Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I do not really know what to think of the slogan from the members opposite, “My home, your home, bring it home”, or what they are really trying to get at. However, at the end of the day, it is definitely not about freedoms. They should look in the mirror and talk about women's rights and quite possibly apply that same principle of freedom. I am thinking in terms of what we have witnessed over the last few years. I believe that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have come together and recognized that, as the world went into this pandemic, it was going to take a team approach. I want to acknowledge the sacrifices that were made by virtually everyone in dealing with the pandemic. In listening to the comments from members opposite, we heard a lot about the sacrifices that were made, some very personal. They dealt with deaths, births and everything in between. I want to acknowledge that at the very beginning and commend the actions of Canadians as a whole. My colleague made reference to Brian Mulroney, a former prime minister, and quoted what he had said. Before I expand on that, I want to make reference to the fact that, as a national government, right from the very beginning, we were clear that we would have the backs of Canadians—

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister could reflect on how, when the leader of the Conservative Party had a press conference in regard to the budget bill, he said that he was going to speak and speak. His intentions were to prevent the bill from passing until the Prime Minister made changes to the budget. Now we have the Conservatives opposing this particular bill. They have already expressed an interest in terms of speaking and speaking in order to prevent the bill from passing. Would the minister not agree that, just as when the leader of the Conservative Party vowed to speak endlessly, without the time allocation, we would never have been able to pass the budget and we would not be able to pass Bill C-18? Would the minister provide his thoughts on that issue?

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate input from the leader of the Green Party. I am not sure if she was here for the beginning of my comments. The bottom line is that it is important for Canadians to realize the degree to which the government is working with some opposition parties in this House in order to pass important legislation. I indicated at the beginning of my remarks just how important our community media outlets are. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that Facebook, Google and the big giant tech companies are paying for what they are receiving and utilizing through media news outlets. We are attempting to ensure that we have healthier community news and a healthier democracy, as a direct result. I indicated earlier that I would talk about CBC. We have a government that is committed to supporting CBC and I would love, during questions and comments, to hear some Conservative members make the commitment to support CBC Radio and CBC Television. I will not hold my breath on that point, but it sure would be nice for them to support that, if not Bill C-18.

Madam Speaker, I do plan to expand on that point shortly, but before I do that, I want to provide a bit of a different perspective on how important Bill C-18 is. It needs to be placed in the real world context to see how it would protect our national community news agencies and media. It is so very important. I often will go to a lot of events, as members on all sides of the House do. Often it is the community news people who are at those events, taking pictures, doing interviews and so forth. If it is a local basketball game or championship game at a local high school, it will be the local newspaper that highlights it. I go to many different types of ethnic events. Whether it be the Pilipino Express News Magazine, Filipino Journal, Punjabi Today or CKJS radio, these community-driven news agencies, newspapers, radio and media are reporting on the things taking place. There are pictures and everything else incorporated. While visiting constituents in their homes, I often see that they have a newspaper produced in the community. They will show me where their son or daughter's name is in that community newspaper or where a local community event is being profiled in the paper. It does not matter whether people are from urban or rural communities, whether they are from the east or the west or up north, these small news agencies play a critical role in our community development and society as a whole and, absolutely, 100% with respect to our democracy. One of the fundamental pillars to a healthy democracy is to have a healthy media. That is why the minister of heritage has often talked about the importance of supporting journalism, supporting those news media outlets. I believe the minister referenced the year 2008, a year when just under 500 media outlets of different sizes from different areas of the country completely disappeared. We should all be concerned about that. Local media is how we often find out about the birth of a child, or that someone has died or an announcement about a parade to be held in our community It is often how we will hear about grand openings and so many other things. Not to mention that elected officials will often take political accountability by providing writing or commenting through local media. I want people who are following the debate to understand just how important it is that we as a government are here to support our media. We are not the first government in the world to do so. We have heard about Australia and France. I believe that many countries around the world are following the debate on Bill C-18. I am disturbed by the Conservative Party's approach to this legislation. All of us should be. Is it working with the giant tech companies? Has it been intimidated by the giant tech companies? The member for Kingston and the Islands raised a quote. I would like to reinforce that. For my Conservative colleagues across the way, I suggest they look at that election platform, the platform that they shared with millions of Canadians in the last federal election. Page 155 of the 2021 Conservative platform, which has a picture of the former leader on the front of it, says, “Canadian media is in crisis. The loss of digital advertising revenue to American tech giants like Google and Facebook is putting local newspapers out of business, costing Canadian jobs, and undermining our ability to tell local, Canadian stories.” I agree with that. In fact, if I did not tell people it was coming from the Conservative platform, I would feel very comfortable making that statement. I will continue to read from the Conservative platform. It says, “Canada’s Conservatives don’t believe that the solution is for the government to provide direct funding to hand-picked media outlets”, and I disagree with that as I see the value in CBC and I will provide further comment on that shortly, “something that undermines press freedom and trust in the media. Instead, we will secure a level playing field for Canadian media, ensuring that Canadians are paid fairly for the content they create while encouraging the creation of more Canadian media and culture.” I have some difficulty with some of the things in that statement, but the Conservatives raise the importance of the issue. It goes on to say, and this is the platform's bold statement, “Canada’s Conservatives will: Introduce a digital media royalty framework”, and that is what we are debating in Bill C-18, “to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.” If members were to review Hansard and the debate we have had on this, what are the two platforms we are talking about? Google and Facebook. This legislation is, in essence, taking what is in the Conservative platform. It goes on to say, “Adopt a made in Canada approach that incorporates the best practices of jurisdictions like Australia and France.” Members on this side of the House have said that. The legislation and establishment of the framework is based on what has come out of Australia and France. Our legislation goes even further. It would ensure there is a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Let us go back to the last federal election. In that election, Conservative candidates, 338 of them, had a platform document. Every one of them campaigned on that. The legislation we are debating, what we are proposing to do with this legislation, is fulfilling something they committed to doing. I would have thought the Conservative Party would have supported Bill C-18. Why are the Conservatives not supporting it? We listened to the critic. We listened to a few other Conservatives. We get the impression that they have been intimidated by giant tech companies like Facebook and Google. What is the other option? That they agree? What about the commitment they made to Canadians? This is in opposition to that. This is not the first time. They did the same thing on the price on pollution. They made a commitment and they broke that. I would argue that this is not the same Conservative Party from the past. This is very much a Reform Party and maybe even further to the right than the Reform Party was. This is what Canadians need to be aware of. Why would the Conservatives not want to protect the national interest and give more strength to our democracy by supporting Bill C-18? They have gone out of their way to protect those giants. I would be disappointed if the government were to back down because Facebook says it is going to pull its news ads. I am not a computer tech person. I know there are all sorts of things people can do through the computer and maybe they have ways they can pull out the news ads; I am not 100% sure how that works. However, what I do know is that I am not going to be intimidated, whether by Google or Facebook. If Facebook operators believe that they do not need those stories in order to sustain the type of growth that they have experienced and wealth that has been generated because of journalism that has been utilized through their companies at no cost, I will stand by Canadians. I am going to stand by our democracy. I am going to stand by the jobs and the importance of that industry because I recognize its importance. The Conservatives have now said they are going to pull all stops out. They do not want this legislation to pass and they have been very clear on that. I had posed a question in regard to the budget implementation bill when the leader of the Conservative Party had a big press conference. In the press conference, he said he was going to speak and speak. He has unlimited time on the budget implementation bill. He was going to continue to speak until ultimately the Prime Minister backed away and changed the budget, even though hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing through the budget implementation bill in order to support Canadians. A few hours later, that kind of fell flat. Why was that? It was because not only did the Liberals see through the charade, but opposition parties outside of the Conservatives saw the charade and the propaganda stunt that the leader of the Conservative Party was trying to pull off. Just yesterday, with respect to Bill C-42, the corporations bill, the Conservative Party actually supported the legislation. Everyone supports the legislation. However, the Conservatives want to apply that very same principle in terms of what they want to apply to Bill C-18, and that is to prevent government legislation from passing. Therefore, the Conservatives continue to put up members to speak and if it were not for time allocation, again, that legislation would not have been able to pass. Now, the Conservatives are shocked or at least surprised that the government has brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. They should not be surprised. After all, they just need to look at their record; they try to frustrate the House of Commons, to deny Canadians the opportunity to have legislative measures that are going to protect their interests. We have consistently seen that from the Conservative Party. The Conservatives put their political party and their fundraising ahead of the interests of Canadians. Let us listen to the first question, when the Minister of Heritage was answering questions as to why time allocation was necessary. The first person up for the Conservative Party asked why the government was bringing in time allocation, saying that they should be allowed to have all of their members speak to the legislation. They should do the math. If every member speaks, that means how many hours of debate? How many more hours are there before the summer recess? It is not a question of whether the Conservatives will allow the legislation to pass before the summer break, they want to kill the bill. They do not want the bill, period, end of story. That is their intention. That is why I posed a question to my Bloc friend. The essence of the question was whether the member believes that the Conservatives, had we not brought in time allocation, would have allowed this bill to pass before the summer recess. If the member from the Bloc were to be honest with the chamber, he would probably recognize that the Conservatives have no intention whatsoever to pass this legislation, definitely not before the summer break. If we did not have at least one opposition party supporting what we are doing, this legislation likely would not see the light of day in terms of its passing. I need to remind the Conservatives, as they like to remind us, about the last election and there being a minority government. In a minority government, we have to continue to be focused on Canadians, delivering legislative and budgetary measures and working with the opposition. Fortunately, most opposition parties have a more co-operative attitude and recognize that they too have a role to play in a minority government. It is not just the government's responsibility. The only party that has failed to recognize that fact is the Conservative Party of Canada. It continues to believe its only role is to prevent legislation from passing. Then it criticizes us for bringing in time allocation motions and trying to limit debate on important pieces of legislation or budget measures. It is hard to take Conservatives seriously on things of that nature when we see them delay time and time again, such as with concurrence in committee reports. One of my favourites is when a Conservative stands and moves a motion for another Conservative to speak. Then there is a vote, which causes the bells to ring. Instead of debating, they try to determine which Conservative member should filibuster or they decide we are done for the day and move a motion to adjourn, again causing further delay. These are the types—

Madam Speaker, the federal government continues to support our community and news outlets in many different ways. I guess that can be reversed. The member said he is concerned about the community news media outlets, yet even though Conservatives made an election platform promise, they reneged on that commitment. At the end of the day, we have not only shown budgetary measures to support media outlets, but we have now also provided legislative outlets. As the NDP House leader has very clearly indicated, whether with respect to the Saskatchewan or Alberta community newspapers, the New Democrats support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, we went through quite an extensive process at the committee stage. I suspect the member will find that many of the concerns the Bloc had raised have already been addressed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I recognize that the members of the Bloc support the legislation, but I question to what degree they support the speedy passage of the bill. We want to see it pass before the summer break.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that Brian Mulroney was a Progressive Conservative, as opposed to the current leader, who is kind of a Conservative-Reform-far-right leader. I would, first, start by saying that I do not think they are the same political entity. In regard to his comments, we have, as a government, carried out some wonderful things with the support of Canadians, whether it is securing health care funding for future generations, $200 billion to the establishment of the first-ever national housing program or the first-ever child care support program. These are national programs, not to mention the supports we have put in place for seniors going into the pandemic. No government in the history of this country has signed off on as many trade agreements throughout the world, ultimately supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want a government and an economy that is going to be there for all Canadians. That is what we have been striving for, while the Conservatives seem to be more focused on raising money than doing what is politically correct. That is why they are in opposition to this particular piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I think the legislation that the member is referring to is Bill C-11; on that bill, the Conservatives said that we were trying to muzzle Canadians, that we were not going to let them upload their cat videos and things of that nature. It is about misinformation. Of course that was absolute hokum, misinformation. I suspect that the Conservative Party made a lot of money on Bill C-11, in terms of fundraising, by spreading misinformation. I do not know how long that particular piece of legislation was held up for. I think it was a record in terms of how long it was held up in the Senate. The bottom line is that this is good legislation. All they need to do is read their election platform to see what they told Canadians in the last federal election, recognize the true value of this legislation and support it. It is not too late. One can always flip-flop again and support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I think one has to look at it from the perspective of how the government has a finite number of hours in which we can actually have government business come before the House. Opposition members know that. That is one of the greatest tools that an opposition member has. I was in opposition for over 20 years. I understand the tool. At the end of the day, if one continues to bring up concurrence reports, to move motions that other members be able to speak and to bring up dilatory motions in order to prevent debate from taking place, it is destructive. I agree that it is not the Bloc that is doing it and that it is the Conservative Party; that is why I emphasize and focus attention on the Conservative Party's irresponsible behaviour so much of the time. It is a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. I too enjoy a good debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was able to witness the whole process, in terms of what had taken place. There was no “heated exchange” between the two members; the minister was giving a response to a question, and he was constantly being heckled. The Speaker at the time gave not one or two, but several warnings. They were not warnings about unparliamentary language; they were because the member continued to heckle, and she was warned to stop heckling. The unparliamentary language was only one part of it. She was actually told that if she did not stop heckling, then she would not be recognized. It had nothing to do with the unparliamentary language. In fact, while the Speaker was making that ruling, I focused my attention on the member for Lethbridge, who did not stop talking. Reflecting on what took place, I do not think what the opposition whip has put on the record is fully accurate.

Madam Speaker, what Canadians knew and understood was that, whether it was the Prime Minister, the cabinet, members of the Liberal caucus or others, we made it very clear that we would have the backs of Canadians going through this pandemic. We took a team Canada approach, as we worked with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders at a time when we needed the country to come together. Therefore, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney ultimately provided the compliment to the Prime Minister and the government, I think that same principle applied. As a government, we did a good job, but it was a collective good job. It was Ottawa working at its best with the different stakeholders, and we made a difference. Lives were saved as a direct result. A lot more time was saved with people not having to be in hospitals—

Madam Speaker, I have an unbelievable fact. Here is what the Conservative Party said: Canada’s Conservatives will: Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook. They even make reference to Australia and France. This is what the legislation is doing. I heard the critic say, “Do not answer it.” I hope she does answer. At the end of the day, how does the member justify going to her constituents, campaigning on doing what Bill C-18 is doing and, then, voting against it? It sounds as though the member is either being intimidated by giant tech or just selling out with the rest of her party.

Madam Speaker, talk about being paranoid. It is interesting. The member talked about Bill C-11 and how the government wants to censor everything. He then went on to Bill C-18 and said we are going pay off the media so that the media will give us nothing but positive stories. The real manoeuvre, no doubt, is the fact that we were able to fool the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens into supporting the Liberals in bringing all of this together to pass this kind of legislation so that the Prime Minister of Canada would be almighty and powerful. That is the type of tinfoil hat talk that I think we are seeing across the way. Does the hon. member really believe what he is talking about? Is this the type of thing he is promoting through his social media?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide what the Conservative Party meant in the last election when it had incorporated into its platform that a Conservative government would “Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.” What did the Conservative Party mean when it made that statement?

Madam Speaker, I had posed a fairly precise question to the member opposite, and I think the Conservative Party does owe an explanation to Canadians. They campaigned on and promised to bring forward legislation of this nature that would do what this legislation would do. Even in their platform, they make reference to Australia's and France's legislations, which this legislation is modelled after. There is no cop-out or an excuse. Why did the Conservative Party backflip and flip-flop on this issue? They promised Canadians they would support it.

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the deputy leader of the Conservative Party taking this position and leading the fight against Bill C-18. Whether it is Bill C-18 or Bill C-11, a great deal of consultations have taken place. One sees that New Democrats, a member of the Bloc, a member of the Green Party, obviously the Liberals and even the former Conservatives, when the Conservative Party was under different leadership fewer than two years ago, supported the legislation. What has changed, outside of the leadership of the Conservative Party? Why is the Conservative Party moving so far to the right? I would suggest it is going even further right than the Reform Party.

Madam Speaker, that is somewhat disappointing and disheartening when we see the type of support that is out there for this legislation. I will use something that was brought up earlier as an example. We can look at the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association or the media outlets, or we can look at the amount of concern that Canadians have with regard to media and the important role that the media play in some of the foundations of our democracy, and then we can look at what is happening inside the House. We have the NDP recognizing that the bill is good. We have the Bloc recognizing that the bill is good. We have members of the Green Party recognizing that the bill is good. Obviously the Liberals recognize that the bill is good. We used to have the Conservative Party, under a different leader in the last election, saying that the bill, in essence, was good. In fact, it was in the Conservative election platform. Could the member explain to Canadians why, under this current right-wing leadership of the party today, the Conservatives cannot support good legislation that is modelled after Australia's and France's, something they incorporated into their own election platform?

Madam Speaker, since 2008, we have witnessed over 450 media outlets of all different forms virtually disappear. We recognize these media outlets as having value; they are important to society, to our communities and to democracy. We have legislation before us that has support virtually across the board, from local communities and larger communities to political entities, including all of those inside this House, with the exception of the Conservatives. The Conservatives refuse to recognize the value of the legislation, which is modelled after what we have seen in Australia and France. My question for the member is this: Why does he believe everyone else is thinking it would be healthy for our communities to preserve these systems into the future? Why does it have to be the Conservatives who are right, when it appears they are dead wrong on voting against this bill?

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to important legislation that we are hoping to pass. The good news about this legislation is that it does not matter which political party in the House members are in, because I understand there is a very good chance this legislation will pass unanimously. I am not too sure about the Green Party. I am assuming it will support the bill. It may be iffy, but we will have to wait and see. The good news is that at least the Conservatives are onside, along with the New Democrats, the Bloc and obviously the governing party. I see that as a positive thing. At the end of the day, we are sending a very strong message that I like to think the federal government is taking strong leadership on. When we think of the Canada Business Corporations Act and the impact it can have in building confidence, both in our economy and in the public on the whole issue of trust in corporations, I see it as a win-win for everyone. There are very serious issues that we need to face in government, but it is not just the national government. That is why I emphasize that the federal government is talking about the Canada Business Corporations Act. As members of the House will know, it is not just the federal government that is responsible for all corporations and businesses in Canada. From a numbers perspective, the provinces and territories have more corporations and businesses that, hopefully, at some point in the future, will also fall under—

Madam Speaker, I was on a roll until I was interrupted. I was actually saying some positive things about the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, it is good, healthy legislation. One of the things to recognize is that Ottawa plays a leadership role on the issue of money laundering that is taking place in Canada and on the other types of illegal financial transactions that we see. We are not the only level of government that has to play this role. We have to recognize that there are provincial and territorial governments that have responsibility for corporations and small businesses in their jurisdictions. We have seen that some provinces have been more proactive in terms of trying to deal with issues such as money laundering, the funding of terrorism and tax avoidance. They have actually already started the process. It is not like it is an issue that has been overwhelmed by governments around the world. More and more, we are getting attention paid to this particular issue. One would expect that a government, in recognizing it, would want to bring forward legislation, as this government has. It has done a very thorough job in the development of the legislation, and presented it to the House. I suspect that is one of the reasons we are getting the support that we are from all parties inside the House. There is a scale within the legislation that would enable Ottawa to incorporate the provincial and territorial participation. I believe we have a couple of provinces in Canada, Quebec and possibly British Columbia, but do not quote me on that, that have actually already come forward with legislation. That legislation would complement the federal registry that we are attempting to put in place through the framework that is being established with Bill C-42. It is a commitment that we made to Canadians quite a while ago. In fact, it was in budget 2022 that we talked about establishing the framework, or, should I say, establishing the bill. We did not know the number then, but it is Bill C-42. It is a commitment that is being fulfilled by the Prime Minister and the government to support the building of confidence in corporations. I look at the bigger picture. We often hear how important small businesses are, and the biggest corporations often start as small businesses. In the last year, I have been to a number of announcements of small businesses, and even medium-sized businesses, opening up in Winnipeg North. They have contributed to the overall success of our economy over the years. We can talk about small businesses being the backbone of the Canadian economy, creating the hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs that are so very important. Many of those small businesses are going to be the medium-sized and larger businesses of the future. They are the businesses that ultimately believe in the importance of issues such as trade and international trade. At the end of the day, as I indicated in previous speeches, trade is very important to Canada. As a country that is so dependent on trade, it is important that we send a message around the world that we take money laundering seriously. We take the issue of funds that could indirectly or even directly go to terrorist organizations seriously. By doing that, I would argue we are demonstrating leadership not only from within our national boundaries, but even beyond them. It is not an easy task. As I say, at the end of the day, within this legislation, we provide enough scale to allow for provincial jurisdictions. Those numbers are actually even larger, in terms of the number of corporations and businesses, than what we would have in Ottawa. I suspect, if we were to canvass these jurisdictions, we would find that all of us benefit if we can pool the resources and get everyone onside in the form of a larger national registry, and that is what this legislation is doing. Corporations do a lot of amazing things. There is no doubt about that in the business community, but there is a percentage of those companies that do a great disservice. Those are the ones that continue to seek out ways, directly or indirectly, to launder money or to cause issues related to real estate, such as speculation of property, tax avoidance or even tax evasion. There is a difference. We also see the issue of terrorism being financed, all through illegal money. Members should be aware that money laundering takes many different forms. I know British Columbia is a good example of it in terms of the casinos. Illegal money comes in, gets washed and then somehow exits as clean, filtered or cleansed money. That has cost millions of dollars. We can talk about cryptocurrency. A number of months ago, there was an article in the Winnipeg Free Press on the police department cautioning people about fraud taking place with cryptocurrency. These are the types of things we need to be aware of. That is why we need to be careful. I know we often mock the leader of the Conservative Party because of his attitudes toward endorsing cryptocurrency. He talks about it being a good way to fight inflation. At the end of the day, we have to be very careful. It is one of those possible tools that can, in fact, be used for unethical financial exchanges. We are very dependent on our financial institutions and the protections that we put into place to track money that is flowing into Canada, and even money that is not flowing into Canada but has been acquired in an illegal fashion. We need to be cognizant of that fact. That is why, if someone goes into a bank and makes a deposit of more than $10,000, there is an obligation to report it. There are many outstanding Canadians who work at our financial institutions who are very aware of the types of things to watch out for. We need to watch out for certain behaviours that take place. They also play a critical role in terms of protecting the integrity of our system. From my perspective, and I would ultimately argue in the best interests of Canadians as a whole, the government takes actions where it can, like it is doing regarding Bill C-42, with the idea of establishing additional confidence in the public regarding corporations. There is something that I should make a quick reference to, as I felt quite good about it a couple of budgets back. The federal government found that we had a lot of people outside of Canada investing in real estate who were driving the costs up. In particular, cities like Vancouver and Toronto were being subjected to all forms of speculative investments. There were also issues surrounding money-laundering allegations and so forth in real estate, in particular in condo developments. I heard about some of the empty units. Imagine building a unit that is worth $2 million-plus and no one is living in it. After I talked to some people, I found out that a huge percentage of the overall new condos being developed in communities like Toronto and Vancouver were empty. They were sitting empty. One of the measures the government put in place to try to deal with that issue was a special tax for non-residents. Like many others, I think housing should be all about homes for people. However, they are becoming more of an investment, and a lot of the investments are driving up costs, especially with some of the vacancy rates across the country. It could be that or just a mindset that is often referenced about corporations in general: Corporations are greedy, and there is a lot of corruption, laundering and tax evasion or avoidance. A lack of trust is often found among the public in regard to corporations. That is why when looking at the very heart of Bill C-42, what we are really talking about is corporate accountability and public trust in our corporate institutions. We see this because of the requirement to have a public, searchable ownership registry. That is at the core of the Canada Business Corporations Act and the amendment the government is proposing today. One could ultimately argue that the industry itself has been saying it wants to see this legislation. The other day when I was speaking to this legislation, it was interesting. I was one of the individuals expecting to see the legislation ultimately pass unanimously or very close to unanimously. That will depend on what the leader of the Green Party and its other members do. That is the type of support potential it has. I often suggest that members see the legislation for what it is worth and listen to the comments being made at the committee stage. If members really want to help restore confidence in our corporations, one of the best things they can do is get this legislation passed so we can make a very strong statement. That statement deals with the beneficial ownership that individuals have in corporations, which would have to be part of a registry. Individuals could then find out about ownership when someone has a major portion of that ownership. I know that some want to see a lower percentage and that others might want to see a higher percentage. However, at the end of the day, what we are seeing, which I think is 25%, is an acceptable percentage for now. At least let us get the legislation through. By doing that, we are establishing the framework. I would then hope to see more discussions taking place at the different provincial legislatures in support of it. I talked about smaller businesses in our communities and the impact they have. I do not want to in any way try to imply that corporations as a whole need the legislation as much as it is important that the legislation is there to support corporations. We will find that law-abiding corporations and businesses are actually very supportive of the legislation. They understand the need for it. It is the idea that we have a registry that would enable consequential penalties. I would like to cite one in particular. By passing this law, to use a very specific example, corporations that fail to provide their beneficial ownership information to Corporations Canada may be prevented from obtaining a certificate of compliance. Keep in mind that if they cannot get that certificate of compliance, that has an impact on their ability to borrow funds. If a corporation wants to expand and go to a bank, they will need that certificate, in good part because without that certificate, chances are they will not be able to get financing. This is not to mention exports. Many corporations today are dependent on exports. To get those exports and have the market, these certificates are absolutely critical. If I look at it from that perspective, I think of my own community of Manitoba and some of the corporations that have done exceptionally well. The other day I talked about Hylife. Hylife is a company located in Neepawa, Manitoba, that creates hundreds of direct jobs, not to mention hundreds of indirect jobs. We can find out who those beneficial owners are, which is really important. It is the same thing with New Flyer Industries. These are in provincial jurisdiction, but some are in federal jurisdiction. We are talking about millions of dollars in transactions. If we look at New Flyer Industries, a huge corporation—

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is fair, whether it is the Conservatives in Ontario or the NDP in British Columbia, to point a finger at them and say they have failed, or at Ottawa and say it has failed, because I think all three governments have brought forward different initiatives to try to prevent real estate speculation and keep pricing more affordable for Canadians. At the end of the day, we have a national government that is prepared to invest in housing. Has there been laundering in real estate? Of course we believe there has been. However, we are working with provincial jurisdictions and financial and real estate associations to try to minimize it, because by doing that, we will in fact make homes more affordable.

Madam Speaker, I would not underestimate the member's influence over her colleague, her seatmate, and I highly recommend that she recommend to him that he join her in supporting this legislation, because it is good legislation. One thing that I hope I have emphasized at great length is recognizing that Ottawa plays a strong national leadership role. I would like to emphasize and re-emphasize how important it is that Ottawa continue to work with provincial jurisdictions, in particular, to ensure that we can expand the registry so that all Canadians will be that much more emboldened to feel we have public confidence and trust in corporations. The bill would ultimately add more value to our economy, because even corporations want to see this type of legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is important we recognize that the legislation establishes a searchable public ownership registry of a scale that the provinces that want to be able to participate in it can participate. I do not know all of the nuances. I know Quebec has been very progressive in advancing some legislation already. I would like to think that all provinces and municipalities would. In fact, members of this House can talk to their provincial counterparts and recommend that. After all, we all benefit if there is one registry that enables us to tap into it. When I say all, I am talking about the communities that we represent and corporations in general.

Madam Speaker, what the member does not necessarily indicate is that this a minority situation, so if he was losing votes at committee, that means it was not just the Liberal Party but the majority of the committee membership did not support the Conservative amendments, so it is not fair for him to say that it is the Liberal Party. What I have witnessed is that this government has no objection to adding strength to legislation if a bill or amendment can add true value to it. It is up to the critics of the parties to work within the committee to maybe do a bit of lobbying with the minister, which never hurts, and if there are things we can do to make the legislation more sound and better in a timely fashion we are always open to those ideas. Keep in mind that one always needs a majority, even at committee, in order to pass an amendment. We do not have a majority, but maybe we will after the next election.

Madam Speaker, I do want to acknowledge the efforts of the standing committees and those who have ultimately had direct input to bring the legislation to the state it is at today, and I think working with provinces, as I indicated in my speech earlier, is so critically important. By building upon the momentum we are adding great value to this evening by the passage of this bill, I think we would be doing a good thing for all Canadians. I just wanted to get the member's thoughts in regard to the provincial participation in or buy-in to the program.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Again, I would reinforce the fact that having this searchable data bank is going to be beneficial. We recognize that. We also recognize that it is important to reach out to other jurisdictions. This is all about restoring the confidence of the public and business, as it is healthier for the economy to do so. We appreciate the support the Conservative Party is giving the legislation. I guess this is more of a comment than it is a question.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that we have had a couple of Conservative speakers who have indicated, with a pretty heavy stick, I would suggest, that one gets provinces to come onside, possibly by bringing in some sort of amendment. I was not at the committee stage. I do not know if they were proposing an amendment that would legislate provinces to get on board. I think the government's approach, whether it is the municipalities or provinces in other areas, has been to lead, more so, with a carrot, as opposed to trying to legislate. I think we have been able to deliver. One only needs to take a look at the health care, the child care and the CPP program, where the federal government has worked very clearly with provincial jurisdictions and territorial jurisdictions to bring results. I would think we will see some results that will hopefully be satisfactory even for opposition members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been put on the record this morning. I want to give a different perspective. For many years, supply management has played such an important and critical role, not only in our farming communities, but also, I would argue, for true urbanites. We understand and appreciate the value of the product coming to our kitchen tables as a result of supply management and the important role it plays on the issue of quality. It is not just about protecting an industry; I would like to think it is also about the quality food product that ultimately shows up on our kitchen tables. It was a Liberal government that, in essence, brought forward supply management and created the supply management regime. We have seen ongoing governments, including the current government, reinforce their support for supply management in the agreements they have achieved. One of the things we need to recognize is that Canada, for all intents and purposes, is a trading nation. We are very dependent on world trade, and we see that in terms of the number of agreements Canada has been able to achieve. As a country of 40 million, we very much depend on that two-way trade system. We have a lot to offer the world and we are very successful at doing so. One of the ways we can secure markets is by ensuring that we have formal agreements put in place. When the Prime Minister talks about Canada's middle class, working for Canada's middle class and being there and trying to expand it for those who are trying to be a part of the middle class, we have to look at the issue of trade. It is easy, from the outside looking in, to say it is 100 per cent supply management, and in the trade agreements we are concerned about giving away quotas and so forth. From the inside, one has to recognize a couple of things. First and foremost, supply management is a good thing, and we continue to support supply management. The second thing is to recognize that we also value having these international trade agreements. There are many industries, including agricultural industries, that have greatly benefited from trade agreements. In the past, I have cited Canada's pork industry, for example. In the province of Manitoba, our pork industry is doing exceptionally well. It could not do anywhere near as well as it is doing today if it were not for international trade. It is very dependent on it. All one needs to do is go to my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa's riding to see HyLife, in the community of Neepawa. HyLife is a major producer of pork products. When I took a tour of the plant, someone said that over 95% of that pork is going to Asia. It is an area of ongoing growth. That export provides good-quality jobs. Therefore, I do not think it does us any service to say that trade agreements are a bad thing, when, in fact, they are a very good thing, especially from the perspective of where Canada is at and the need for Canada to enhance its trade opportunities. It does not have to be a win-lose situation. We trade with the best interests of Canada in mind. To try to give any sort of false impression that this is a government that does not understand or does not support supply management is wrong. Our first minister of agriculture was from the Atlantic province of Prince Edward Island, and our current Minister of Agriculture is from the province of Quebec. Both, along with other members, including myself, have been long-time advocates of the importance of our supply management system. It has had a very positive impact for consumers and for product quality, but it has also had a very positive impact on our farmers. Dairy farms are a good example of that. Not only are they able to plan for the future, but also we are seeing younger generations committed to continuing the farm, so we know there are career opportunities there. Supply management has provided quality entrepreneur opportunities, quality jobs and quality products, and the industry as a whole continues to do well in Canada, whether it is in Quebec, the Prairies, Ontario or other regions of the country. Some have higher numbers of supply-managed communities than others, so it important to the Canadian economy. We have recognized that, historically by creating it and presently by continuing to support it, even though, when it comes to trade, there has been no government in the history of Canada that has signed off on more trade agreements, securing more opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs, exporters and those who import into the country, so we can continue to support our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want to see an economy that works for all Canadians, and there is absolutely no doubt that supply management plays a very critical role in that. I thank the member for introducing the bill so we can have this particular debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the tactics Conservatives are using and ask the minister to comment. A good place to start is that it comes straight from their leader's office. The minister will recall not that long ago, a week or so ago, when the leader of the Conservative Party said, reflecting on the budget debate, that he was going to talk for hours until the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. It took a few hours, but we were ultimately able to get it passed. The Conservatives will move a motion to have another member speak, which then causes the bells to ring. They will bring in concurrence motions. They have even attempted to adjourn debate in the House. Does the member believe that the Conservative Party is using time wisely in the House?

Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote into the record and get the member to respond to it. This quote is from nothing other than the Conservative Party of Canada's election platform. Not that long ago there was a national election, and this is what the Conservative Party of Canada was telling the people of Canada: Canada’s Conservatives will: Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook. That is what this legislation is all about. If the Conservatives voted in favour of the legislation, they would be able to say it was something they campaigned on in the last election. Something has happened, once again, in the far right element of the Conservative Party. They have now taken yet another flip-flop. We talked about the price on pollution before, and we all remember that flip-flop. Here is another one. How can the member have gone to knock on doors to talk about how this was what they were going to do? This legislation is doing what they said they were going to do, and now, not only is the member going to vote against it, but she is also spreading all sorts of misinformation about the bill? Why is that?

Madam Speaker, I just want to emphasize that, when we talk about corporations and laundering and so forth, it is important to recognize that many of these companies are actually under provincial jurisdictions. With the federal government bringing forward legislation of this nature, this demonstrates leadership and the hope that the provinces and territories would do likewise. Both complementing each other would give strength to what is actually being proposed. Could the member expand on that particular point?

Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting fact. In two and a half hours, Canada's population will hit 40 million, and a good portion of that rapid growth is coming from Canada's Indo-Canadian community. I am tabling a petition that is calling for the Prime Minister, the government and all MPs to look at ways in which we can enhance airline services, both private and international, from Canada to India. Given the rapid growth of our Indo-Canadian community, I think this is a petition that deserves some attention. I would ask that we do what we can collectively to support the growth of our Indo-Canadian community.