democracy is possible only when citizens are able to communicate and access information freely.

The Internet is one of the greatest tools of our lifetime. It is a platform where citizens, consumers, and businesses can exchange ideas, products, and services. It has transformed our economies and our daily lives in unimaginable ways.

Our government supports an open Internet where Canadians have the power to communicate freely and have access to the legal content of their choice. The Internet has been very successful because it is not controlled by any government or private sector entity. The Internet allows innovation without asking permission. This means that no Internet service provider can act as a gatekeeper or discriminate on the basis of the type of user or the content they want to access. Internet service providers cannot arbitrarily block or censor content, either.

Our government's position has remained the same over time. Canada has long excelled as a leader in promoting net neutrality. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, was one of the first telecommunications regulators to implement a regulatory framework for net neutrality. This framework is based on the principles underlying the Internet: freedom, openness, transparency and innovation. The CRTC is actively studying issues as they arise, in light of the changing market and technology. For example, in April 2017, the CRTC opposed the practice of exempting certain applications and not others from data fees—a practice known as “tiered pricing”.

This means that Internet service providers cannot favour one application over another. Similarly, in 2015, the CRTC confirmed that telecommunications service providers could not give their own mobile video services an unfair advantage in the market by promoting data traffic on their networks. The principles of net neutrality are enshrined in Canadian law. By law, a company must be neutral and not discriminate against or control content that is communicated or accessed by Canadians.

This long-standing tradition of transport on a common basis, whereby goods and services must be delivered without discrimination, is important, particularly in sectors such as telecommunications where some players can control the flow of information.

I can say that Canada's approach to net neutrality is well regarded, both domestically and abroad. Telecommunications experts have said that Canada has strong net neutrality rules in place and praise the fact that Canada has legislated provisions barring unjust discrimination.

The issue of net neutrality is so important because fundamental freedoms of expression and communication are at stake. This is about making sure that we preserve the Internet as a progressive force for good and an open space without barriers. Just as important is to ensure that we have a fair marketplace, where Internet service providers compete on price, quality, and service rather than by discriminating against certain types of content, applications, or users.

I am pleased to stand here today to express the government's support for this motion. The government firmly believes that the net neutrality principles of openness, transparency, freedom, and innovation are essential to the continued growth of the Internet. As I have mentioned, Canada has strong net neutrality rules in place, which are enforced by the CRTC and based in the core principles of the Telecommunications Act. This has allowed the CRTC to respond nimbly and assertively to concerns as they emerge. The preservation of an open Internet and the free flow of information are vital to the economic and social prosperity of Canada, but this is not something we can take for granted. We must support the continued preservation of an open Internet free from unjust discrimination and interference.

This has been so fundamental to the evolution of the Internet we know today, and we must continue to be advocates for it in the future. That is why I am happy to affirm that net neutrality will be a guiding principle in the upcoming legislative review of Canada's communications legislation.

Canada's communications system is vital to our country's future. New technologies and new business models cause disruptions and, at the same time, create new opportunities. We have seen the growth of wireless technologies, the emergence of sensor networks and self-driving cars, and the Internet of Things. Some experts have estimated that there will be over 30 billion devices connected online by 2020.

Our review will aim to ensure that our legislative frameworks are able to respond to modern technology and needs, as well as future changes. In the review, we will consider net neutrality as an essential principle of our legal framework and how it can be strengthened. We want to ensure that we have a world-class legislative framework so that Canada can thrive in the digital age.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage worked together on this file, and our government looks forward to announcing further details on the review process shortly.

I would like to reassure the House and all Canadians that our government will continue to be a champion of the open Internet as a progressive force for good. We recognize the tremendous importance of the open Internet as a critical enabler of economic growth, innovation, diversity, and social inclusion.

This goes beyond our simply being able to connect to the Internet. This is about ensuring that Canadian consumers and businesses have access to an open and level playing field so they can unleash their full potential. I think this is something we, as Canadians, can all agree upon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Oakville, has five minutes for right of reply.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak again to my Motion No. 168. This motion is aimed at strengthening and protecting an open Internet in Canada by ensuring that net neutrality is a guiding principle in the Government of Canada's upcoming review of the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts.

I do want to thank the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the parliamentary secretary, and the government for their interest in and support for this motion, and once again thank Mr. Andrew Quinn for his work in identifying and doing research on this topic.

We must enshrine in legislation the principles of neutrality in the provision and carriage of all telecommunications services. As we have heard throughout this debate from members on both sides of this place, net neutrality is an issue that is important to Canadians and that it is imperative for the Government of Canada to affirm our commitment to preserving a fair and open Internet for Canadians.

I do want to thank the members who have risen to speak to the motion.

At its core, net neutrality means that all content and applications should be treated equally and that the choices made by users should be free from interference from Internet service providers.

Canada has emerged as a world leader in supporting policies protecting that neutrality. However, policies alone will not guarantee net neutrality. Requiring that net neutrality be a guiding principle in the review and update of these acts signals a clear commitment to placing consumers and content providers first. That is a very important signal to send to the industry.

As our neighbours to the south try to save their own net neutrality regulations, I believe it is time for Canadians to address this issue directly and act to protect our own. This motion would require the government, industry, and Canadians to have a robust conversation about enshrining net neutrality as an essential component in the review of the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts.

Two-tiered Internet, or a situation in which an Internet service provider actively discriminates against certain content or services by throttling the speed of delivery to enhance their own private business interests, gets to the heart of what could happen without strong net neutrality regulations in place.

As clearly expressed by Dr. Michael Geist, professor of law at the University of Ottawa, and the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, the average Internet user is not all that concerned about the policies that govern how their Internet is delivered. They just want to ensure that they can uniformly access all of the applications and services they have chosen at the speed they have paid for, and are not restricted in their access to services or content.

I agree with Dr. Geist. While in the past many Canadians probably were not aware of the term “net neutrality” and the majority probably were not interested in the governing policies for ISPs in the Internet, I do not believe that is the case today. Canadians are now very aware of what they do and do not want regarding Internet access. Canadians want to continue to use the services they choose without interference.

While we are leaders when it comes to net neutrality policies, we cannot rest on our laurels. Now is the time to enshrine this concept in legislation. Further, we cannot solve the current telecommunications competition or privacy concerns without a solid foundation of net neutrality.

I will say it again: Canadians expect to choose the applications and services they want to use, and they expect to be able to access them without interference from their Internet service provider.

Let us not forget that when we defend net neutrality, we defend much more than Canadians' ability to access online services. We are defending our democracy. We are preserving principles as fundamental as freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Preserving an open Internet and the free flow of information is vital to diversity, education, entrepreneurship, innovation, and the continued economic and social prosperity of Canadians.

Members must express their firm support for the continued preservation of an open Internet, free from unjust discrimination and interference. This is the critical issue of our generation.

Now is the time to stand up to protect the rights of Canadians. Now is the time to protect one of the pillars of our democracy. I hope every member will join me in voting in support of net neutrality in Motion No. 168.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.