House of Commons Hansard #375 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was home.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, there are so many points to make here. The member opposite would like Canadians to believe that they are somehow better off by about $2,000 a year. Let us just say for a moment that is true. Then here is what we know. The government is going to put $2,000 in one pocket and take $5,000 out of the other pocket. Simple math says that $5,000 taken out of the pocket, $2,000 put into the pocket, results in a negative number of $3,000, which means the member opposite just told the House and the Canadian public that it will actually cost them $3,000 a year. That is a large amount of money. I thank the member opposite for his omission.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for explaining that a lot of people are having trouble making ends meet.

She mentioned a recent study showing that 52% of participants were within $200 of being unable to pay their debts and bills. That is very troubling. Statistics show that one in five Canadians spend over 50% of their income on housing.

Does my colleague therefore think that we should invest in housing immediately instead of waiting until after the election, as the Liberal government is doing?

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The data does show that people are within $200 a month of not being able to pay those basic bills. This is a huge problem and it has largely been created by the current government and the policies it has put in place.

One of the main responsibilities of the federal government, regardless of the party in power, is to create policies that facilitate an environment of economic prosperity. If the government fails to put those policies in place, then all Canadians suffer with respect to being able to afford life. That is the problem the House is discussing today. It is a problem that needs to be discussed. Therefore, I commend the NDP for bringing the motion forward.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I may regret this, but I would like to try to explain for the hon. member for Lethbridge how carbon pricing works and how average Canadians will likely receive back more than what they have paid in. That is because carbon pricing applies across the economy and our largest polluters are not individual Canadians.

Our largest polluters are large corporations, like the cement industry, power plants and oil and gas. When the money is returned to Canadians, particularly if it is prorated like the Green Party plan of carbon fee and dividend, those who are low income and students who do not drive a great deal in particular will receive more money back than they have put in and the pricing signal will help Canadians, especially industry, reduce their emissions over time.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, my answer is short and sweet. There is a huge problem here. The member just said that large corporations were going to pay in a ton of money. Then we would take from that big pool of money and give it out to individual Canadians, so they would be getting more money back.

We have a fundamental problem. The Prime Minister just exempted these large corporations. He just let them off the hook. Those who are actually emitting the greatest amount of carbon, the greatest amount of pollution, are actually not going to pay a dime. They are going to walk away free.

With all due respect, the member should really stop propagating false information.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I believe the direct statement by the member for Lethbridge, that I was propagating false information, is an attack on my integrity and honesty. I ask her to withdraw the comments and urge her to look at the testimony of the five economists who were before the environment committee this week. They explained that the way in which the large final emitter tax was applied was not an exemption. It is an incentive to further reductions. It is a different treatment, not an exemption.

I really find it offensive that I would be attacked in this place for false information when, in fact, I am absolutely honest in everything I say, and I do my research.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her intervention. She is right, of course, with respect to unparliamentary language. Members are certainly, in clear terms, advised not to go down the route of implying that a member has deliberately misled or, in worst cases, has lied to the House or other members. There is a distinction, however. If a member is accused of advancing information that in the opinion of the member speaking is false, then absent is the essential part of a lie, which is to impugn motive.

In this case, while I appreciate the explanation of the point by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I did not hear anything that was unparliamentary, even though it essentially raised the fact that in the opinion of the member for Lethbridge that information was false.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise for my first 10-minute speech in this new House of Commons. I have already had the opportunity to give a few short interventions, but this is my first speech in this new temporary House of Commons, although 10 years is more than temporary.

What an honour it is for me to speak to a subject that is so important to the people in my riding of Drummond and across the country. I am talking about the housing crisis and the importance of access to affordable housing and social and co-operative housing. This is a very important subject, and I thank my colleague from Saskatoon West for moving this motion on housing. She is calling on the Liberal government to create 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing within 10 years and to commit in budget 2019 to completing 250,000 of those units within five years. As we have said, the situation is urgent. We have explained several times during this debate why this is a serious and urgent situation.

As we have shown, there is a housing crisis right now. Housing prices are skyrocketing, rent is going up, and there is a rental housing shortage. There is a long waiting list for low-income housing in places like Drummond. The Drummond housing corporation needs space, especially for single people and seniors. The need is great right now.

The housing crisis also calls for immediate measures because the lack of social and affordable housing is a social problem we need to tackle without delay. As I believe we have said repeatedly, the Liberal government is not doing enough. It does not hurt to say that again. Families are suffering, but the Liberal government is telling them they just have to wait because 90% of the money earmarked for the national housing strategy will be not be distributed until after the next election. People need that money now. About 1.7 million Canadian families are living in inadequate, unaffordable or unsuitable housing. We cannot wait 10 years to tackle this housing crisis.

As we have said again and again, we in the NDP believe that housing is a right and that it is extremely important in the fight against poverty. First and foremost we must ensure that everyone has a roof over their head. Housing is not just an expenditure, it is an investment in our society. That is why we can no longer wait, as the Liberal government is asking us to do.

As I said earlier in one of my comments, it is important to remember that one in five people in Canada spend more than 50% of their income on housing. It is probably roughly the same percentage in Drummond. An increasing number of people are just one pay cheque away from homelessness. As we heard earlier, in a survey conducted recently, 52% of participants reported they were just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills and their various debts. It makes no sense for people to live with so much debt and so much financial insecurity. That is why significant investments are needed. As we have pointed out, investing in social housing will go a long way in relieving the stress and anxiety weighing on Canadians.

Since I am on the topic of inequality, I would add than an Oxfam report, which members have probably heard about, has shown the importance of fighting inequality. According to the report, the world's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth.

That is completely unacceptable. I will repeat: 82% of the money generated last year went to the richest 1% of the global population. As for the 3.7 billion poorest people in the world, they did not see any of that wealth or growth.

We need to take action, and the measures we are highlighting are the important ones. Things are difficult in Drummond. According to the latest CMHC data, the vacancy rate in Drummondville is 1.7% or about half the break-even point of 3%. This is a worrisome situation. According to Véronique Laflamme, the spokesperson for the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, which works on social housing, the situation must be addressed, or the people of Drummondville will have a housing crisis. We are in a precarious situation that requires concrete measures.

Housing is an extremely important issue for me. The NDP has been interested in social housing for a long time. Jack Layton made housing one of his top issues. I began working on this file in Drummond in 2011. I helped L'Envolée des mères, a housing organization, by sponsoring a house with my own money and I named it after Jack Layton. There is a house bearing the name of Jack Layton. That was my contribution to Drummond's social housing.

All kinds of investments are being made in housing, and a number of organizations are helping the homeless in Drummond. One example is Maison Habit-Action, which primarily looks after young adults aged 18-30 who are struggling. There is also the Réseau d'aide le Tremplin, which is a support network for people struggling with mental health issues. Another example is Ensoleilvent, a short-term emergency shelter. There are many similar organizations operating in Drummond. I want to acknowledge the excellent work done by all those who work at these organizations, who are members of the boards of directors and who are helping improve the lives of people in Drummond. I am proud and happy to support them. This is another reason why I think this motion is important.

Let us not forget the housing crisis that is affecting indigenous peoples across the country both on reserve and off reserve. There has been much talk about that in the House of Commons, including during question period. It is another issue that is extremely important to us. Just look at the indigenous community of Cat Lake in northwestern Ontario, where a state of emergency was declared because of the disastrous housing conditions, including the presence of mould. Ninety houses, or 75% of the homes, have to be demolished immediately.

The presence of mould in homes on reserve is frequently caused by shoddy construction and overcrowding. That is not the only problem, either. There are broken windows, holes in the roofs, crumbling foundation piles, and so on. Something has to be done. I would add that it is critical that first nations housing be designed by them and for them. They are best placed to fix this situation.

In closing, I am very proud of this motion moved by my colleague from Saskatoon West on social and affordable housing. I hope the government will support it.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity one last time to remind Canadians that $5.7 billion has been invested by this government. That includes units that have been constructed to the tune of 14,703. It includes 143,684 households that have had their housing repaired and restored to safety. It includes 783,928 households, including households with children, having their subsidies restored and protected. It also includes direct support for 28,864 people who are homeless and need support to stay in housing or to be housed because of the circumstances they are challenged with. That is close to a million different ways in which this government has invested $5.7 billion to make sure Canadians get the housing they need.

We are not done yet. Indigenous housing and the national housing strategy of $40 billion over the next 10 years are additional investments above and beyond what I have just described.

Like with the NDP's plan, there is funding that will come after the next election. We cannot have a 10-year program to accomplish that without its having an impact in that way. I would ask the New Democrats to stop criticizing 10-year plans, when they have a 10-year plan. They should stop criticizing plans that do not come in until after two elections, because half of their money does not come until after two elections. Could they please not recognize—

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Drummond.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government that it is possible to have long-term plans but, when there is a housing crisis like the one we are currently experiencing, immediate investments are needed.

The problem is that the investments are being made too slowly. The government cannot wait 10 years in the midst of a housing crisis because 90% of the funding will be allocated only near the end of the 10 years. That is too late. The government needs to invest more.

We are calling for an investment to deal with the housing crisis. I explained how many Canadians are $200 away from insolvency because of all the difficulties they are going through. The government needs to take action and resolve this situation. The housing crisis is extremely serious for indigenous people. The time for talk is over. It is time to take action. The motion is very respectable, honourable and balanced. I hope that the Liberal government will support it.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 5, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we can begin private members' hour.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

No, Mr. Speaker. May I ask a question first? I cannot agree to going to private members' hour when I did not have notice of a Senate private member's bill—

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I only caught the back half of that. Perhaps what I will do is, as the member wanted to intervene on this particular point, I will let her have the floor momentarily.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my concern is only that, through inadvertence on the part of the larger parties, I nearly missed Bill S-203 moving to Private Members' Business a few weeks ago because the House saw the clock at 5:30 p.m. at 5:15 p.m. My concern is to make sure the member whose business is on the agenda for today and his or her seconder are present. Then, absolutely, it would be wonderful to see the clock at 5:30 p.m., because as I see it, it looks like 5:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I will ask the question again. Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

moved that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Lobbying Act (reporting obligations), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour on behalf of the hard-working people of the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to rise in my place and lead off the debate on legislation I have proposed before the House, 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.

I was encouraged to propose this legislation by my concern to protect the jobs of my constituents in the working forest. The forestry industry is a significant employer in my riding, as it is in many other parts of Canada.

It was brought to my attention that certain organizations were disseminating false information about the forestry industry in Canada. While some of the organizations operate under the pretext of having their anti-forestry activities financially supported by Canadians, careful research that was only possible by examining filings in countries outside Canada confirmed these organizations were being funded by non-Canadians, foreign actors with a hidden agenda.

As it has been noted by Canadian author Robert Lyman in “Dark Green Money: A Glimpse Inside the Big Green Funding Machine”:

Canadians should not have to find out about the funding by foreign foundations of political interest groups in this country as a result of a various citizens researching tax filings to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service....

This problem is not confined to the anti-forestry lobby or those individuals who lobby to support or oppose the building of pipelines, to use a different example, and this challenge to Canadian democracy is not confined to any one country. This challenge, which my legislation would seek to address by requiring funding transparency, cuts across all levels of Canadian activity.

This past weekend in one of Canada's leading national newspapers, the National Post, in a full page article, the following question was asked, “'The long arm of influence of China in Canada': Is a shadowy agency shaping opinion here?” The shadowy agency in question is the United Front Work Department, a so-called shadowy offshoot of the Chinese Communist Party. That article proceeded to give specific examples of foreign funding, such as the Confucius Institute, described as a propaganda or espionage arm of the Chinese state, and how it is now operating at three school boards and on nine university and college campuses across Canada.

I quote political scientist Charles Burton from that story about a cultural association he was familiar with:

An organization that once had another purpose has gradually been taken over to serve China’s national interest. Where United Front work becomes problematic is when it’s engaging persons of Chinese origin who have Canadian citizenship...to serve the interests of the motherland, when in fact the motherland should be Canada.

This is a concern in the Chinese Canadian community. I quote Cheuk Kwan, head of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China:

A lot of people don't think of the long arm of influence of China in Canada, because they're under the influence, to put it mildly.... Outsiders like me, who is a Hong Kong immigrant...we see very clearly that this is a United Front effort, a very subtle, soft-power kind of advance into Canadian society.

While China may be in the news because of Meng Wanzhou and Chinese infotech giant Huawei in the ongoing Canada-China diplomacy crisis, let us not be too smug in Canada to dismiss the Russian meddling controversy playing out south of the border.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute has prepared a paper entitled “Stemming the Virus: Understanding and responding to the threat of Russian disinformation”.

This document gives examples of Canada being a victim of Russian disinformation, including planted stories about the Minister of National Defence and in the case of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, focusing on her Ukrainian heritage. The stories about the Minister of Foreign Affairs were planted in order to discredit Canada's position on the illegal occupation of Crimea by Russia.

Another example cited by the article is the Russian foreign policy priority to use misinformation to put pressure on our Parliament to repeal the Magnitsky legislation, which targets human rights abusers with targeted sanctions.

In addition to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, my colleague on the national defence committee, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has been targeted by Russian propaganda for his Ukrainian heritage and his championing of international Magnitsky legislation. I also understand the member for Scarborough—Guildwood received a letter attacking his support for the Canadian Magnitsky legislation.

Another Russian foreign policy priority, which I am personally aware of as a veteran member of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, is the targeting of NATO. NATO has been a pillar of peace and stability since the end of World War II. It is one of the most important world organizations for peace and security, and perhaps the most important one.

While not in the media lately as prominently as China and Russia, another country that is mentioned as being active in Canada is Iran.

When it comes to foreign disinformation, there is one thing in common: Canadian democracy is under attack. The purpose of using the Chinese and Russian examples was not intended in any way to single out members of those communities, the majority of whom are model Canadian citizens. It is as Cheuk Kwan stated: The problem is that many Canadians do not even realize they are under the influence of a disinformation campaign. While Parliament has focused on lobbying once the writ drops, many Canadians have already been influenced by a subtle misinformation campaign paid with foreign money that has been ongoing for years, so it is not good enough to look only at measures to combat election interference; Parliament needs to deal with foreign interference between elections also, which is the intent of Bill C-278, the bill we are debating today.

When members of the public think of lobbying, they think of the so-called public relations companies and the advertising firms that go along with those organizations. It goes far deeper than that. The announcement this week that five environmental non-profit groups are lobbying the Senate environment committee not to consult directly with the Canadian public is an attack on democracy.

While it was reported that one of the environmental groups has received significant taxpayer funding from the federal government, what was not reported were the millions of dollars the other environmental organizations received from foreign sources.

Let us start with the non-governmental organization Ecojustice, formally known as the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, which is the name of its American parent. According to the Canada Revenue Agency, this particular NGO, in the 2000 to 2017 time period, had gross revenues of $115,319,392.

That is a lot of money.

Where did it get all its millions? Ecojustice received eight direct grants from the controversial U.S. Tides Foundation, totalling $545,380. The U.S. Tides Foundation flows money to its Canadian subsidiary, Tides Canada. CRA records show that Tides Canada gave 10 grants, totalling $903,845. They even tell us what Tides U.S.A. expected Ecojustice to use the money for: The money was used to attack the Canadian oil sands and the thousands of jobs that go with the oil sands.

The next question that needs to be answered is, who is donating millions of dollars to Tides U.S.A., and what do they expect to get for their money?

Could it be American pipeline interests? Could it be American oil and gas interests? Could it be the owners of American rail who financially benefit when oil is shipped by rail rather than by pipeline? Canadians have a right to the answers to these questions. Bill C-278 would provide those answers. In an era when foreign interests can launch a million emails with the push of a button, we need those answers now more than ever.

In a democracy, a free and independent press is counted on to provide unbiased information and informed opinions that aid public debate, expose corruption and highlight major social issues to enable an informed public to make participatory decisions. Today's reality is far from that ideal. In Canada, media is looking at an almost $600 million government bailout that their corporate owners claim they need to operate. This creates more opportunities for foreign entities with deep pockets to buy public acceptance for policies that promote their interests.

The role played by foreign governments as well as foreign foundations and campaigns to influence public policy in Canada should be of interest to all concerned about the independence and integrity of Canadian political and governmental processes.

The increasing globalization of corporate, institutional and geopolitical interests would seem to require that Canadian democratic institutions be more vigilant about these possible intrusions. This, in turn, demands that reports on the activities of foundations, other non-profits and charities seeking to influence policy be made more transparent to the public and more useful to parliamentarians who wish to exercise oversight.

Greater transparency afforded in two areas that would benefit greatly from a more open system of reporting and increased oversight are the lobbyist registry and the reporting requirements to the CRA by non-profit and charitable organizations. In addition to the concerns expressed previously about the role of foreign and corporate actors, the transparency of disclosing by lobbyists and charities is being increasingly obscured by the efforts of various interests to mask self-dealing and self-vested interests.

Within the United States, there is a large body of academic studies examining the strategies and practices used by private foundations to influence public policy. Many of these foundations have enormous financial resources, including billions of dollars in assets and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues. Increasingly, U.S. studies have addressed the strategies used by private foundations and the many other groups they fund, most of which have charity status, which is non-taxable, in influencing policy.

The strategies include broad communication and education programs to influence public perceptions of policy issues and to garner public support for specific actions, the lobbying of governments at all levels, infiltration of the media and concerted, coordinated action to achieve specific objectives.

While there is less information and academic analysis available in Canada, some private researchers have made efforts to follow the money in terms of how foundation and charity funding is used. These efforts are impeded by superficial reporting requirements and the lack of publicly available information from organizations like Canada Revenue Agency, which administers provisions of the Income Tax Act related to charities, and the lobbying registry compiled by the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.

Researchers such as Vivian Krause, who have endeavoured to find out more about the use of domestic and foreign foundation funding for anti-oil and anti-pipeline campaigns, have learned that they must often rely on the U.S. Internal Revenue Service records, since the information they seek is not available from Canadian sources.

In the United States, a donor-advised fund, DAF, is a charitable giving vehicle administered by a public charity created to manage charitable donations on behalf of organizations, families or individuals. Although DAFs are more developed in the United States, they are increasingly being used in Canada.

To participate in a DAF, a donating individual or organization opens an account in the fund and deposits the cash, securities or other financial instruments. The donor surrenders the ownership of anything put in the fund, but retains advisory privileges over how the account is invested and how it distributes its money to charities. In the charity sector, the increased use of DAFs makes it increasingly difficult to determine the ultimate source and purpose of funding.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her efforts in a private member's bill for greater transparency.

I wonder if the member is disturbed that the Fraser Institute has received $4.3 million in foreign funding to run campaigns that include ones that defend pipelines, and amounts of money staggeringly larger than the ones that U.S. foundations have given some environmental groups.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, obviously, for the member in the back corner, this is disturbing to her, which is why this really should be a non-partisan bill. Transparency should include all parties. It should unite us all. If foreign donations to an organization that is Conservative in nature are of concern, then I hope that she too will lend her support to this bill so that not only Conservative-oriented foundations and institutes declare where they are getting their money from but other foundations and charities as well.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, within the Lobbying Act there is a statutory review of the legislation. My question to the member is related to that aspect of the legislation. Has she looked into the possibility of how she might be able to bring this type of issue up once that act is under review by the House of Commons?

Second, has the member anticipated what the additional costs incurred would be? Surely to goodness if we were to expand in this area, there would be a fairly substantial cost to it. I am sure she is not trying to imply that we would in any way not properly resource the current commissioner in being able to do the fine work that this office currently does.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate my greatest fan being here when tabling another piece of legislation. I appreciate his input immensely.

In fact, we are approaching an election and time is of the essence. We know the Liberals are very concerned about foreign interference, because earlier this week they put forth a plan to ensure that there was no interference in the electoral process. However, even before the election starts, we have active campaigns that are trying to influence Canadian policy under way. While a review may happen in another few years, we need this to pass now.

It does not involve a lot of money. It is just doing more reporting, which we are already doing. The reporting should be done on the part of the people lobbying. Therefore, the lobbyists, instead of just putting the list of partner organizations, parent organizations, would have to indicate all the organizations, the ultimate donors, the individuals. If they are going to engage another grassroots organization to influence the opinion of Canadians, they would have to report what that grassroots organization is and the method it is going to use to convince people to go to their way of thinking. Any foreign income coming towards this would have to be reported.

Also, on the part of the grassroots campaigners and non-profit organizations, if they are going to be accepting foreign dollars to influence how Canadians are going to form our own laws, they would have to report it. We are not saying they cannot accept money from foreign entities. We are saying, if they do accept money from foreign entities, they would have to disclose it.