Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at the essence of the issue, we see that the Conservative Party is saying that it wants all documents, unredacted, to be handed directly over to the RCMP. The former law clerk has said that is an abuse of power. An abuse of power is the game that the Conservatives are playing, and they completely sidestep. This reminds me of Stephen Harper, who is the only former prime minister who has been in contempt of Parliament. Now the Conservative Party is abusing power from an opposition point of view. Is there any Conservative member who does not understand this? The Conservatives are ignoring the concerns of the RCMP, a fairly well-recognized institution here in Canada. Today, the games that the Conservative Party is playing are a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest defender of Stephen Harper is the current leader of the Conservative Party. Stephen Harper is the only prime minister in Canadian history who was held in contempt of Parliament. Is there any wonder why the Conservative leader has a problem listening to the independent RCMP, the independent Auditor General of Canada and the former deputy clerk of the House of Commons? Is there any reason Canadians should believe that the Conservatives are doing anything more than just playing a political game, a gimmick, at great expense? They do not have any problems walking over the charter rights of individuals, and that is the bottom line. This is more about politics for the Conservatives than it is about concern for Canadians. I say shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the member started off with breaking news about the RCMP doing an investigation. That is interesting because the Conservatives can let the RCMP do what it needs to do. Instead, they want to blur judicial independence. That is what this motion, or whatever game they are playing, is about. It is contrary to what the RCMP is recommending. I take issue with how the member, probably more than any other Conservative member, tries to politicize things. How many times have we heard him say “Liberal-appointed chair” and that she is a Liberal and Liberal-friendly? He knows full well that she was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty. She is a big donor to the Conservative Party, having donated thousands of dollars, yet he continues to say she is Liberal-friendly. The bottom line is that we do not condone and have taken strict actions against what has taken place, with independent investigations, the freezing of funds and a replacement of the board. The only one who is being irresponsible is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only me, the member for Winnipeg North, who is saying “abuse of power”. The former law clerk of Parliament did so. He is from an independent institution and is not partisan, and he said, “it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use its powers to demand and get documents from the Government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the government to give documents to the third party.” It is this individual who is saying that the Conservatives are abusing power. How do they defend that?

Madam Speaker, it is beyond me how Conservative member after Conservative member can stand in their place and mislead Canadians on the reality of what is happening on this issue. This will go to the procedure and House affairs committee, and the Conservatives are filibustering. They are using the excuse of asking who cares if Stephen Harper never did it. They have a new position that they are applying to this particular government, even though it counters what the RCMP and the national Auditor General are saying. They are saying that this tactic that is used by the Conservatives with respect to the information being unredacted puts the issues into jeopardy, whether in terms of charter violations or other things. However, the Conservatives close their eyes, put their head in the sand and ignore that. Why do they ignore the RCMP and the Auditor General?

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 63 to concur in the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Madam Speaker, let me provide a bit of an answer for the member opposite. The RCMP and the Auditor General have been very clear in their comments on this Conservative tactic. They are very uncomfortable with what the Conservatives are doing. This new-found faith they seem to have was never applied when Stephen Harper provided redacted documents. What adds insult to the issue is that the Conservatives are not saying that they want to get the unredacted information so they can give it to MPs. They want to hand it directly over to the RCMP, even though the RCMP is objecting to the manner they are suggesting. Why should we listen to the Conservative Party over the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, my question will follow immediately after a very simple statement that came from the RCMP in regard to this. I will quote from the letter signed by the commissioner of the RCMP, in which it states, “There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” The institution of the RCMP is calling into question what parliamentarians want to provide directly to the RCMP. If we have the RCMP concerned about the process, even though we have unfettered powers, and if members or the Conservatives want to put someone in jail, they can apparently, at the end of the day is there not a responsibility on all of us to at least listen to what it has to say?

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the previous speaker from the Bloc in regard to the RCMP and how it had expressed a great deal of concern, but the RCMP is not alone. Canada's Auditor General is expressing the very same concern. Yes, Parliament does have a supreme power, but it does not necessarily mean we should use it in a situation like this. Stephen Harper chose not to do it, and so have other prime ministers and other premiers. There is a need at times for redacted statements. Does the member believe we should be going against the thoughts that have been expressed by the Auditor General of Canada and the RCMP, by providing unredacted documents?

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe the member has raised some valid points, especially with his most recent comments in regard to the leadership of the Conservative Party. We know foreign interference has been a very hot topic. Canadians are truly concerned about it. However, we have the only party leader in the House of Commons who absolutely refuses to get the security clearance necessary in order to see the documents. It begs the question: Is it that the leader of the Conservative Party wants to be naive about this issue? Or is it because if he actually applied, his application would be rejected on some grounds? Maybe the House of Commons or a standing committee should be investigating that, because Canadians have a right to know if the leader of the Conservative Party might not even qualify to get security clearance and what would prevent that from happening.

Mr. Speaker, the member does raise a very valid point. I think it is worth pursuing. Canada plays a very important role in world affairs. We know that. There is a need to recognize that all sorts of security issues and confidential information come to the Prime Minister's desk, and the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is saying he does not want a security clearance. There has to be a reason for that, and I am wondering if the member would concur that a standing committee of the House should be investigating why we have foreign interference allegations and why the leader of the Conservative Party is rejecting any sense of transparency and accountability to Canadians on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the debate continues on this issue. It is unfortunate because of all the things we could be debating. We are debating this issue because of the political games the Conservatives want to play. What they are doing is putting the interests of the Conservative Party, and in particular the interests of the leader of the Conservative Party, ahead of Canadians' interests. That is the bottom line. It is the reason that day after day we have been having this particular debate. It is the reason that concurrence report after concurrence report is being introduced by the Conservative Party. Even though there is substantial legislation before the House, the Conservative Party has chosen not to act in the best interests of Canadians, but rather to act in the best interests of the Conservative Party. I find this most unfortunate, especially when we take a look at what we are debating, or the privilege itself. We are not debating the privilege motion, because the Conservatives moved an amendment to the privilege motion. Then dozens and dozens of Conservative members of Parliament stood to talk about the amendment, about half of their caucus. I guess the other half did not want to talk about it or were maybe a little embarrassed to, so they decided that the next step was to move a subamendment, or an amendment to the amendment. This is now before the House. The root of the problem, and I am not talking about the leader of the Conservative Party, even though many of my colleagues might argue he is the problem, is that, procedurally, on the floor of the House is a motion asking—

Mr. Speaker, that attempt by the Conservative member to be humorous is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, as more and more Canadians find out who the leader of the Conservative Party really is, I think they will become disenchanted and disappointed because of the unethical behaviour that we have witnessed on numerous occasions. The type of misinformation that is espoused raises legitimate concerns. Then, for the member across the way to try to make a joke of a very serious issue when we have the independence of the RCMP and call into question a tactic that is being used here, I find it sad, even though the member sits in his corner and laughs. At the end of the day, we have a government that has been working on the issue to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and there is, in fact, going to be accountability on the issue. However, what I find interesting is that the strategy now of the Conservative Party is to say “ignore what the RCMP concerns are and ignore the Auditor General” who affirms the RCMP, another independent institution. The Conservatives say “just ignore what they are saying”; and move full steam ahead. It was interesting. The New Democratic speaker before me talked about the Afghan scandal with Stephen Harper. I remember that scandal. It is interesting that the leader of the Conservative Party of today was there during that scandal. A number of the Conservatives who are sitting across from me were there during that scandal when Stephen Harper refused to provide unredacted documents. Speech after speech, we hear the Conservative Party members, not necessarily talking about the process or the procedure that should be followed, which is the motion, but rather talking about character assassination and listing off what they believe to be scandals. I have said this before and I have read about it. I have no problem at all comparing our actions as a government to the types of decisions that were being made under Stephen Harper. I wish that we would actually see some of the Conservatives who were there during the Harper regime stand up and provide their defence on the issue and why they have had some sort of come-to-Jesus moment in terms of a complete road-to-Damascus reversal of their positioning. Now, the Conservatives feel that, as parliamentarians, we have a supreme right, and that is where I do agree,. We have a supreme privilege that enables us to do things that other Canadians cannot do. Where I disagree is this: Just because we have that ability does not mean that we should be using that ability. I have heard Conservative members talk about how Centre Block had a jail in the basement and how we have had individuals walk away from the gold bar and just drive away, implying they should have been put in jail. What a slippery slope it is when we feel that we can just instruct the RCMP and ignore what it is telling us, and then another member says we should have the right to put someone directly into jail. The Conservatives like to think that they are there to protect the individuals of our society regarding rights and freedoms. I will stay away from some of the other issues that many of my colleagues have raised. Conservatives even think about issues like the notwithstanding clause and how it is no problem to use it. Why? It is because Parliament can. What a terrible attitude to have. SDTC is an arm's-length organization, meaning that there is no political interference and it makes the decisions. There is a responsibility for us to ensure that there is accountability, and we have been doing that. That is the reason, as I say, there have been internal investigations. That is the reason it went to the standing committee. There are silly comments in the speeches coming from the other side and they try to justify them because they happen to be here on the floor of the House of Commons. There are assertions of people being Liberal-friendly and that there is all this corruption. That is what Conservatives say. If, at the end of the day, they want to talk about pure corruption, as they often do, let me touch on a few of them. There were the Conservative anti-terrorism scandal, the Conservative Phoenix scandal, the Conservative G8 spending scandal and the Conservative ETS scandal. Interestingly enough, the ETS scandal was a $400-million scandal that involved a minister. Members should google it and find out. Maybe then the Conservatives will look in a mirror and react to their own behaviour. There was the Conservative F-35 scandal, the Conservative Senate scandal and the Conservative election scandals, more than one. We will remember the robocalls and one of the Conservative MPs walking out in leg cuffs. They should not talk to us about scandals. They should look in a mirror. This is an issue the government has been on top of. This is an issue that should be going to the PROC committee. At the end of the day, the government would be doing a disservice to the RCMP, the Auditor General and Canadians by just giving in to the Conservatives' bullying and what they feel they are entitled to. I would suggest that this needs to come to an end and be given over to PROC so we can start dealing with issues that Canadians are dealing with. We have had the introduction of bills like the Citizenship Act, the military court legislation, the rail and marine safety legislation and the online harms bill. Legislation was introduced earlier this morning. There is a lot on the agenda. Canadians want us working for them, not working for the Conservative Party's interests. I am asking members opposite to put Canadians ahead of their own political party. There is still a full year to go. Let us maximize that and get things done for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion saying that an issue at hand should go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That would provide a wonderful forum for all members of the House to address the content of the issue, in terms of why it is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. However, because the Conservatives ran out of speakers on the amendment, they moved an amendment to the amendment so they could start all over again and speak to the subamendment. That is actually why I get to speak on the motion again. It is interesting: We have had dozens and dozens of Conservatives stand up to speak to the motion, but I believe I am only the second Liberal that has spoken to it. I can tell members opposite that there is a great desire to stop playing the game. That is not only coming from Liberal members but also even other members. There might even be a few closet Conservatives who would like to see us move on. Not all Conservatives are speaking on it, which no doubt defies the House leadership's decision to continue to have speaker after speaker stand up. Why the issue needs to go to PROC is very simple. It is not that complicated. Let me get to the core. There is a letter. SDTC has been an issue the government has been on top of ever since it became public. The issue is that, because of wrongdoings that have been discovered, standing committees want information, and understandably so. As with other governments, whether provincial or previous federal governments, we often get redacted information. This is done to protect a spectrum of interests. There is nothing different in terms of what the government has actually done. In wanting to make a game of this and trying to point the finger, the Conservatives have said they want not only to have those unredacted documents but also for the unredacted documents collected here in the House to be handed directly over to the RCMP. That raises the concerns of a good number of people. We say that this is in fact a Charter issue, a process issue, and it is blurring the independence of our judicial system. However, we get all the legal beagles coming from the other side saying that we do not know what we are talking about. The Conservatives do not know what they are talking about; it is not just Liberals who are saying that. I will give a direct quote from the RCMP. This is in relation to the tactic that the Conservative Party is using in order for us to be able to talk about concerns that Canadians have. This is the tactic that the Conservatives are using in order for us to pass legislation that is going to have an impact on all Canadians in every region of our country. The Conservatives are so focused on themselves and not the concerns of Canadians that this is the type of game they are playing. I will read from the letter to show what the RCMP has to say. Let us remember that the Conservatives are actually asking for unredacted documents to be collected and sent directly to the RCMP. The commissioner responded to that request, saying, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” It is not the Liberal Party or the Government of Canada saying that. That is the independent office of our institution, the RCMP. Even though I have had many opportunities to question Conservatives on the issue of whether they are concerned about what the RCMP are saying, not one of them has had the courage to actually address that directly. I have witnessed dozens and dozens of them standing up, but not one of them has done so, because they are not concerned about such issues as the charter, our Constitution or proper process. They are concerned about trying to turn this into a game in which they can score cheap political points. To try to give the false impression that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister or the minister responsible does not care about the issue is just wrong. That cannot be substantiated. Let us go through the actual process, in terms of what has taken place. A number of years ago, Navdeep Bains appointed a chair to SDTC. That chair was actually an adviser; she gave advice to Stephen Harper, a Conservative. She gave advice to Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative. I often hear the Conservatives talking about how wonderful the late Jim Flaherty was; he was a former Conservative finance minister. They might be surprised, or likely not, to learn that the SDTC chair actually gave advice to him. Navdeep Bains appointed her to an arm's-length organization of which we appointed maybe 50% of the board; the rest of the members were appointed outside that. After the appointment, a couple of years went by and we found out that there were issues that were taking place that should not have been taking place. As a direct result, the government, through the minister responsible, had an internal review done. In fact, we have had two. We have had the Auditor General look at the issue. We have had hours and hours of debate in our standing committee. The Conservatives, because they want their cheap political points in this game, are now asking what the next step is. They want to get unredacted documents—

Mr. Speaker, where should I start? I think the best way to start is with what is taking place today. The Conservative Party is asking, through a motion, to collect the unredacted documents and give them to the RCMP. This is what the RCMP had to say about that tactic: “There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” That is not me saying this, but the RCMP. This is the body that the Conservatives want to give the information to. My God, how much simpler could it be to understand that? I do not understand why they do not understand how simple this issue is. The reason they do not understand it is they choose not to because they would rather play political games. They do not care about Canadians; they only care about the advancement of the Conservative Party. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, it would help a great deal if the members opposite would stand up and say, before they comment, that they disagree with the RCMP and Canada's Auditor General with respect to the Conservative tactic. They should at least be honest with Canadians and tell them that they disagree with the RCMP and the Auditor General, and that they do not care about the Charter of Rights and the Constitution. If you insist on the Conservative spin, what you are doing is walking on the rights and processes of individuals that have been well established. The RCMP and the Auditor General, which are both independent offices, have made that very clear. If the member would like, I can share the letter with her.

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is to allow our independent offices and agencies to do what they are supposed to do. We have an RCMP agency that is recognized around the world as second to, I would suggest, no other agency or law enforcement group. It knows its stuff. It knows what it is doing. I think Canadians have more confidence in the RCMP as an institution than they have in the Conservative Party, on this file at the very least. I am trying to be kind here. I would suggest that we let individuals do the job they are supposed to be doing on this issue and allow more discussion in standing committees. That is why we have standing committees, to be able to go through the documents. That is where our Auditor General and the RCMP have made presentations. They provide all forms of opportunities to ensure accountability and transparency. I am a little concerned about the Bloc, but it is up to the Conservative Party, in particular, to stop playing political games at the cost of the interests of Canadians and start looking at ways in which we can support Canadians, not play games with them at a great expense.

Mr. Speaker, the government has cooperated and produced the papers. They have been produced, just as Brian Mulroney and other levels of government have done in the past. The issue for the Conservatives is that they are saying there are redactions in the papers. That happens in government. Now the Conservatives have said that they will force those unredacted papers and go against what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying. Why is that? It is because they want to play a political game of political cheap shots. I look forward to hearing the member's comments. I would encourage every member in the opposition, when they stand up, to start their remarks by indicating that they do not support the recommendations of or the concerns raised by the RCMP and the Auditor General. Based on that, we can recognize that they do not support the Charter of Rights or our Constitution because, if they did, they would be listening to what those independent offices have to say. If they are not going to listen to what those independent offices have to say, then they cannot try to tell me that they are supporting the Charter of Rights. I will not buy that.

Mr. Speaker, there is good news and bad news. First, the good news is that four times every year a carbon rebate goes out. Therein lies the good news that on Tuesday, October 15 hundreds of dollars will be going to the households in Winnipeg North and in so many other constituencies. Now, for the bad news: There was a time when the Conservatives actually supported putting a tax on carbon, but they flip-flopped on that, and the leader of the far right today says that he is going to get rid of the carbon rebate. That is most unfortunate, because Canadians should be encouraged to participate in a positive way in regard to our environment, and giving the carbon rebate is a good thing. The Conservatives should flip-flop again and get behind the carbon rebates.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the response the member gave to my colleague. I was in opposition for over 20 years, and saying that because they are in opposition, they have supreme power and can use it as a tool to beat over constitutional or charter rights is shameful. The RCMP is very clear about the game the Conservative Party of Canada is playing. To quote from its letter, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” It is not the government or the Liberal Party saying this. It is the RCMP institution, the commissioner. To say it is not a charter issue or try to downplay that issue is disgraceful. Why will the Conservative Party not stop playing games, realize this is serious, stop the filibuster and allow the issue to go to the procedure and House affairs committee so that we can start dealing with issues that Canadians are concerned about, not the political games that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to play at a great expense to Canadians?

Madam Speaker, if the Conservative Party would stop playing games to try to get political points, and put Canadians and their interests ahead of their Conservative Party, maybe we might be able to see some progress in dealing with the silliness of what we are constantly hearing from member after member. The Conservatives continue to ignore the facts, which is why I am appealing to the member opposite. It would be a wonderful presentation to make at PROC. However, I would suggest that it would be highly irresponsible for the member, as a Conservative, to say that he is not going to listen to the advice of the commissioner of the RCMP and the advice of the Auditor General of Canada. They are independent institutions. Why should Canadians believe the politically motivated games that we are seeing on the floor of the House of Commons in Ottawa, as opposed to listening to what the institutions of our RCMP and Auditor General are saying? Why does the member believe that he has more credibility than they do on this issue?

Madam Speaker, the member says she does not care. That is interesting. The chairperson was an adviser to Stephen Harper, former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former minister of finance Jim Flaherty, all of them Conservatives. As we know, she was a great donor to the Conservative Party. However, Conservative after Conservative, dozens of them, stand up and call her a Liberal insider. It is all about the spreading of misinformation; in the same way, the member opposite will not answer the question directly. The RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada have said that this is, in essence, a game the Conservative Party is playing and that it is dangerous because it is borderline dealing with issues that offend the Charter of Rights and due process. However, Conservatives just stand back and ignore it. The Conservative opposition is irresponsible. Why will the Conservatives not do the honourable thing, and at least listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying about this political game they are playing?

Madam Speaker, at times it is fairly pathetic to see how Conservatives will manipulate their speeches to take character assassination to the degree found in the member's speech. The question I asked previously was about the chair of the organization we are talking about. She was a political adviser to Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney and Jim Flaherty. She is a great donor to the Conservative Party of Canada. She has donated thousands and thousands of dollars, yet Conservative member after Conservative member continues to say she is Liberal-friendly. The Conservative game is about character assassination and trying to make politics as ugly as possible so they can feed the far right. It is sad to see. The reality is that the government saw actions being taken that were inappropriate and took action to ensure that taxpayers and Canadians would get justice. When will the Conservatives stop the disgusting game they are playing, allow us to get down to business and put Canadians ahead of their political interests?

Madam Speaker, listening to the member opposite is very similar to listening to the collective speeches delivered by the Conservative Party. One does not let the facts and the full truth get in the way of a Conservative-Reform party speech. That is what we are witnessing. There is very simple question that no Conservative member of Parliament has actually answered. Instead, they skate around it. It is a simple question. The RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada, two well-respected institutions, have made it very clear to the House of Commons that, in essence, the game the Conservative Party is playing today, demanding that unredacted information be collected and given directly to the RCMP, is in fact a blurring of judicial independence and could be a violation of the Charter of Rights. That is not something the government or the Liberal Party are saying, but something that two institutions that Canadians have a great deal of respect for have said. Why are Conservatives ignoring those two institutions on this issue?

Madam Speaker, I think it is worth noting that Canada, among our peer nations and others, is doing exceptionally well with regard to the technological advancement of things like AI and facial recognition. Through that advancement there is a responsibility of the different stakeholders, in particular government, to look for ways in which we can actually ensure that our laws and regulations are of benefit and provide the type of assurances that Canadians want to see. It does not matter where one lives in Canada; it is just the general feeling, I believe, that a vast majority have. I wonder whether my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of Bill C-27, which is unfortunately still at committee. I would have liked to have seen it taken out of committee months ago.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that I know is very important to all Canadians. I wanted to make note of a couple of things before I really get under way. When we think of the Internet, I think that we need to put it into the perspective of how things have changed over time in a very significant way. I would suggest that applies more to the industry of technological changes related to the Internet and computers: it is virtually second to none, and it is something we all need to be much aware of. It is an issue our constituents are very concerned with. I think, at the end of the day, we need to recognize just how much things have changed and the importance of governments to show that not only do they understand the issue, but they also have taken tangible actions in order to address the many different concerns out there. I will start off by saying there are a number of pieces of legislation that are all related to that technological change. If we canvass Canadians, we will find that there is a wide spectrum of ways they use the internet. There are many benefits to it, and there are many drawbacks. The legislative agenda that we have put forward and advanced over the last number of years deals with both sides: How important it is to have a framework that enables us to protect, for example, the marketplace; and how important it is that we have laws that protect the victims of the abuse that takes place over the Internet. I would like to cite three pieces of legislation and where they are at today. It is not necessarily because of the government's will to constantly push opposition members in trying to get through the legislation, but I believe that these are the types of legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would ultimately support. I can make reference to the issue of protection, for example. I think there have been four concurrence reports from the Conservative Party, this is either the second or third from the Bloc and I know the New Democrats have done a concurrence report. This is all during government business. Then we have had the issue of the matters of privilege. No Conservative is standing up saying, “Why are we doing these concurrence reports when we should be dealing with the privilege?” This is because the privilege is actually being used as a tool to prevent the discussion of legislation. Why is that important to highlight right now? It is because one of the pieces of legislation we have been trying to push out of second reading is Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is a piece of legislation that ultimately protects individuals and our communities from inappropriate behaviour taking place on the Internet and creating victims. These are the types of things to which I question, what role does government have? This particular report raises a number of concerns on the impacts of AI and facial recognition. Imagine all the images on the Internet today that Canadians do not want on the Internet. I am thinking of a breakup where one spouse is, without the consent of the ex, putting inappropriate pictures on the Internet. Bill C-63 is legislation that addresses an issue of that nature, yet it continues to be frustrated in terms of getting through the House of Commons on second reading. However, I know that a majority of members of Parliament who are sitting in the House of Commons actually support Bill C-63. We have Bill C-26, which deals with the important issue of cybersecurity. When we think of cybersecurity, we can imagine the data banks out there collecting information and how critical that information is. We are defending and supporting Canadians, where we can, through issues related to privacy and the potential leak of data bank information. There was a time when a data bank was paper-driven, and the shredders might have had good business at the time. I remember going into an embassy where I saw containers full of correspondence. Containers are disappearing as more and more things are becoming digital, and that applies in many different forms. In literally seconds, millions of data points can actually be lost and ultimately acquired by someone who might have malicious intent. However, we are still waiting for Bill C-26 to ultimately get that royal assent, not to mention Bill C-27. Bill C-27 has a great deal to do with what we are talking about today. I think members need to fully understand, when we look at how important this issue is, that the last time we actually had a modernization of the acts that are in question, and I am referring to Bill C-27, was back in 2000, over 20 years ago, when iPhones did not exist. Can members imagine a time where iPhones did not exist? I can, and it really was not all that long ago. When I was first elected, when I turned on the computer, the first thing I heard was a dial tone, a ding-dong, and then I was logged onto the Internet type of thing, and it took quite a while to get that connection. People used five-and-a-half-inch floppy disks. However, from 1995 to 2001, we really started to see an explosion of Internet advancement and technology, and it continues today. Let us think about where the government has put its investments. It is not only toward protecting Canadians, but toward ensuring that communities have access to the Internet because of how critical it is to all of us. We can look at one of the largest expenditures in my own province of Manitoba, which expanded broadband Internet into rural communities. It is being financed through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Ironically, it is the same Canada Infrastructure Bank that the Conservatives say is doing nothing and has no projects. The leader of the Conservative Party has said he is going to get rid of the Infrastructure Bank. However, in Manitoba, we have seen the Internet expand through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. Back in the late eighties and going into the nineties, some might have said it was an option. Today, it is not an option. The year 2000 was the last time the act was updated. For almost a decade, Stephen Harper chose to do absolutely nothing to protect individuals' identifications from being consumed through the Internet. This government, for a number of years, has been looking at how we can modernize the protection of Canadians through the Internet and how we can maximize the benefits of the Internet, while minimizing harms to society. Those are the types of initiatives the Government of Canada has been taking to show, in a very real and tangible way, whether with legislative or budgetary measures, that it understands the technology. We are going to continue not only to be there but also to invest in it. It is one of the reasons that Canada virtually leads the rest of the world in many areas, especially on AI and facial recognition. It is because we understand, looking forward, the role that they are going to play. That is why it is so important to bring forward legislation and, ultimately, look across the way. In a minority situation, we need a sense of co-operation coming from all opposition parties. It does not take a majority of members to prevent things from happening in the House. All it takes is one political party. Any political entity in the House that has 13 or 14 members can cause a great deal of frustration, even though a majority inside the House might want to see actions taken. In the last federal election, a minority government was elected, but that does not take responsibility away from all political parties to take the actions necessary to support what is in the best interests of Canadians. That is why I am standing up to speak to the report, which had a lot of work. I was not at the committee, but I can assure everyone that a great deal of effort would have been put into coming up with the report. Having read some of the comments provided by the minister's office in response to the report, obviously the government has taken the report very seriously. If members want to get an appreciation for the content of the report, I would encourage them to take a look at it. They should also look at the response the government has provided to the report. I suspect that if they were to take a look at the response, they would find that once again, much as in the many comments I have put on the record thus far, we have a government that understands the issue and the report and has taken action, not only today but previously, to deal with the concerns being raised. All we need to do is take a look at Bill C-27. In his response, even the minister made reference to Bill C-27. If members are genuinely concerned about the report, they should be sympathetic to at least allowing Bill C-27 to get out of committee. Why would that not happen? I can assure members, contrary to what the member across the way said, that as a government, we are constantly listening to Canadians. That is why we will find within our measures, whether they are legislative or budget measures, the thoughts and ideas of the people of Canada being reflected. The Speaker's constituents, my constituents and all of our constituents are genuinely concerned about what is happening on the Internet today. To amplify that fact and the need for change, I quickly made reference to the year 2000, when we last had legislation. We had a big gap when absolutely nothing was done. I call that the Stephen Harper era. Then we had a government replace that era and it immediately started to work with Canadians to get a better understanding of the types of legislation and regulations that are necessary. The best example that I can come up with, because of the explosion of iPhones out there today, is the issue of Facebook and how many people participate in Facebook. How many people own an iPad or iPhone or are on Facebook, Instagram or the many other social media, which did not exist in 2000? None of them existed. If that is the case, as I stated, I think a good question to pose is why there is resistance to supporting what Canadians want to see. Why would anyone oppose the framework legislation that we are bringing forward that would protect the interests of Canadians? As I said, it is not like the Internet is an option nowadays. Today, it is an essential service. People will go to the Internet for a wide spectrum of reasons, whether it is streaming a favourite show from the past or something more recent, or looking at issues related to health conditions. I am always amazed at how the general knowledge of the population continues to grow on health-related issues. That area has great potential, and it will incorporate AI and facial recognition. Non-profit and private organizations and even governments will use the Internet as a tool to deliver health care services and provide health care advice. Many people are taking that up and looking into it. That is one of the reasons that people will be living longer lives in the future. It is endless. That is—

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and especially that it is coming from a Conservative member. He is asking us what thoughts we have in regard to legislation. I made reference in my comments to Bill C-63, the online harms act. I made reference to Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. I made reference to Bill C-27, which deals with updating a framework so that we have regulations that address many aspects of the report. The biggest barrier is not a lack of ideas or legislation. The biggest barrier is, in fact, the Conservative Party of Canada, which continues to prevent legislation from ultimately becoming law. On the one hand, the Conservatives talk about the importance of privacy for Canadians and the importance of cyber-related issues, but when it comes time to advance legislation, they are found wanting. If my colleague believes that we should have legislation, I would encourage him to allow legislation to get through.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member to the extent that it is the responsibility of government. At the end of the day, what we have seen is a responsible government that has brought a number of legislative measures to the floor of the House of Commons. Once we bring them to the floor of the House of Commons, there is a responsibility of all members to recognize them. The member says that we should have a framework. Bill C-27 is in part a framework that would allow for regulations. Those are the types of things we should be trying to get through the House of Commons so Canada, which does an incredible job on the responsible advancement of AI and facial recognition, would be allowed to continue to do so and so the government would be able to keep up with the advancement in a very responsible way.

Madam Speaker, I have news for the member opposite. He did not necessarily need to put that question to me; all he had to do was just read the response from the government. I did not write the response, but the member could read it. It is a 12-page response to the recommendations, and he would become much more familiar with the manner in which the government has taken action. The member blindly made a statement that the recommendations do not require legislation, but there are certain aspects of the report that do require some changes. That is why I made the suggestion that we need to continue to advance and push important legislation, and I cited three examples of that. If the member had been listening to what I was saying, he might have been a little more supportive. I must thank the NDP members for the support they give us.

Madam Speaker, I suspect there is no one in the chamber who has read all the reports. There are literally pages and pages of concurrence reports, hundreds of reports. There are actually more reports than there are sitting days left. The issue is important, as are other issues raised through concurrence reports. There is no doubt they are important, but they are never important enough to raise on opposition days. The issues are raised only on government business days, which seems to be a way to prevent us from being able to talk about, for example, Bill C-63, the online harms act, which would advance something our constituents want. My Conservative friends specifically, instead of playing party politics and trying to serve themselves, should be thinking about serving Canadians by dealing with the legislative agenda and allowing for it to move forward.

Madam Speaker, we have just seen a demonstration of what Stephen Harper did, which was absolutely nothing for modernization whatsoever. In fact, it is a continuation of that because the Conservatives still do not want anything to do with it. That is the reason why they do not even advance the legislation. The member was just critical of Bill C-63. In essence, Bill C-63 says that, if someone's partner or ex puts inappropriate pictures onto the Internet without their consent, that is wrong. They should not be able to do that. The Conservative Party says, “Who cares?” It is not even going to let Bill C-63 be debated to get it to the end of second reading. It will never make it to committee if it is left up to the Conservative Party. They are stonewalling it. They are taking a Stephen Harper approach to the issue, and that is to do nothing but complain.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite talking about the standing committee. It is an interesting contrast; the current government has always encouraged the passage of bills through second reading so that they can go to committee, which allows for input. I would like to think we are not being criticized for listening to what people say around the table and making amendments accordingly when we feel they give strength to the bill. It is interesting that we are talking about AI; in one committee, AI was used by the Conservative Party to generate 20,000-plus amendments to one piece of legislation. That highlights the fact that there are those who abuse AI for what I would suggest are mischievous reasons. This is what the Conservatives did in trying to add to a filibuster using AI. Would the member not agree that most Canadians would see it as somewhat silly to use AI as a mechanism to assist the Conservative research team?

Madam Speaker, as I indicated to all committee members who participated in the coming up of the report, I can appreciate that there are many different reports that are formulated in our standing committees. I recognize the efforts of those who came before to present and those committee members who have actually come up with the final reports themselves. I am sure the member would be aware that there was a ministerial response to the report. Has he had the chance to read through it? If so, could he indicate which recommendation he feels that the minister did not address? I think there are 19 in total.

Mr. Speaker, we are here because Navdeep Bains appointed someone who had been an adviser to Stephen Harper, to Brian Mulroney and to Jim Flaherty, all Conservatives, if the member is not aware, to a position which is arm's-length. A short time thereafter, issues were raised, and when they became known to the minister, the board was replaced, there was a freeze on new funding, and there were two independent internal reviews. The Auditor General has been looking at this, and there is the issue in regard to the RCMP's looking into the matter. The reason we are actually here right now is that we did provide information to the committee. Yes, it was redacted, just like Stephen Harper redacted information on numerous occasions. The Conservatives say that this is not good enough and that they want the information, but not for members of Parliament. They want to get the information and give it directly to the RCMP. The Auditor General and the RCMP have disagreed with the tactic that the Conservative Party is raising today.

Mr. Speaker, notice the member continues to stick to a script that is misleading Canadians. The RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada have made it very clear what the Conservatives are asking the Government of Canada to do, through the legislature, is get information unredacted and sent directly to the RCMP. Both of those independent institutions have made it very clear we should not be doing what the Conservative Party is suggesting. Canadians have rights, and Conservatives might not care about those rights, but we in the Liberal benches do. Why does the Conservative Party continue to ignore the advice of the RCMP and Canada's Auditor General?