Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts on the inconsistency that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party. When he was the minister responsible for elections and democracy in Canada, we know there was foreign interference. Today's leader of the Conservative Party had the opportunity to do something about it and he chose to do nothing. If we look at the motion the Conservatives are proposing today, the leader of the Conservative Party indicated back then that it is not the staff but the ministers who go to committee. Once again, we have the leader of the Conservative Party saying one thing when he is in government and saying something totally different when he becomes the crown prince of the Conservative Party. I am wondering if the member shares my concerns about consistency and hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I would like to start off by indicating something very clearly. When one thinks of foreign interference into elections, it is really important that we understand and appreciate that this is not something new. It is something that has been taking place for many years now. In fact, to try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada has not been taking actions on this particular issue is just wrong. There have been a number of actions this government has taken on this issue for years now. If one were to contrast that to the Conservative Party, one would find that even today's leader of the Conservative Party of Canada chose to do nothing when he was the minister of democratic reform and at that time there was foreign interference into elections. It is interesting listening to the member who spoke just prior to me, who talked about wanting Katie Telford before committee. Today's leader of the Conservative Party of Canada argued, a number of years ago, that it is about ministerial accountability and that the chief of staff, or the political people the member today called for to come before committee, should not be coming before committee; it should be the ministers. That is exactly what the current leader of the Conservative Party was arguing just a few years back while he was the minister. As a government, to be crystal clear, we have been very much active on the issue of foreign interference into elections. I want to start off my comments by reading a quote, as others have done. This comes from a CTV News article, which reads: The U.S. Ambassador to Canada says the question of whether or not foreign election interference is happening is less important than whether it’s been successful, and he hasn’t seen any proof that alleged interference attempts by China in Canada’s elections have managed to affect the results. David Cohen told CTV...in an interview airing Sunday, his many years of political experience have led to his developing a “certain level of skepticism and thick skin,” and an “assumption” that both [and I want to emphasize this] China and Russia have been interfering in the elections of several countries [not just Canada] for years. “I almost think it's not even worth asking the question about whether there's interference,” he said. “I think the better question is: what is the interference targeting? Has it had any impact? Has it had any effect? “I've seen nothing that anyone's reported or that anyone has said that’s been able to disclose any impact from any alleged interference by the Chinese in the last couple of Canadian elections.... I think the Chinese and the Russians have been at this for a long time,” he also said. People will ask why I am citing the American ambassador. Let us look at the type of accountability we have witnessed here in Canada on this very issue. Canadians and parliamentarians have already heard on this matter from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, not to mention Elections Canada itself. All the organizations I just listed off have testified that our elections were safe and that Canadians and Canadians alone determined their outcomes. The Conservatives will cite certain things and are very selective in not including the many professionals, apolitical individuals, who have been clear that the outcome of the election was not impacted by foreign interference. The Conservatives know this, but they intentionally disregard it because they would rather ratchet up the rhetoric. We have seen the rhetoric coming from the Conservatives. I would argue that they do it because this is an issue where they are more interested in raising money for their own coffers and using it as a fundraising tool. They do not have any solid ground for what they are arguing today. They say they want Katie Telford to come forward, but where was that argument when they were in government? Then, they argued for ministerial accountability, meaning that if we have something we want to question within a department, we can go to the minister. We have had a number of ministers appear as requested, and like the professional civil servants, they provided the necessary assurances to give a high level of comfort to Canadians, but that is not good enough. It is interesting how the Conservatives like to mock the New Democrats. However, we can look at how the Conservatives have conned the Bloc, which has bought into what the Conservatives have been saying. In fact, they have even doubled down on the special rapporteur, who was appointed by Stephen Harper. He is an individual with impeccable credentials who fully understands what is at stake here. As members know, at least on the government side, and I would suggest and hope others, there is zero tolerance for foreign interference in elections. In investigating this matter, the special rapporteur can come back and say that there should be a public inquiry, and we will respect that. The government has gone out of its way to accommodate our best interests in protecting elections from foreign interference. As I pointed out, we have seen this in many measures the government has taken over the years. We witnessed professional civil servants, who are apolitical, come and make it very clear that there was no impact on the outcome of the election. We should be looking at our electoral system as one of those sacred pillars of Canadian society. The politicization we have witnessed coming from the Conservatives on this issue, for the sake of being able to raise funds, I find disrespectful. Our democracy is worth more than a fundraising letter. I see my time has expired. Hopefully, I will get a question to expand on that.

Madam Speaker, it is a vote all of us should be taking very seriously. At the end of the day, I would argue there is a choice. Does the member believe in the civil servants and the security measures in place that provide assurances to Canadians? Does the member believe that the special rapporteur has the integrity to come back to give a recommendation? We can at least wait until we see the recommendation, wait until we see the report. There is all sorts of opportunity, and I hope members will take it seriously.

Madam Speaker, I think the member needs to take a look in the mirror and reflect on what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue. The member previous said that it does not matter what anyone else does. The Conservative Party has taken a position, and it is a solid whipped position from the Conservative Party. We do not need to take lectures on understanding and appreciating the importance of the vote. Canadians have indicated that this is a serious issue, and that is why we are treating it as that. It is a very serious issue.

Madam Speaker, I am going to address the PROC committee, which is dealing with this. A lot depends on the makeup of the committee and the real agenda of the committee membership. I would have loved to have seen a committee that said, “Look, it is not only China. Russia and other countries are trying to have electoral interference here in Canada and in other countries”. As a committee, it could maybe conduct a more general study on such an important issue. I am sure that would go a long way in providing some wonderful recommendations for the future.

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the minister. On a couple of occasions, he came to Winnipeg and met with long-haul truck drivers. The role that they play in our ports is of an essential nature. There is a great deal of interest by the long-haul truck driver industry in the bill. I would be very interested in getting the minister's thoughts on the critical role that our long-haul truck drivers play in the supply chain.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg last week, and we participated in a press conference with the Premier of Manitoba. Come April, Manitoba is going to have $10-a-day child care. It is joining, from coast to coast to coast, a true national day care program that really matters. It is going to enable more women than ever to enter into the workforce. It is going to improve our economic situation. It is going to make a profound, positive difference in the lives of all Canadians. Moving forward with a national child care program is the right thing to do, and I, for one, hope that the Conservative Party will flip-flop its position and support a national child care program.

Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, foreign interference into elections is not new. In fact, if members look into it, there were reports to former prime minister Stephen Harper. It is unbelievable, when we recognize that the leader of today's Conservative Party was the minister responsible. What did the current Leader of the Conservative Party do? He did absolutely nothing. We have been very aggressive on this file. We will ensure the integrity of democracy here in Canada.

Madam Speaker, again, we see a litany of questions. On Wednesday, there were 20-some questions from the Leader of the Opposition. What I really want the Conservative Party to recognize, as I indicated, is that it is not a new issue. When the Conservatives had the opportunity to actually deal with it, they intentionally chose to do nothing. Since 2015, whether it is the Prime Minister or the ministers responsible, we have taken tangible actions. We will continue to do so to protect the integrity of our democracy. All of us believe in it. It is an apolitical—

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that we have had apolitical, professional civil servants, who have made it very clear to all Canadians that the outcome of the 2019 and 2021 elections were not influenced in any way by international interference. In fact, if we take a look at what we have done, in contrast to what the Conservatives have done, we will find that the Conservative government failed in its responsibilities, while we continue to live up to ours.

Madam Speaker, I do not think I will be given enough time to properly respond to the member's statements. When we think of inflation, the starting point is that we are concerned about inflation. However, when we put it in a world perspective, we see a war happening in Europe, and the pandemic had worldwide impacts. Canada's inflation rate, for the most part, is less than those of the U.S., Germany and other G20 countries, but that does not mean we will just sit back and ride it through. This is a government that has, in fact, demonstrated its caring attitudes and concern. That is why we have brought in program after program to support Canadians. I could talk about the dental program for kids under the age of 12, which the Conservatives voted against. I could talk about the rental program to support low-income individuals who are finding it difficult. It was a $500 program, which the Conservatives did not support. The member talks about these big expensive programs. Yes, we are a government that understands that the true value of what Canadians want and expect of the government. That is why we brought in $10-a-day child care. Just the other day, I was with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Manitoba announcing that we will hit the $10-a-day day care in April, well ahead of the national target. Yes, that did cost billions of dollars, but it will enable an expanded workforce. It will enable a better quality of life. We might be spending billions, but it is only the Conservative Party of Canada, here in the House of Commons, that says it is going to throw out the program. At the provincial level, we have Conservative, NDP and Liberal governments that are all buying into it and developing the $10-a-day child care program. We can talk about the billions of dollars for health care. That is $198 billion over 10 years, which is a lot of money, but Canadians expect us to ensure that our core health care system, which we have grown to love and appreciate, will continue to be there, and the federal government will continue to play a strong role in that system. The member talks about inflation, with which, compared to the world, Canada is doing relatively well, but we continue to work on it. There are expenses the government is incurring to try to alleviate some of those pressures. The Conservatives had to be shamed into supporting our initiative to double the GST rebate for a six-month period of time. Initially, the Conservatives were against it, but then they realized it is a bad thing to be against, so they came onside to support that. Yes, the government is very much aware of the importance of the tax dollar. The government is also very much aware of the importance of our economy and the types of services we must support, and we will continue to do so. We have a Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance who is aggressively getting us into a position so we will be able to continue to lead, in many ways, the G20 over the next number of years.

Mr. Speaker, he said he will share some of their music with me, and no doubt I will enjoy them. Whether it is music or film, there are incredible talents in every region of our country. When I think of the Prairies and out west, I think of Corner Gas. We get a high sense of pride that it is a production that takes place in the province of Saskatchewan. North of 60 took place both in Alberta and Manitoba. We can even go way back to something like The Beachcombers. All of those, in good part, had a type of advocacy because of Canadian content requirements. When I think of today, I think of things like Kim's Convenience. A couple of years ago, Schitt's Creek received a number of Emmy Awards. I had no idea about it until it received all those awards. It is an incredible comedy. The advancements of some of the actors, actresses and musicians who we have seen could be rooted back to Canadian content policies and the promotion of Canadian heritage. We underestimate that industry. It is a substantial industry in virtually every jurisdiction and all the different regions of Canada. It provides jobs and amazing opportunities for talent. We can look at the city of Winnipeg and how it has benefited from the type of talent found there. We can go to many festivals, especially during the summertime but not only limited to the summertime. One I often make reference to is Folklorama. If members want to get a sense of the potential of that industry, they should tour some of the facilities and the pavilions of Folklorama. They will witness first-hand amateurs singing, performing all forms of dance and sharing amazing talents with thousands of people. Some of those who actually participate in Folklorama go on to participate at Rainbow Stage or other theatre-type operations. There are so many opportunities if we think of the bigger, holistic picture of it. When there is a young person getting involved, for example, in a showpiece at a pavilion, it takes a great deal of time and energy throughout the year for that young person. It instills skill sets, discipline and so much more. The benefit of seeing that sort of growth at the ground level and how that ground level works its way to the top is important. We should be supporting that, whether it is in Winnipeg, Montreal or in our smaller communities throughout the country. One of the ways we could do that is by supporting Bill C-11, legislation that would modernize our broadcasting. It would ensure that Canadian content is not only important to CBC but that it is important in the digital world also. That is why we will find every member of Liberal caucus supporting Bill C-11 and voting for it. We recognize and value the industry, the jobs that it creates and the enhancement of our heritage to our country. It helps identify who we are as a nation. We get a sense of pride, much like we do when an athlete wins a gold medal for Canada, when we see an actor in a major movie production or in a sitcom. We can relate to that because it is in our community. These are some of the reasons why Bill C-11 should be universally supported on all sides of the House. Sadly, that is not the case. Briefly, the bill would bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. It would require online streaming services that serve Canadian markets to contribute to the production of Canadian content and ensure online broadcasters showcase more Canadian content. In essence, it modernizes the outdated legislation. What would the bill not do? I say this for my Conservative friends. The bill would not impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media. It would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. It would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. It would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. This is so upsetting, and I made reference to it at the beginning. What is interesting in the comments thus far is that the Bloc members, the NDP members and now myself have talked about the misinformation. It is one thing when, through the Internet and other forms of media, misinformation is being espoused and commented on. However, as legislators, as leaders within our community, we have a responsibility to be more transparent and honest with Canadians in regard to legislation we are passing. I find it despicable that there are those who are actually assisting in validating misinformation. To try to give the false impression that this legislation would be taking away the rights of people in Canada is just wrong. To try to say that this would somehow be telling Canadians what it is that they can and cannot watch through the Internet, through streaming, is just wrong. To try to tell Canadians that this has something to do with their freedoms and rights is wrong. Any member who has had the opportunity to participate and engage, whether by listening or standing up and speaking on the legislation, knows that. All political parties know that. Those who are going out promoting and encouraging that misinformation, I believe, as the NDP House leader has said, should really reflect on what it is that they are doing and give serious consideration to apologizing for spreading such false information. There is a segment in society that is believing it, unfortunately. As I have clearly indicated in my comments, I like to think that, at the end of the day, this legislation is all about ensuring a level playing field. It is all about an industry that is so critically important to Canada. It helps identify our identity, who we are. It ensures opportunities for people, for Canadians, into the future, in an area in which we know Canadians can excel. Our arts community is a community we need to support, as we have in the past. This is a continuation. It is a modernization of the legislation. That is what it is. I would ask for all members not only to support it but also to do what they can in terms of dispelling the misinformation that is out in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important legislation, legislation that has been in the works for a number of years. The government has continued to persist in getting it through the House as quickly as we can even in recognition of the opposition we have received from the Conservative Party. This is excellent legislation. It clearly demonstrates what the Prime Minister, different ministers and the Liberal Party have been advocating for legislation in general. When we bring forward legislation, the government is very much open to ways in which it can possibly be improved. I and my colleague from Kingston often talk about how important it is to get legislation to the committee stage. Bill C-11 is a good example of that. After a healthy debate at second reading, we were finally able to get the bill to the committee stage, and we saw a number of amendments. Unlike the former Stephen Harper regime, this is a government that actually listens to what other members have to say, whether they are members of the Conservatives, the NDP, Green or members of the Liberal caucus. At committee, where ideas surface, a number of amendments were proposed and actually adopted, all with the thought of making the legislation stronger for Canadians. We were able to get the bill through the committee, then third reading and it went over to the Senate. I really want to emphasize that I appreciate the degree to which the Senate its invested time, resources and energy into ensuring the bill was thoroughly reviewed. That is in good part why it has come back: There were a number of amendments that the Senate believed would enhance the legislation and make it that much stronger. The minister responsible for Bill C-11 and the fine civil servants working with that minister were able to look at the amendments and, in most part, accepted of them. We do have some concerns with some of the amendments and we will not support those. I would invite members of the Senate or others, if they have some specific questions in regard to those amendments, even amendments that we are not passing, to reach out to the minister's office. At the end of the day, we have not seen a modernization of this legislation since the 1990s. The other day, we were speaking to other digital-type legislation with respect to cybersecurity and so forth, and I drew a comparison of the past and the present. It is long overdue. This is an initiative that the government has now been working on for a number of years. There have been thorough consultations in every region of the country. The department has done a fantastic job of bringing forward the legislation, responding to the requests, thoughts and expressions from the many different stakeholders. As I pointed out, it listened to what opposition members were saying and it adopted amendments from opposition members. We have before us a returned Bill C-11, on which the minister has given a very clear indication of where we are as a government with respect to wanting to see the legislation pass, and it is time. There is no need to see a filibuster of any sort. Members on all sides have had ample opportunity to express their thoughts. I share many of the concerns that the NDP and the Bloc member have raised. I, too, have received emails that paint a very clear picture of misinformation. There is an incredible amount of misinformation out there, and sadly there are political entities in the House that are promoting and encouraging that misinformation. I had an email earlier today from someone who said that a vote for Bill C-11 would take away his rights. Politicians in the chamber who are trying to support that information are being intellectually dishonest. Nowhere in the legislation would the rights of an individual be taken away. Nowhere in the legislation would freedoms of expression be limited or taken away. A select group within the Conservatives are espousing false information with respect to the content of Bill C-11, or they are at least supporting the misinformation that is being spread in our communities. Bill C-11 is all about putting an industry on a level playing field with another industry that has been there for many years. It in essence is saying that in the digital world, the big companies such as Crave, YouTube, Spotify and Netflix need to be put on the same playing field as CBC, CTV and others. The CRTC plays a critical role in who we are as a nation and amplifies that. For many years, we have seen the CRTC and its decisions and actions that it has taken on behalf of governments of all political stripes enhance our heritage from coast to coast to coast. I think the promotions and the advancement of so many careers in the arts are a direct result of the promotion of Canadian content. My colleague just made reference to a very famous band, and I am not really up on music, The Tragically Hip.

Mr. Speaker, the member is one of a number of Conservatives who continue to do a disservice to the people of Canada by trying to give some false impression. In no way whatsoever would this prevent or limit an individual from being able to upload what they are doing with their cat or dog, or whatever else they want to be able to upload. This legislation would not be not infringing upon their freedoms or their rights. They would be able to watch what they would like to watch. The Conservative Party needs to have more integrity on the honesty file, and I would suggest to us that, at the end of the day, what it is doing is spreading misinformation, which is creating a great deal of anxiety among a number of people. This cannot be justified.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fair comment. If one is a Conservative MP and continually says that it is an infringement on one's rights or that the government is trying to limit what one can watch on the Internet, one can repeat it a thousand times, as often as one likes. The reality is that this is not what the legislation says. The Conservatives might want to use their rhetoric to raise money, to give false impressions or to try to be a disruptive and destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. The bottom line is that the legislation would not do what it is that the Conservatives have been espousing to Canadians. In standing up, what I really want to emphasize is that the member recognizes, and the Bloc is good at recognizing the culture and the arts in the province of Quebec, which I know the Minister of Heritage often talks about, and the importance of the French language, being where it is in North America. This is good legislation that would enhance the importance of Canada's languages.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we recognize is that the Broadcasting Act, which was brought in many years ago, has done many wonders in advancing Canadian content. I would ultimately argue that many of the artists we have today owe their success to the government's role in ensuring a higher level of Canadian content. Bill C-11 would update and modernize the act, whether that is the traditional CTV or the CBC being on a level playing field with the digital world, which we have seen explode over the last 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party will get his chance to speak. I know they are not a big fan of CBC, and I can appreciate that, but there are many artists today who are there and are as influential as they are today because of CBC. That is just another point on which I and the leader of the Conservative Party will disagree. However, maybe he can apologize for the members who are trying to give the false impression that rights of Canadians would be taken away by this bill or that their freedom to watch what they want on the Internet would be taken away. It would be nice. I understand he might be up next to speak, and if he is, maybe he could apologize to Canadians for making those types of statements.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member has a great deal of credibility on this particular issue, given his comments. I would suggest there is no doubt, at least in my mind and the minds of many, that one of the primary motivations for the Conservatives spreading these untruths is because they use it as a fundraising tool. By feeding this group of individuals' untruths, they are hoping to be able to generate more funds for the Conservative cause. I would implore and suggest to the Conservative members, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party, to realize there is a great deal of harm being caused because of the Conservative Party's continuing to reinforce false information. It is wrong. This legislation would not take away freedoms and rights as the Conservative Party would have one believe.

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing within this legislation that takes away a person's freedoms or their rights. They can choose to watch whatever they want on the Internet. The sad reality is that the Conservatives know that, but they do not have a problem spreading misinformation. Will the Conservative Party of Canada be honest with Canadians today? Given what it is saying about Bill C-11, is its intention to withdraw the Broadcasting Act? After all, the very same principles have been applied, in good part, through the Broadcasting Act for decades now. The Conservative Party does not support Canadian content. It has made that abundantly clear. Are the Conservatives going to get rid of the Broadcasting Act? Are they going to get rid of CBC? Is that what their real intentions are?

Mr. Speaker, it is the Conservative members of Parliament who are spreading misinformation to Canadians. In no way and in no clause is there anything that would infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is nowhere within the legislation, and yet we get a member of Parliament from the Conservative Party who is quite content to spread misinformation. I cannot use the word lies, so I will not say that, but the member is spreading misinformation.

It was a rookie mistake, Mr. Speaker. I apologize, wholeheartedly. The point is that there is nothing at all within the legislation that would infringe upon a person's rights and freedom, and yet the Conservative Party members continue to go out and spread information that is not accurate and it is causing a lot of anxiety in our communities. Could the member cite something specific within the legislation that clearly says that it is an infringement on a person's rights or freedoms?

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the member referred to the Liberals and the NDP. It is the Liberal members of the House of Commons, the Bloc members of the House of Commons, the NDP members and the Green Party members. It is only the Conservative Party that is spreading the misinformation that is out there. The member stood in his place and tried to give a false impression, saying that the government is trying to control what Canadians are watching. In no way whatsoever can the member cite anything within this legislation that would prevent a Canadian from watching whatever he or she wants to watch on the Internet. There is nothing there, so we would think that would stop. The motivating factor for the Conservative Party on Bill C-11 is purely finances, feeding a frenzy of individuals it wants support from. I say “shame on the Conservative Party” for not protecting cultural industries and the arts in Canada.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, nothing in this legislation threatens Canadian freedoms and rights, and that has been very well established. The Conservative members know this, yet they continue to give a false impression. Given that we have a minority government, we are very dependent on opposition parties. Whether it is the Bloc, the Green Party or the New Democratic Party, we are all saying the same thing: There is no infringement on rights and freedom of speech. However, the Conservatives continue saying that. I wonder if they applied the same principles to the Broadcasting Act that they are applying today, or going back to the traditional act, where there were Canadian content mandates, for example. Is it the Conservative Party's policy today that it would also get rid of this so that there would not be a level—

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent Canadians from uploading or watching whatever it is they want to watch. There is nothing in this legislation that would impede the rights or freedoms of Canadians, contrary to what the Conservative Party continues to espouse. The issue is for me is why the Conservative Party continues to not want to support Canadian content by modernizing the act. He talked about the old system versus the new system. We would be modernizing the act, because 1991 was a long time ago. There were not any iPhones. There was not any Facebook. The need to modernize the act is there today. Does the Conservative Party believe, ultimately, that—

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record with regards to Bill C-11. However, there is a certain sector of society that is starting to buy into a lot of misinformation. Somehow we have people concerned about individual rights, freedom of speech and not being able to watch what they want on the Internet, which is all based on false information. We have the Conservative Party promoting that misinformation. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regards to how that is, from my perspective, unhealthy when we get people promoting false information.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share a few thoughts on the issue. It has been interesting that Conservatives have been beating a drum on this particular issue as if it were something completely new. International foreign issues of this nature have actually taken place in the past. In fact, they predate this government. When Stephen Harper was prime minister and the current leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for democratic reform, they were aware of foreign interference. Today's leader of the Conservative Party, when he was in the position to take some action, chose to do nothing. He chose to completely ignore the issue. It was not until the federal election of 2015 that we actually had a government that recognized there was a need for us to do something on the issue. In fact, shortly after that, the member will recall, we had the establishment of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It has parliamentarians from all sides of the House. It has the incredible power to investigate. These members of Parliament, including Conservative members of Parliament, have all been cleared. They have top-secret clearance so they can meet with different security agencies that Canada has and get the information that is necessary. In 2009, we also established a panel of independent civil servants to ultimately protect against any potential threats to our national elections. We had professionals indicate, in 2019 and 2021, that there was not any form of international interference that affected the outcome of the elections. It seems to me that, for the first time, we have a Prime Minister and a government that have actually acted on the issue of foreign interference. That is why I think it is important we contrast that to the lack of action from the previous administration. Yesterday, in question period, I do not know how many questions the leader of the Conservative Party stood up and asked. It was 15 or 20 times in question period. He was challenging the Prime Minister, when he was, in fact, the minister of democracy and did absolutely nothing even though he was aware there was foreign interference taking place. The Conservative Party will continue to beat its drum. We have now indicated, because we can understand and appreciate the apprehension Canadians have in regard to the issue, that establishing an independent special rapporteur is a responsible way of dealing with it. It may not be quite as political as the members of the Conservative Party would like, given that it is an independent—

Madam Speaker, even the question the member puts forward is silly. He gives the impression that seven or eight years ago, the Conservatives would never have seen this coming. Former prime minister Stephen Harper and their current leader were aware of it because it was happening when they were in government. The security agency advised the Conservative government of foreign interference. What did the current leader of the Conservative Party do? He did zippo, nothing. The only change he made was to make it harder for Canadians to participate in elections. I sat on the PROC committee when they were trying to stuff through the anti-democratic legislation. What we are seeing is not only happening in Canada. It is happening in France and the U.S.A. It is not just one country; it is many countries. The Conservatives need to—

Madam Speaker, what the member just said is completely inaccurate. It is just not true. Within a couple of years, we had a federal government that, unlike Stephen Harper's government, negotiated health care accords with the different provinces, providing secured funding. We just had a major announcement in regard to health care. Historic amounts of money are currently going to health care, with an additional $198 billion. When the member says that we are not spending money where we should be spending money or implies that we are wasting money, he can tell that to the hundreds of thousands, going into the millions, of Canadians who received CERB payments during the pandemic. He can tell that to the business owners who received literally billions of dollars through the wage subsidy so that we could keep Canadians working during the pandemic. Canada was in a great position to be able to rebound out of the pandemic because the Government of Canada supported the economy and supported Canadians. That is why, in comparison to the rest of the world, we are doing relatively well.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to his critique of the legislation, when he said that there are many things missing. A number of the things the member refers to could easily be done through regulation. The legislation sets in place a very substantial framework, which is there to protect the privacy of Canadians, and a number of things that have been raised already this morning could be done through regulation. In fact, many would argue they might be best done in regulation.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-27 today. As I put forward to my friend in the form of a question, when we think of Bill C-27, I like to think that the government is on the right track in continuing to protect the privacy of Canadians in many different ways. Yesterday we had a debate on Bill C-26 on cybersecurity. If we take a holistic look at what the government has been able to accomplish through legislation and, ultimately, in certain areas in terms of developing the industry through budgetary measures, Canada is indeed in a very good position in comparison to our peer countries around the world. I do not say that lightly, because I know that all members are very concerned about the issue of privacy. That is in good part why we have the legislation today. The last time these changes we are proposing happened was two decades ago. Let us reflect on that time of 20 years ago. We did not have iPhones, and Facebook did not exist. Going back a little further than that to when I was first elected, when one clicked into the Internet, the first thing one heard was a buzzing sound, the dial tone and then clicking. Then one was magically connected to the world. How far we have advanced in a relatively short period of time. Last week, I was on the Internet making a purchase that would be delivered. I never had to go to the store. It involved my doing a little bit of design work on the computer before making the purchase. I was told yesterday that it was delivered to my home. The amount of information out there is absolutely incredible, and it is very hard to imagine the types of data and the risk factors out there. That is why it is so important that, as a government, we bring forward substantive legislation that is going to protect the privacy of Canadians, to ensure companies are held accountable and, in the context of yesterday's debate, to protect them from security threats that are very strong and very viable. It was interesting yesterday listening to the debate for a number of hours. I get the sense that a wide spectrum of support is shaping up today. The NDP is supporting the legislation. My understanding is that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation. The Bloc, in principle, is supporting the legislation. The Province of Quebec has actually made some significant gains on this whole front, so I am not surprised that the Bloc or members from Quebec within the Liberal caucus are very strong about these issues, whether they are cybersecurity issues or the privacy issues of Bill C-27 that we are debating today. I raise this because I believe that it does not matter what side of the House one happens to sit on, as this is legislation worth supporting. As I indicated, it has been 20 years since we have seen substantial changes to the legislation. The expectation is very high that we will not only introduce the legislation but that, with the cooperation of members opposite, we will see it pass through in a timely fashion. Being an optimist, I would like to see the bill pass before the summer, and it is possible. I realize that it would require a great deal of co-operation from opposition parties, but I do believe it is doable, especially after the comments I heard this morning. The legislation is not meant to address every matter that Canadians are having to face in the digital world. That is not what it is designed for. As I indicated, the legislation, whether this one or Bill C-26, goes a long way in establishing a solid base for a framework that would enable the government of the day, which is held accountable by the opposition, to have the opportunity to do a lot of work in an area where we need to see a higher sense of security and protection. One member across the way asked about engagement. There has been a great deal of engagement. I can assure the member that, whether it is from a constituency perspective, a ministerial perspective or, I would even suggest, the member would have to take some credit in terms of an opposition perspective, there has been a great deal of dialogue. This is not a new issue. This issue has been in the making for years now. There have been some factors that are beyond the government's control in terms of the manner in which it can bring forward legislation, for example the worldwide pandemic and the requirement for substantial legislation in order to support Canadians and have their backs. There were issues of that nature, along with numerous other pieces of legislation. I would not want to give a false impression that this is not an important issue for the Government of Canada. At the end of the day, based on comments I have heard on both Bill C-26 and Bill C-27, I believe the legislation would establish a solid footing or framework, whatever terminology we might want to use, and, at the very least, we should see it go to committee. The principles of the legislation are in fact endorsed and supported by all sides of the House, from what I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong. No doubt we will have other legislation that might be somewhat more controversial, where there is real opposition to the legislation, and this would enable more time for debate on that type of legislation. If we could somehow recognize the value of this legislation, given that there is so much support for its principles, we would allow it to go to committee, where members of Parliament are afforded the opportunity to get into the nuts and bolts, the details, where there is representation from different stakeholders at committee to express their thoughts and opinions on the legislation, and where members can find out directly from the minister what kind of consultation has taken place. The member does not to have to take my word for it, but I can assure him that there has been a great deal of consultation. He would be able to hear that first-hand from departmental officials, the minister and so forth. I believe the government has done its work in bringing the legislation to the point where it is today. We have seen ministers, in their opening remarks and in their response to questions, in co-operation with opposition members. The government has demonstrated very clearly in the past that it is open to amendments that can improve upon legislation for the benefit of Canadians, and if there are ways we can improve this legislation, we will accept those types of amendments. We will support those types of amendments. I believe this is one of the areas where the Prime Minister has been very good in sending that message. It could be because of years in opposition, when the opposition never had amendments accepted by former prime minister Stephen Harper. At the end of the day, if there are ways to do it, we can improve upon this bill. I heard yesterday on Bill C-26, and already today on Bill C-27, that members have genuine concerns. I do not question those concerns, but I do believe that it would be helpful if they can look at those concerns. If they already have ideas that they believe will improve the legislation, nothing prevents members of the opposition or government members from being able to provide those amendments or thoughts in advance to the ministry, which would potentially allow for a deeper look into it to see if, in fact, something is doable. The NDP talked, for example, about digital rights for Canadians. There is a great deal of concern that we need to ensure and recognize them, whether they are consumer rights or privacy rights. These are things we all hold very close to our hearts. We all want to make sure the interests of Canadians are being served. When I took a look at the specifics of the legislation, I highlighted three parts I wanted to make reference to. CPPA would strengthen privacy enforcement and oversight in a manner that is similar to that of certain provinces and some of Canada's foreign trading partners. It is important that we do not just look internally. There are jurisdictions, whether nations or provincial entities, that have already done some fine work in this area. We do not have to reinvent the wheel, and working with or looking at other forms of legislation that are there is a very positive thing. In particular, the CPPA would do so by granting the Privacy Commissioner of Canada order-making powers that can compel organizations to stop certain improper activities or uses of personal information and order organizations to preserve information relevant to an OPC investigation. This is significant. We need to think in terms of the technology that I make reference to. I can remember a number of years back when a pizza store was becoming computerized. As someone called in and made an order, they recorded the telephone number, the name and the address, personal information such as that. I remember talking to the franchise owner, whom I happen to know quite well, explaining how the collection of data, if used appropriately, can not only complement the business, but also complement the consumer, and this was maybe 20 years ago. We can contrast that to an iPhone and looking at some of those applications we see. The one that comes to mind is a true Canadian application and a true Canadian franchise: Tim Hortons. My wife never followed hockey, but nowadays she does because of Tim Hortons. One can win free cups of coffee by picking who is going to score goals or get assists. I am not exactly sure how it works, but Tim Hortons comes up with a program that is actually collecting data from people. It is a program that allows it to send out all kinds of notifications. It could be sales of product. It could be something like NHL standings. It really engages the consumers. An incredible amount of data is actually being collected. Tim Hortons is not alone. One can go to virtually all the major franchises and find the same thing. It is not just the private sector. Yesterday we were talking about cybersecurity, and one can easily understand and appreciate the sensitivity of collecting information, even if one is a Tim Hortons or a Home Depot, but also many government agencies. For example, there is the amount of personal information Manitoba Health has, which is all computerized. There are also doctors' offices. The digital world, in a very real and tangible way, has changed to such a degree that many, including myself, would argue that things like Internet access have become an absolute and essential service nowadays. It is something we all require. The incredible growth of data banks, both in the private sector and in the government, and I would throw in the non-profits and the many other groups that collect data, has been substantive in the last 15 or 20 years. That is the reason why today we have the type of legislation we have before us. Bill C-27 would ensure that we have something in place to provide consequences for offences. To give members a sense of those consequences, the new law would enable administrative monetary penalties for serious contraventions of the law, subject to a maximum penalty of 3% or $10 million of an organization's global revenue, whichever is greater, and fines of up to 5% of revenues or $25 million, whichever is greater, for the most serious offences. I said I wanted to highlight three things, so I will move on to the second point. The personal information and data protection tribunal act would establish a new tribunal, which would be responsible for determining whether to assign administrative monetary penalties that are recommended by the Privacy Commissioner following investigations, determining the amount of penalties and hearing appeals of the Privacy Commissioner's orders and decisions. The tribunal would provide for access to justice and contribute to further development of privacy expertise by providing expeditious reviews of the Privacy Commissioner's orders. The third point is that the AIDA would impose a duty to act responsibly by requiring organizations designing, developing, deploying or operating high-impact artificial intelligence technologies to put in place measures to proactively mitigate risks of harm and bias in the development of these technologies. I have less than a minute left to talk, and I have not even touched on the AI file. I made reference at the very beginning to the financial investments of this government in encouraging the growth of that industry in the different regions of our country. The Government of Canada is not only bringing in the type of securities that are absolutely important for Canadians from a privacy perspective, to encourage continual growth in the area and have these protections in place, but also doing so through budgetary measures to ensure that we continue to enhance the opportunities of Canadians. If we take a look at the digital world today, it is very hard to imagine where it is going to be tomorrow, at least for myself, in witnessing the growth of the digital world over the last 20 or 30 years and how far it has gone. This legislation is a modernization. It is legislation we can all get behind and support. I would encourage members, no matter what party they are from, to support it. Let us see it go to committee, where the committee can do its fine work and see if we can even improve—

Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons it is important, once the bill gets to committee, that members have the opportunity to get a better sense of the types of regulations that would be put into place to support the legislation. There is another way of looking at it. When we have legislation such as that which is being presented and going into committee, members on all sides of the House have the opportunity to be able to express their thoughts and concerns with respect to the legislation even before regulations have been drafted. I would not want to give the impression to the member opposite that we have a pile of regulations and the moment that the legislation passes these regulations would be put into place. I suspect that there is a lot of fine tuning going on.

Madam Speaker, the bill is aligned closely with approaches in other jurisdictions, both in Canada and internationally. The CPPA does not apply in jurisdictions where the provincial law is deemed substantially similar, which is likely to include provinces like Quebec. It is important to recognize that the national government does have, which this legislation clearly shows, a responsibility and we are living up to that responsibility. That is one of the reasons we need to look at the regulations, as I made reference to in the previous question. However, I do not believe that there would be the overlap that would cause issues in Quebec or B.C. or any other jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker, sometimes one needs to agree to disagree. I look at the tribunal as something that is to the benefit of Canadians. It is an opportunity to ultimately seek fairer justice. At the end of the day, I suspect and hope that it will ultimately prevail. Perhaps there are ways in which the member can enhance or put in something that might deal with his concerns, if not directly then indirectly, but it is important that we keep the tribunal.

Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member's overall assessment of the situation, when it comes to AI, is accurate. That is one of the reasons why, whether it was in the question that I had put forward a little bit earlier this morning or in my statement, the rapid change that we are seeing in the digital world is going to continue to be greatly enhanced through AI. I think that having what we have proposed within the legislation and allowing for regulation is by far the best way to go. I do not live in fear of AI. I think that AI is going to improve the quality of life for Canadians and people around the world.

Madam Speaker, that is why I was reflecting on Bill C-26. If we look at the debate that took place yesterday on cybersecurity, dealing with the digital world, at the end of the day, Conservative member after member was standing up saying that, yes, they were going to support the bill but that they had a lot of problems with the legislation, and that the principle of Bill C-26 is something that they support. I kind of made a leap, and apparently the wrong leap, by seeing the Conservatives, in principle, support the privacy of Canadians and the legislation that will give an enhanced privacy legislation. I guess I should not have made that particular leap. Inconsistency from the Conservative caucus is fairly well known. I will try my best not to make that sort of mistake going forward.

Madam Speaker, I said, at the very beginning of my comments, how wonderful it would be if, somehow, we could pass this bill before summer comes. I suspect that was maybe a little optimistic. Hopefully we can do it before the end of the year. The government needs to get a sense of co-operation from at least one opposition party and we are hopeful that there will be more. It would be nice to have that unanimous type of consent moving forward. I would have thought that the principles of the legislation should at least allow us to get it to the committee stage, where the member herself makes reference to how there are some possible changes and it is important that the government be open to ideas. That is why I said that if there are specific ideas—

Madam Speaker, I would like to go to the principles of the legislation, which the member just said he would like to see a series of amendments at committee. Would the member concede that if the bill does not pass through, he will never have the opportunity to propose those amendments? It would, in essence, sabotage legislation that is substantive and that is there to protect the privacy of Canadians. There would be substantial financial consequences where there have been violations of this law. Could he provide his thoughts on that?