Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite very closely, and one might draw the conclusion that the government has not been aware of the issue of housing for Canadians. The government has been very much aware of the important role the federal government plays in housing. We have seen that virtually from 2015 and even this year, when Canadians are having a very difficult time with regard to housing. That is why we continue to provide programs like the rapid housing initiative and supports in different forms of infrastructure programs. The particular GST issue we are talking about today is something we have talked about in the past as one of those potential options. Today, and it does not matter who has the idea, the legislation would incorporate the idea, and Canadians would benefit from it. I am glad to hear the Conservative Party giving the impression that it is going to vote in favour of the legislation. The question is when the member would like to see the legislation actually go to committee. Will he confirm he is voting in favour of its going to committee?

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 is very important legislation that we are debating. If we just reflect, in terms of our homes and our constituents, people are genuinely concerned about issues of housing affordability, the housing supply, inflation and the price of groceries. That is what Bill C-56 is all about. It is recognizing that the constituents we are collectively representing are having a difficult time. That is why we have Bill C-56. I hope that all members, from all sides of the House, will recognize that this is legislation that not only should pass but should pass in a relatively quick fashion, in order to support the people of Canada from coast to coast to coast. In listening to all of the debate, I want to emphasize to those who might be following it that the government has been on the housing file now for many years. In fact, it is this government, more than any other government in generations, that has made a commitment to invest in housing. We are not talking one sector alone but rather, whether it is free market, non-profits or investing in stakeholders, virtually from day one, as a government, we have been investing in housing in Canada, unprecedented in comparison to any other government in generations. All one needs to look at are some of our more recent budgets. Members often talk about the important role of non-profits. Take a look at what we are doing in housing co-ops, providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to encourage additional housing co-ops to be built. It is a wonderful form of housing. We could talk about the millions and millions invested into non-profits. We could talk about the rapid transition housing. Having the ability to support housing needs has always been important to this government. We see what is taking place in our communities. This initiative, this legislation, is actually now being looked at by provincial jurisdictions, and some of them are adopting it as provincial policy, which will see thousands of homes being built. I would like to think that all members will look at that holistic approach that the government has been taking, the specifics of this legislation, and get behind it.

Mr. Speaker, the member has some challenges in recognizing what real responsibility is all about, quite frankly. Let us give a few examples. What I find very lacking in the member's comments are facts. If one listened to the Conservatives, one would think the Prime Minister of Canada is responsible for inflation around the world. One would think so. Back in the days when the Conservatives were posing these questions, Canada's inflation was less than that of the United States. It was less than that of most European countries. In the G20, we might even have been, if not the lowest, very close to the lowest. The Conservatives completely dunk their head in the sand and say that here in Canada, even thought it is the lowest, it is the Prime Minister's fault that we have inflation. They should wake up, look at the environment around us and realize the facts of reality. This does not mean that as a government we should not do anything because of our inflation rate and the impact it is having on Canadians. As a government, we did take actions. We recognized the reality of the hurt that Canadians were having. That is why we brought in grocery rebates that affected somewhere around 11 million Canadians to help deal with inflation. The member makes reference to the issue of housing and the speech I had just given. What the member does not tell us is that, if we compare our years in government to the years of Stephen Harper, we will find that the Conservatives failed in every way. We now have a government that does provide, but that does not mean that we do not recognize the hardships that are out there and the reality of what is taking place. That is why we brought in legislation to ensure that there are going to be more homes built. That is why in 2022 we brought in budget enhancement for housing co-ops, and that is not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that are allocated to low-income non-profit housing or the rapid housing initiatives. The Conservatives are very selective with the facts, and they try to twist, turn and bend to be negative and say that the negativity is happening because of the Prime Minister. The last example the member gave was in regard to the Trudeau Foundation. I have answered questions based on that issue in my capacity as parliamentary secretary. It has been all completely cleared up. The Prime Minister has had nothing to do with the foundation for many years. The Conservatives try to paint this as this hook going here to that thing and this point here going to that point there, and then saying it is corruption. That is garbage, just like the personal character assassination the member just put across the floor when he talked about inflation in groceries and housing is garbage. The reality is that the Conservatives just do not know what direction they are going.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day I would rather listen to what the Ethics Commissioner has to say than members of the Conservative Party. There are a number of members in the House who believe in this whole tin hat theory and conspiracies galore. Ultimately, they put things together and they just do not make sense. Then they get upset if I do not agree there is corruption. I do not see any form of corruption in any of the topics the member has raised this evening; what I see is a lot of fishing rods being cast into the water, a lot of stargazing and wishing, and connections that are just not there. As the Conservatives focus their attention on the personal character assassination of the Prime Minister, he, the government and my Liberal colleagues will continue to focus on the needs of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. We can look at some of the initiatives that we have actually taken. I ran out of time when I talked about the Five Eyes. Members will remember when we had a parliamentary standing committee of the highest security clearance, as other Five Eyes countries did. This is something the Conservative Party opposed in government and even in opposition, yet our other partners in the Five Eyes have that. It allows that critical information to flow in an apolitical fashion. Individual members of Parliament from all political parties in the House can participate on that special committee, so that they can look at issues like foreign interference if that is what they want. They can call all forms of security agencies to come before it. That is action, which is something we have not seen from the Conservative Party in over a decade.

Mr. 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. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House: (a) on Thursday, September 21, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 25, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, September 22, 2023; and (b) on Friday, September 22, 2023, (i) an address, to be delivered in the chamber of the House of Commons before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of Thursday, September 21, 2023, and form part of the records of this House, provided that the media recording and transmission of such address, introductory and related remarks be authorized pursuant to established guidelines for such occasions; (ii) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on that day.

Madam Speaker, one issue I want to pick up on is that there are some environmental concerns, there is no doubt about that, but there is also the economics of ensuring that our ports are efficient and effective. The legislation does some modernization of sorts, which will help facilitate a better system. Canada is very much dependent on our ports. Could the member comment on the economics of this and why it is so important that we deal with this legislation?

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though the Bloc will be supporting the bill to go to committee, and a final vote will determine the terms of amendments. The member has made reference to the fact that he has had some relatively positive discussions with respect to the former minister and is waiting to see what happens with the new minister. I suspect he will find a high sense of co-operation with respect to passing it. I disagree with him. I think there is a lot of modernization within the legislation that will be to the betterment of Canadians. The question I have for the member is this. Based on the last question, he mentioned that he has a number of changes. He was just posed a question about automobile thefts on ships. Do any of his amendments deal with the suggestion that member has brought forward?

Mr. Speaker, I will provide a comment on the member's last few statements alone, in which he talked about having some local autonomy and local input. We are expanding looking at ways in which there could be advisory committees to the port boards. People need to realize that when we think in terms of the Conservative Party, its total disengagement from the federal government's having a role to play should be of great concern. At the end of the day, the economic security and the whole food chain and the way in which it gets distributed, not to mention all the other economic benefits, are coming out of our ports and out of our railways. We have the Conservative Party saying the government does not play a role and that they want to minimize that role. I would suggest to the member that Canadians are concerned about issues like safety, port congestion and what role the government plays to ease those tensions. Does the member not see any value whatsoever in regard to modernizing or at least attempting to modernize our port authorities and the safety of our railways? Does he see any benefit in that at all in terms of federal government involvement?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table today a petition dealing with members of, in particular, our Indo-Canadian community who have recognized the growth in that community here in Canada and want to see more direct flights from Canada going into, ideally, India. I know that many of my constituents would like to see a direct flight going from Winnipeg to India. The petitioners want to make sure the House is aware of that and to pass on their concerns to airlines and international airports here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, just two days ago, the minister brought forward legislation, the bail reform bill, which is a reflection of a great desire of many Canadians. Today we have yet another justice bill, on just the third day into the fall sitting. It is a bill that has come to us, in essence, because of a Supreme Court decision. The minister made reference to the need to have this bill pass by October 28. I want to highlight that, when we talk about passing it, we are talking about, from what I understand, it passing through the House of Commons and ultimately receiving royal assent. It is a fairly lengthy process. We also have week-long break, a constituency week, in the month of October, so timing is of the utmost importance. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts regarding why it is so important that we meet this deadline.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That a take-note debate on credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen be held on Tuesday, September 19, 2023, 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, every so often, when we bring in legislation, there are some surprises. Yesterday, it was quite encouraging when we brought in Bill C-48 on the bail reform issue and we saw parties come together to recognize the value of the legislation and understand and appreciate how important it was to get it passed. In fact, later yesterday, after a few hours of debate, a Conservative member suggested that we go ahead with unanimous consent and pass it through the system. That was a bit of a surprise. I was quite pleased about it. I thought it surprised a number of people. It was quite encouraging because it shows that, if the House recognizes something of great value, collectively, where we have all parties onside, we can accomplish things very quickly inside the House. I look at Bill C-49, which we are debating today. I am not from Atlantic Canada, as we all know, but I understand the importance of regional development. The Atlantic accord is of critical importance to Atlantic Canada, to two provinces in particular, Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia. We understand and appreciate all of the efforts. I have had a number of Conservatives stand up and ask why it took so long to bring it before the House. It is not like one can snap one's heels together, wave a wand and make legislation appear. There is a lot of work that is done prior to bringing the legislation forward. There is a timing issue. There is a great deal of consultation that takes place. As for my quick readthrough, in terms of the legislation, and the passion that I have seen from my Atlantic colleagues in dealing with this legislation, and they are a passionate caucus, as we know, this is good solid legislation that should be supported. What surprises me today with Bill C-49 is that it is one thing to say one does not want to pass it today. It is another thing to come out saying one opposes the legislation. That is what we are hearing from the Conservative Party today. The Conservative Party of Canada does not support the principles of this legislation. This is legislation that has the support of every other political entity, from what I understand, inside the House. It also has the support of provincial jurisdictions of different political stripes. We have heard member of Parliament after member of Parliament, at least from some opposition benches and the government benches, talking about how important this legislation is. Even the Minister of Labour and Seniors came forward, in a very passionate speech. He was not the only member of the caucus who spoke passionately about the importance of this legislation to their respective provinces. Renewable energy is so critically important when we talk about economic development into the future. I know that first-hand from being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, first as an MLA in Manitoba, and the impact that Manitoba Hydro has had on the residents of Manitoba, to the benefits of Canada as a nation. It is a renewable energy. It is one of the reasons why, and I do not know if it still is today, and if not, it would be very close, the cheapest energy price in North America, in terms of electrical rates, is in Manitoba. It now might be two or three. I know that when I was a MLA, for a long period of time it was number one, the cheapest rate. I can tell members that here is an opportunity. When we talk about Canada reaching its climate targets and looking at offshore renewable energy projects, one can very easily get excited to think of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and other coastal communities, because the opportunities are great. However, I do not understand why, in looking at the legislation, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to say “no” to Atlantic Canada. It makes no sense whatsoever. When I listen to the energy that is coming from the government benches, which is being driven by my Atlantic colleagues, like the member for Avalon talking about how important this legislation is, there seems to be a disconnect with the Conservative Party. It was interesting when the member for Avalon posed a question earlier to a Conservative member asking why he did not support the bill. The Conservative member stood up and said that it is the principle of the legislation and that it is about the carbon tax. Really? I do not think that a number of the Conservative speakers who have stood up really understand what the legislation would do, as they were trying to rope in the issue of a price on pollution and, as that one member implied, base an opinion on a price on pollution to not support the bill. It seems to me that they are being somewhat misguided. I have not heard from any Conservative member, and I have been here all day listening to member after member speak on the legislation, specifically why this legislation cannot be passed. We had the former Conservative member stand up and speak for 20 minutes about, based on the past, we are going to see time allocation and that we are going to see some opposition parties working with the government in order to get the bill time-allocated in order to pass. Well, I can assure the Conservative Party that there will be time allocation on this bill if the Conservatives are going to filibuster it, because we on the government side see the value of this legislation to Atlantic Canada and to Canada as a whole, which is the reason we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we see this type of regional economic development take place. If that means working with New Democrat and Bloc members in order to ensure we get time allocation so that we can get legislation passed, I am game for that. We recognize that we are talking about our environment. We are talking about future jobs and opportunities. I want to see Newfoundland and Labrador continue to be a “have” province. I want to see the prosperity of all regions of our country. I recognize the value of renewable energy, because of the example of Manitoba Hydro. I see where government does play an important role. What I do not see is why the Conservative Party would take an issue such as this and deny two provinces the opportunity where there was an agreement. After this legislation passes, with the support of at least some opposition parties, and it will pass, it will receive mirror legislation from provincial legislatures in order to enact and make sure that it turns into a reality so that the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will have wonderful renewable energy resources being developed and opportunities well into the future.

Madam Speaker, the member's closing comments were interesting. We have heard a wide spectrum of support for Bill C-49, not just from the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc in the House, but from provincial entities as well. The questions I have for the member are about her concern that we are going to have to time allocate this to get it through and that we are going to try to ram through the legislation. Is that to say that the Conservatives have no intention of seeing the bill ultimately go to committee? Is the member already conceding that the Conservatives are going to filibuster this legislation? Why do the Conservatives not believe in at least having the opportunity to see this legislation advance to the committee stage? Why does she insist that the Conservatives have to be time allocated for this bill to ultimately pass?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the Conservatives want to critique the bill in order to try to justify an irresponsible position, when all one needs to look at is us having a Progressive Conservative premier who is actually in agreement with the legislation. We have other jurisdictions that are provincial. What the member is actually implying in her critique of it is that those jurisdictions also got it wrong. I believe the consensus within the legislation that we are proposing to pass is in fact—

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we saw the legislation pass into committee, the member would be afforded all sorts of opportunities to get some of the specifics answered at the committee stage. If there are some issues opposition members would like to see amended in some fashion, that would provide an excellent opportunity to do so. I am not familiar with the specifics of the question that was posed.

Madam Speaker, I would ultimately argue that there are many winners in the passage of this legislation and will conclude my comments by saying that we have to remember there has to be mirror legislation from provincial jurisdictions in order to enact into law the regulatory bodies. For example, if we can somehow get this thing passed before the end of the year, we still have to have provinces bring it into their jurisdiction potentially, which can also take time. That is why, in good part, it would be nice to get a commitment from the official opposition that they would like to see this legislation pass before the end of the year.

Madam Speaker, Canada has some very aggressive climate targets that we want to be able to achieve. We passed legislation not that long ago regarding that, and this legislation ultimately will help Canada address those targets. What we have found over the years, with all the disasters that have taken place, is even more and more Canadians are looking to governments to show leadership on the issue of climate.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the mover of the bill made reference to the fact that he was but a child when the Internet was around. It made me reflect on myself. When I was a child attending school, the Internet did not exist, so there is maybe a bit of a generational gap. During the eighties the Internet really started to come upon Canadian communities with the old dial-up service, dial tones and so forth. With the advancements in technology that we have witnessed over the last number of decades, today it is safe to say that when we think of the Internet, it is an essential service. It is of critical importance. When I think of many rural communities, if not all of our rural communities, I think about how they can dramatically benefit from the Internet. We need to understand and appreciate the way in which communities, both rural and urban, can benefit through the Internet. We have heard a number of citations, such as about the economic power of the Internet. We can talk about health services today that are on the Internet, along with the many different types of services that can be acquired. It is truly amazing. When we talk about the spectrum I can appreciate the fact that over the last couple of decades the spectrum issue has been on the floor of the House of Commons. It is something ministers have had to deal with. I start to get a little bit offside with some of the comments, whether coming from the Conservatives or my New Democratic friends, in particular, when they start making accusations or expressing concerns about how this government has allegedly been neglecting rural connectivity. I would argue that there has not been a government that has spent more time, energy and financial resources in ensuring that rural communities are being connected. They talk about hundreds of millions of dollars that have been collected through spectrum auctions or the selling off of spectrum, which has been estimated somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $20 billion. It is a significant amount of money. This government has also invested hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into rural communities related to Internet access. The government has done that because, as I indicated, we have recognized the importance of rural economic development plus the social benefits of expanding and ensuring rural—

Madam Chair, first off, I have a large Sikh population that I represent in Winnipeg North. I know there is a great deal of concern on the issue. I also have a very strong, caring and passionate feeling towards India, a country that I believe Canada needs to have a wonderful, positive, growing relationship with well into the future. I was caught by the member's comments when he said that we should remain calm and believe in the fact that Canada is a nation that has a strong belief in the rule of law and that justice will be served. Could the member expand upon his thoughts? He made reference to, as I believe, remaining calm and depending on the system that has served us so well for so many years.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak on what I would classify as very important legislation. We demonstrated very clearly how important that legislation was during the pandemic, a time when Canadians needed to feel that the government had their backs. Individuals understood that during the pandemic there was going to be a lot of pressure on the Canadian economy in different ways, and one of the programs that supported Canadians from coast to coast to coast in a very real and tangible way was the employment insurance program. If we look at the origin of the program and its intent, it was there to provide an income supplement for when individuals were having a difficult time, primarily in the area of employment. What we have witnessed over the last number of years is a substantial growth in employment. Since 2015-16, somewhere in the neighbourhood of over two million jobs have been created. That is an incredible number of jobs in a relatively short period of time, but one has to put it in the context of what is happening in our environment today. Canadians are very much concerned about issues such as inflation and employment, and we need to continue what we started years ago, that is, to be there to support Canadians in every way that we can. If there is a message I want to convey to people who might be following the debate, it is that they can rest assured that, as a government, we will continue to look at ways to improve conditions, whether it is battling inflation or housing issues.

Mr. Speaker, I and many of my colleagues see the legislation as legislation that would ultimately make our communities safer places to be. We are anxious, after building upon a wide spectrum of consensus, whether with provincial governments or law enforcement entities that are very supportive, to see the legislation pass. My friend, toward the end of his comments, made reference to a potential filibuster taking place on the legislation. It would seem that there is wide support for the legislation. Could the member expand on the Bloc's position on getting this legislation passed in a relatively quick fashion?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to what I believe is really important legislation. This legislation is being supported not only by me, but also by the minister and the government. From listening to the debate so far in the House, I understand that the principles of the legislation are being supported by all sides of the House, whether one is a New Democrat, a member of the Bloc, possibly a Green, and I have not heard the Greens speak to the bill yet, but I anticipate they will be supporting it based on other observations I have made, or even a member of the Conservative Party. The leader of the official opposition gave an interesting speech. He has maybe taken a bit of a variation on reality to try to reflect things as being in a relatively negative state here in Canada, but the essence of what he was saying about this particular piece of legislation was in good part supportive, as the Minister of Justice pointed out when he introduced the legislation this morning. Members have had the opportunity to go through the legislation to see the benefits of passing the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition was actually very supportive of the legislation to the degree that at one point he gave the indication that he would be prepared to sit until midnight for the legislation to be passed. There were a couple of questions posed to the leader of the official opposition because there was a sense of the potential to see the legislation passed relatively quickly and whether he would still entertain that. One of his short answers implied yes. It would appear Bill C-48 has the support of all members of the House. Before I go any further, I want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. It is not just members of Parliament who are in support of bail reform. Bail reform has been on the agenda of politicians of all political stripes and from all levels of government for a number of years now. A great deal of consultation has taken place on dealing with the issue of public safety as it relates to bail reform. The legislation before us has substantial support across the country. Provinces and territories have signed on in support of the legislation. I understand ministers of justice and premiers from different regions of the country have all indicated very clearly that they would like to see this legislation ultimately become law. I heard there are a number of members who would like to see the legislation pass second reading so we can bring it to the committee stage to see if there might be potential changes made to reflect what the consultations led to. The House is very much open to having the legislation pass. I am curious whether or not, at the end of the day, we will be able to see the legislation pass because we have had a fairly solid green light that the Conservatives would support its quick passage. Having been here for a while, I am going to remain a little optimistic on that point. It is not just the politicians who support this legislation. I want to read a couple of quotes. Law enforcement officers are often the ones who are on the front line looking for changes, and I thought it would be good to share some of the things law enforcement officers are saying regarding Bill C-48. Canada's police associations in general welcomed the government of Canada's action on bail reform. Associations representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel released the following statements welcoming the introduction of the bill, Bill C-48. I would like to quote a couple of them, if I may. The first reads: Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk, and we appreciate that [the former minister of justice] and [the former minister of public safety] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised. This is something that was reported and commented on by Tom Stamatakis, who is the president of the Canadian Police Association. Mark Baxter, the president of the Police Association of Ontario had something further to say—

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that lulled the volume, but let me go on with what Mark Baxter, the president of the Police Association of Ontario, had to say: Police personnel haven’t just been asking for a “tough on crime” approach, we have been advocating for a balanced approach that includes prevention and rehabilitation, but also recognizes that a small number of repeat, violent offenders need to be held accountable for their actions. Bill C-48 is a step in the right direction, and we sincerely hope the Courts will use these new measures that are being introduced by the government in cases where circumstances warrant. The last quote I would like to refer to is from Jon Reid, the president of the Toronto Police Association. He said: Our members recognize that our Charter ensures we all benefit from a presumption of innocence, but for too long the current balance has put the rights of an accused well above the rights our communities have to public safety and security. Ensuring the public maintains its confidence in the administration of justice is paramount, and I believe the introduction of Bill C- 48, and the clear message being sent by the government that public safety remains a top priority, will help victims of crime, as well as all Canadians know serious, repeat violent offenders can and will be held accountable for their actions. I believe that reinforces the messages we are hearing from politicians of all political stripes and at all levels of government that recognize we want our communities to be a safe environment for our constituents. Bill C-48 is a progressive piece of legislation that has had extensive consultations. It would make a profound and positive difference by ensuring the communities in which we live are safer. That is why I believe we should look to the Leader of the Opposition and hold him to his word when he spoke of it having a quick passage. I believe the intent of the House of Commons is to see this legislation passed in a quick fashion to allow it to go to committee. I have not heard anyone say that the principle of this legislation is something they cannot support. With that type of support for Bill C-48, I would conclude that it is the type of legislation that should get passed through the House to allow the committee to do the fine work that it does. We need to remember that this is all about keeping the communities that we represent safer. To me, that is so very important. That is why I stand today with my colleagues in support of the legislation with the hope of seeing it passed in a relatively quick fashion.

Madam Speaker, there is a second motion that I would like to bring forward. Again, there have been some discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That in relation to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, the House authorize televising or webcasting of up to seven simultaneous meetings, provided that no more than two of the meetings are televised.

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 1523, 1524, 1529, 1530, 1532, 1535, 1537 to 1542, 1544 to 1547, 1551 to 1561, 1563, 1564, 1566, 1567, 1569, 1573, 1574, 1577 to 1579, 1582, 1584 to 1586, 1589 to 1596, 1598 to 1601, 1604, 1606, 1608 to 1611, 1613 to 1615, 1616, 1620 to 1622, 1626 to 1629, 1631 to 1633, 1635 to 1637, 1639, 1641 to 1645, 1647 to 1652, 1654 to 1658, 1662, 1663, 1665 to 1668, 1672 to 1676, 1678, 1679, 1681 to 1685, 1687 to 1690, 1692 and 1693 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Judicial jurisdiction in our courts and our laws is actually shared between Ottawa and provincial and territorial governments, so it is important we all work together at advancing and improving community safety. What is so good about Bill C-48 is that the background work was done. This is good, solid legislation that would make a positive difference in terms of safety in our communities.

Madam Speaker, it is really important that all of us know and recognize that, at the end of the day, Bill C-48 would make our communities safer. That is the reason we have all sorts of jurisdictions; politicians, whether provincial, municipal and obviously federal; and law enforcement agencies coming out and saying that this particular legislation is good, sound legislation. The reason for that is that it is going to make our communities safer. That is why I am hopeful that, through the support of all members of the House, we will see it pass quickly to committee stage. The leader of the official opposition made that very clear not that long ago when he said we should get the bill before us and that if we, in essence, stay until midnight, we will get the legislation passed. I would suggest to the Conservative members that if they really want to get this legislation passed today, they will find that the government, the Bloc opposition and the NDP are very receptive. It is up to the Conservatives to get it passed today.

Madam Speaker, whether it is firearms, knives or bear spray, and the reverse onus as applying to those in certain situations through this legislation, it is not the first time there is a reverse onus with respect to acts that are committed. If the member has more specifics, as I suggested in my comments to the previous question, nothing prevents us from doing what it is the member's own leader was recommending not that long ago, which is to pass this legislation through. In getting it to committee stage, if the member has an idea that he would like to bring forward with respect to this legislation, I would encourage him to do so. What I am suggesting is that there seems to be a will to see this legislation pass that goes far beyond even the House of Commons. Ultimately, standing committees can do good work when working with the minister, who I know is committed to working with the different stakeholders who are out there. If there is a way in which it can be improved upon, I am open to it. Let us see it go to committee.

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging when we have all political entities inside the House supporting legislation. As I indicated earlier, at the end of the day, it is about making our communities safer. That is really what it is all about for me; I know that is what it is about for my colleagues. That is what our constituents want us to do. With all the different stakeholders, whether provincial or territorial jurisdictions, political parties of all stripes or law enforcement officers, I believe that there is a great deal of momentum in passing this legislation. A lot of consultation was done to bring it before us, and we have had it informally and in the form of the written bill for quite a while now. Can the member provide an explanation for why, by passing the legislation, we would be making our communities safer?

Madam Speaker, I do not want the member to give the impression that crime did not exist during the Harper and Conservative governments. I was a justice critic in Manitoba when we had serious issues with automobile thefts. It was the highest per capita in the whole country. I think there were close to 12,000 in one year. At the end of the day, we have to recognize that it is not just Ottawa. Our justice system is a shared responsibility, and it took the province to take action in order to get rid of some of those issues. I wonder if she can provide her thoughts on this. Instead of blaming Ottawa for all these problems, does she not recognize that the provinces and territories also have a role to play?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in terms of the degree to which the Conservatives might try to simplify things. I will point to some contrasts. For example, we think of judicial independence through our courts, the process of our crowns and so forth, and the role that provinces, territories and indigenous communities play in terms of the whole legal process. Is it fair to say that it is not quite as simple as it is portrayed, but that when we take a look at Bill C-48 all of the stakeholders I just listed are very supportive of Bill C-48? I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in terms of it not just being the federal government that is responsible.

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see the House come together and recognize the valuable contributions that Bill C-48 would make to Canadians. It would make our communities safer places to be. We know that because of the types of support at the many different levels that I referenced earlier. I would like to emphasize that law enforcement officers are also in support of the legislation. Would the member across the way not agree that by working with law enforcement agencies and provincial and territorial jurisdictions, we have before us sound legislation that would, in fact, make our communities safer?

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago, when I was in opposition, I saw then prime minister Stephen Harper in front of the Parliament buildings, and I noticed there was an exceptional number of security staff around the prime minister. I had given that some serious thought, recognizing Canada and the role that it plays in the world today and that with the threats that are out there around the world it was a good thing that then prime minister Harper had the type of security force that was there to protect him. It was not Stephen Harper per se, it was the Prime Minister of Canada. Where we could agree is that when one is a leader of a country like Canada, as Prime Minister, sadly, it is true that they become a target. That means there has to be a commitment to support our Prime Minister. The term the member used was jet-setting. It is not like the Prime Minister could hop on an Air Canada flight to fly outside Canada for a holiday by himself. It does not work that way. It did not work that way for Stephen Harper. There is a security detail. It is not quite as simple as the Conservatives often try to give the impression. I would suggest that is a false impression. I remember when I was in opposition. If members want to talk about abuse, what always came to my mind is when the former prime minister Stephen Harper went to India. We were talking about India earlier today. It is hard to believe, but his car was actually flown to India. It cost the taxpayers over $1 million. That would be a lot of nights at a hotel. They do have vehicles in India. We should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I would suggest that the member needs to be reminded not to throw rocks at glass houses. At the end of the day, the member made reference to the Ethics Commissioner. I am not too sure if Canada had an Ethics Commissioner when that incident took place, because having an Ethics Commissioner is relatively new to Canada. The position was not there when Stephen Harper was first elected. I suspect that if it had been, and there is always a learning curve that takes place, there might have been some thoughts in regard to a number of issues. One could think of the Senate, for example, and some of the things that have taken place in the Senate. We need to focus on the real issues that Canadians are facing today, issues such as inflation. That is one of the reasons why we met and called for the big grocery giants to come to Ottawa, so we could state our concerns and indicate that we would take action. We are upset with the degree to which grocery stores are making record profit, while at the same time we are seeing grocery inflation. That is not to mention the announcement of investing in ensuring that we get more homes built. Those are the issues that are really important to Canadians—

Madam Speaker, I hope the Conservatives would understand and appreciate, from the last seven or eight years, that their sole focus has been to be critical and make character assassinations, whether of the Prime Minister or other ministers within the government. They should take that same force, that desire to make politics look as ugly as possible, and turn it into something more positive, such as dealing with inflation or housing. Never before have we seen a government that has invested more in housing. In fact, during the nineties, political parties here in Ottawa were pulling out of their housing commitments. This government and this Prime Minister have made commitments and continue to work with other jurisdictions across Canada so that we can have more homes.