Mark Holland

Mr. Speaker, the member can keep repeating the same nonsense, but it does not make it true. The reality is this, and it is important to state. Every single member in the House takes the responsibility of protecting children incredibly seriously. When the member stands in his place and casts aspersions that somehow we do not care as much as he does, it is unbefitting of this place. I will say to you that we take the safety of our children, we take the safety of our communities, and the safety of our families with the utmost seriousness, and act every day and comport ourselves—

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that any individual or organization that controls more than 25% of an organization involved with cannabis will have to be subject to a full security clearance.Let us be clear. The current regime is an absolute failure. Cannabis has the highest use among youth anywhere in the world, and 100% of the profits currently go to illicit organized crime. In the United States, the number has gone all the way down to 28%, in states that have legalized it. We want 0%.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the nature of the member's cynicism. For 10 years, we saw broken promises, inaction, and incredible disappointment when it came from the Senate.In the last election, we promised a new merit-based, transparent and open process that would allow Canadians from coast to coast to coast to apply to serve our great country. I am immensely confident in that process. I would suggest the member share that confidence and take a look at how the process will work, take a look at the eminent Canadians who will lead it, and take a look at the incumbents who will come out of it.

Mr. Speaker, again, let me be clear. Yes, of course we will go after any individual who has committed a terrorist act. However, I would hope that the member opposite would join me in saying that there are acts of terror that have not been committed, that there are people beginning to walk a dark path who we do not want to go down that path, and that prevention, which the previous government unfortunately did not invest in, and dealing with de-radicalization, are huge priorities to keeping our country safe. It is why we are making it a major priority, along with going after those who have already done us harm.

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear and I will reiterate. Any individual or organization that has more than 25% interest will be subject to background checks, and that does not matter if it is Julian Fantino or any other individual.Second, organized crime today controls 100% of the profits, that is $7 billion. It is a situation that is utterly unacceptable. We have one of the worst records in the world. The previous tactics did not work. We want to see 0% in the hands of organized crime.

Mr. Speaker, without question, every day we ensure that we have the tools at our disposal to keep Canadians safe. Any assertion that we are not doing everything in our power to hold extremists at bay is absurd. The Prime Minister has been preeminently clear in all of his statements. We will not accept extremism in any of its forms. We will do everything we can do root out extremism, both abroad and domestically, and all of its causes, and we have the tools to do that both domestically and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, this is how a proposal is going to come. A proposal is going to come by our engaging Canadians in all 338 ridings, going coast to coast and listening to them, and working with the member opposite and all members in the House on compromise, middle ground, and in understanding how we can modernize this system. I do not accept the cynical approach of the member, saying from the outset that it is impossible to find consensus. Let us work together. Let us find that better system. Let us ensure we find that right path and in doing so we will get a better voting system for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell that member what taking money out of organized crime does not look like, the last 10 years of Conservative government, where $20 million-a-day went into the hands of organized crime, or $7 billion a year. It funded gangs and funded violent activity in our country. It is utterly unacceptable. That is why Canadians voted for a new approach. We are utterly committed to following the example of what we have seen in other jurisdictions where legalization has radically shrunk the amount of money going to organized crime. No number is low enough for us. We want 0%.

Mr. Speaker, there is no bigger priority for this government than to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. Despite the overheated rhetoric on the other side, we make sure every single day that those individuals who are extremists are brought to justice. Wherever possible we use the tools that we have, such as revocation of passports, laying criminal charges where sufficient evidence exists, surveillance, no-fly lists, a broad array of measures, to secure the safety of Canadians.I can assure the member opposite and all Canadians that everything is being done.

Mr. Speaker, what weakened our democratic institutions and our democracy was the violations that we saw, the abuses that we saw, things that we saw in the Senate, the unfortunate scandals that took place with members abusing the Canada Elections Act. Canadians wanted that to end. They wanted something different. That is what they have asked of us. They have asked to end that way of doing democracy and have something more open, more inclusive. That is the process that we are engaging in. If the member wants to see that kind of new way, if he wants to see that stronger democracy, here is his chance. He can participate in the committee and engage in talks with Canadians from coast to coast. Let us make it—

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply proud of the work our men and women in the RCMP do every day to keep our country safe and we are committed to ensuring they have the resources they need to do the job. We are obviously looking at the fact that there was about half a billion dollars cut to the RCMP in the last term of the Conservatives. The damage that was done to the RCMP by those cuts is significant. We are committing to restoring the service and being there with the men and women who serve us.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear. The invitation was a mistake and it was rescinded as soon as information on the individual was available. All input and advice from our public servants are crucial and non-partisan. We have full confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, Canadians have waited for real change when it comes to the Senate. We are ready to deliver. Let me say exactly what that democratic process looks like. It means that every single Canadian from every corner of this nation is going to be given the opportunity to apply to be part of the Canadian Senate, and finally for that to be a merit-based non-partisan process that ensures that we have the highest calibre of candidates in place. I assure the member if he awaits that process, if he sees the quality of candidates that will come from it, he will see just how well it works.

Mr. Speaker, of course, we, and all members of this House, condemn the actions of ISIS and will pursue criminal charges against any individual who is found to commit terrorist acts. I would say that of those individuals who have returned, we have two active cases where we are seeking to go after individuals with evidence. I would note that in the 10 years under the Conservatives, the number of cases pursued: zero. The reality is, the record shows something different.

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is abhorrent, and we must do everything within our power to stop it. That is why we work with our domestic and international partners to protect victims and to ensure we do everything we can to stop this practice. Recently, we introduced Bill C-38 to give police and prosecutors new tools to investigate and prosecute human trafficking offences. We have also introduced Bill C-21, which gives important tools to combat cross-border crimes.I look forward to working with the member on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a problem, if there is any evidence of wrongdoing or ill intent against Canada, then our government and our officials will take immediate action without question. The evidence is irrefutable. During the Conservative governments' mandates, no one was charged. Under our government, there are two. Where we have evidence, we act.

Mr. Speaker, that is entirely untrue, and unfortunately very histrionic. Our government takes very seriously the safety of our children. It ensures that law enforcement and communities have the tools they need to keep our children safe. When a potentially dangerous offender is about to be released from prison, Correctional Service alerts police. If police agencies determine there is a danger, they alert the public. We ensure that everyone is kept safe.

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously constantly monitoring the situation to ensure that any individual who poses a threat to the country is immediately apprehended and brought to justice. I would hold out that when the party opposite was dealing with people of interest and concern, the 60-some individuals who were of concern during its mandate, not one charge was laid. We currently have two. Where we have evidence, we pursue that. I would state as a last comment that with respect to the incident he is talking about, the risk level was rated as extremely low.

Mr. Speaker, this government is doing exactly what the Conservative government did not do; we are investing in the services that keep this country safe. Need I remind the member opposite of the cuts that the Harper government implemented to the very services that keep this country safe: $530 million from the RCMP; $390 million from the Canada Border Services Agency; $69 million from CSIS; $42 million from the Communications Security Establishment; and $171 million from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.We invest, while they cut.

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite has proposed no ideas. The reality is that I do not know what they would hold a referendum on. When we look at the election and we look at the problems that Canadians saw with our democratic systems, including the scandals in the Senate, the disenfranchisement from the unfair election act, and the scandals that happened with violations of the Elections Act, we know that is why the Conservatives lost. That is why Canadians said this had to be the last time we saw those kinds of violations and that we needed a new system of governance and we needed to modernize our system. That is exactly what we are going to do. I engage them in this. I ask them to participate in finding that better way, that better system.

Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is both the question and the way it is characterizing the facts. I find it absolutely ridiculous that the party opposite, during its term, when we are talking about the safety and security of Canadians, cut $530 million from the RCMP, $390 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, $69 million from CSIS, $42 million from the Communications Security Establishment, and $171 million from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.While they cut, we are working on getting the job done.

Mr. Speaker, to get broad buy-in we have to do what frankly has not occurred in the past, which is to reach out to Canadians in ridings across the country, to have real and genuine conversations around how to improve our democratic institutions, to take this historic opportunity to move our democracy to a new place where we empower voters to have a stronger say in our system.In order to do that we have to talk about options and dialogue and something other than the status quo. That is what I have not heard from members opposite. I have not heard them positing ideas on how we can improve our system. I would like them to please start participating in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the same questions get the same answers. We have full confidence in the public service and in the work our public servants do every day. This is what the Prime Minister said, and this is still my answer.

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because only 20% of Canadians are on Twitter that the Conservatives thought they could post that they would support the NDP proposal and then not. Maybe that is why they thought they could get away with it.The reality is, the minister has talked about a myriad of ways for Canadians to engage, and of course those include digital means. We live in a digital age where many Canadians are in remote locations, have disabilities, or have other challenges that do not allow them to engage directly. The news is that Twitter is one medium but there are many media. We want to engage Canadians in every single one of them. That is the type of consultation they deserve. That is the kind of consultation they will get.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister met with Secretary Kelly. Both ourselves and the United States discuss regularly the situation on the border. Let us be very clear that any individual who crosses irregularly into Canada will be apprehended. They will be placed in detention and they will have their claim heard as to whether or not they have a legitimate claim. If it is not a legitimate claim, they will be turned away. That process is working effectively. We continue to monitor it and work with our U.S. counterparts.

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the RCMP has the resources and support it needs to keep our communities safe, whether that is in an urban environment or in a rural one. We are still reeling, unfortunately, from the half a billion dollars that the Conservatives cut from the RCMP, which did real damage to rural communities in keeping them safe. However, in the current budget and in others, we have been rebuilding that infrastructure, rebuilding that resiliency and strength, so that we can provide for our rural communities the service, the support, and the security they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, there are no plans for television advertising. Certainly, what we do want to do is to engage Canadians on a pan-Canadian basis. I am very proud that more than 140 members of Parliament on this side of the House have either had, or will have in a very short while, town halls. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have had three. I am having that many on Sunday.If we are going to purport to listen to Canadians, let us actually engage them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his work on this. The government is anxious to work with him to undo many of the changes that happened in the unfair elections act, and also to specifically look at making sure that both the length of elections and the rules are as fair as possible for everyone.I also want to say that we are very acutely listening to the Chief Electoral Officer's comments on the need to modernize our system, the need to improve it, and to bring it into the 21st century. I know the party opposite is working hard with us to do that. I hope all members in the House will work with us on this process.

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the assertions made by the member opposite. The invitation was sent, and when we received information that there was a problem, the invitation was immediately rescinded. We have full confidence in the public service.

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to making sure that our national security framework keeps Canadians safe and puts safeguards in place to protect rights and freedoms.I am a little bit confused by the question, because right now the committee is looking at the security intelligence framework. We are awaiting its report. I would think that the member who sits on the committee would want us to listen to that report, consider its recommendations, and incorporate them into our action.

Mr. Speaker, from the onset we have been committed to engaging Canadians to ensure that any proposal we bring forward has broad support from the Canadian public. Let us remember the objective we are trying to achieve here. The objective we are trying to achieve is to enfranchise voters, to give them more power, more say, a better spot at the table in our Canadian democratic system.I would offer to members opposite who clearly are engaged in this issue, who clearly want to have a discussion about it, let us talk, let us have an opportunity to look at what the options are to improve our system and get to work on it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question.One of Canada's top priorities is to ensure that all Canadians can travel and work without experiencing problems.I encourage whoever has had problems at the border to speak with the U.S. authorities.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this place, the invitation in question should never have been sent and when the information was found out about this individual, that invitation was immediately rescinded. The member of Parliament who advanced that name has apologized and made it clear that an error occurred.We absolutely and without question stand behind our public servants and the recommendations they make to us. We listen to their advice in this and every instance and act on it accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, that is what that member is saying but that certainly is not representative of the facts whatsoever.Again, to be very clear, and the member knows this well. We cannot under any circumstances discuss specific intelligence information we receive from our national security agencies. The member has been in government and he knows that very well. That is a rule that must be adhered to.We follow the advice of our public servants. We stand behind that advice. We do not play partisan games with it. We act on it when we are given that information.

Madam Speaker, I know that the member's constituents, Jeff and Annie and Denis, would appreciate that feedback, but they would also like to have opportunities to be able to speak to their MPs. On this side of the House, more than 150 members of Parliament have either had or will have consultations in their riding on this issue. The Conservatives have had five. That is a lot better than the zero they had on the unfair elections act, I will grant them that. When are they going to let their constituents have their say on this issue? When are they going to consult their constituents and participate in the process of improving our democracy?

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the support of Canadians is behind the proposals we bring forward.The process we are going to engage, of talking to Canadians from coast to coast, not just about changing our voting system but looking at electronic voting, looking at the possibility of mandatory voting, recognizing that in a modern age our electoral systems, like the rest of the world, need to evolve, is something to which we are committed.I would ask the member opposite to engage constructively in that process, to engage in that dialogue, and work with us to create a better electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and I will reiterate, the invitation sent was rescinded when the information found out was that the individual should never have received that invitation. The member in question has apologized, and we have full and total confidence in our national security infrastructure and the non-partisan advice they give us. That is advice we take very seriously and listen to in all instances.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members should try consultations. They might like it. They may enjoy the process of engaging with Canadians and listening and having an exchange of ideas. That is what this process is about. I welcome the member to do that. I have yet to hear a single proposal of how they would modernize or improve our electoral system. I do not even know what their question to Canadians would be. Instead, work with us on trying to find that better way, that better system, and ensuring that the Canadian population gets the voting system it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken. Over 60% spoke, voting for parties that said we need to modernize our electoral system. Canadians stood up in the last election and said they needed a system that would better reflect their will, that would better enfranchise their vote, and that would give them a better voice in our democratic process. We are committed to exactly that. I would encourage the member opposite to work with us in this process. Let us improve our democracy. Let us get it done.

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the member opposite. Let me assure him that we will work to ensure that all Canadians receive fair and proper treatment. I would encourage members of the House, if there is an incident that they become aware of that causes them concern, to bring it to our attention. Obviously, a number of these issues are emerging. We will take a look at the situation. We will be happy to get back to the member. Again, I appreciate him bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. In fact, it was the party opposite that said it was going to support a motion from the NDP on the change of the committee to make it one of the first, and maybe the first ever, committee that a majority government allowed to be controlled by minority parties. The Conservatives made that suggestion, we listened, and then they voted against it. The point of the matter is that we are ready to work with them, and with all parties, including on the issue they mentioned. A committee hopefully will begin its work next week and examine these issues, engage Canadians, and, in the process, improve our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite, not just for the motion but for the collaborative spirit with which he has been operating on this file. It is my hope that will pervade this entire process.If we are going to change our electoral system, if we are going to ensure that Canadians have a better way to express their democratic will, then it is going to take everyone in this House working together. In terms of how we move forward from this point, I am glad that the motion has a clear date for when that committee is going to be set. It will be a maximum of 10 days after it is approved. The committee does need to be resourced so it can travel across the country. We need to support every MP to have town halls in all 338 ridings.

Mr. Speaker, the changes we have tabled are not only comprehensive but are recognized as really being on the vanguard in leading the world on the issue of bringing our protection of Canadians, both their security and their rights, to bear. We are at the beginning of this process. The member knows I am at the committee every day. I am at his disposal to answer his questions any day of the week. The committee proceedings are following detailed work that was done on the security and intelligence framework, and the most exhaustive consultations that happened on a national basis. I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament we saw exactly how we do not want to deal with an issue like electoral reform. We saw the Conservatives bring forward an election act that did not consult Canadians at all. In fact, they did not even consult Elections Canada. They accepted no amendments. They refused to work with other parties. What we saw yesterday is a new approach, reaching across the aisle and saying, “Let us find middle ground”, giving up a majority even when we have one, saying that we have to compromise to ensure that we improve our electoral system and make it stronger for Canadians. That recognizes that more than 60% of Canadians voted in the last election to have a new electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague across has been in the House for a long time and he well knows that we cannot discuss specific intelligence information that is received from national security agencies. He is well aware of that. The independent, nonpartisan advice that we receive from our public servants is something that we listen to and we act on. Unlike the party opposite, we do not politicize or play games with our public service. We make sure we listen to their advice and act accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I have reached out to the mayor. Our officials talked to his department beforehand. There was one international flight last year that flew into Oshawa. This is going to be a material improvement. I have reached out to meet with the mayor on numerous occasions. The mayor says he does not want to meet, so I guess we will have to leave it there, and hopefully he will—

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear that the invitation that was made should not have been made and that it was rejected. Here is my problem. When the party opposite, which was responsible for devastating cuts to our national security infrastructure, $530 million from the RCMP, $390 million from CBSA, and the list goes on, stands and gives lectures on national security, when it ignored the advice of Justice O'Connor in 2006 and Justice Iacobucci in 2009, it is a little rich. Therefore, I would ask the Conservatives to rethink their line of attack.

Madam Speaker, unequivocally we support Canadians' right to privacy and security, and we make sure that those rights are protected each and every day. That is why the protocol governing the use of passwords is so clear. It is publicly available, but I will read the most relevant section: The CBSA's current policy is that such examinations should not be conducted as a matter of routine; they may only be conducted if there is a multiplicity of indicators that evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media. I am sure the member opposite would agree with me that this is a prudent policy.

Mr. Speaker, public consultation comes in many forms. The ability to engage Canadians happens in many different ways. We are absolutely committed to making sure that all Canadians' voices are heard in this process. What we want to do right now, and I would encourage the member to join us in the process, is to have a discussion on exactly how we are going to do it. Right now, I do not even know what the member would want a question on. It is important to posit ideas, to have a debate and a discussion about how we can improve our system and once we get to that point let us look at the next steps.

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite is not advocating any new ideas. It is advancing the status quo. We had a referendum on the status quo during the last election. More than 60% of Canadians voted no. They did not want to continue with the status quo. They wanted change. That is exactly what we are going to make sure happens in this process.I want to work with the hon. member across and with all Canadians on finding a system that is going to achieve exactly that, enfranchising Canadians, giving them the power to have their say in a more fair way. I am excited. Let us work together.

Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is both the question and the way it is characterizing the facts. I find it absolutely ridiculous that the party opposite, during its term, when we are talking about the safety and security of Canadians, cut $530 million from the RCMP, $390 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, $69 million from CSIS, $42 million from the Communications Security Establishment, and $171 million from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.While they cut, we are working on getting the job done.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a problem, if there is any evidence of wrongdoing or ill intent against Canada, then our government and our officials will take immediate action without question. The evidence is irrefutable. During the Conservative governments' mandates, no one was charged. Under our government, there are two. Where we have evidence, we act.

Mr. Speaker, of course, we, and all members of this House, condemn the actions of ISIS and will pursue criminal charges against any individual who is found to commit terrorist acts. I would say that of those individuals who have returned, we have two active cases where we are seeking to go after individuals with evidence. I would note that in the 10 years under the Conservatives, the number of cases pursued: zero. The reality is, the record shows something different.

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear and I will reiterate. Any individual or organization that has more than 25% interest will be subject to background checks, and that does not matter if it is Julian Fantino or any other individual.Second, organized crime today controls 100% of the profits, that is $7 billion. It is a situation that is utterly unacceptable. We have one of the worst records in the world. The previous tactics did not work. We want to see 0% in the hands of organized crime.

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the member opposite in 2014, when the unfair elections act was being rammed through with no consultations, when the opposition parties were not being engaged at all, and expert witnesses were not being listened to. I am sorry, he did not say anything. I am glad there is a change of heart and that we want to see Canadians be engaged. There is a process for that. We have a committee working with the member opposite. I hope he will take the opportunity to hear from Canadians and ensure that process is as valid as it can be.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has not even met yet, so to say that the committee is not working effectively, I think is a little premature. The reality is we do not have a majority on that committee, the opposition parties do. For anything to happen at the committee, it is going to require the consent and work of the House. Where I did see closed-room deals, where I did see Canadians excluded, was unfortunately on the unfair elections act, or the in-and-out scandal, or on the prorogation of Parliament. We saw a decade of Canadians being locked out of our democratic process. We do not want to continue that. We turned over a new leaf that includes working with other parties, including the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell that member what taking money out of organized crime does not look like, the last 10 years of Conservative government, where $20 million-a-day went into the hands of organized crime, or $7 billion a year. It funded gangs and funded violent activity in our country. It is utterly unacceptable. That is why Canadians voted for a new approach. We are utterly committed to following the example of what we have seen in other jurisdictions where legalization has radically shrunk the amount of money going to organized crime. No number is low enough for us. We want 0%.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear that the invitation that was made should not have been made and that it was rejected. Here is my problem. When the party opposite, which was responsible for devastating cuts to our national security infrastructure, $530 million from the RCMP, $390 million from CBSA, and the list goes on, stands and gives lectures on national security, when it ignored the advice of Justice O'Connor in 2006 and Justice Iacobucci in 2009, it is a little rich. Therefore, I would ask the Conservatives to rethink their line of attack.

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we promised to change our voting system. We will change it.I can say as well that the member can rest assured of the principle that every single vote in Canada will be given voice. We will ensure that everyone is enfranchised and is heard. When the minister spoke yesterday, she talked about the fundamental principle of ensuring that Canadians are given the opportunity to express their democratic will. We will ensure that will happen in this process.

Mr. Speaker, they categorize reaching out to every single party and asking what their ideas are and trying to find unanimity as a backroom deal. The reality is that the Conservatives had every opportunity in this process to move amendments yesterday. Did they move a single amendment? No. They had every opportunity today to talk about how they could improve this committee process to engage Canadians. Did they take that opportunity? No.We provided an opportunity in the amendment we moved for them to discuss these issues. The forum is there in the committee. If the Conservatives want to discuss how to engage and get the support of Canadians, they can participate in the process and help improve our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, that is what that member is saying but that certainly is not representative of the facts whatsoever.Again, to be very clear, and the member knows this well. We cannot under any circumstances discuss specific intelligence information we receive from our national security agencies. The member has been in government and he knows that very well. That is a rule that must be adhered to.We follow the advice of our public servants. We stand behind that advice. We do not play partisan games with it. We act on it when we are given that information.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and I will reiterate, the invitation sent was rescinded when the information found out was that the individual should never have received that invitation. The member in question has apologized, and we have full and total confidence in our national security infrastructure and the non-partisan advice they give us. That is advice we take very seriously and listen to in all instances.

Mr. Speaker, the member can keep repeating the same nonsense, but it does not make it true. The reality is this, and it is important to state. Every single member in the House takes the responsibility of protecting children incredibly seriously. When the member stands in his place and casts aspersions that somehow we do not care as much as he does, it is unbefitting of this place. I will say to you that we take the safety of our children, we take the safety of our communities, and the safety of our families with the utmost seriousness, and act every day and comport ourselves—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question.One of Canada's top priorities is to ensure that all Canadians can travel and work without experiencing problems.I encourage whoever has had problems at the border to speak with the U.S. authorities.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has been doing very good work, working together to listen to Canadians and to take the consultations that have been done by members of Parliament across this country and to look for consensus on how they could work together. It will be the consensus of that report, it will be the work of that committee, that this government listens to. Of course, we all have opinions and there are disparate opinions in the House, but it is the work of that committee that we are looking forward to. I encourage the member to continue his work on that committee to find those solutions and to bring that report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw yesterday was certainly surprising.It was definitely surprising that all parties of the House of Commons were able to work together and reach a consensus. I hope that the Conservative Party will work with us and that we will somehow reach a consensus on how to improve our electoral system.This is a huge opportunity for Canada. It is time to get to work.

Madam Speaker, of course, our officials did talk with the City of Oshawa and the mayor, and made it very clear that services were going to be improving, that in fact there were going to be more Canada Border Services agents available to process goods and services and passengers. I am pleased to say that for Durham Region and Oshawa this is a material improvement and it is good news.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members should try consultations. They might like it. They may enjoy the process of engaging with Canadians and listening and having an exchange of ideas. That is what this process is about. I welcome the member to do that. I have yet to hear a single proposal of how they would modernize or improve our electoral system. I do not even know what their question to Canadians would be. Instead, work with us on trying to find that better way, that better system, and ensuring that the Canadian population gets the voting system it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I find the comparison between an executive search for the greatest Canadians, many of whom are in sensitive jobs and in precarious situations to explore new forms of employment, to Hollywood movies, which obviously love promotion and love the fact that they are put out there.This process, which will be led by Canadians of enormous distinction, will ensure that the greatest Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, are able to apply and are to be considered. I have enormous confidence, as I am sure the member will once he sees the outcome of the process and who is appointed, that this process will invigorate the Senate with a new merit-based process.

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member that this process should not be partisan and that we need to work across the aisle to find compromise and work together, but the fact of the matter is that more than 60% of the Canadian population said the status quo was not going to work. I would ask members to start coming up with ideas. It is not enough to just say that they want the system to stay as it is. Canadians have not accepted that. They say they want our institutions to modernize. Be part of that process, give us ideas, make sure we are able to change the system so that Canadians are enfranchised and their voices are heard.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we do not know where this process is going to conclude. The party opposite may already have an idea of where it is going to go, but we want to actually engage in a meaningful dialogue that finds middle ground and the best solution. I imagine that solution should and must evolve as the dialogue and input from Canadians take place. If we simply step forward and say that this is the system we want, here it is, and we put it to a vote, frankly, that is how things were done, but that is not how things should be done. We need to work in an inclusive manner and work together to find the best system.

Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question very clearly. Once we found out that information, the individual's invitation was rescinded, and the member apologized, but I reject totally the assertion that was made about the trip. More than $1 billion was achieved in cross-border trade, more than 580,000 good middle-class jobs were created for Canadians, and important frameworks were established to continue our trade with India. It was important work we are going to continue to build on.

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite took the opportunity to have that session. I encourage all members of the House to do that. In fact, all the other parties, except the official opposition, have taken that opportunity.I would say that there is an excellent starting point for conversation, and that is the critic for the Conservative Party on democratic reform, who said that first past the post is not the best system. So has the critic for every other party, and so have we.Why do we not focus on proposing the best possible alternative, on working together, and having those consultations so we can move forward in the best way possible to improve our democracy?

Mr. Speaker, certainly for this government, making sure that the balance of protecting Canadians' rights and furthering our economy is at the foremost of our consideration. When we take a look at the pre-clearing, it is already happening in eight locations. There are more than 12 million passengers every year using this. It facilitates the movement of goods and services, it increases security, and it makes sure that Canadians can travel directly to locations they otherwise would not be able to in the United States.Let me say as clearly as I can that, absolutely and without question, U.S. officials in Canada are required at all times to comply with Canadian law and with the Canadian charter.

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite is not advocating any new ideas. It is advancing the status quo. We had a referendum on the status quo during the last election. More than 60% of Canadians voted no. They did not want to continue with the status quo. They wanted change. That is exactly what we are going to make sure happens in this process.I want to work with the hon. member across and with all Canadians on finding a system that is going to achieve exactly that, enfranchising Canadians, giving them the power to have their say in a more fair way. I am excited. Let us work together.

Mr. Speaker, never before have Canadians been so engaged on the issue of national security. In fact, the broadest consultations in Canadian history happened on Bill C-59. I want to thank the member opposite and the committee as well for their months of work in the study of the national security intelligence framework. The minister was able to point directly to the work of the committee and how it influenced the creation of that bill. This is an excellent example of not only profound and deep national consultation, but the committee working excellently together. Because the bill has been moved at first reading, I look forward to working with the member in a very open way to make sure we—

Mr. Speaker, I have had many occasions to talk and work with the member opposite. I know that he is very earnest in his desire to improve our electoral system. I know that he has many ideas he wants to bring forward to the process. Let me tell him that in this process certainly each and every one of us is going to be given the opportunity to vote on that system. Each and every one of us is going to be given an opportunity to give input to it. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to engage our constituents and Canadians, on a pan-Canadian basis, to make sure their voices are heard. I look forward to working with him on it.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative critic for democratic reform has himself said that first past the post is not the best system. The minister has gone to Saanich—Gulf Islands, has gone to Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has worked with members from all of the different parties.I would say to the Conservatives that it is the time to put forward ideas, to work with us, to improve our democracy, to make sure that every vote is counted, and to participate in this process.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken. Over 60% spoke, voting for parties that said we need to modernize our electoral system. Canadians stood up in the last election and said they needed a system that would better reflect their will, that would better enfranchise their vote, and that would give them a better voice in our democratic process. We are committed to exactly that. I would encourage the member opposite to work with us in this process. Let us improve our democracy. Let us get it done.

Mr. Speaker, this government is doing exactly what the Conservative government did not do; we are investing in the services that keep this country safe. Need I remind the member opposite of the cuts that the Harper government implemented to the very services that keep this country safe: $530 million from the RCMP; $390 million from the Canada Border Services Agency; $69 million from CSIS; $42 million from the Communications Security Establishment; and $171 million from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.We invest, while they cut.

Mr. Speaker, as we have been saying all along, this invitation should never have been sent. Once we were made aware of this individual's background, the invitation was rescinded. The member has apologized. We respect tremendously the non-partisan incredible work that the men and women do in our national security agencies every single day. We take their advice, and we act on it accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the member is going to be participating in the all-party process. He is going to have an opportunity to travel with the committee and pose questions. We have gone further than our normal committee process in ensuring that parties that are not recognized as parties in the House are included, because we feel that the voice of the Bloc and the voice of the Green Party are incredibly important to have at the table. That is why we have taken that measure.I look forward to that dialogue. I look forward to working on that with the member to modernize our electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, public consultation comes in many forms. The ability to engage Canadians happens in many different ways. We are absolutely committed to making sure that all Canadians' voices are heard in this process. What we want to do right now, and I would encourage the member to join us in the process, is to have a discussion on exactly how we are going to do it. Right now, I do not even know what the member would want a question on. It is important to posit ideas, to have a debate and a discussion about how we can improve our system and once we get to that point let us look at the next steps.

Madam Speaker, for the first time, the Senate is open. There is a merit-based process. Canadians from across the country can apply, and we are seeing the results of that new system. The nine individuals who were appointed, five women and four men, are people of extraordinary accomplishment. They come not only from Manitoba but from across this country. They have done so much and will contribute incredibly to our parliamentary system and do justice to this place and the other.I look forward to working with them. I look forward to their appointment--

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply proud of the work our men and women in the RCMP do every day to keep our country safe and we are committed to ensuring they have the resources they need to do the job. We are obviously looking at the fact that there was about half a billion dollars cut to the RCMP in the last term of the Conservatives. The damage that was done to the RCMP by those cuts is significant. We are committing to restoring the service and being there with the men and women who serve us.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 was preceded by the most exhaustive public consultation across Canada ever on national security. There was an opportunity by the public safety and national security committee to ensure there was a review of the security framework. That led to the legislation before us today, which would see finally the oversight that was talked about for so many years, including when I was the critic in opposition and pushing for it. We have waited for over a decade. It is time to move forward with appropriate oversight.

Madam Speaker, I know that the member's constituents, Jeff and Annie and Denis, would appreciate that feedback, but they would also like to have opportunities to be able to speak to their MPs. On this side of the House, more than 150 members of Parliament have either had or will have consultations in their riding on this issue. The Conservatives have had five. That is a lot better than the zero they had on the unfair elections act, I will grant them that. When are they going to let their constituents have their say on this issue? When are they going to consult their constituents and participate in the process of improving our democracy?

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the member opposite. Let me assure him that we will work to ensure that all Canadians receive fair and proper treatment. I would encourage members of the House, if there is an incident that they become aware of that causes them concern, to bring it to our attention. Obviously, a number of these issues are emerging. We will take a look at the situation. We will be happy to get back to the member. Again, I appreciate him bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, there are no plans for television advertising. Certainly, what we do want to do is to engage Canadians on a pan-Canadian basis. I am very proud that more than 140 members of Parliament on this side of the House have either had, or will have in a very short while, town halls. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have had three. I am having that many on Sunday.If we are going to purport to listen to Canadians, let us actually engage them.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about what we will not do.Last time major democratic changes were introduced, it was by the Conservatives. It was the Fair Elections Act, which disenfranchised many voters. There were no consultations that occurred during that process. They did not engage Canadians.We want to do things differently. We want to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard, that they are given the proper opportunity to be involved in modernizing their system. This was a clear campaign promise we made in the last election. More than 60% of Canadians voted for parties that said they wanted change. We are committed to making that change happen.

Madam Speaker, unequivocally we support Canadians' right to privacy and security, and we make sure that those rights are protected each and every day. That is why the protocol governing the use of passwords is so clear. It is publicly available, but I will read the most relevant section: The CBSA's current policy is that such examinations should not be conducted as a matter of routine; they may only be conducted if there is a multiplicity of indicators that evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media. I am sure the member opposite would agree with me that this is a prudent policy.

Mr. Speaker, the changes we have tabled are not only comprehensive but are recognized as really being on the vanguard in leading the world on the issue of bringing our protection of Canadians, both their security and their rights, to bear. We are at the beginning of this process. The member knows I am at the committee every day. I am at his disposal to answer his questions any day of the week. The committee proceedings are following detailed work that was done on the security and intelligence framework, and the most exhaustive consultations that happened on a national basis. I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Privacy Commissioner said that Canada was moving from the back of the pack and catching up with the rest of the international community. In fact, he said that Canada was moving to the lead as a result of the legislation, Bill C-59. The fact is that the legislation is putting us at the vanguard, that we are ensuring two things equally: one, the protection of Canadians; and two, making sure that their rights are protected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite, not just for the motion but for the collaborative spirit with which he has been operating on this file. It is my hope that will pervade this entire process.If we are going to change our electoral system, if we are going to ensure that Canadians have a better way to express their democratic will, then it is going to take everyone in this House working together. In terms of how we move forward from this point, I am glad that the motion has a clear date for when that committee is going to be set. It will be a maximum of 10 days after it is approved. The committee does need to be resourced so it can travel across the country. We need to support every MP to have town halls in all 338 ridings.

Mr. Speaker, let us start with principles. One of the principles is that the so-called Fair Elections Act needs to be amended. One of the principles is that every Canadian be empowered and given the opportunity to vote, and that the kind of voter suppression that we saw and the sort of anti-democratic measures that were brought about need to be changed. In the last election, Canadians spoke very clearly for that change. We are at the beginning of the consultation process.I am excited that the member is so anxious to begin those public consultations. The minister has been talking with stakeholders. We have met a number of times with the critic himself. I look forward to that being very robust and pan-Canadian. It is coming soon.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear that the consultation process that is going to happen is going to reach out to every corner of this country. The idea that the only form of valid consultation is a referendum is an interesting concept to hear from the members opposite. They never advocated this policy before. When they created the unfair elections act, it was not as if they even consulted in many instances with their own caucus, let alone Canadians.I would suggest that they give this a try and work on trying to find a better system, and that they engage with us in this dialogue with all Canadians on modernizing our electoral system and enfranchising Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite himself has said that first past the post is not the best system. The member himself and critic in the Conservative Party has said that we can do better. What I would suggest is let us get to the work of making a better system, of creating a system that works better for Canadians. Then, if he feels that the process of working together and having consensus is not good enough, then let us talk about the ways that we can engage Canadians further. However, to give up on the process before it began, to not even have a dialogue on how to improve our democracy, I do not accept that. Let us get to work. Let us be positive.

Mr. Speaker, what weakened our democratic institutions and our democracy was the violations that we saw, the abuses that we saw, things that we saw in the Senate, the unfortunate scandals that took place with members abusing the Canada Elections Act. Canadians wanted that to end. They wanted something different. That is what they have asked of us. They have asked to end that way of doing democracy and have something more open, more inclusive. That is the process that we are engaging in. If the member wants to see that kind of new way, if he wants to see that stronger democracy, here is his chance. He can participate in the committee and engage in talks with Canadians from coast to coast. Let us make it—

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the consultations we have on a pan-Canadian basis hear from all Canadians on how they want to modernize and improve our electoral system.I encourage the members opposite to participate in that discussion. I have not heard any ideas or thoughts about how they want to modernize that system yet, but it is important they put those forward. I really invite all members of the House to engage in that process.

Mr. Speaker, from the onset we have been committed to engaging Canadians to ensure that any proposal we bring forward has broad support from the Canadian public. Let us remember the objective we are trying to achieve here. The objective we are trying to achieve is to enfranchise voters, to give them more power, more say, a better spot at the table in our Canadian democratic system.I would offer to members opposite who clearly are engaged in this issue, who clearly want to have a discussion about it, let us talk, let us have an opportunity to look at what the options are to improve our system and get to work on it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister met with Secretary Kelly. Both ourselves and the United States discuss regularly the situation on the border. Let us be very clear that any individual who crosses irregularly into Canada will be apprehended. They will be placed in detention and they will have their claim heard as to whether or not they have a legitimate claim. If it is not a legitimate claim, they will be turned away. That process is working effectively. We continue to monitor it and work with our U.S. counterparts.

Mr. Speaker, I realize this may not be something the member has seen a lot of, and we need to see a lot more of, which is the ideas brought forward by government are informed by not only broad-based consultations with the public but also all parties in the House. It is certainly our desire in this process to have each of the parties participating and helping form the modernization of our electoral system. To get to the point where we have something to talk about we need them to engage in that dialogue, bring forward their ideas, and move away from just hanging on to the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the nature of the member's cynicism. For 10 years, we saw broken promises, inaction, and incredible disappointment when it came from the Senate.In the last election, we promised a new merit-based, transparent and open process that would allow Canadians from coast to coast to coast to apply to serve our great country. I am immensely confident in that process. I would suggest the member share that confidence and take a look at how the process will work, take a look at the eminent Canadians who will lead it, and take a look at the incumbents who will come out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, and indeed the committee for its work. They have just tabled their recommendations with respect to this item and the national security framework. We certainly appreciate the frustration of law-abiding travellers whose plans were delayed as a result of false positives. We are absolutely committed. I am working on the report that was just tabled to make sure that we get this right.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear. The invitation was a mistake and it was rescinded as soon as information on the individual was available. All input and advice from our public servants are crucial and non-partisan. We have full confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to making sure that our national security framework keeps Canadians safe and puts safeguards in place to protect rights and freedoms.I am a little bit confused by the question, because right now the committee is looking at the security intelligence framework. We are awaiting its report. I would think that the member who sits on the committee would want us to listen to that report, consider its recommendations, and incorporate them into our action.

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. In fact, it was the party opposite that said it was going to support a motion from the NDP on the change of the committee to make it one of the first, and maybe the first ever, committee that a majority government allowed to be controlled by minority parties. The Conservatives made that suggestion, we listened, and then they voted against it. The point of the matter is that we are ready to work with them, and with all parties, including on the issue they mentioned. A committee hopefully will begin its work next week and examine these issues, engage Canadians, and, in the process, improve our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because only 20% of Canadians are on Twitter that the Conservatives thought they could post that they would support the NDP proposal and then not. Maybe that is why they thought they could get away with it.The reality is, the minister has talked about a myriad of ways for Canadians to engage, and of course those include digital means. We live in a digital age where many Canadians are in remote locations, have disabilities, or have other challenges that do not allow them to engage directly. The news is that Twitter is one medium but there are many media. We want to engage Canadians in every single one of them. That is the type of consultation they deserve. That is the kind of consultation they will get.

Mr. Speaker, I know three things. First, when the individual in question was found out, and the information was there, the invitation was rescinded, and the member of Parliament apologized. Second, I know that this party always, in every way, makes sure that we respect our non-partisan, independent, phenomenal individuals who work within our public service. Third, I know the party opposite, the Conservatives when they were in power, did not.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his work on this. The government is anxious to work with him to undo many of the changes that happened in the unfair elections act, and also to specifically look at making sure that both the length of elections and the rules are as fair as possible for everyone.I also want to say that we are very acutely listening to the Chief Electoral Officer's comments on the need to modernize our system, the need to improve it, and to bring it into the 21st century. I know the party opposite is working hard with us to do that. I hope all members in the House will work with us on this process.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure this is a matter before the House. The question was ruled out of order yesterday, but I will say that every single day that I walk through those doors, every single day that I have walked through those doors since 2004, the men and women who serve this place do us an incredible honour and I want to rise and thank them for the contributions that they make.

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite has proposed no ideas. The reality is that I do not know what they would hold a referendum on. When we look at the election and we look at the problems that Canadians saw with our democratic systems, including the scandals in the Senate, the disenfranchisement from the unfair election act, and the scandals that happened with violations of the Elections Act, we know that is why the Conservatives lost. That is why Canadians said this had to be the last time we saw those kinds of violations and that we needed a new system of governance and we needed to modernize our system. That is exactly what we are going to do. I engage them in this. I ask them to participate in finding that better way, that better system.

Mr. Speaker, we were not the only party to campaign on the idea of changing our electoral system, on modernizing our electoral and democratic institutions. The NDP did. The Green Party did. There were many different parties that posited this idea and in cumulative total that reaches more than 60%.The bigger point here is that there is an historic opportunity to improve the way Canadians interact with their democracy, to empower them and give them a chance to have a stronger voice in this process. I would encourage the member to work with us in that process, to begin that process of debate and ideas. Let us start it right now.