Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act. Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day. Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of emphasis in the member's comments was on housing. This is the first time in generations, since 1993, which was when there were constitutional changes to the Charlottetown accord, and all political parties, with the exception of the Greens, wanted the provinces to play a role and marginalize Ottawa. Since 2016, when we first came to office, this government has invested hundreds of millions to billions of dollars into a housing strategy, support for non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity and the expansion of housing co-ops. Local and provincial governments want to co-operate in investing in non-profit housing. My question to the member is fairly straightforward. Would he not acknowledge that Ottawa plays a very important role, but it is going to take a lot more than Ottawa alone to resolve the problem? Does he agree that we need municipalities, non-profit groups, many different stakeholders and the provinces to all get on board so we can tackle this issue in Canada today.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that has been fairly extensively debated over the last number of years. Members will recall that the reason we are having today's debate goes back to 2015, when a Supreme Court of Canada decision ultimately obligated parliamentarians here in the House to develop and pass a law that took into consideration the ruling made by the Supreme Court, with the necessity for the government to provide a framework. It was not a very easy challenge when that decision was ultimately made. I do not know how best to put it, but the Government of Canada, at the time run by Stephen Harper, ultimately sat on the issue until there was an election. That election saw a change in government, and it was one of the first orders of business that the Government of Canada, under the current Prime Minister, had to deal with. Over the years, I have been engaged in many different types of debates on all forms of legislation. When I am talking to young people who are trying to get a sense of what we do here in Parliament, I talk about legislation, and I will often make reference to Bill C-7. For Bill C-7, a very passionate debate took place on the floor of the House of Commons back in Centre Block. I can recall it vividly because of all the different emotions that were being expressed on the floor and all the discussions that took place. It was not taken lightly. If we take a look over the years at the number of Canadians who have been consulted in one form or another with regard to medical assistance in dying, we are not talking about tens of thousands. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in many different forms. They came together to voice opinions and concerns. In fact, we had a standing committee that did an incredible number of consultations, not only with individuals in our communities but with many different stakeholders. In the debates that I have seen, I do not think we referenced our health care professionals and the important role they played in the debates. I want to start off by talking about that, because I think it is really important that, as Bill C-314 will ultimately be voted on, we understand and appreciate the number of discussions and the amount of effort that took place for the current legislation we have, which was amended. As we saw, there were some issues that ultimately came out of Bill C-7, which caused another government bill to come to the floor. Again, a lot of repeat discussions took place and it ultimately passed. I think that is why the member has made the decision to propose his private member's bill. The changes that were made in what I think was Bill C-39, although I am not 100% sure and the member can correct me if I am wrong in his closing comments, are what might have brought forward this particular piece of legislation. To be clear on what Bill C-314 does, it proposes to permanently exclude the eligibility to receive medical assistance in dying on the basis of a mental disorder alone. Wording is really important. I know that in the original debates with all the different stakeholders, and I made reference in particular to our health care professionals, the quality of the presentations and the understanding of the serious nature of the issue were, I would suggest, second to no other out of the debates I have witnessed, in particular given some of the things we heard coming out of committees. As I reflect on that debate, I think that, in good part throughout the process, we saw many members of Parliament put their party position to the side and reflect in terms of what each believed as a parliamentarian. Maybe it was a crossover of personal beliefs versus the canvassing that many people no doubt had in terms of their constituents and wanting to reflect the general will of their constituents. At the end of the day, when we think of medical assistance in dying and the issue of a mental disorder, I do not think that we want to try to simplify the message. As we all know, I am not a medical professional, but I have an immense amount of respect for what our medical professionals have to go through in order to be put into a position, because it is not just any and every doctor or nurse practitioner; there is a whole lot more that is involved. Towards the end of the debate, particularly on the second piece of legislation dealing with this particular issue, we had members who stood up and said, “Well, just put in your order”, almost as if someone were going through a drive-through and then it is done. We all know that is, by far, not the case. I will fall back on the fine work that our standing committees have done. I am going to fall back on the issues and how they were explained, in good part, by the different stakeholders. I am going to stand by what the health care professionals brought forward to us. I will look at the information that was provided and ultimately reflect on what I believe in this particular situation and what a vast majority of the constituents I represent would want me to say on this particular issue. I will do this with very much a sympathetic heart, understanding the difficult situation that, unfortunately, far too many people have to face. We can have as much sympathy as we want for those individuals who are looking at the possibility of getting medical assistance in dying, but it is one thing to sympathize and it is another thing to empathize. Based on everything I have looked at and listened to over the last number of years, I have not been convinced that this is, in fact, the direction that we should be going with regard to Bill C-314. I am just not convinced. I think that what we ultimately need to do is continue to monitor and look at ways in which we can ensure that there is no abuse of the MAID legislation. We need to continue to show compassion in every way we can. We need to continue to listen to what the experts, individuals and stakeholders are telling us and try to build more value to the legislation so there is a higher sense of comfort in the broader community, which I believe there is today. The mechanisms are there, and there are opportunities to continue to be able to review.

Madam Speaker, I know that a number of members have raised the issue of non-profit housing. I just want to amplify the fact that this particular legislation would not preclude that from taking place. More importantly, in certain situations, housing co-ops are already exempt from having to pay the GST. The government has supported organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which has built many houses over the years. The reason I say that is to emphasize the importance of having the Government of Canada, provincial jurisdictions and different stakeholders all come to the table to deal with the true housing situation of Canadians. We all need to play a stronger role in resolving the problem. Would the member not agree?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about inflation on groceries and that the Conservative Party supports competition, yet when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government with Stephen Harper, that is when we saw the merger of Loblaws and Shoppers. Today, combined, they make up, I think, close to 40% of total grocery sales. There was actually a reduction of competition when the leader of today's Conservative Party was in government with Stephen Harper, yet they say that they support competition. It is somewhat weird to be hearing that. The member says we need to get away from the price on pollution, yet Erin O'Toole, another leader of the Conservative Party, said we should have a price on pollution. Why should Canadians trust the Conservative Party of today?

Madam Speaker, I must say, I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative Party today. It is not recognizing the many different things that this legislation would actually do. It is very easy to critique the legislation and underestimate the degree to which it would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In fact, yesterday we saw on the floor a concurrence motion to prevent debate on this particular piece of legislation. There is no sign the Conservatives want to let up in terms of allowing the bill to go to committee. Does the Conservative Party support the legislation today? If Conservative members support it, do they believe the legislation should get to committee some time this month or next month? It would provide relief to Canadians. When do Conservative members feel the bill should go to committee?

Madam Speaker, if the member were actually listening, he would have heard the comments I made about the motion and the reason why it was before us. I have read the motion. After reading the motion, it will not take people too much to get a better sense of it and understand it. Instead of reading the speech that was delivered by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, all people need to do is go to Google and type in the words “Lachin corridor”. Let us remember that is what the motion is about. It states: That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor... It is important because it is about issues such as freedom and humanitarian aid. If people who are following debate feel that is the issue they want to look more into, Wikipedia has a nice graphic picture on it. I looked at it while the member was speaking. Albeit not overly comprehensive and may not necessarily give justice to the issue, there is something there. The Lachin corridor is a mountain road that links Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh. Being the only road between these two countries, it is considered a humanitarian corridor or a lifeline. Being a lifeline, it plays an absolutely critical role for what is taking place on the ground. Canadians have consistently said that humanitarian aid is important. Actions by the Government of Canada are always expected. When I think of foreign aid, it is critically important that we differentiate between the perpetrators, or the people who are causing the problems, and the people who are having to live with the result of what other people are doing to them, and under some horrific circumstances, including starvation and all forms of abuse. We see conflicts taking place around the world, and Canada is a very diverse nation. Often when something is happening on the other side of the world, Canada has an interest. We often find that Canada has members of that community living in Canada and calling it home. However, part of the Canadian identity means that they do not come to Canada and forget their homeland. They can still be a hard-working, proud Canadians but maintain those strong, often emotional ties to their homeland. When people share those lived experiences with workers or the environment in which they live in Canada, it overflows into the main population. When we see the number of conflicts that are taking place around the world, we begin to understand why Canadians are very much in tune with the importance of humanitarian aid, whether it is to individuals or organizations. For a country the size of Canada of just under 40 million people, we contribute a lot toward humanitarian aid. We contribute a lot to the issues of freedom and rule of law, because those are important Canadian values. We see that on an ongoing basis I made reference to the fact that the report the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has brought forward was tabled in February. I questioned whether he understood there was a response to that report, because he did not cite the response. I have a letter of response that was provided, and I would like to go through it so the member in particular, and the Conservative Party, understands the response. Members should keep in mind that this response was given back in June, so I did a Hansard search. Did the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who I know will get an opportunity to ask a question of me, follow up on that report? Did he write to the minister and provide his opinions on it? Did he provide any feedback with respect to the report that was tabled? I do not know. I will wait for the member to stand, when it comes time for questions and comments, and possibly answer that question. What was his official response? Did he ignore it? I anxiously await. Since I only have two minutes, and in case the member does not have a copy of it, if I could have unanimous consent, I would be happy to table the response of June 14.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise to speak to a very important piece of legislation. Bill C-56 is actually a reflection of many discussions that have been held throughout our communities, in virtually every community throughout the country from coast to coast to coast. In particular, I know my colleagues have been listening to what their constituents have been saying, and we have some very serious issues on which we need to work together in order to overcome them. The types of issues this bill is dealing with are things such as inflation and interest rates, indirectly if not directly. The bill specifically deals with issues like housing and competition. In order to ensure that there is a sense of stability, it deals with issues like groceries and how we have seen the rise and drop, though mostly the rise, in grocery prices. I would argue that while some members, in particular the Conservatives, will focus their attention on being critical of personalities, the government and the members of the national Liberal caucus are very much focused on what is hurting Canada today and on listening to what Canadians have to say. That is what this bill is all about. Just a few moments ago, I was reconfirming some headlines. One of them dealt with a developer who was saying that he was going to be moving toward building 5,000 new rental units because of the GST forgiveness, which is actually in this legislation. It is a bit dependent, as the developer is hoping to see provinces join and follow suit in terms of what the federal government is doing. We have actually seen a number of provinces do that. I believe that at the end of the day, in good part because of this legislation, we will see thousands and thousands of new homes being constructed. We can think in terms of the issue of grocery prices and inflation and how much these are hurting the pocketbooks of Canadians. In the last budget, we created the grocery rebate for Canadians. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians were affected by that particular policy, through which we were able to put money into the pockets of Canadians to help alleviate the issue of inflation, in particular with respect to groceries. In September, following the caucus discussion, the Prime Minister made a presentation about the importance of things like the Competition Act, of holding those who sell our groceries accountable, and the idea of bringing the big five, for example, before the minister and before the government, in one sense to hold them more accountable and to put in some deadlines. We want to see more stability in that area from Costco, Walmart, Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, which are the big five. I understand that just over 80% of grocery sales in Canada are through those five large companies. The minister and government laid down the expectations of the government. Stability in pricing is of great importance, and this legislation would help deal with the issue. The Competition Act is something that can have an impact. There was a time when people would say that bigger is better; they would use the argument of efficiency. That argument does not sell anymore. We need to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency; it is not good enough to stand by and watch consumers being gouged. We are very sensitive to the issue of inflation. If we look at it, and there is the odd little heckle or murmur from the Conservatives, at the end of the day, it would be easy to say that Canada is doing exceptionally well on inflation, which is true. We understand that people are still suffering from the impacts of inflation, and that is why we have taken measures, not only in this legislation but also in other legislation and in budgetary measures that have been brought before the House. We can understand and appreciate what people have to go through. This legislation is a reflection of what we are hearing. We are responding to the needs of the people of Canada. We will continue to focus on the policy changes necessary to help and have the backs of Canadians. We have done this through the pandemic, up to this point, and, I would ultimately argue, since we formed government back in 2015.

Madam Speaker, talk about being completely out of touch with what is happening in Canada today. The Conservatives have now moved a motion on a one-paragraph report from February, while Canadians today are enduring all sorts of hardship. They are dealing with issues such as inflation, housing-related issues, so many other economic issues and the issue of health care, and the Conservatives want to regurgitate a one-paragraph report. The member made reference to Russia and Ukraine, trying to draw a comparison to what is happening in the environment locally. Does he really believe that the Conservative Party today is in touch with what Canadians are concerned about?

Madam Speaker, usually I would indicate that it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address a particular issue in the chamber. I would like to break my speech into a couple of parts related to the issue at hand. First, I would like to provide a bit of background as to why we are debating this issue before us. Suffice it to say that all issues are ultimately important, particularly in the minds of many different people. When we have a finite amount of time to debate issues on the floor of the House of Commons, we have to try to place them, whether they are opposition agenda items or government agenda items, in some sense of an order of priority. War and things taking place internationally have always played an important role in debates of the chamber. Members will recall last Monday, for example, we had the very serious issue of foreign interference being debated. I would have thought it to be universally accepted by most members of this chamber, but it was not by the Conservatives because I believe they had one person come in to speak once and that was it. Then they were absolutely quite. They did not get engaged, yet that was on the issue of foreign interference. I can assure members across the way that the level of interest on that issue is actually quite high, yet the Conservative Party, with the exception of its very first speaker, was absolutely silent. I suspect it was because its members wanted to have their fingers in the air to figure out what they could or should be saying. That was an important international issue. When we think of foreign affairs, we often have take-note debates and emergency debates. These are opportunities not only for opposition members but also for government members to stand and express concerns by reflecting on what their constituents are saying about that particular issue, and they can raise it in great detail. That is one of the advantages of the rules we have to accommodate issues of this nature. I think people need to be aware of the background of these reports. For example, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who did not participate in the international interference debate last Monday, and who often likes to talk about his concerns about what is happening around the world, has brought forward a concurrence motion. I want us to put this into the proper perspective of when the report was actually tabled, which was back on February 17 of this year. Allow me to read the entire report. I can assure members it will not take long, but so I do not misquote, I will put on my glasses. The report, which was tabled on February 17, states: That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor and guarantee freedom of movement in order to avoid any deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report. It is one paragraph that was brought into the chamber on February 17. Do members know there was actually a response to that report? An official response was given. Did the member refer to, cite or quote the response? I am not convinced the member is aware that there was a response given to the report on June 14 of this year. If so, he could have read first-hand how the government responded to that report. Did the standing committee meet to discuss the response to the report and give an indication as to whether it wanted to have further debate on the issue? I do not know. I am not on the foreign affairs committee, nor have I asked any of its members. However, if I were to speculate, given the track record of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I would suggest that it likely did not. Why do we have it today? I was supposed to be the first one to speak today. Do members know what the topic was? It was to be on Bill C-56, which is a wake-up call for the Conservative Party of Canada. People are hurting. Interest rates, inflation, what the grocery store giants are doing, and housing are the important issues that Canadians are facing today. This is not to take away from the importance of the issue described in that one-paragraph report from the standing committee months ago. After all, the government gave a formal response to it. All issues are important. The reason for this motion is not to say we want to have a debate on this issue here on the floor of the House of Commons, but that this is being used as a tool to prevent the debate the was supposed to be taking place to deal with the Canadian economy and how Canadians are hurting. The members of the Conservative Party want to play games and filibuster. Shame on them for that sort of behaviour as an official opposition. There are mechanisms from which the Conservatives can choose, such as opposition days, where they have a number of days every year to choose to debate important issues. For instance, they can add additional substance to the one paragraph that was provided by the standing committee. They could express other concerns. They could draw in the comparison, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did, with what is happening in Ukraine today. As one of my colleagues said, the Conservatives are putting politics above people. That is shameful. If the member or the Conservative Party, because I think this is its agenda, did not want to use one of their opposition days and were keen to have this debate in a forum that would allow people to really get engaged on the issue, why would they not approach the government and ask for a take-note debate? To the very best of my knowledge, and I sit on the House leadership team, that was not done. There is no member who brings forward more petitions than the member across the way. How many petitions has he tabled with respect to this connection for humanitarian aid, the Lachin corridor? I will get more into that shortly. To what degree has that taken place? Better yet, I am having a difficult time trying to recall when the member rose with a request for an emergency debate on this issue. The reason we cannot remember a date is that he did not request one. The only reason this concurrence motion has been brought forward for us today is because the Conservative Party has, once again, fallen into two principles. The first is character assassination. Every opportunity the Conservative members get, they try to make the Prime Minister of Canada look bad, even if it spreads false information. They are very good at this. The other thing they want to do is frustrate the House and what is taking place on the floor. Today is a very good example of that. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in particular, and all Conservative members, needs to realize that the people they are hurting—

Madam Speaker, it is important. Since this is the only copy I have, I will give it to the member opposite and maybe he could make a few copies for himself and give the copy back to me. I am interested in knowing how he responded to it. He said that it was a tabled document already, that they had it already, so that means he is aware of it being there. As I said at the very beginning, at the end of the day, with all the opportunities the Conservative Party have had to raise an issue of this nature, they intentionally have chosen to stay away from the issues that Canadians are facing today. The Conservatives knew full well that we were supposed to be debating this morning the issues of housing, inflation, grocery chains and price stabilization. Those are the types of issues that are causing so much pain in our society today, and the Conservatives have chosen to avoid that debate. We will find out whether the member has read the letter and if he has anything to say about it.

Madam Speaker, I pointed out at the beginning of my comments the many mechanisms there for us to ensure we can have healthy debates, including opposition days, emergency debates and take-note debates. However, this is a day we are supposed to be debating the important issues I pointed out, such as inflation, housing, the cost of groceries and the need for stabilization. These are the things Canadians want us to be talking about. Nothing is to take away from other opportunities to debate this issue. After all, it has been here for almost nine—

Madam Speaker, I sense frustration from the Bloc member. I too join him in the frustration, because I too recognize these issues that are having such an impact on Canadians. No matter where one lives in Canada, the issues we were supposed to be debating today are having an impact. There is legislation to address this. We need to pass that legislation, Bill C-56, which is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what we were supposed to be debating. For people who maybe do not necessarily follow all the details of the proceedings of the House, this motion brought forward by the Conservative Party has very little to do with the issue within the motion and has everything to do with trying to frustrate the debate on these very important issues. This legislation is important. We should be passing Bill C-56. There are other opportunities for the Conservatives to debate this issue. It is an important issue.

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan never complains about doing it. Is it a coincidence that concurrence motions on reports are never moved during Conservative opposition days, but always when dealing with government legislation? When the Conservatives use this tactic, and they have done it many times before, it is always meant to prevent debate on the government agenda, because there are other opportunities to debate these types of important issues. If the Conservatives were very serious about the issue of the concurrence motion that they are moving, there are other ways of doing it. They know that, but they like to use the concurrence motion in order to frustrate government legislation. Bill C-56 is too important for Canadians. We will get it through, no matter what kinds of games they play, because it is important to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, on international issues of that nature, or what we have seen take place in terms of Russia's aggression, we have opportunities to have healthy debates where we can build consensus. The Conservative Party has chosen to try to divide even the House of Commons, parliamentarians, on those critically important issues. It is not to say that the issue of this motion is not important to Canadians; it is, but timing is everything. This motion has been sitting now since February. The Conservatives intentionally brought it up at government business in order to prevent us from talking about the issues of inflation, interest rates and housing. That, too, is important. The Conservative Party is not listening to what Canadians have to say. They are bringing forward this motion—

Madam Speaker, I did get an opportunity to express my frustration in terms of why we are debating this today, but that does not take away, as the member pointed out, from the importance of the issue. I want to reference a comment that came from Bob Rae, who is Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, as I am sure my friend is aware. He said that Azerbaijan might be undertaking “ethnic cleansing”. For me, whenever we talk about international issues, there are some values that Canadians hold so high, in terms of the level of importance. The people we represent are simply abhorred by the thought of things like ethnic cleansing and those types of allegations. Could the member provide any thoughts, given his role in Parliament, sitting on the foreign affairs committee?

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the work that is done by our standing committees, in particular, the foreign affairs committee, which brought forward this report back in February of this year, to which there was a response in June. I understand the member said the committee is once again looking at the issue with the intention of bringing forward another report. I made reference to our United Nations ambassador, Bob Rae, regarding some of the concerns he has expressed. Is that also something that is being talked about at the committee? Maybe she could expand on why foreign affairs is one of the important areas we should try to keep partisan politics out of as much as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, members have commented on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the valuable role it plays in dealing with international issues, such as what we are debating today. In fact, this debate originated from a motion for concurrence on a report from a standing committee. The question I have for the member is with respect to the committee itself and the makeup of the committee. I am interested in knowing his personal perspective. To what degree does he feel this particular standing committee continued to depoliticize some of these international issues to better reflect the values that Canadians hold when it comes to international affairs?

Mr. Speaker, I think the member will recall that, not that long ago, perhaps about an hour or so, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke. I think it is fairly clear what the government is prepared to do. My question is in regard to the process. The previous question I asked was in regard to the value of the foreign affairs committee. Does the member recognize that the foreign affairs committee has done a great deal of work on this issue? It seems to me the committee had no sense this was going to be coming up for debate today. Would she not agree that, as a common courtesy, the foreign affairs membership should have been at least told about what was going to happen today because they have been so deeply engaged on the issue?

Mr. Speaker, the process that ultimately led us to having this debate at this time is very questionable. I will put that to the side right now, because the seriousness of the issue does deserve it. I will amplify what I believe, and the member has made reference to it, is the Lachin corridor's impact on communities. This is a very important connection. The impact of these obstructions causes so much harm, whether it is the potential of starvation or other significant things happening in communities because of the closing down of this corridor. I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in regard to his constituents. This is very much about what we find with respect to Canadians values, that Canadians want parliamentarians to recognize when we see human rights being violated and have those discussions. This is one of the reasons we have a standing committee on foreign affairs. It is so policies and thoughts can be developed based on our values as a Canadian society, rule of law, freedoms and so forth, which are being limited in a very serious way overseas.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize, as I started to say in my beginning comments on the issue last night, that when we look at housing, the Liberal government has supported housing as no other government in generations has. We have done that through a national housing strategy. We have seen it through billions of dollars of investments in housing. We see it in the legislation that we have before us today and in our co-operation with different stakeholders, including provinces, territories and indigenous leaders. All this is an attempt to take a team Canada approach to dealing with the housing crisis that we have today. This legislation would enable thousands of new homes to be constructed.

Mr. Speaker, what can be found over the last years is that there have been a number of housing programs, whether they were the enhancements through budgetary measures in 2022 in regard to housing co-ops, the ongoing hundreds of millions to support non-profit housing units, the rapid housing initiative or the legislation that we have before today. For the first time we have a national government that is not only taking an interest but has also actually invested. A part of that is the housing accelerator fund. In good part, we have to work with the jurisdictions. It is not that Ottawa is one large ATM that just pushes out money. At the end of the day, it is important for us to recognize that we need to work with different levels of government. We have seen many projects taken up and moved forward in that fund. I would hope that all provinces—

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member made reference to the two towers. However, sometimes these towers are not structurally sound enough to be able to convert into housing. I will leave behind the fact that the Conservatives completely ignored the issue of housing for 10 years, which is an absolute fact. However, does the member not recognize that, yes, Ottawa plays a very important role, which we have demonstrated through strong leadership on the housing file, but we also need municipalities, provincial entities, territorial governments and the different stakeholders that are out there, such as the many non-profit organizations that can contribute to the housing situation we have today. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts on taking that holistic approach and not just the federal government.

Yes, they did, Madam Speaker. Every one of those candidates were signed off by Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party, who endorsed an election platform that said they wanted a price on pollution. That is a carbon tax. The member across the way spoke in favour of the carbon tax. Do any of the members of the party across the way have any regrets whatsoever for supporting Erin O'Toole and the price on pollution they were promising Canadians—

Mr. Speaker, I will start from where I left off. The deputy Conservative leader said things that you, Mr. Speaker, said you would review. She then stood in her place and reinforced it verbally, saying that the government House leader was a disgrace. That goes against our rules of the House. The member should do the right thing and apologize. If she does not apologize, it is important as you review what was said during question period to also review what the member just said officially on the record. Hopefully, she will apologize.

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken steps towards a foreign interference registry office. It is already fairly well established that we are moving forward with regard to that. I am going to go back to this, because whether it is this member or the member who spoke prior to him, the members are very critical on foreign interference, and they make a personal attack on the Prime Minister. Let me reverse it. The foreign interference the member is making reference to is with regard to China. There is a report that came out while Stephen Harper was the prime minister and when, I believe, the current Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible for democracy. They knew about it. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. They completely ignored the issue. The issue does not go away, and now it has resurfaced in a different way. The Conservatives are blaming the Prime Minister for not taking action, yet as a government, we have actually improved our democratic system. Do members remember that the current Conservative leader tried to take away the authenticity of the voter identification card as a tool to allow people to vote? That leader and the Conservative Party are trying to say that it is the Liberals who are taking away from democratic institutions. This member, like the other member, really and truly reflects what the Conservative Party has been attempting to do, as I have been saying for years now. The Conservatives' interest is not in substance but, rather, purely in character assassination. That is what we saw again today. Both members made reference to last Friday and tried to put the blame squarely on the Prime Minister and the PMO, even though the Speaker was very clear. I was here. Those members were here, listening. The Speaker said he was the one who did the inviting and the introducing. Are Conservatives suggesting that any time a Speaker brings someone into the Speaker's gallery, they would have to be vetted through the Prime Minister's Office or the PCO? What are they suggesting should have happened? Are Conservatives trying to surrender control of the House of Commons and the floor of the House to the government of the day? Is that what they are implying? What role does the Speaker have, being elected by 337 members of the chamber and having a Speaker's gallery? Are we going to start putting limits on that? We have to be very careful and follow the advice. What took place on Friday does not have to be a political issue. All of us should be united, not trying to set fire to an issue on which we should be trying to build a consensus and demonstrate leadership. However, the Conservatives are again more concerned about character assassination. That is the real reason why they are attempting to manipulate this situation. I find that somewhat sad and pathetic. We continue to work very closely with the Five Eyes. In fact, we are the government that brought in Canada, in terms of the Five Eyes and having that apolitical, non-partisan standing committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a quick reference to what the member for Kelowna—Lake Country said. She has tried to give an impression that the Conservative Party of Canada, which is not a progressive conservative party, genuinely cares about the issue of mental health and it would do something about it as a national government. That is a bit far-fetched. When the Conservatives were in government, I went through some of those opposition days. Where were these ideas then? The issue of mental health is of great concern to Canadians. I did not witness the Conservative government do what its members talk about now, yet they say we have done nothing. Since 2015, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into mental health. We have established programs and worked with stakeholders to establish and support things like Wellness Together Canada. People can call a 1-866 number and receive help. That is something tangible over and above the hundreds of millions we have transferred for mental health. For the first time in the last 20 years, we have a national government that has invested in a substantial way in mental health. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that health care is an issue for all Canadians. When they think of health care, they think of issues like mental health, long-term care and dental services. These are all important issues for Canadians, but we need to recognize that the federal government needs to work on those issues with provincial entities. The good news is that the bill we are debating today is a positive one that could move us forward. There is a need for the committee to look at it and get an assessment on whether we can implement some amendments that would give some clarification in some areas, and hopefully get the support to move it to third reading. I welcome the idea of having debates on the issue of mental health. I remember a former colleague of mine back in the early 1990s, Dr. Gulzar Cheema, who was the health critic for the Province of Manitoba. When we were talking about mental health care, he said that we almost needed to designate a separate ministry, and we advocated for that. Interestingly, he moved to British Columbia and became the first-ever minister of mental health for the Province of British Columbia. Mental health does matter. We see it on our streets in many different forms. When we talk about housing and the homeless, a wide spectrum of reasons need to be incorporated to explain why it happens. Mental health is one of those reasons. When we think about what this legislation tries to do, it is very admirable. Psychotherapy and mental health services are becoming more and more recognized. We see provincial and territorial jurisdictions recognizing the value of these professions and the need for them. We are starting to see more interest. We need to remember that health care is a federal and provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa provides a great deal of money and we have the Canada Health Act. However, the provinces and territories establish the necessary regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives do not support the dental care plan. That is fine. The moment of truth will come out on that. The issue is whether they support genuine changes in dealing with mental health. I am trying to give some free advice to my Conservative friends on this. At the end of the day, we need to work with provinces and territories to look at how we can ensure that we have a proper regulated program so we can ensure that psychotherapy and mental health care services that have been recognized by our provincial jurisdictions can receive things such as the tax break being proposed in this legislation. If we take a look at the very basics of what is being suggested in the legislation, I would pose the question for the members opposite, and this is something the standing committee will have to take a look at. If someone says that he or she is a life coach, would that life coach not have to pay the tax? Some Conservative members want to be able to individually identify those who should or should not pay the tax. That is the problem with the Conservatives. It does not work that way. That is why we need regulations. The judgments of the Conservative Party are very difficult to understand and comprehend. I would not want to get into the mind of a Conservative member in dealing with issues such as this. It could be somewhat interesting, to put it nicely. At the end of the day, a regulated mental health service is important. We can talk about that here, but we have standing committees. That is why we support it going to the standing committee. The standing committee should take its time and have a good discussion on the issue. I would think it would want to invite, for example, the minister of health from the province of Quebec and other ministers to get their feedback and thoughts. We need to have a good understanding of psychotherapy, mental health services and how they can be regulated and supported with respect to health care services. Many Liberals, including myself, recognize that we need to get more done on the issue of mental health. What that means is not only talking about it here on the floor; we have to be talking to our provincial counterparts. It means that we have to work with the many different stakeholders. I made reference to the Wellness Together Canada site. People can google it. They will find that there is a number of stakeholders, or sponsors or supporters. I can point out Bell Canada as one example and its commitment to assist on the issue of mental health. I can identify individuals, non-profit groups, all of which have a genuine interest in the issue. That is why, when we look at this legislation, not only I but, I believe, the Liberal caucus see the merits of it. That is why there is great value in seeing this legislation go to committee. I would strongly encourage the committee not limit itself to the consultations that need to take place on this legislation because of its ramifications. We need to work with the stakeholders in this situation. For individuals who are passionate about our health care and believe that the federal government has a role to play, this is a very important debate. A portion of that debate is going to be taking place in the standing committee. I look forward to the amendments that will, in all likelihood, be brought forward to enhance the legislation. Canadians from coast to coast to coast will benefit if the national government is able to contribute in any way to the development of mental health care as a more tangible part of our health care system, and supporting our provinces, territories and other stakeholders. We have demonstrated that in recent years with our investments.

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's very last comments. He said that the Conservatives were looking forward to forming government to fix the problems, but in a good portion of his speech he talked about Loblaws and Shoppers. All one has to do is google that merger. Who do members think was in government when that happened? When those two giants merged, everyone was saying that it was going to be like the Walmart of Canada. When that came to be, it was under Stephen Harper. I do not mean to pop the member opposite's bubble, but at times the Conservative Party needs a reality check. My question is on the other aspect of the bill, which the member did not spend much time on, and that is with respect to the need for Canada to increase our rental housing stock. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on why we are now witnessing provinces coming on board and duplicating what we are doing at the national level with respect to giving that tax break so we can see more apartments being built. Is it not a good thing to see the provinces on side?

Madam Speaker, I do not think that spending literally billions of dollars is a political stunt. It is a reality. I do not believe that the first-ever national housing strategy is a political stunt. I believe these are attempts by the government to ensure that we are able to address this as best we can. The national government needs to play a strong leadership role. We can understand the issues out there that need to be dealt with. However, other levels of government are also required to be equally engaged. For the first time in a generation, we are seeing different levels of government coming together to address this issue. When the member talks about homelessness that on the streets, it is more than just having a shelter. There are all sorts of issues around that. There is no one level of government that needs to be engaged, and not only governments, but also non-profits and other stakeholders, are needed to resolve the issue of housing before us. Would the member not agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague just expressed in a valid point of order that she was deeply offended by what a member from across the way stated during question period. It is definitely appropriate to ask for an apology, and we look to the Conservative Party to provide that member the opportunity to do the right thing and apologize. That was a point of order. At least let us afford the member the opportunity to apologize for the offence that was—

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte regarding the Private Members' Business item Bill C-339. As members will know, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business is scheduled to review the votable status of the 15 items that were added to the order of precedence last week. It is for the subcommittee and for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review the votable status of these items of Private Members' Business, including the bill brought forward by the member for Bay of Quinte. I submit that it would be premature for the House to consider the matter raised by the member until the subcommittee and its parent committee undertake their work, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1, and table their report in the House.

Madam Speaker, what we see within the legislation is a very positive step that would lead to the construction of thousands of new homes. One of the things that reflect well on this particular legislation is that we have now seen other provinces adopt the same principle in terms of providing the same break, which would complement the policy that much more. I wonder if my colleague across the way would acknowledge, as I have done, the importance of recognizing not only the need and that Canadians want the government to do this, but that it is also important that the different levels of government and stakeholders work together to best address the overall issue of housing shortage.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of things the member made reference to. I want to pick up on the point that the legislation that we have before us today is great because, when it comes to homes, thousands of homes would be created. We have seen, as I mentioned earlier, other provincial jurisdictions now doing what Ottawa is doing to further enhance it. However, I want to pick up with the member how important it is that we continue to work with different levels of governments and stakeholders and just emphasize the important role of organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The member is very familiar with Habitat in Winnipeg, and I believe it has built over 500 homes over the last number of years. Organizations can actually make a difference. This is one of the tools that is being used, but it is important that not only the national government but also governments at different levels work together to build more homes for all sectors of our society.