Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to put an emphasis on the importance of recognizing the fine work that our civil servants do. I would just say that the interim Ethics Commissioner who is being referenced is a career public servant. She has served in a senior role in the Ethics Commissioner's office for more than 10 years, beginning when the Harper government was in office. We owe a great deal to our professional civil servants.

Mr. Speaker, I have had these concerns expressed to me personally as people are genuinely and legitimately concerned about what is happening in Bangladesh today. The concerns and allegations, which have been reported on in great detail, refer to the Bangladesh government's crackdown on opposition political parties, critical intellectuals, news media and journalists to shut their voices, take away their citizen and democratic rights, and forcibly remain in power. The government has also been accused of instituting a system of forced disappearance, extrajudicial killings, false lawsuits and all means of intimidation through its aligned forces and armed activists, dealing with issues such as corruption, rape, torture, killings, kidnapping and other undemocratic actions beyond one's imagination. The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to review the human rights violations and undemocratic actions of what is happening in Bangladesh and take all possible measures to support democracy, human rights and justice.

Madam Speaker, could the minister expand on just how this legislation is meant to modernize the Broadcasting Act? We would have to go back to the early 1990s to look at the last time there were any significant changes. At that time, things like Netflix and Crave did not exist, let alone the technological advancement of the Internet over the last 30 years. Could the minister provide his thoughts on just trying to keep up with the times?

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise again on important legislation that in essence sets the framework of where we need to go to support our creators and artists from coast to coast to coast. Before I get into the substance of the legislation, I want to provide a commentary on my disappointment in the Bloc. Bloc members like to talk about how they believe in culture and heritage and how they want to protect the interests of the arts community in the province of Quebec. However, the only members of Parliament from Quebec whom I saw stand up today to ensure this bill passed were the Liberal members of Parliament and one NDP member of Parliament. Whether they were Bloc or Conservative members of Parliament from the province of Quebec, they sent a message that they do not support the passage of Bill C-11. Let us be very clear. Conservative Party members have said they do not want to pass Bill C-11. They have been crystal clear on that.

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member across the way just said “hear, hear!”, supporting that it did not pass. The Bloc needs to realize that the Conservative Party of Canada does not want this bill to pass. The Conservatives believe it is about freedom. They believe it is about censorship. The Bloc, much like it has been conned in the past on issues in the budget, is being conned by the Conservatives once again on this legislation. I have seen the Bloc vote in favour of time allocation, even for closure. Bloc members have said that if it is a priority for the Bloc or a priority for Quebec, they will vote for it, as it is a benefit to Quebec. How does the province of Quebec benefit from allowing the Conservative Party to debate this bill endlessly? The Conservatives have made it very clear that they do not want the legislation to pass. The only members of Parliament from the province of Quebec standing up for the passage of Bill C-11 are in the Liberal caucus, with one member from the NDP. I was surprised at the manner in which the Bloc chose to vote today. Nothing has changed from the government's perspective. From the government's perspective, this is important legislation. It has been thoroughly debated. We are talking about hours and hours of debate. The bill has seen record amounts of debate in the Senate too. This bill has gone through first reading, debates at second reading and debates, discussions, questions, answers and amendments at the committee stage. Then it came back to the House for report stage and third reading, and again there were debates. It was then sent to the Senate. The Senate had debate, it went to committee and they came up with a number of amendments. The Minister of Health made reference to the fact that we are talking about a historic number of hours. It is one of those bills that, considering the history of the Senate, has had so much discussion. I want to highlight the fact that the Senate took its time in going through the legislation and looking at ways to add strength to it. Most of the amendments being proposed by the Senate to make changes after the efforts it put into the legislation are in fact being adopted by the government. The bill had thorough discussions, debates and amendments, both in the Senate and in the House of Commons. However, because changes were made in the Senate, there was a need for us to bring forward the legislation once again in the House of Commons. Let us look at the debate that started just the other day. The Conservatives are making it very clear that they are not going to allow the bill to move forward, because they have more members who would like to speak to the legislation. They have gone out of their way to prevent this legislation from passing, even with all the debate, questions and amendments that have gone forward. Canadians have priorities that are reflected in the types of things the government is doing. The budget was just released yesterday, and we all have things we like about it. I like the fact that we have a grocery rebate. We are providing an opportunity for Canadians to get relief from inflation by providing them support and giving them more money in their pockets so they can deal with the cost of groceries. These are the types of debates we should be having inside the chamber. In the budget yesterday we talked about a dental plan, and ensuring it will be there. If we look Bill C-11—

Madam Speaker, I trust the time spent on the point of order will be deducted from my speaking time on the issue. Bill C-11 is in fact relevant, because the Conservative Party is refusing to pass it when the government has a restricted amount of time to debate its agenda and show leadership, which is what Canadians expect of the government. Conservatives might not care about what Canadians have to say, but this is a government that does care. When we are dealing with the agenda of the House of Commons and Bill C-11, there is an expectation that they will at least recognize that, although we are in a minority situation, the official opposition has a responsibility to behave in a responsible fashion and recognize that there has been ample debate on the issue. This is legislation that makes a difference. Specifically, it will bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. I made reference to the Broadcasting Act in a question I had posed a bit earlier. Things have changed. The last time there was any significant change made to the Broadcasting Act was in the early nineties, when Netflix, Disney+ and Crave did not exist. This legislation levels the playing field. Why should the mainstream CTVs and CBCs, whether with respect to radio or television, have to comply with CanCon, but those other platforms do not? There is this thing called the Internet, which has changed the dynamic. If we look back at 1991, and then look 30 years later, many technological changes have taken place. I say that to emphasize to my Conservative friends that they should be living in the real world and should understand that because of those changes there is a need to modernize the legislation. That is what this bill does. It levels the playing field and modernizes the Broadcasting Act to ensure that Canadian content is available on the Internet in a very selective way. However, what it does not do is what the Conservatives are telling Canadians. This is interesting. On Monday, I was speaking on the legislation and talking about the misinformation the Conservative Party continues to put on the record here in the House and also tells Canadians. When I commented on how the freedoms of Canadians would not be limited in any way whatsoever by Bill C-11, this is what the Conservative critic had to say. Immediately following the comments I made, the member for Lethbridge stated: There is nothing progressive about censorship. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is about censoring Canadians and what they can see, hear and post online. It is about censoring artists, whether they have access to an audience and to what extent that access is granted. Let me give a clear indication of some of the comments that I made. I said, just before she spoke, talking about what is actually in the legislation, that Conservatives have to stop spreading misinformation, whether it is in the chamber or publicly. I said that this bill would not “impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media...impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users.” Here is a big one. I said this to the member, who was listening attentively, because she was going to be speaking right after me: “It would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms” or, and here is where I would like to underline it, “limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.” How much clearer can we be? Yet the member stands in her place and gives this misinformation. One has to ask: why? What is the motivation of the Conservative Party? It is definitely not in the best interests of Canadians, I will say. If it were in the best interests of Canadians, I suspect that Conservatives would approach Bill C-11 with, at the very least, a little bit more integrity and honesty. I suspect that one would see more sympathy toward our artists and creators and a basic understanding of the importance of modernizing the legislation. I would suggest that the Conservative Party is not doing what is in the interests of Canadians. The Conservatives are appealing to that far right group of people from whom they are hoping to raise money. They are using this legislation as a fundraising tool. They are saying that it is about freedom, that the government is going to take away one's freedom, that it does not believe in freedom of speech and it is going to prevent people from uploading wonderful videos of their cat or dog or all of these wonderful things in their community. They are telling Canadians that the Government of Canada is going to limit their freedoms and the only way to prevent that is to donate $5, $100 or $500 to the Conservative Party of Canada. That is their motivation. It is more about how they can use this to ratchet up the rhetoric to generate funds and to get people angry. That is what this legislation is really about, according to the Conservative agenda. It is not about what is in the interests of the industry. That is why I was so surprised with the behaviour of the Bloc today. In talking about the legislation, the Bloc has been fairly clear. It talks about how the industry, Canadian content, is so critically important. If one has a love for the French language and wants to recognize Canada as a multicultural society and wants to see our heritage reflected as much as possible, through all forms of media, this is the type of legislation one should be getting behind, because it promotes French. It promotes Canadian culture and heritage. It puts in place more opportunities for Canadian artists, whether they are from my home province of Manitoba, the province of Quebec or any other jurisdiction. We have some amazing talent in every region of our country. This legislation is going to support and enhance those opportunities for those Canadians to share that talent and to make a better living off those talents. This bill would create opportunities for more employment in our communities. There are industries that are very much alive today as a direct result of policies like the Broadcasting Act and organizations like the CRTC that contribute to our heritage. We can follow the discussions and look at what is being said inside the chamber. The NDP; the Bloc, half-heartedly; and obviously the government have recognized the true value of the arts community in making up our identity and contributing in so many ways to our society. I made reference just yesterday, or the day before, to Folklorama in Winnipeg. For that young artist who is provided the opportunity to perform in Folklorama in Winnipeg two weeks every summer, it is a beautiful place. Every member of the House should be visiting Folklorama, and I often talk about it inside the chamber. That young individual will be rehearsing throughout the year. It becomes a part of their identity, because they have a dream of being an artist, whether it is a singer, an actor or a combination thereof. Legislation such as this will enhance future opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is about levelling the playing field. It is about ensuring Canadian content, so there is a better reflection. I sure wish the Conservative Party would stop saying this, not only inside the House but more importantly outside the House. What the bill would not do is limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. This is not a bill about freedom. This is legislation that should have passed. It does not need to be thoroughly debated any more. We realize if we did not bring in closure on the legislation, the Conservative Party would continue to debate this legislation indefinitely. We would not be able to pass it in 2023 nor in all likelihood in 2024. That is the reason we have to bring in closure on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest they reflect on the House of Commons and its 338 members of Parliament. We have members of the New Democratic Party, the Bloc, the Green Party and, of course, the Liberal Party, all saying the principles of the legislation are so very important to the industry. It not only employs hundreds of thousands of people across our country in every region, but advances the interests of artists today and future artists for tomorrow. All that support, I believe, shows very clearly that this is good legislation. At the end of the day it is only the Conservative Party that is opposing the legislation, and I explained why I believe they are opposing it.

Mr. Speaker, if my memory is correct, I understand that the Quebec legislature has actually passed unanimous motions in support of Bill C-11. I believe that to be the case; I could be wrong. At the end of the day, there is no doubt that within Quebec there is widespread support for the legislation. The minister, no doubt, will continue to work with the province very closely, as he has in the past. At the beginning of my comments today, I made reference to my surprise that the Bloc did not support closure. Thankfully, the NDP did; otherwise, there is a very good chance that this legislation would never pass the House of Commons, because the Conservatives' intent is not to allow the legislation to pass. They have made that amply clear to us.

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a couple of important points. One is the issue of Canadian content, and let there be absolutely no doubt that Canadian content would be dramatically and positively impacted as a result of Bill C-11 and its passage. The other point is about the member's reference to his own constituency and the $18 million. I think people underestimate the size of the industry, which, for all intents and purposes, is being developed and growing virtually in all regions of our country. We are talking about an industry that has so much potential, and that is one of the reasons why it is so very important that we pass this legislation. In a minority situation, the government needs to have at least a partner to pass legislation, and I am grateful that the NDP has chosen to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, often we get emails from individuals looking for explanations on party positioning. What I have found is that there are ample amounts of misinformation being advocated, in particular from some parties inside the House of Commons, so I often need to respond to misinformation that is being espoused. I am not trying to give the impression that the legislation is 100% supported by everyone in the country. What I am suggesting is that this legislation would modernize the act and at the end of the day would ensure that there is a fairer, more level playing field.

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: It is a violation of a rule if the mace is on the table and one is taking a picture or a video. Traditionally, in the past, when the issue has been raised, we have often seen the Speaker call for an immediate deletion. It has nothing to do with censorship. It is 100% about rules inside the House. The leader of the official opposition is blatantly disobeying a rule. He should be deleting it, not because of censorship but because he should be respecting the procedures of the House of Commons. I would ask, and suggest, that he be called upon to delete the video that is in direct conflict with our rules.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the member put into proper context one of Canada's much-loved authors. It is important. The type of misinformation we are seeing on the legislation is causing a great deal of anxiety for many Canadians, where they feel they will lose their freedom to express themselves on the Internet or upload a simple post to Facebook. The Conservatives have been supporting that misinformation. Reflecting on the quote she read, can the member provide her thoughts on how it is unhealthy for society in general when there is that type of misinformation being talked about from elected officials?

Mr. Speaker, from hundreds of individuals and stakeholders, including different provincial governments, and I would cite the Province of Quebec and its legislature, there has been a groundswell of support to see this legislation pass. It is important to recognize that the members of the Green Party can say what they want, but I understand they are voting in favour of passing the legislation. I understand the Bloc is voting in favour of passing the legislation, the NDP is voting in favour of passing the legislation, and obviously the Liberals are. The Conservative Party is standing alone in the House of Commons in opposition to it. It is the opposition party that continues to promote misinformation on this issue. I will ask the member a very clear and concise question. Does he truly believe that this legislation would take away the freedom of Canadians to be able to upload their personal information on Facebook, for example?

Madam Speaker, whether it was the minister or one of the many other members, it has very clearly been said that what the bill would not do is, “impose regulations on the content [of] everyday Canadians post on social media.” It “does not limit [Canadians'] freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.” Why does the Conservative Party continue to give false information and plant anxiety in many individuals, and use that anxiety, when it knows it is not true?

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about misinformation. The industry has seen the value of the bill from every region of the country and wants to see the legislation pass through; the only political entity that is not going to be voting in favour of the legislation itself is the leader of the Conservative Party and his caucus. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Let me give an example. Earlier today, I posed a question to one of his members, asking if they really believe that the government is trying to prevent people from being able to upload a video on Facebook. I used the example of a cat video. The member said yes. The amount of rhetoric we get coming from the Conservative benches is spreading false information, when we know that the legislation does not limit freedom of expression or freedom to be able to upload to Facebook in any way whatsoever. However, the Conservative Party continues to spread misinformation. Does the leader of the Conservative Party believe that the government, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party are trying to prevent individuals from uploading cat videos on Facebook?

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about contrast. If we want to use the word “attack”, we can put it in the perspective of how the Conservative Party has made it very clear, through that member's speech and the leader of the Conservative Party's speech, that this is an attack on Canadian content. This is an attack on the CRTC. We now have the leader of the Conservative Party with another policy platform, and that is to diminish the role of the CRTC here in Canada. As he and his other colleagues clap, there are Canadians who are in the arts and culture industry. That industry is so valuable to Canada, and the Conservatives are throwing it up in the air, saying they do not care. The Liberals and the government care about that community. My question for the member is why the Conservative Party has given up on Canada's heritage and those who promote it through arts and—

Madam Speaker, it has been an incredible debate thus far, since after Private Members' Business. I was quite taken aback by the member for Saskatoon—University and I challenged some of the thoughts he was sharing with Canadians, compared to the member for Lethbridge, for example. We cannot help but wonder whether there is something seriously wrong, but I will protect their rights and freedoms to be able to express themself. Let us be very clear. In no way whatsoever is this legislation about freedom of speech. In no way whatsoever does it prevent people from being able to watch what they want to watch on the Internet. However, we have listened to some of the weirdest comments, like comparing Canada to Communist countries, to North Korea. It boggles my mind how the Conservative Party of Canada has been using these weird arguments to promote untruths. My question to the member is this: Does he believe there is any obligation whatsoever to be more honest with Canadians about what this legislation does and does not do?

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to think I have been as patient as you with regard to seeing the member become somewhat relevant. The member cannot say at the beginning of his speech that in the last 30 seconds he will be relevant to the bill, or that he will be making in the first nine and a half minutes an argument that will become relevant in the last 30 seconds. The member does need to provide some comment on the bill throughout the speech, not just in the last minute of it.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the issue of the IRGC and how it is labelled is of the utmost importance. I do not question that. I will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the issue shortly, but part of the concern I have relates to the games being played by the Conservative Party. We are supposed to be debating Bill C-27 today. I am wondering why the Conservatives continue to go out of their way to prevent debate on government bills. Does the member not feel any obligation to Canadians or the constituents he represents to at least ensure there is debate time? They ask for debate time and should use that time to at least debate the government's agenda.

Madam Speaker, I will get the opportunity to expand upon the point I am going to make to my colleague across the way. Right away, I am concerned that the Conservatives have chosen this, as opposed to using an opposition day so that we could have a good and thorough discussion on the issue and hopefully get some more positive results coming from a full day of debate using an opposition day. They have chosen to use a concurrence debate, which prevents us from being able to have a number of additional hours of debate on the issue of Bill C-27, which is the digital charter that deals with the privacy of Canadians. I am wondering if the member could explain to Canadians why the Conservatives continue to have misplaced priorities by not dealing with issues such as the personal security of Canadians on the Internet and by bringing forward a report like this today, as opposed to on an opposition day.

Madam Speaker, here we go again. We have the Conservative Party of Canada playing that destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons, and it is intentionally done. Those who might tune in and try to follow the debate would think that today is about talking about what, I would argue, is a very serious issue. There is absolutely no doubt. There is not one Liberal member of Parliament who would question the importance of the issue the Conservatives have brought forward today. Ever since the downing of the Ukrainian airline when Canadians on board were killed, in January 2020, I believe, there has been a ratcheting up of public awareness here in Canada of some of the horrible things that were taking place in Iran. Canadians were very sympathetic even before then, but that particular incident, I think, created a great deal of publicity about it that Canadians could really identify with. There is no question that it is an important issue. I want to make that very clear. It is an important issue. Is it a priority? Of course it is a priority. There are many issues around the world that Canada contributes to. Just yesterday, we were talking about Bill C-41, substantial legislation that has the support of all members of the House, as far as I can tell. After a few hours of debate in the chamber, it was unanimously agreed that we should advance it to committee. The core and purpose of that legislation is in recognizing the values of Canadians by saying we have an important humanitarian role to play abroad. If people listened to the debate that took place yesterday, they heard us talk a great deal about Afghanistan and many of the terrible things happening there today. The legislation is actually broader than just Afghanistan. The principles being talked about, even though Afghanistan was the focus, were in regard to how Canada is going to be able to advance humanitarian aid to countries like Afghanistan where there are terrorists and terrorists causing actions. The government does not need to be told these are important issues. Canada as a nation plays a very strong role in terms of its presence on the world scene. We often punch well above our weight. The legislation we unanimously supported yesterday to go to committee amplifies that. There is a limited amount of time to debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives know that and they know full well that that is the case. They are using this particular concurrence report, as they have done previously, to say this is an important issue. No one is talking about it not being an important issue. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would have a concurrence report every day to prevent the government from being able to speak.

Madam Speaker, the member says, “Hear, hear!” That is the point. They would bring one in every day to prevent the government from being able to present its legislation, and then they will criticize. They will go outside the chamber to say the government cannot get its act together and cannot get its legislation through the House. However, who is preventing the government from seeing that additional debate time? Then, when we propose to sit late into the evening, they cry and whine. They do not want to sit late into the evening. Canadians are used to working a little extra, often working until midnight. As a result—

Yes, Madam Speaker, we are bringing it on because this legislation is important to Canadians. What was supposed to be happening today? A number of members came to the House anticipating we would be debating Bill C-27. That is the digital rights legislation about the thing called the Internet. We are all somewhat familiar with it, I suspect, everyone except maybe those from within the Conservative Party. The Internet raises a whole litany of concerns regarding personal identity theft and how data is being collected on the Internet. When I asked the member across the way a question about the report, he said it is about priorities. Yes, it is about priorities. Canadians want their identities protected. It is substantial legislation, which we are supposed to be debating as opposed to participating in—

Madam Speaker, we have a fixed amount of time to debate a wide spectrum of both domestic and international issues. Today members came in prepared to listen, debate and have an exchange on the issue of the digital charter because Canadians are concerned about this issue. We were going to have literally hours of debate on it. That will not happen because the Conservative Party, under motions, brought forward a report it wants to have a debate on. Yesterday, Conservatives could have provided ample ideas, thoughts and reflections on the report because we were debating Bill C-41. I do not know if any member made reference to Iran, let alone the report, at all yesterday, but it would have been absolutely relevant to have done so. What other options do opposition members have? They just had an opposition day. They wanted us to talk about a budgetary measure as opposed to talking about this issue they say is so critically important that it had to be debated today. It could have been debated a couple of days ago when they had an opposition day. They could have designated an entire day to that and had a resolution at the very end of that day, which would have forced a vote on the issue. This is part of the games Conservative Party members play day in and day out. As the Government of Canada continues to be focused on Canadians and the issues that are important to Canadians, we will continue to tolerate the games being played by the Conservatives. At the same time, we will deal with those international issues that are so critically important to our nation in reflecting true Canadian values. Last year, Mahsa Amini, a young lady in her early 20s, was in the community in Iran and was picked up by the morality police. It was later said that she had a heart attack and that caused her death. The morality police are not fooling anyone. We know she was abused and beaten, and that is what caused her death. We understand and we appreciate those true freedom fighters in Iran. They are the brave women of Iran who are standing tall. They are ensuring that individuals like Mahsa are not forgotten and that what she stood for will continue to prevail and will be fought for in Iran. Mahsa inspired the world to mobilize and to recognize that what was taking place was just so wrong. I would argue that Mahsa is one of the reasons that even members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration feel the way they do in regard to Iran and what is taking place there today. It motivates individuals like myself and other MPs to stand and be vocal on this issue not only inside the chamber but also throughout our communities. The motion that came from the standing committee reads: That the [standing] committee [on citizenship and immigration] report the following to the House: In light of the downing of the Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS 752 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps— That is what we often refer to as the IRGC. —and in light of the killing of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian Guidance Patrol, that the committee demands the government stop issuing visas to all Iranian nationals directly affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard...Iranian Armed Forces, Iranian Guidance Patrol or Iranian Intelligence Organizations and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a response to the report by the government. That response is well under way. Mahsa encapsulated what is so wrong when we contrast Canadian values to what took place between her and those in the Iranian society who support the regime that is currently in place. We see how wrong it is. The downing of the Ukrainian airline touched Canada, as I made reference to, in a very profound way and to me, personally. Kourosh is a dear friend whom I have been meeting at the local McDonald's on occasion. He has actually met many parliamentarians because of his former role in the real estate industry. He would make presentations to members of Parliament. Kourosh's wife was on the plane that went down and, like many other victims' families, he faced the horrors of the downing of that plane. I think it is important that the Prime Minister appointed the former minister of finance Ralph Goodale to investigate the situation. We wanted to ensure a sense of accountability for that tragedy. We also worked with other governments, such as Ukraine, where the flight was headed. It was a Ukrainian international flight. The effect of the lives of those who passed away on the lives of those here in Canada is so profound. When we look at the achievements of those individuals in a relatively short time span here in Canada, they made incredible contributions. I like to think that members, no matter what side of the House one sits on, along with the broader community that follows what is taking place in Iran virtually on a daily basis, can imagine and provide sympathy for those victims. Our Iranian community is large and it is very much interested and tuned in to the issue. That is why I take offence when someone in the chamber accuses the government or myself of not having a high priority in regard to this issue because nothing could be further from the truth. The government and its ministers have been following what is taking place in Iran very closely, and it is taking appropriate actions where it can in dealing with the Iranian regime. Where I challenge opposition members is on the manner in which they feel that they can declare that an issue of urgent importance be used as a tool as opposed to a legitimate debate. The Conservatives will stand up today and reflect on this issue, as opposed to talking about the important domestic issue of the digital charter and the protection of personal information. I raised that because the Conservatives will criticize the Liberals for not allowing enough time for debate on Bill C-27 if the government needs to bring in any form of time allocation in order to get the bill through. Unfortunately, this issue today is no more a priority for the Conservative Party than it was last week when it completely ignored the issue when it had an opposition day motion. Today it is only important because it wants to disrupt the government agenda. It is an agenda that deals with personal information on the Internet. It is something I know of first-hand. We are often asked to bring concerns from our constituencies here to Ottawa, and we do believe that within our caucus. I can assure members that there is a genuine concern about information that is being collected on the Internet. I feel that the Conservatives taking away from that debate today does a disservice to those who are concerned about how the Internet collects data. Bill C-27 should be going to committee at the very least. All one needs to do is look at the government's agenda. We have a budget this afternoon and there will be budget debates. We have other legislation, and the Conservatives know it is a very aggressive legislative agenda. It will cause us to continue, as we did last night, whether the Conservatives want to or not. As long as there are other parties that understand the importance of having that debate, we will have to sit later. I want to conclude by talking about the debate on Bill C-41 yesterday. It is substantial legislation that would ensure there is ongoing humanitarian aid to countries like Iran and other countries. It is for those in the Iranian communities to know and understand that the Government of Canada, through its ministries, is following what is taking place in Iran and it is taking actions that will make a difference. We want to keep our Iranian communities not only safe but also feeling safe.

Madam Speaker, in the last federal election, the electorate determined that there would be a minority government. In a minority government situation, it takes opposition parties and government for things to work and move forward on a wide variety of issues. I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years. I am not naive enough to believe virtually anything that the member just said, that it is a concurrence report and as members, we should be bringing forward concurrence reports. I understand how the timing and agenda actually work. The member might be able to fool some of the people watching. However, at the end of the day, this report is being used as a Conservative political tool in order to prevent us from having the debate on personal protections through the Internet. Conservatives can say what they want, but that is the bottom line.

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. If we look at the motion itself, it is trying to say that we do not provide temporary visas to people from Iran in certain areas. We have a system that prevents individuals who are in question, who are there, virtually, from being able to currently come to Canada. The Minister of Immigration has reinforced this. However, there are some concerns. For example, with mandatory conscription, if young males do not have any choice but to participate in the Iranian forces, should that automatically exclude them from the opportunity of ever coming to Canada? Under mandatory conscription, they do not have a choice. They have to become members. However, maybe they want to flee that opportunity. We already have the rules—

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment and the question. At the beginning of my comments, I referred to how Canada often punches well over its weight in its very strong leadership throughout the world. That is recognized. In terms of its strength, I did not know where Canada is positioned, but I am not surprised by what the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs has just listed. It amplifies, as an excellent example, the degree to which the government takes this issue seriously. One only needs to reflect for a few moments on what the parliamentary secretary said the government has already done. We should all feel good, at least in good part, with respect to that.

Madam Speaker, the member needs to reflect on what he is actually saying. Just last week, the opposition had an opposition day. It has had numerous opposition days that are just a repeat of former opposition days. They are wasted opposition days. Not one of them has dealt with this issue. When he says this to the Persian community or to those who are passionate and following what is taking place in Iran today, I would suggest that the Conservative Party of Canada, on the floor of the House of Commons, does a huge disservice. If the Conservatives genuinely cared about the issue, as they say they do today, they would spend an opposition day instead of trying to bring it up in a concurrence report. Obviously they do not really believe what they are saying.

Madam Speaker, in short, we have the special rapporteur looking at all options, including the possibility of a public inquiry. I think that we would be doing a disservice to the former governor general by not holding off and waiting until he ultimately comes down with a recommendation. I appreciate the member's comments in regard to some of the heated parts of the discussion. I would suggest that for the Persian community or those following what is taking place in Iran, yes, at some point, it would have been wonderful to have a take-note debate or an opposition day debate on this. There are other alternatives that would have allowed for a more wholesome debate on the broader issue, in terms of what the Government of Canada could be doing. I would recommend to the Conservatives and others that we have that discussion among the House leadership and see if something can be accommodated to facilitate a healthier debate on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why it is that the Conservative Party has decided to take this very important issue and present it as a concurrence motion. They could have designated it for one of their opposition days, where there would have been an opportunity to have a more thorough debate on the issue, a day-long debate, ending in a vote. That would have been more of a unanimous consent being formalized. There is also the possibility of having the House leadership teams look at a take-note debate, as opposed to just moving concurrence on a report.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendation talks about limitations on temporary visas. If we look at the work that has already been done, particularly by our civil servants, there are certain criteria that need to be met. A good character, for example, would be one such criteria. My question for the member is this. Given the current system, the manner in which temporary visas are processed and the desire we have seen from the minister and this chamber, does the member not believe that the civil service is doing its job by applying criteria to prevent what is being suggested within the resolution today?