Debates of April 5th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Justice

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her impressive speech on this very important matter. I had the privilege of working with her on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Her commitment to our Canadian Forces as well as the rule of law is something we should all aspire to in this place.

The important conversation that we are having today is about Admiral Norman's trial and whether he is in a position to get a fair trial based on the obstruction, obfuscation and interference that the current government is putting forward. I wonder if the member could take it to perhaps a broader perspective and give us some thoughts on whether we as Canadians should be concerned about the strong negative message that this type of behaviour from the government sends to anyone who would stand up for the rule of law, to anyone who would put his or her neck out to do what is right for God, Queen and country, because if they do, they could find themselves destroyed. Could the member perhaps comment on that?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too appreciated our time together working for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I was very honoured when she represented our country so well in multiple events, and I was actually very sad to see such a dedicated person no longer be able to keep her position and her role within the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Today, and across Canada, we are seeing a lot of people who are expressing a lot of frustration and a lot of cynicism. I talked earlier in my speech about the realities of so many people across our country who are dealing with things as basic as trying to find a place to live or trying to find appropriate child care and being worried about whether they are going to be able to keep their job if they cannot find that child care. These things are really important to people: finding a home, having enough money to afford their medication.

This kind of behaviour is seen as what is important in this place, when we see brave women stand up on principle and say how they feel. It is very apparent, based on testimony that we have heard from the former attorney general, that there were multiple opportunities for a better conversation and a more honest conversation, which simply did not happen. Therefore, Canadians are struggling. Like I said, they want to know that their institutions are fair. They want to know that political interference is not part of those institutions. When they are just dealing every day with getting by, making ends meet, they want to know that if something occurs and they are dealing with those institutions, they will not be in a place of discomfort because of that political interference.

I hope that this is part of our discussion today. I hope that there is a reflection by all of us in this House about what our work is, to make sure that we are as honest and open as we possibly can be and that when accusations come forward we make sure to make those things public. That is exactly why we ask for a public inquiry.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my colleague's thoughts in regard to the current status of the Canadian Forces, their equipment and capacity-related issues. Ultimately, it has been pointed out that we have a very active court process that is taking place. Given that there is an active court process, maybe we could be spending more time talking about what my colleague referenced, which is ensuring that we have capacity in the many different areas of our Canadian Forces. It goes beyond ships to our air force and having the proper military equipment for the Canadian Forces.

This is something I think the chamber could have more debate and dialogue on, because it is supporting our women and men of the forces. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that particular issue.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is also important to remind that side that they are actually in the role of government. One of the things that has been really frustrating for many people in the Canadian Armed Forces is the aspect of waiting.

We know that the process is long. When we look at the procurement process for our armed forces, it is a long process. If there is a change in government, it is suddenly changed and the resources they need are stepped back several more years. Unfortunately, what we have seen from this government is a lot of talk and not a lot of action. Our armed forces are waiting for that.

I will talk again about 19 Wing Comox, which I am so proud to represent. The work they do, especially in areas like search and rescue and the training they do internationally, is incredibly important. It saves lives. I know that several of the members from my riding have been to Maui doing hard, incredible work. They need the resources to do that safely. Waiting and waiting for discussions to happen and then for actions to not be followed through is very distressing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is situated very close to CFB Esquimalt, Canada's Pacific naval base. I know that a lot of my residents work there directly. We also have a lot of retired veterans.

I would like to thank my colleague for her advocacy, because the navy has some very deep structural needs. I am glad that she mentioned that in her speech.

I also want to thank her for putting this motion within the context of what has happened with SNC-Lavalin and the former attorney general. The Liberals say that nothing went wrong and that the system held. However, they are completely oblivious to the irony that the system held precisely because the member for Vancouver Granville, in her former role as attorney general, actually resisted the inappropriate pressure. That is why the system held.

A lot of people are starting to become really interested in this principle of prosecutorial independence, what it means, and how fundamentally important it is to our system and our democracy that prosecutors, when discharging their role, must be completely free of all political considerations and of any consideration of the national economic interest. They must be able to look at the facts before them and use their constitutional responsibility to make the appropriate decisions on how to proceed. It might involve a deferred prosecution agreement, or it might involve going to a criminal trial. However, the prosecutor alone must make that case.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. If SNC-Lavalin had been successful in lobbying for a DPA, how dangerous a precedent would that have established for this country? If the awesome corporate lobbying power displayed by SNC-Lavalin had been able to achieve a DPA, what might that have provided as a slippery slope, going forward, in our country?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the story many Canadians are left with is this strong impression that the former justice minister stood in the face of a large machine, under a lot of pressure, and did her best to ensure that machine understood the risk it was taking by putting immense pressure on her position. When we look at what that means, it is sort of a David and Goliath story about the bravery of someone to stand and not be moved.

I have heard multiple constituents talk about their concerns on both sides. I have obviously heard very clearly from some people that they are very upset there was a recording of a phone call.

What I have said to my constituents is this. I do not know what I would have done in that situation. I do not know what I would have done when I had a very big, powerful machine focused at me. I do not know how I would have responded. All I can say is that I trust that this felt like the best opportunity for her to ensure that voice was heard.

What do we do when we want to ensure our government is doing the right thing? Those very institutions are the foundations of our country. They must not have political interference. If they do, that means all bets are off and we are suddenly in a situation where the most vulnerable Canadians will be even more vulnerable and the most powerful few will have way too much power for any place in the country.

Therefore, I am proud to stand with the former attorney general. When we stand up and speak to power, we create a safer place for everyone.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, for 22 years I served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as did the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Orléans, who was my boss when I was a unit commander. The hon. member for Orléans was a lieutenant general who commanded the Canadian army.

From 2003 to 2007, I was the commanding officer of an infantry unit. One of my duties was to attend brigade meetings and make decisions. Some decisions were not always easy to make since soldiers depend on the government. Soldiers are not public servants, but the government is their boss.

Every time we were confronted with situations, we had to rely on government decisions. We had to find a way to tell our troops that we did not know what the government was going to decide. We did not know whether we would get the equipment we asked for. We had to await the minister's decision. This type of information has a major impact on soldiers at all levels. My colleague from Orléans knows that full well since he was a commanding officer and worked on reforming the army. He is aware of the challenges. In fact, I read his report.

What happened with Vice-Admiral Norman, who was commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, is important. We need to understand how senior officers like Vice-Admiral Norman and other Canadian Armed Forces commanders think. The rank and file and their commanding officers have to carry out the government's orders and ensure that operations run smoothly and troops have what they need to do their work.

The Canadian Armed Forces were an international laughingstock when they were deployed to Afghanistan in 2003. They showed up in green fatigues. They looked like little fir trees on the Afghan plains. It was ridiculous. That kind of thing is tough for a soldier. Soldiers are proud to don the uniform and defend their country, and they are ready for deployment anywhere in the world, but they should not be laughed at.

Vice-Admiral Norman had to grapple with a serious problem facing the Royal Canadian Navy. In 2014, both of its supply ships, the Preserver and the Protecteur were retired. The former's hull was bad and the latter burned. The Royal Canadian Navy was left with no supply ships, which is totally unacceptable.

The government's short-term solution was to rent a ship from Chile, but the Davie shipyard in Quebec City and Federal Fleet Services, a company that works with Davie, had another solution to propose. They offered to turn a civilian ship into a supply ship capable of participating in military operations. I am, of course, referring to the famous Asterix.

However, the government had already awarded contracts to Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver. These contracts were awarded six or seven years ago, yet Seaspan has only just started building the ships.

It was therefore urgent to procure efficient equipment at an affordable price. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, but that is reasonable for a ship of this size. Federal Fleet Services submitted a proposal to the Conservative government to build the Asterix. In July 2015, Mr. Harper, the then prime minister, and his national defence minister Mr. Kenney accepted Davie's proposal. It was the best option for addressing the operational problem.

During my time in politics, I have come to realize that people do not understand what “operational” actually means. It is a concept that not everyone can wrap their heads around.

In July 2015, the Conservative government signed an agreement with Federal Fleet Services and Davie. After the election on October 19, 2015, the government changed, and that is when the problems started.

The Asterix, which was a civilian ship, was already at the Davie shipyard, but everyone was waiting. In November 2015, we learned that the Prime Minister's Office wanted to cancel the contract.

Ministers were exerting pressure on cabinet and saying that the contract should be cancelled. They did not want the Davie shipyard to have the contract. Today, in answer to my questions, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility said that they were proud to give a contract and jobs to the Davie shipyard, but that is completely false. First, we are the ones that gave Davie that contract, and second, and most importantly, the Liberals did everything they could to cancel it. We found out that they were plotting to do just that. We put pressure on them and talked about the file publicly. Finally, because of pressure from the media and the opposition, this government reluctantly signed the contract at the last minute on the last possible day, November 20, 2015. The Liberals were really not happy about it.

A few months later, someone had to be punished for saying that this government had plotted to cancel a contract that was extremely important for the operational needs of the Royal Canadian Navy, a contract for the construction of an effective supply ship to support our forces and those of other countries, since we are part of an international coalition.

That took someone who worked for these people in the Royal Canadian Navy and who made that their career. It took someone who does not think like a politician, as I said at the outset. This person is interested in operational capabilities. Some politicians do not understand the word “operational”. When troops are deployed on operations at sea, especially in the navy, proper equipment is needed. We simply cannot cut corners.

Basically, the government could no longer cancel the contract, because everyone, including the Conservatives, Canadians in general and the media, knew what it was trying to do. It was looking for someone to blame. In the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Liberals bragged about putting inappropriate pressure on the former attorney general in order to protect jobs in Montreal. They kept repeating this PR line, saying they were willing to do anything to protect jobs, even if it was illegal or crooked.

In 2015, the Conservatives asked the Quebec shipyard, which had recovered from bankruptcy and had 1,000 workers ready to work, to build an extraordinary ship called the Asterix. However, the current government was being pressured by some other friends in the industry. I will not name those friends today, but everyone knows who I am talking about. Just to make them happy, the government tried to cancel this contract, therefore eliminating 1,000 jobs at Davie shipyard in Lévis.

The Liberals were pressured by their buddies and had to exert pressure for SNC-Lavalin, invoking job losses, even though the president and CEO of SNC-Lavalin himself said that jobs were not in jeopardy. The Liberals, however, could not care less about a wonderful big shipyard in the Quebec City area that employs 1,000 people. That was not important to them. They wanted to cancel the contract to make their buddies happy. The Liberal government could not care less about the jobs, and they could not care less about the operational needs of the Royal Canadian Navy.

When the members opposite go on and on with the rhetoric about being there for our men and women in uniform, I can say, now that I have been here for three and a half years, that that it is a bunch of baloney.

I believe that the minister really wanted to do a good job. I believe that, in the beginning, as a former member of the military, he had good intentions when he undertook the defence policy review. However, there are people in his entourage who thanked him for his fine document and then shelved it so that nothing more would be said about it. That is what is happening now.

We see it with every military procurement contract. Nothing is moving, everything is at a standstill. The supposed investments are non-existent. They have done everything they could to delay the fighter jet contract because they do not want it to go ahead. That is ridiculous.

I believe that Vice-Admiral Norman is paying a high price in terms of his reputation. He is a military officer with a career spanning over 30 years who was commander of the Royal Canadian Navy. That is no small feat. He had even been promoted to the position of vice-chief of the defence staff. He was probably going to be the next chief of the defence staff, the man who could have led the Canadian Forces. However, the Liberals decided to throw him under the bus.

In conclusion, I am asking the government to be honest at least once in its mandate and provide all the documents requested by Admiral Norman's lawyers so that they can mount a proper defence. I am asking the government to stop playing dirty politics.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, April 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. at this time so that we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:30 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 January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Lobbying Act (reporting obligations), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Foreign Lobbyist Transparency Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is such an honour to rise on such an important discussion as lobbying. With all the inappropriate lobbying done by SNC-Lavalin, I would like to think that my colleagues in the Conservative Party would come forward with a really strong bill to deal with the power of lobbyists, but this bill is about going after grassroots people who dare to oppose government policies.

If I read this bill as being something that was proposed in Saudi Arabia, I would not be all that surprised. The Conservatives are so angry about the right of ordinary citizens to talk to international organizations about fundamental issues like human rights and the environment, that if they oppose a government policy then all of their communication has to be registered.

I certainly remember when Stephen Harper was here and he attacked charities across Canada. There were attacks against Amnesty International. Saudi Arabia might attack Amnesty International, but why would Canada? Stephen Harper saw it as a threat.

One of the other charities the Conservatives went after was PEN. PEN, technically, is a very small charity, but it represents writers around the world who speak up for the right of dissent and imprisoned writers around the world. So powerful is the moral affect of PEN, the Conservatives lined up with their evening gowns and tuxedos to be at the PEN gala event while the Stephen Harper government was targeting it to try to shut it down.

What is this bill? This bill is specifically tailored to stop citizen engagement in taking on potential projects that could affect the environment. It is so specific that it says that lobbyists or any international organization, anybody doing environmental work, must identify “grass-roots communication”, which is defined as appeals to organizations or the public that are intended to encourage recipients to “obstruct, delay or otherwise negatively affect” government policy. Welcome to Canada. There we have it.

If one attempts to involve and work with any international organization, to speak up on policies that the government does not approve of, one could be illegally covered under the Lobbying Act. The Lobbying Act, by the way, is supposed to cover people like Arthur Porter. Everyone remembers Arthur Porter, the international criminal who was involved in the SNC-Lavalin kickbacks. Stephen Harper appointed Arthur Porter to the top of the securities oversight committee because that is how powerful Arthur Porter was with Stephen Harper. Of course, Arthur Porter ended up in a Panamanian jail. He was good enough to go to jail and good enough to have all the secrets of the Canadian state. I would think that it is something we would involve in the Lobbying Act, but no, what Conservatives want to go after are grassroots people.

I came into politics by taking on massive environmentally threatening companies that were brought into Ontario by the Mike Harris government. We were rural people, farm families and indigenous communities, and everything that the Harris government did was to limit our ability to even talk about the health affects of detrimental projects in our region.

For example, a small company called TCI came into our region to do what it claimed was local recycling of PCB products in local mines and it seemed like a great idea. It talked about cleanup, because we have many old mills and many mines, and TCI said that it would do that. Then we found a very small article in a U.S. military paper that there was a ship called the Wan He that was carrying 90,000 kilograms of PCB-contaminated materials and it was headed to a facility run by this company called TCI.

TCI was an American company. I always wondered why it came up to Canada and it was that, under American law, it was illegal for the Americans to reimport all the damage of the PCBs that was caused by American bases in the Pacific. We began to ask if it was attempting to bring PCBs into Canada, because it did not have a licence for it. It did not have a licence from the Canadian government or from the Ontario government, but this ship was carrying 90,000 kilograms that were destined for Vancouver harbour.

We were a small rural region. What did we do? How did we deal with international PCB travel? We had to call the Basel Action Network, an international organization and, my God, Stephen Harper would have just railed about them. It is an international organization that ensures that countries respect the rule of law on PCB exports. What we have is the creation of sacrifice zones, where very wealthy companies or very wealthy countries identify poorer regions in which to dump waste. We counted on the Basel Action Network, which is out of Seattle.

We were also looking for anyone who could tell us about the effects of PCBs and how to stop these imports. Of course, Greenpeace had a long history of that. Now, Greenpeace is the devil incarnate to the Conservatives, but to our rural farmers, we called out to them. We worked internationally to stop the Wan He. It was denied access in Vancouver harbour by the longshoremen and by the agents of Greenpeace. Then they tried to move it into Seattle where the teamsters stopped it. Then they shipped it back to Guam. We were able to stop that toxic waste from coming into northern Ontario because of those connections we made.

Then of course it did not stop there. We dealt with the Mario Cortellucci gang and the Adams Mine dump. Mario is back. He is best buddies with Doug Ford. He is attempting to build a massive garbage dump, shutting down public consultations with farmers, first nations and the miners, who all stood together against that project. Then they tried to bring in what was called the Bennett toxic waste incinerator, to bring in toxic waste from Mexico and the United States.

They always tell rural Canadians, “My God, this is such a great project. We are going to bring waste from across North America and give you jobs.” If it is such a great business opportunity, why did Bennett not set it up in Oakville where the company is centred? They did not set it up in Oakville, because, again, they are looking for sacrifice zones, the ability to target poor, rural, marginalized or indigenous communities with toxic waste.

We had to do a major crash course on the effects of these incinerators, which they called state-of-the-art thermal oxidizers. It was basically a burn can with a claptrap on top that spilled dioxins out. We did not know the effects of dioxins, and we had a massive dairy business region right beside this. If dioxin gets anywhere near milk, the dairy industry is done. We saw that happen in France and Belgium with these bad incinerators.

Who did we reach out to? We had to reach out to international experts like Dr. Neil Carman, who came up from Texas, and Dr. Paul Connett, who came up from the United States, who worked with our local organizations and local farmers. I remember meetings where local farm women sat down and went through the EA line by line and learned the bogus science of toxic waste incineration, and learned how to challenge the environmental assessment against very powerful companies, against a government that was committed to making this go through.

It was possible because we were able to work with international organizations. These international organizations and these grassroots people are the direct target of a bill that wants to criminalize dissent, to make any efforts to stand up for the environment, any efforts to stop this kind of thing, whether it is toxic waste or the Trans Mountain pipeline going through indigenous territory, illegal, and to deny the rights of citizens to have public input.

That is what the Harper government did not get. That is why it never got a pipeline. To get a pipeline, there has to be social licence. The National Energy Board was little more than a bunch of hand puppets for the oil industry, and it limited public consultation again and again. Lo and behold, the courts ruled that this was a bogus process because there needs to be fair, open, public consultation: the bigger the risk, the bigger the obligation.

This bill to criminalize the rights of citizens to organize, to work with international organizations on bettering the plan, is fundamentally wrong and goes right to the rot that exists in the Conservative Party, which is to protect its big buddies and not to stand up for grassroots people.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-278, an act to amend the Lobbying Act, specifically with regard to reporting obligations.

Canadians have a right to know when foreign entities are trying to influence federally elected officials. The intent of this bill is to require the sources of any foreign funding received by lobbyists and grassroots organizations to be reported in the lobbyist registry to provide Canadians with greater transparency about who is actually lobbying their politicians.

This bill aims to make two changes to the current law.

The first amendment requires all corporations and organizations that lobby the government to disclose all funds received from foreign nationals, non-resident corporations and non-resident organizations. Lobbyists would then need to disclose the original foreign source of their funding, rather than hiding behind layers of shell companies or a chain of charities and foundations.

The second amendment expands the types of activities that lobbyists must report, specifically requiring reporting of any activities that appeal to the public directly or through mass media to try to persuade them to communicate directly with public office holders to influence their opinion. Reporting any grassroots communications—and I say “grassroots” loosely—funded by foreign actors that impacts the government's ability to consult the Canadian public on a specific course of action would allow the Canadian public to assess for themselves the motives of these actors.

The bill does not restrict or prohibit any groups from seeking foreign funding, nor does it restrict or prohibit their right to protest; it simply requires organizations that want to participate in our democracy to be honest and transparent. It provides transparency to Canadians and allows them to draw their own conclusions from that clarity.

My colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke should be commended not only on a well-thought-out and important bill that strengthens democracy in this country, but also on her patience. Nearly three years ago, the foreign lobbyist transparency act was introduced and received first reading. In that time, the Liberal government bought a $4.5-billion pipeline nobody wanted to sell, and now we cannot even build it. The Liberal government killed energy east, a $12-billion pipeline that would have brought economic prosperity to New Brunswick and other provinces right across the country. The government killed northern gateway, an $8-billion project that would have seen Alberta oil get to lucrative markets in Asia to the benefit of all Canadians. The energy sector has lost $100 billion in potential investment, which is equivalent to 4.5% of Canada's gross domestic product. Capital investment in the mining sector has fallen every year that the current government has been in power. The value of total mining projects planned and under construction from 2018 to 2028 has been reduced by 55% since 2014, from $160 billion to $72 billion.

We have seen Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the anti-tanker bill—which does not stop tankers, just Canadian tankers—pass in this House.

The polices of the Liberal government have doomed the Canadian natural resources sector.

While this bill has floundered in the House, a lot of time has passed for lobbyists to influence the government's policy decisions. We must have robust lobbyist regulations in place so that Canadians can have a clear picture of who is attempting to influence whom.

However, when it comes to the manipulation of domestic policy by foreign entities, the picture is not so clear. A CBC report in mid-February analyzed more than 21,000 tweets from so-called “troll accounts” that had been deleted by Twitter and that had set their sights on Canada, including on the pipeline debate. The report found 245 accounts re-tweeting messages about the pipeline and circulating media articles and re-tweets from the accounts of anti-oil activists.

According to the report, the foreign accounts are suspected of being based in Russia, Iran and Venezuela. It should come as no surprise that these three countries produce large amounts of oil. Russia and Iran are second and third respectively in global oil exports.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources was questioned by the media about this foreign attack on Canada's oil and gas sector, and he had this to say:

Its always concerning when you have people from outside of your country trying to influence the decision-making. There is a legitimate way of doing that, and that's through diplomacy and other venues and avenues.... Misinformation and information that is not based on facts is never healthy for any democratic process to take place.

I could not agree more, and while this incident might not be caught up in this legislation, it is a symptom of the cold. By having in place a stronger, healthier act governing lobbying activity in this country, we can innoculate ourselves better against all forms of foreign influence in our political decision-making process.

We are all aware of the work of Vivian Krause, who has been researching the oil sands for nearly a decade and believes that there is a concerted push against Canadian oil, funded by U.S. interests, to keep Alberta oil chained to U.S. markets. Over the past 10 years, nearly $90 million in foreign funding, according to Krause, has gone into this endeavour.

Whether one believes that American philanthropists are behind the scheme to keep Canadian oil in the ground, whether one believes it is American industrialists ensuring low prices by restricting access to international markets, or whether one believes the whole thing is just a conspiracy theory, the fact remains that the amendments in the bill will illuminate the matter and provide a clear picture for Canadians to judge for themselves what is really going on.

That is what this bill is all about. It is about giving power to Canadians to judge for themselves. Almost two-thirds of Canadians have identified oil and gas as one of the most critical economic sectors in the entire country. Sixty-nine per cent of Canadians say that the country will face a considerable or significant economic impact if no new oil pipelines are built. Fifty-two per cent support constructing both the Trans Mountain and the now cancelled energy east projects, while 19% oppose both.

Are these opinions influenced by subversives, pro- or anti-oil, or are they based on clear economic, scientific and environmental facts? There are divisions, for sure, and alternate opinions are important in the policy-making process, but it is Canadians' opinions that need to shape Canadian policy, not foreign entities with their own political and economic agendas.

Earlier in the debate, on January 31, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked if there was any concern, I believe her word was "disturbed," that the Fraser Institute had received more foreign funding to defend pipelines than environmental groups had received from the U.S. to attack Canadian pipelines. Yes, everyone in the House should be concerned when anyone is receiving foreign funds to influence Canadian policy, but it is far more important, in fact it is our duty here in this place, to be influenced by the 69% of Canadians who are worried about the significant economic impact if no new oil pipelines are built or the 52% for and the 19% opposed to the construction of the Trans Mountain and energy east pipelines.

During the debate on Bill C-278, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra raised a concern that the lobbyist community might face an increased reporting burden and that any amendments must “respect the principles of the act, which seek to strike a balance between transparency and ensuring that the compliance burden imposed on lobbyists is reasonable and fair.” I believe, as do the vast majority of Canadians, it seems, that protecting our democracy from foreign influence might just be worth increasing the reporting burden for lobbyists.

Bill C-278, the foreign lobbyist transparency act, would achieve financial clarity and improved accountability through the public reporting of payments made by foreigners to lobbyists.This is a non-partisan piece of legislation that would support a healthy, transparent and accountable democracy for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I look forward to it undergoing full scrutiny at committee, returning and passing in the House.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-278, an act to amend the Lobbying Act (reporting obligations).

The purpose of the Lobbying Act is to achieve a balance in maintaining the transparency of lobbying activities and ensuring free and open access to government. To that end, the Lobbying Act is based on four key principles.

First is that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest.

Second is that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity.

Third, it is desirable that public office holders and the public be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities.

Fourth, the system of registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government.

I would like to take this opportunity to go over the main features of this legislation. The Lobbying Act requires anyone who lobbies federal public office holders to register with the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.

All lobbyists are obligated under the act to report on lobbying activities, including communications with designated public office holders, on a monthly basis. This information is published on the Internet on the public registry maintained by the Commissioner of Lobbying.

The Lobbying Act identifies two types of lobbyists. A consultant lobbyist is an individual who, for payment, communicates with public office holders on behalf of any person or organization.

The Lobbying Act lists activities that are considered to be lobbying when carried out in return for payment. Generally speaking, they include communication with a public office holder in respect of the amendment of any act, regulation, policy or program of the federal government, the awarding of a financial benefit such as a grant or contribution, and, in some cases, the awarding of a government contract.

In addition, for a consultant lobbyist, arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any other person constitutes lobbying.

The commissioner has provided additional interpretation on what must be reported. In-house and consultant lobbyists must report all oral and arranged communications with designated public office holders relating to financial benefits, even when initiated by public officer holders. Likewise, consultant lobbyists must report oral and arranged communications with designated public office holders relating to a contract regardless of who initiated the communication.

For the purposes of the Lobbying Act, communications include oral, written and local communications. Examples of oral communication with a public office holder include organized meetings, telephone calls and informal verbal communications. Letters and emails are examples of written communication with a public office holder. Lobbyists' appeals to the public through letter-writing and email campaigns, advertising, websites or social media are examples of local communication.

Currently, under the act, grassroots communication means appealing to the public directly or through mass media to persuade them to communicate directly with a public office holder to influence their opinion.

Some types of communication do not require registration. These include, for example, inquiries to obtain publicly available information and general inquiries about the terms and conditions of programs and application processes.

Registration is also not required for participation in government-initiated activities such as consultations, hearings, round tables or like-minded activities where transparency is comparable to that of a parliamentary committee, with participants, proceedings and decisions readily made public. The same goes for the preparation and presentation of briefings to parliamentary committees.

The bill before us today would require organizations and corporations that lobby the government to report on funds received from foreign nationals, non-resident corporations and non-resident organizations. This bill would also expand the types of activities that lobbyists must report as grass roots communications.

The proposed bill will expand the definition of grassroots communications to require lobbyists to also disclose if they are encouraging the public or organizations to undertake activities that could indirectly influence public office holders.

When we consider the bill against the principles of the act, which have sought to strike a balance between transparency and ensuring that the compliance burden imposed on lobbyists is reasonable and fair, important concerns become apparent.

For example, lobbyists can face steep penalties for violating the Lobbying Act. Filing a false return can result in a $200,000 fine or two years in jail. As such, it is crucial that the reporting obligations under the act remain clear so that lobbyists are able to comply with the legislation. We believe the proposed bill does the exact opposite.

In addition, the bill's amendments would increase the compliance burden on lobbyists and the enforcement burden on the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying. The limited impact of the bill in terms of transparency must be weighed against these potential costs.

The Lobbying Act makes it possible for Canadians to know who is talking to public office holders and whose interests they represent. I am open to improving the act, but I think that, in this case, the cons of the proposed amendments outweigh the potential pros. That is why I encourage all members to vote against this bill.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to bring us home regarding the debate on Bill C-278 and the important public policy discussion started by our colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I find it quite interesting to listen to NDP members and the Liberals in this debate. The Liberal speaker who preceded me suggested that everything was fine regarding lobbyist registries and that the regulations did not need to be updated. This is after two months of scandal related to intensive lobbying efforts by SNC-Lavalin to change the course of justice in Canada, which has led us to the largest political scandal in Canadian history.

In fact, the OECD has a group looking into the SNC-Lavalin affair. The OECD is an international body that has never investigated Canada before for rule-of-law concerns. This all stems from lobbying that commenced four months into the government's mandate, which led to the insertion of the remediation agreement provisions into the budget implementation act, an omnibus bill.

That lobbying was all above board and done correctly, but to dismiss concerns about the need to ensure our lobbying registries are the most current and effective in the world is a false argument at a time when we have been consumed by a scandal that, at its centre, was the government advancing the interests of a private corporation.

When my friend from Timmins—James Bay stood up, he had a piece of paper in his hand that looked like the bill, but he clearly had not read it. He went on a rant about a lot of his old nuggets from the Harper government days and talked about grassroots efforts. We know that money coming from foreign sources, unions or elsewhere does not represent truly grassroots efforts. At the very minimum, we should expect full transparency disclosure of any monies used to influence public discourse, public debate and the review of legislation in Canada.

Why do I say this? Why is Bill C-278 critical at this time in our history?

Today, at the G7 meeting in Europe, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “interference is very likely and we think there have probably already been efforts by malign foreign actors to disrupt our democracy.” This was what the Liberal minister said today at the G7 meeting about foreign influence in elections and democracies. This is why my colleague brought forward Bill C-278.

The last Liberal speaker should get on the phone to correct her minister. Perhaps she could say to her House leader that the Liberals should support what the Conservatives are doing to ensure we prevent interference.

Bill C-278 does two discrete and very easy-to-understand things. It would require lobbyists to disclose the source of their funding as well as disclose the intention of those foreign funds and lobbying efforts to influence proceedings in Canada, be they regulatory proceedings on pipeline review or legislative proceedings on the legalization of cannabis. Last I checked, most Liberal operatives seem to working that industry these days. All that will do is bring disclosure.

What is wrong with a little sunshine? We have this new chamber that allows in a bit of diffused light. That diffused and opaque transparency is what we get from the Prime Minister.

I find this the height of hypocrisy. As a private member, the member for Papineau was not really known for doing much in this place before he became Prime Minister, and I respect the role he has. His one private member's bill from the last session, about which maybe my Liberal friends who were elected in 2015 do not know, was Bill C-613, and I always thought it was ironic that it used the Ottawa area code. That bill was meant to update access to information laws.

When he was in opposition, he talked about having transparency by default. As Prime Minister, he has done the opposite. In fact, he has not lived up to one shred of the intention of Bill C-613.

The last information commissioner chastised the Prime Minister for his conduct with respect to access to information. We have just today debated code words being used within the government to delay disclosure in the Norman affair. We have heard that ATIs asked for by La Presse will not be available from the government on the SNC matter until after the election. There has been zero transparency from the Liberal government, this Prime Minister and the small group of people around him.

Let me say why this sunshine is needed and particularly why l am concerned that we seem to be fine with not tracking foreign money in our country. I would invite members, including Liberal and NDP members, to watch Wendy Mesley's interview with Vivian Krause. Because in the U.S. there is disclosure of tax records, of foundation reports to the IRS, of unions' disclosures of money spent on the legislative process, she is able to analyze U.S. documentation to track the spending of money in Canada.

In fact, it should very much concern Canadians, including in my province, where in the great recession when the auto industry was at the edge, the resource industry in western Canada led to more jobs than the auto sector did in Ontario. People in my community of Durham should be concerned that the Rockefeller Foundation, the Tides Foundation and the Hewlett trust were part of a Corporate Ethics International campaign to, in their words, “landlock Canadian oil”.

In fact, they were putting and syphoning money into Canada, into activist groups, into activities to actually stop regulatory proceedings with respect to resource development and getting those products to market. As a result, last year alone our national interests received $15 billion less than the world price for oil because of a deflated price that has hurt Alberta immensely. That is less tax revenue that we can spend at the provincial and federal levels on things that matter to Canadians. I think people should know if those projects are being delayed, cancelled or influenced by foreign money.

Therefore, what is wrong with a little disclosure, particularly from a Prime Minister who said transparency should be the default setting in government? Today we hear from the Liberals that the regulatory process is in order and the bill is not needed, yet in Europe, the minister is saying there is likely interference going on now with respect to our parliamentary democracy and our election this fall.

Bill C-278 is intended to address that. Let us at least get it to committee so we can talk about this situation. If we go on social media, on Twitter, what we see would probably keep most of us up at night because of the terrible environment. The last Clerk of the Privy Council called it a vomitorium.

The influence of paid operatives on Twitter may have influenced other elections before ours. Should we not know if some of those foreign influences are paying organizations on the ground here in Canada to impact Canadians and our decisions on our resources, on our projects, on our infrastructure, on whether indigenous Canadians will be able to benefit from resources on traditional lands. It is impacting our indigenous peoples and our democracy.

Bill C-278 is a modest proposal. I know the grassroots members of the NDP will survive without foreign money. They should support the bill. If the Liberal members listened to their own minister today, talking to G7 leaders about interference by foreign actors in political elections, then the Liberals should also support the bill. That is why I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for bringing it to Parliament.