Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I was a parliamentarian back then. I can assure the member that if she had read the 1993 red book, she would have found that the commitment was, and it was in the election platform of the Liberal Party of Canada, that the Liberal Party would look at a way to replace the GST. I believe, and this was a few years ago, that it said we would like to see a harmonization of the GST so it would incorporate provinces. I am glad we have seen a harmonization, and the GST has proven to be a very good tool that can be used to support Canadians in different ways.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of deficits. He was not here at the time, so I will forgive him for not necessarily being aware of the fact that the Conservative members of his caucus voted in support of billions and billions of dollars to support Canadian businesses and individuals. A couple of years later, they are upset with the government for spending billions and billions of dollars. I wonder if he feels there is any sense of hypocrisy when the Conservatives at one time were saying yes but now seem to be saying no. It sounds more like it is political wins that seem to be dictating Conservative policy.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. What the Conservatives fail to talk about or recognize with respect to Canada's inflation rate compared to that of the United States is that, at its worst, in June 2022, Canada hit its record of 8%, while the United States was, I believe, closer to 9%. If we fast-forward to today, Canada's inflation rate is still less than that of the United States. As much as the Conservative Party likes to say how Canada is broken, which it is not, we still understand the importance of dealing with the issue of inflation in order to support Canadians. That is why we brought forward legislation to be able to provide things like grocery rebates and housing support programs for new rentals. Why does the Conservative Party ignore that fact and, to top it off, continue to filibuster government legislation that would provide support to Canadians?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-320, a bill that makes a fairly significant statement. I truly believe that it does not matter what side of the House a member sits on as we all recognize that, whenever a crime is committed, there is a victim, whether it is collectively or individually. We want to be there in a very real and tangible way to support victims. When I look at Bill C-320, I see a bill that moves us forward in being more transparent, and ultimately more accountable, through providing supports directly to victims. I do not say that lightly because I have had experiences, while I was an MLA a number of years ago in the mid-nineties, where I had the opportunity to participate in a youth justice committee. For those who are not aware, youth justice committees were an alternative to young people having to go to formal court. I found out something very quickly when young people came before the committee, which in my case was based in a community in the northwest end of the city of Winnipeg. We were classified as honorary parole officers of sorts, and we listened to cases involving anything from shoplifting and automobile theft to some cases of minor assault types of situations. What I found was that, the more we gained experience as a justice committee, the stronger our desire to incorporate victims. I believe that at the time we were one of the first justice committees looking for restorative justice. In that case, having restorative justice meant that we had young offenders sitting down to work out some sort of a disposition with us along with the victim. We felt that that was a good alternative to having the victim outside of the process. Rather, the victim was on the inside of the process, able to contribute to the disposition of an individual, a young person in the community, to ensure that justice was being served. What I found in a couple of the cases that I was able to participate in was that there was a much higher sense of relief in different ways, in part by the victim. Since the mid-nineties, I have always had an interest in how we can support victims of crimes. The types of crimes that are out there are obviously exceptionally wide in the spectrum. The ones that have a strong element of violence against a person are, from my point of view, the most offensive. I am more sympathetic to having victim's rights being looked after. When I look at Bill C-320, what I see are amendments to the CCRA that would require Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to provide victims with an explanation of how dates were calculated initially and at each time there is a change. I think that is the core of the content of the legislation that we are talking about today. When I think of what we have done as a government to support victims, there are a couple of things that I want to highlight. Whenever we think of the role that the government plays, one can talk about legislation but I would also suggest that one can talk about budgetary measures. For example, budget 2021 proposed to provide just over $85 million, over five years, to support a national program for independent legal advice and independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault and to support pilot projects for victims of intimate partner violence. I believe this demonstrates that the government is looking at supporting victims in a very tangible way. I have seen legislation that we have passed that makes it easier for the victim; when a perpetrator goes before a parole board, the victim does not have to appear in order to present what had taken place, thereby making them a victim once again. As a government, we have acted on budgetary measures and legislative measures to be able to protect the interests of victims. Through the victims fund, we have made more than $28 million available to provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, legislation and available services. The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I believe that this disclosure of an offender's parole eligibility dates to the victims also includes the explanation of how such dates would be determined. This is consistent with what that the government has been doing, from a budget process and a legislative process previously. The government is committed to supporting victims of crime and their families. Their right to information about the individuals who have harmed them should be respected at all stages of the corrections and conditional release process. This disclosure of information to victims provides transparency and accountability. We have seen legislation pass when we believed that it would receive unanimous support. I believe that this piece of legislation has wide support, possibly from all political parties in the chamber. I hope that the mover of the legislation would be open, as the government is when it brings forward legislation that goes to committee, to possible amendments. I reflect back on Bill C-48, which was dealing with the whole issue of parole and bail hearings, in particular the importance of having the reverse onus in specific areas of proof. I witnessed during the debates of that legislation an overwhelming desire to see it ultimately pass. It received unanimous consent. I do believe that a vast majority of, if not all, members realize the importance of more accountability and transparency in protecting the victims of crimes. That is why I feel very comfortable in wanting to see this bill go to committee.

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by being critical of the amount of debt that the Government of Canada has acquired. They understand very clearly that most of the debt that was accrued was during the pandemic. Billions and billions of dollars were spent to support small businesses, individual Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities and so forth; the Conservative Party supported a lot of that. With hindsight, the Conservatives are saying we should not have spent the billions of dollars that they supported at the time. That is one issue. Actions speak louder than words. The member says he is concerned about inflation. The government is also concerned about inflation; that is the reason we brought forward Bill C-56, which would provide literally hundreds of thousands of new homes in the years ahead for rental properties. The Conservatives' response is to filibuster the legislation. They will not even let the legislation pass. Why is the Conservative Party so out of touch with the reality of what Canadians are facing today?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, at times, just want to put their heads in the sand and stick with their slogans and bumper stickers, quite frankly. The member talks about inflation. Back in June of 2022, inflation in Canada was at around 8%. In the United States, it was at 9%. Today it is 4% and 3%, or just under 4%. Let us put it that way. The Conservatives will go around Canada and say that Canada is broken. Does that mean the whole world is broken? The Conservatives are so extreme. They like to get those slogans on the bumper stickers. Does the member not believe she is misleading Canadians when she tries to give this false impression? Yes, inflation is hurting. That is the reason we bring forward good legislation, such as Bill C-56, which is legislation the Conservatives is filibustering. Why?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member could provide some clarity to Canadians. When the Conservatives talk about austerity and cutbacks, one of the issues they like to bring up in the House is that of housing. As a government, we are investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in housing. In fact, we have Bill C-56 before the House now, which would allow for literally hundreds of thousands of new purpose-built rentals to enter Canadian markets over the coming years. On the one hand they say that we should not spend money, and on the other hand they say that we need to do something about the housing crisis. Not only are we spending money, but we are also working with other levels of government. Does the member believe that the federal government should be spending money to ensure there is housing for Canadians into the future, or does she oppose that expenditure too?

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of debate about this particular issue. It is somewhat surprising that the Conservative Party would stand in the way of what is good, sound, solid legislation, and not, at the very least, allow it to go to committee. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of the legislation. Instead, they have chosen to filibuster. We just witnessed a member bringing forward an amendment. Thank goodness we have at least one political party that recognizes that the Conservative Party is, by filibustering this legislation, denying Atlantic provinces, in particular Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the opportunity to work with the government through this legislation to take advantage of the whole idea of renewable energy. I do not understand why the Conservative Party would deny Atlantic Canada the opportunities within this legislation. If, in fact, the Conservatives have some legitimate rationale, they have the opportunity to allow the legislation to go to committee, which is all we are looking for right now. That is why we had to bring in time allocation. Even when this legislation passes through, we would have to see mirror legislation brought in from the provinces in question. Therefore, we have provincial jurisdictions waiting for this legislation to be able to pass. The Conservatives try to give a false impression that we are trying to ram something through, when, in fact, a great deal of consultation has taken place. We have seen many Atlantic Liberal caucus members stand up and speak to this legislation because they have seen the value of the potential in Atlantic Canada when it comes to renewable energy. They have recognized that one does not have to be partisan to see that value. I would like to quote a few individuals. “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with] the [federal government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and looks forward to seeing them pass.” That comes from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey. Another quote from the same person states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.” Let us go to a different province and a different political party: the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia. What does Nova Scotia have to say in a couple of very selective quotes? Referring to Nova Scotia and Canada, this government states, “Both levels of government have the same goal: our aim is to balance progressive, clean energy exploration and responsible environmental stewardship.” That comes from Tim Halman, who is the minister of the environment for the Province of Nova Scotia. Here is the minister of energy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Parsons. He says, “This is a big deal for us. Working with the feds in terms of offshore oil has worked well, but knowing that we will have a part of our waterways available for wind development within our jurisdiction was huge.” It continues; he says, “When it comes to the resources, we are the envy of many jurisdictions. We know that there is a huge amount of interest in offshore wind opportunities, so we knew we needed to move forward.” This is from politicians of different political stripes, and the Conservatives do not even want the bill to go to committee. They would rather filibuster it indefinitely. It is not just the politicians. I found another interesting quote I would like to share with members. This comes from Elisa Obermann, who is the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada. It is from her press release. She says, “This is an exciting day for Canada and our marine renewable energy sector. The tabling of the amendments is an important milestone towards establishing an offshore wind industry that will play a significant role in our clean energy future”. There are many other quotes I could actually provide to the House, and that is because I truly believe that, when we take a look at Bill C-49 and what it would do, the essence of it is to ensure ongoing economic development in the whole area of renewable energy resources while at the same time saying there is a responsibility to protect our environment. The government brought in this legislation quite a while ago now. I know I have had the opportunity to speak to it, and I had initially thought there would be support from the Conservative Party. We would have to pull my speeches from the records to get confirmation of that, but I honestly thought the Conservatives would support this legislation, because we often hear the Conservative Party saying it will support the energy sector, which we do in a very real and tangible way. Clean energy is a part of the energy sector, so by supporting Bill C-49, we would be supporting the energy sector. It is amazing that the Conservative party tries to say we are trying to push this thing along and no one is supporting it, when nothing could be farther from the truth. We know there is substantial support for renewable energy. I reflect on my home province of Manitoba and the important role Manitoba Hydro plays, or I look at my Quebec colleagues, whether they are members from the Bloc or the Liberal caucus, or even the member from the New Democratic Party. We have within those two provinces great potential in terms of hydro development, and at the end of the day I suspect we will see a growing industry and spinoff benefits. We can talk about how this energy is brought to life and is ultimately healthier for our environment, but it creates both direct and indirect jobs. Coming from a province that has such a wonderful hydro development and great potential, I am very sympathetic to my Atlantic colleagues who are so passionate on this issue and are wanting to see the legislation pass. That is the reason we had to bring in the time allocation, because we know that the Conservative Party is not prepared to see this legislation and that its members would rather filibuster and put up roadblocks. What we just witnessed with the moving of an amendment reinforces that fact, but the people of Atlantic Canada can know that a majority of people in the chamber see the value of it, and that is why we are going to ensure that it passes.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing my daughter. As a father, I am very proud of her and wish her well in her new adventure as the last standing Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. The Liberal Party in Manitoba, I like to think, has the greatest potential for growth at this stage. It is interesting that the member referred to me listening to what the Alberta premier has said. In my speech, I made reference to both Progressive Conservative and Liberal premiers in terms of the importance of Bill C-49. Both support the passage of the bill. My response to the member would be that maybe the Conservative Party should be listening to other premiers aside from the Premier of Alberta, or along with her, too, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber to address important issues. There is no doubt that the issue of crime and safety in our communities is of the greatest concern for all our constituents. It is one of the reasons why we saw the universal support of all political entities in the chamber to pass the bail reform legislation, Bill C-48. It passed relatively quickly because all sides of the House saw that the bill would do a good service for our judicial system. That is not necessarily the case with respect to the private member's bill before us. I have found over the years that members of the Conservative Party talk a very tough line. In reality, it is quite different. I have had the experience of serving on committees such as the Keewatin youth justice committee. When I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, I had the opportunity to be a justice critic. I have recognized how important it is that when we propose changes to the Criminal Code, we work with the many different stakeholders out there. The private member's bill, as proposed, is taking some aim at legislation we had previously passed, in particular Bill C-5. There has been misinformation coming from the Conservatives with respect to Bill C-5. This misinformation tries to imply that our communities are not as safe as a direct result of the passage of Bill C-5, which is not the case. Bill C-5 was, in fact, progressive legislation that was supported by a majority of members, not only the Liberals, in the House of Commons. At the end of the day, Bill C-5 did not take away authority from judges. There is a big difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Liberals understand the importance of judicial independence. We understand the importance of the rule of law, and the actions we have taken clearly demonstrate that. I would challenge the Conservatives with regard to their respect for judicial independence. That is why I hope this legislation does not pass and go to the committee stage.

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That a take-note debate on the situation in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank be held later today, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours as needed to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I too have listened to the debate and to many Conservatives standing up and speaking to it. I think we need to be really clear on this. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada has no intention whatsoever of seeing this bill pass. The reason we need to bring in time allocation, as before, is that the Conservative Party of Canada plays a role as a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Its idea of success is causing the frustration of legislation, preventing legislation from passing. If we did not bring in time allocation, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party would be very happy; it would continue to talk and debate indefinitely. This legislation is an economic tool that would make a very real difference for Atlantic Canada; by filibustering this legislation, the Conservative Party is doing a disservice to the Atlantic region of our country. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5, with a further intervention on Friday, October 6, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and Question No. 1582. The member alleges that the government's response to these questions represents a willful misrepresentation of the facts, based on a CBC story reported on October 5 that produced a different amount for the trip that was the subject of the two Order Paper questions. I submit that there was no intention to mislead the House or its members in the government's response to these questions. In fact, it is the government's view that the responses addressed the questions that were asked. This matter amounts to a debate as to the facts and does not, in any way, represent a wilful misrepresentation of the facts to the House. The crux of the questions posed is based on the notion of “total costs incurred by the government”. The government takes the view that “the government” includes all core departments of the public service and not independent arm's-length agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The fact is that neither of these questions specifically asked for that information. It is not for the government to make assumptions about what the member means to ask when submitting an Order Paper question. The government simply responds to the precise question that was asked. The questions did not specifically ask for the costs incurred by the RCMP for the trip in question, and the government responded to the question that was actually asked. In no way can this constitute a willful intent to mislead the House. Precedence has clearly established that the Speaker's role is not to judge the quality of the answers given to the questions posed, whether during Oral Questions, during question and comment period sessions in debate or through the process for responding to Order Paper questions. A long-standing adjacent principle that has been upheld by all speakers is the practice that members are taken at their word. The question of privilege being responded to seeks to contradict these two important practices of this House. I therefore submit that this matter amounts to debate as to the facts and does not represent a valid prima facie determination of a question of privilege. The government takes seriously its responsibility to respond accurately to questions asked through the Order Paper process, but it can never put itself in a position to assume what the member meant to ask. That is the responsibility of the member when asking a question for which they desire a very specific response.

Madam Speaker, I cannot quite figure how the member can say what he said in his concluding remarks. I understand the Conservatives do not want this legislation to pass, but let us be very clear. Provincial premiers and many different stakeholders have seen the value of this legislation. It is a very competitive area and we want to ensure that the Atlantic provinces have the opportunity to take advantage. That is what this legislation would do. There has been work in consultations and it even has the support of a Progressive Conservative premier. Why does the Conservative Party feel this is a bill that it can filibuster on and deny Atlantic Canadians the opportunity to see economic growth?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member made. I just want to highlight the fact that this is legislation that has received a consensus of support from the premiers, I believe, of both Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, along with many different stakeholders. Given the very competitive nature of what is happening around the world and the importance of getting this legislation through the House, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is important to get it to the committee stage as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, it talks about the future, going forward and developing other alternative energies in a very competitive world. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party seems to be so narrowly focused in wanting to not see this legislation, at the very least, get to committee when we see the type of consensus and support it is currently getting. It even addresses some of the points the member has raised, for example, the type of support it has from provincial premiers. The member made reference to constitutional jurisdictional control and so forth. A lot of that is in here. Let us allow the bill to go to committee. We had to bring in time allocation. Why does the Conservative Party not want to focus on green energy?

Madam Speaker, I am going to get more into detail shortly, but I just wanted to get the member's thoughts in terms of a specific quote. This comes from an individual, and I will give the name right away. It is in regard to this particular bill. It says that “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with the federal's government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act” and looks forward to seeing them pass. This comes from Premier Andrew Furey. There are so many other quotes that I will hold back right now but that I hope to get onto the record shortly. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts in regard to the consensus that has been built on this legislation to see it passed into the committee stage. Does he support any of those stakeholders?

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the recognition. As I said previously, I am a very proud father. Knowing her sense of commitment to not only her riding but the province; MLAs often take on that sort of role. The passage of the legislation is a high priority of the government. We are very fortunate in the sense that we have at least one other political entity, the NDP, that has also recognized the value of the legislation. As a result, we are going to be able to ensure that this legislation gets passed. We have been working very co-operatively with the provincial jurisdictions in question so that we have a mechanism and a process that will enable the provinces and Ottawa to meet the economic opportunities going forward.

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to the protection of lands and water, if not directly then indirectly. It is important to note that, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, his government had, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1% on the protection of lands and water. Today, we are at 14%, which is a significant increase, and we are forecasted to hit 30% by 2030. We have recognized as a government that it is good for us all to provide and encourage good middle-class jobs and boost the economy, but it is also good to protect the environment. Can the member provide her thoughts on the different attitude of this government compared with the previous government, where the protection of land and waters is now at 14%, with a goal of somewhere around 30%, which is significantly higher than Harper's 1%?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain to the House why she chooses not to believe that a Progressive Conservative premier and a Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada fully support this bill and want to see it go to committee. The bill is all about greener energy. When she says that we have failed Canadians, she is not talking about the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party of Canada; it goes far deeper than that. How does she justify this in such a solid way, while not respecting what it is that Atlantic Canada premiers would like to see?

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-49 as an opportunity where we have consensus for a very important region of the nation. Our regions look for economic development and prosperity. I look at the accord, what we are debating today, as something that has virtually universal support. We want to see this legislation pass. We have seen numerous members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus actually speak to the legislation and its importance. Given the wide spectrum of support for the legislation, is the member at all surprised that the Conservatives seem to want to sit on the legislation or are not being outspoken in favour of seeing the legislation in the first place?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a specific quote to follow up with the question. This is from the Conservative natural resources critic on CBC, on September 21, 2023. She referred to the legislation “as another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.” This is legislation that is supported by Atlantic provinces. There is a consensus. I wish the Conservative Party would listen to what the people in the region are saying, along with the members of Parliament who are reflecting the desire to see this legislation pass. Would the member not agree that the Conservative Party needs to stand up for that region and get behind this important piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, for days, I have listened to Conservatives across the way filibuster a bill that would make a difference. When we talk about competition, as a government, that is what we want to see. This is one reason that we called the five major grocery chains to Ottawa. What do the Conservatives say? They say it is an op. When it comes to legislation, what do they do? They talk. They are not prepared to get behind Canadians when they need to be there in a very real way. They should stand up and vote for the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we announced a bit of an extension just recently. We are very aware of the pains that small businesses are experiencing, in good part, because of the pandemic. As I said, as a government, whether it has been reducing taxes for small business or being there to support them in regard to what I made reference to in terms of rent subsidies, wage losses and CEBA loans, the Government of Canada is there for small business. We recognize just how important it is to our economy in all regions of our country.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we recognize is that small business in Canada is the backbone of our Canadian economy in all regions of our country. That is one of the reasons we developed, during the pandemic, programs such as loan supports, rent supports and wage loss supports, because we understand the importance of small businesses to Canada. The minister will continue to work with small businesses to ensure that we are there to have their backs and protect jobs into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by many in regard to our growing retiree population in Canada. Retirees are increasingly becoming the target of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over a lifetime to help them support their retirement years, and are vulnerable due to the lack of controls and protections through the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system. The petitioners are calling for us to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money in this country, with the aim of putting more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect seniors in particular from losing their lifetime savings and wealth through fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives across the way talk about listening. I appreciate the comments the member has put forward, but I want to focus on giving a comment that she can respond to. When we look at the support for this legislation, Premier Andrew Furey has said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in a green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge other federal parties to do the same.” We can talk about one province affected by this, and in fact, all of Atlantic Canada. There is a very powerful message here. If one supports the Atlantic region and potential economic and opportunities in the future, why would the Conservatives not support legislation of this nature?

Madam Speaker, one thing the government has done is support Canadians through difficult times. We understand and appreciate the whole issue of the cost of living. That is one of the reasons we came up with the grocery rebate, in essence supporting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians. The legislation we have before us today is in recognition of the fact that we need to see more competition. The minister has met with the big five grocers, if I can put it that way. We want to see lower prices. We want to see more stabilization. What would the member do, in addition to the many things we have already done, to assist Canadians on this very important issue?

Madam Speaker, I want to make reference to the member's statement with respect to Airbnbs. It amplifies the need for the government to recognize the roles we all play. One way to meet the needs of Canadians for housing is for all levels of government to work together, federal, provincial and municipal. Airbnb is more of a local municipality issue, so it is best for the municipalities to deal with that. From a national perspective, it is important that we demonstrate leadership on a number of fronts, which I believe we have demonstrated. Could I get the member's thoughts on how important it is that all levels of government work together to meet this situation?

Madam Speaker, I am glad the Conservatives are going to be voting in favour of the legislation. The member makes reference to groceries and the need for competition. Is he aware that the last major buy-up that reduced competition was under Stephen Harper when Loblaws purchased Shoppers? It had a very profound impact on the size of one company. I think the purchase was over $12 billion. The legislation the member says he is going to vote in will help deal with issues like that. Does he see that as positive? Does he support that particular aspect of the legislation?

Madam Speaker, I remember very clearly, going right back to 1993, that I was advocating that the federal government play a role in housing, but every political party inside the House of Commons opposed such involvement. A lot has changed under the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister is the first prime minister since the early 90s who has made a clear statement that we have to invest in housing. He has brought forward a national strategy of housing, from virtually day one to the legislation we have today, where we are, again, saying that the federal government needs to play a role. Yes, it is important, and it is nice to see that we have a national government that wants to play that federal role, but all the stakeholders need to come together in order to deal with this housing situation properly. This includes non-profit organizations, other levels of government and, of course, the federal government. Would the hon. member not agree with that?