Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure where to go with that particular question. The members of Parliament work whether they are here or they are in their ridings. I can tell the member that I do and my colleagues do. At the end of the day, the member needs to ask himself a question: Why does the Conservative Party support everything that is in this motion on the condition that it be sunset for two years, as opposed to just forgetting about the sunset for a moment? If they support it for the next two years, then what is really wrong with the motion? I suspect that the member does, or many members of the Conservative Party do, support the motion, but the House leadership team is having a difficult time showing any sort of consensus building.

Madam Speaker, I would argue that the interests of Canadians are best served by having a hybrid Parliament, as has been suggested in a motion that the Conservative Party has indicated it would support if there was a sunset clause where it would have to be reaffirmed three years from now. Does the member not see anything within that statement that is rather odd with respect to the Conservatives saying that they will accept the changes if we put in that sunset clause, which, in essence, is saying for the rest of this Parliament and at least a year going into the next Parliament that these rules would be accepted? Does he not see any inconsistencies?

Madam Speaker, with respect to the member's initial comments, he should read the speech that he gave in his four minutes. He will find that I addressed it directly, with one exception and that was when I talked about Conservative ideas related to dealing with the issue of inflation. All I was doing was regurgitating ideas that were generated from the leader of the Conservative Party. I suspect that likely makes him a little bit nervous, as I am sure it makes a lot of Canadians nervous. The bottom line is, and I have said this consistently, this government is very much aware of the issue of inflation. We have a budget that is reflective of what Canadians have been telling us. It is a budget that deals with the issue of inflation in a very tangible way. We will continue to work with stakeholders, to minimize the negative impact of inflation on Canadians while, at the same time, building a country and an economy that is there for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, a number of thoughts come to mind. First and foremost, we can understand and appreciate the degree to which inflation is hurting Canadians. I would ask the Conservative Party to collectively understand what I just finished saying and support some of the initiatives that the government is doing to assist Canadians, whether it is the dental program or the grocery rebate program. These are helping Canadians in a very real and tangible way. The member talked about the price on pollution. Even though 338 Conservative candidates made a campaign promise to have a price on pollution, I respect that they did flip-flop on the issue, even though they did promise Canadians. What is misleading is when Conservatives stand up and try to give the impression that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was wrong when he made the statement saying that 80% of Canadians would receive more money, real dollars, compared to money that is put in. That means 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are going to be receiving more of a rebate, which, again, helps with inflation. There is a consistency problem. The Conservatives talk about inflation rates. As I said, we are concerned, and we are taking action, even though the Conservatives do not support it. We need to recognize that around the world, inflation is hitting. It is not unique to Canada. What is unique to Canada is that Canada's inflation rate is substantially less than the inflation rate of many of the European countries. It has been less than the rate of the U.S., England, Germany and other European countries. Relatively speaking, Canada's inflation rate is high. We recognize the hardship that it costs and, as a result, we have put into place a number of budgetary measures to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Imagine the frustration that we do not hear ideas coming from the Conservative Party, outside of the issue of cryptocurrency, and we are still waiting for the apology. Remember that the leader of the Conservative Party said, look, do we want to fight inflation? Go to cryptocurrency. Those people who would have followed that advice would have lost 60%-plus of their investment. Other economic recommendations coming from the leader of the Conservative Party included things like getting rid of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is very well respected not only here in Canada but across other jurisdictions in the world, recognizing the important role that the Bank of Canada plays in our society, a society that is doing exceptionally well, whether it is the deficit, the GDP or our ability to be able to have better controls on the issue of inflation. How does the Conservative Party respond, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party? Fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. How silly an idea? I do not think we need to take advice from the Conservative Party, because it has clearly demonstrated that it does not understand.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the member's beginning remarks when he was talking about the process. I found it somewhat interesting. As the member recalls, in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the quid pro quo was to not pass anything in committee if it came from opposition members. The Conservatives never accepted any amendments with a majority Harper government. Today, we have seen better, healthier legislation, in good part because of the member's involvement in the committee with his suggestions. More and more we are seeing not only government member amendments being brought forward, but also opposition member amendments being brought forward, and, more importantly, they are even passed. It gives strength to the legislation. I believe Canadians, at heart, are great humanitarians. Given the nature of the issue and the people, and, we are helping them to do the work they want to do to support the world in a positive way. I would like his comments on that.

Mr. Speaker, people from the Philippines who have visited Canada in the last 10 years or have a current valid U.S. visa will now be able to travel to Canada via air visa-free. This is wonderful news. Today, all those eligible can go online and apply for the electronic travel authorization. In most situations, they will be approved within hours. That is big news for the thousands of people who will be directly benefiting throughout the country, and nowhere more than in the city of Winnipeg. The estimated population of Canada's Filipino community today is one million people. Manitoba makes up about 10% of Canada's Filipino heritage community. The north end of Winnipeg is where we will find the heart of Canada's Filipino community, which means that the announcement made earlier this week, on June 6, will benefit the residents of Winnipeg North more than any other community in the country. June is the month that we celebrate Filipino heritage. What a great month it is.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition today that has been signed by the members of the Falun Gong, who have been very proactive on a number of different issues. Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine. Thousands have died as a direct result of this. I am sure members can imagine the passion in those individuals involved in the petition campaign. What they are really doing is calling for the government, and all parliamentarians, to do more in terms of raising the profile of this particular issue and taking actions where we can.

Mr. Speaker, this is very encouraging legislation. As I highlighted earlier in the form of a question to the member, it is actually healthier legislation today than when it was first introduced, because of the process that we have gone through. The biggest benefactors, I believe, to this are going to be the people who it will impact and the people who have the desire to reach out and help others, in particular, in Afghanistan. Could the member just give a very brief highlight as to why he is supporting the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member's efforts and thoughts in regard to the whole committee process. It is quite encouraging when members from different political sides come together to give strength to legislation. I understand there was a high sense of co-operation. I looked this up just to make sure that I had the riding right. Oakville North—Burlington is the riding of the member he is referring to. Knowing her personality, I am sure she would have greatly appreciated the sense of co-operation coming from the member representing the Bloc. Would my hon. colleague not acknowledge that, as a result of that high sense of co-operation, something done in an apolitical fashion, to a certain degree we now have stronger, healthier legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the member's comments regarding the Prime Minister. In many ways, Canada is back. We see it, whether through international trade agreements or the demand for the Prime Minister to go outside of Canada, which is fairly high, especially if we compare it to former prime minister Stephen Harper. In many ways, Canada continues to contribute, working through the United Nations, working with our allied forces, doing things to support the Five Eyes countries and doing so much more. On the legislation, I think the legislation is good, and after its passage, we are going to see more people helping more people in need. I see that as a good thing. Would he not agree?

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to provide some comments on the member for Scarborough North's motion. I think the member has done us a great service, in terms of providing this motion before the House, and I just want to thank him for the work he has done in bringing it to the stage at which it is. The issue of racism is very much alive, and there is a role for parliamentarians to do what we can. This motion, if it passes, and I sure hope it does pass, would ensure a direct action that would see a standing committee of the House do a study with a particular focus on hate crimes, an issue that affects all of society. We need to be able to come together. I was just reflecting, a few minutes back, on Canada's diversity, and it is no doubt one of the greatest strengths we have here in Canada, if not the greatest. We should never, ever, take that for granted. We have, in the month of June, for example, Indigenous History Month. We have Filipino Heritage Month. We have the Portuguese community, the Italian community and all the communities that are celebrating their heritage in the month of June. This speaks in terms of Canadian heritage, which is ongoing and continues to evolve. It speaks volumes about our diversity. As elected officials, we often go out into our communities and talk about Canada's diversity. Part of that is the responsibility of recognizing, as the member for Scarborough North has done, that there are racial incidents that are causing harm, and we need to be able to address that. From my perspective, the best way of addressing issues such as discrimination and racist behaviour is through education. I have advocated for years for the importance of cross-cultural education and ways we can marginalize those with attitudes that are negative and have a racial bias. That would include, for example, looking at our education system and encouraging its incorporation into the curriculum. There are all sorts of things, from the school board level to the Parliament of Canada. Here we have an opportunity to take a tangible action, and I would encourage all members, of whatever political stripe, to get behind the member for Scarborough North, who has been leading on this issue, and support the motion today.

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I often stand to table documents, and I have been asked what happens when I say that a document will be tabled in an electronic format. To answer that question, by tabling a document in an electronic format, members are afforded the opportunity to receive the response to the petition through email. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format. That is why I provided the explanation.

Mr. Speaker, today I table a petition signed by the residents of Winnipeg North. They are calling upon parliamentarians to advocate for and promote senior activities and different types of seniors programs. They cite specifically the importance of the guaranteed income supplement and OAS, and want members of Parliament to look at ways of being ongoing advocates for and supporters of programming and supports for seniors from coast to coast to coast, in particular, obviously, for the residents of Winnipeg North.

Madam Speaker, this is an encouraging debate. We see a great deal of passion, I would suggest, virtually from all sides of the House. We can contrast this to previous Bloc opposition days, when we talked about changes to the prayers and monarchy. Obviously Bloc members are listening to the priority issues of Canadians. I like the motion that has been presented. Later I will explain in more detail some thoughts on the issue. The national government, for the very first time, introduced a national adaptation strategy that involves dealing with the environment in a very tangible way. As a national government, this is the first time we have implemented a price on pollution and brought in the banning of single-use plastics in certain areas. We also have a commitment to the planting of hundreds of millions of trees. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is important that not only the national government demonstrate leadership. There is also an expectation that provinces, territories and indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast get involved in protecting our environment. It is not one level—

Madam Speaker, the Bloc wants to see all fossil fuel subsidies come to an end. Are there any exceptions in her mind, for example, orphan wells? The government is assisting in getting rid of those wells. Orphan wells are bad for our environment. There is a cost for the government to deal with them. The Bloc considers that a fossil fuel subsidy. Is that a bad thing for the government to be doing? What about fossil fuel subsidies for people who live up north? From the Bloc's perspective, is that a bad fossil fuel subsidy?

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my comments by thinking of those individuals who have had to weather the forest fires, particularly those who live and work in the communities who, whether in terms of recreational, work or living environments, have incurred a great deal of hardship. One cannot underestimate the degree to which these fires have impacted literally thousands of lives in a very real and tangible way. We recognize the interruptions that have taken place as a direct result. However, we do not often hear about a wildfire taking place in a particular community. It might be on the news for a day or two, maybe more than that, but what remains in these communities is there for a long time. It takes a while for a community to bounce back. To those individuals, I want to extend my best wishes and recognize what they are going through, which is a great difficulty that no doubt creates much anxiety and stress. They should know that they have a national government that is doing what it can in co-operation with different levels of government, stakeholders and non-profits. Obviously, the Government of Canada will do whatever it can with respect to our firefighters; whether they are paid or volunteer firefighters, the government has their back. The second thing I will comment on is the firefighters. The other day, the Prime Minister was talking to me and others about a situation, which was referred to earlier today. Two firefighters were called into a home just north of Halifax. There was an elderly gentleman with dementia who had gone missing, and family members called in expressing concern. They were not too sure where he was, but they believed he was actually still in the home. The two firefighters busted down the door and went into the home, with smoke all around and flames flying. They found the elderly gentleman sitting in a chair, in good part unaware of what was taking place, and they rescued him. In a very humble way, both firefighters said, in essence, “That's what we do.” I think that those two fine gentlemen embody the spirit and goodwill that we see day in and day out in our first responders, both from those who get paid and those who volunteer. I think I can speak on behalf of all members, no matter what political party, in recognizing the efforts of our firefighters. This is where I wanted to start things off. It is an interesting process when we see disasters in communities. In Manitoba, we have had forest fires and floods, and I will provide comments on both situations. However, right now, I want to recognize these three provinces in particular: Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta. I also want to talk about how people come together. Let us recognize that. The government plays a very important role. There is absolutely no doubt of that, and I will expand on that. However, we see people come together when there are tragedies that take place in communities. They do this in different forms, whether it is through volunteering, sending money or other forms of support. It could be as simple as a prayer at a local gurdwara, church, mosque or synagogue. It could be sending support in the form of cash. We see that time and time again. In Alberta, we saw people from Manitoba pitching in to help fight the wildfires. We have a wonderful neighbour, the United States, to the south of us. President Biden was talking with the Prime Minister of Canada. As one member referenced, smoke and wildfires do not know any boundaries. The smoke from the fires from the province of Quebec is travelling all over the place and crossing international boundaries. I would suggest that it did not even have to take that for the President of the United States and the Prime Minister to have a discussion; we now have individuals from the United States coming north to help us deal with the wildfires. Whether it is the communities at the micro level, the different levels of government or international relations, we see people coming together. This is because we recognize the harm being done, not only to our communities but also to our environment as a whole. That is why we have such programs as the disaster program, which is there to support Canadians, because disasters take place. I looked something up. I understand that it was actually Pierre Elliott Trudeau who established the program, the request for federal assistance, back in 1970. It was an interesting figure that I received. It is estimated that 280 events have happened since 1970. If we put that into the perspective of what we have witnessed over the last few years, there is no doubt that we are seeing an increase. Interestingly enough, in terms of those direct federal contributions, we are looking at close to $8 billion over that time frame. We can look at what we are spending today in terms of disaster support. A hurricane hit Atlantic Canada, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. Homes were destroyed. The municipality went to the province. The province then came to Ottawa, and Ottawa has been there to support Atlantic Canada after that storm. We continue to be there today to support Canadians, as we are there today for the people of Alberta, Quebec and other jurisdictions where we see these disasters taking place. In the past, my home province of Manitoba has had forest fires and floods displace thousands of people. We need to recognize that there are things the government can do that will, in fact, make a difference. One of the best examples that comes to mind, as I see my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa walk in, is “Duff's Ditch”. A premier from Manitoba said that one of the ways we can avoid the city of Winnipeg flooding all the time is to build a floodway around the city. If we look at the south, where the water comes from, the floodway takes the water just before it enters the city. When the Red River is overflowing, Duff's Ditch will take the overflow around the city. It takes it around via the east and then dumps it back into the Red River once it is north of the city. What an idea that is. This is the type of investment that we need. We need to become more resilient. Former Premier Duff Roblin has often been referred to as a visionary for trying to deal with this particular issue. I can tell members that, with respect to the amount of real dollars, even factoring in inflation, billions have been saved as a direct result of this. The premier at the time realized the benefit of looking at what is being thrown at us through the environment. By doing this, people's lives were protected in many ways, and property was protected in terms of flooding. There have been occasions when we have had floods in the city and in the Point Douglas area, the area I represented. Back in 1997, I can say that the federal government was supporting the area. I remember when Jean Chrétien came to Point Douglas to support Canadians in the north end of Winnipeg at a time when we had needs. Therefore, there have still been issues. I use that as an example, because one of the things that we need to recognize is that climate change has really had a profound impact on weather patterns. Because of emissions and other environmental factors, we are seeing a greater number of disasters. As a result, different levels of government need to take more action. We have a national government that states that it has set up a national adaption strategy. It is the first time ever. As a national government, we are saying that we need to have a strategy that encourages municipalities, provinces and others to look at ways in which we can improve the infrastructure, so that when disasters hit, we can minimize the cost and the damage to our communities. There is no question about whether that will happen. We are talking about 1.6 billion new federal dollars. That is on top of the $8 billion that we put in place since we have been in government. No government in the history of this nation has invested more in infrastructure than the current government has. That is why, when I hear some opposition members saying that we are not doing enough or asking what the is government doing, I would suggest that they review some of the budgets that have been introduced. They will see hundreds of millions of dollars, going into multiple billions, to invest in things like infrastructure. They have seen a government focused on dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way. Whether it is working with indigenous, provincial or territorial governments, the federal government understands and appreciates that there is joint jurisdiction in many different areas, and the environment is one of them. Earlier today, someone posed a question in regard to our oceans. I happened to be sitting beside the minister responsible for oceans, and she gave the answer. Canada has three oceans from coast to coast to coast. Often, people forget about the north. Do people know that under 1% was actually protected when we formed government back in late 2015? Not even 1% of our coastal Canadian waters, which we are responsible for, were actually protected. Today, one can multiply that by almost 15. Just under 15% of Canada's coastal waters are now under protection. What was even more encouraging is that the minister responsible for oceans talked about 2025. There is a very good chance that, as a government, we are going to hit 25% of our oceans being protected. We have the Prime Minister and cabinet saying that this is not good enough, and we can even attempt to do better. By 2030, let us see if we can get it up to 30% of our coastal waters. I believe that we are on target to hit that type of a milestone. The amount of land being converted for conservation has dramatically increased under the government. I believe we have even seen the adoption of what could be three, maybe more, new national parks under the government. They say let us talk about other policies. We have budgetary policies, or monetary policies, and we have legislative policies, or initiatives. Let me give members an example of both. From a legislative perspective, we have brought in legislation to have net-zero emissions by 2050. For the first time ever, we now have, in legislation, a law that says that Canada will be at net-zero by 2050. That is a very important commitment in law that is coming from the Government of Canada, a legislative initiative. We also have a budgetary initiative that will have, and has had, a very positive impact on Canada's environment and the people of Canada, which is the price on pollution. The Conservatives call it a carbon tax. Countries from all around the world, back in 2015, went to Paris, and one of the points that came out of Paris was the idea of a price on pollution. It was not a new idea, but it was amplified in Paris back in 2015. It was not new because the first government in North America to have a price on pollution was the Province of Alberta. It was a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta that brought it in. It was not new. When this government adopted it, we brought it back to Canada. We said that we are going to have a price on pollution because it is the right thing to do. We instituted a rebate to support Canadians. The system works so that there is an incentive, whether one is a consumer or one is within the industry, for less emissions, for ensuring that we see actions being taken to protect our environment. The Conservatives have been all over the map, like a fish out of water, flipping and flopping, depending on who their leader is. The current leader says they do not support the price on pollution. I am hoping that fish is not dead yet, and we will get another flop or a flip. I am hopeful. I believe there are members of the Conservative caucus who understand the benefits of a price on pollution. There were leadership candidates, although they lost, mind, in the Conservative caucus who actually support it. It is always interesting to watch when the Conservatives get a little bit embarrassed or humiliated on that particular issue.

Madam Speaker, talking about cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess, let me draw a comparison. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, and containers of garbage were being shipped from Canada over to the Philippines, where they were left to rot. It caused such a stink that the people in the Philippines were telling Canada to take back its garbage. The then president Duterte said, and I think he meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, he would declare war on Canada to have it take back its garbage. Not to worry, we avoided that by ensuring there was a place for us to take back the garbage, and we did. It was somewhere in British Columbia. They took care of the garbage and did a fine job. We are used to cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess—

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member needs to be a little more patient because at some point Trans Mountain will be divested. Whether it is indigenous entrepreneurs or others who ultimately take over Trans Mountain, I believe that Canada as a community would be better off because it was the right decision to make at the right time. At the end of the day, I ultimately see a great deal of benefit. This is the big difference. As a government and as the Liberal Party, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We need to work with all the different stakeholders out there to make sure we all benefit.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I do not believe what the member is saying. Let me emphasize the next point. The member would argue that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. Yes, we are subsidizing them and we have a tangible commitment to get out of that subsidy. However, we should keep in mind that a high percentage of that subsidy is going to deal with orphan wells. Orphan wells are a bad thing for our environment and it is not good for the government to just ignore that problem. We have to deal with it, and that means spending money. If we are spending money, the NDP says that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. I would suggest that we are protecting the environment, because orphan wells are bad for it. We need to deal with them. It would be irresponsible of government to ignore orphan wells.

Madam Speaker, the Green Party has a very unique position in the House in the sense that it is the only party that would say it is time for us to disassemble, to take apart our pipelines. The Green Party genuinely believes that we need to get rid of the existing pipelines. The Conservative Party says that no one cares about the environment, just build, build, build, even though it was not very successful at it, but that is what it will say. As this government has clearly demonstrated, if we work with Canadians on the environment and the economy, there is a way we can manage all of it in an appropriate fashion.

Madam Speaker, I was here when the question was posed. The parliamentary secretary provided an answer to the member. Tomorrow, we are back at it, and I would encourage the member to ask the follow-up question of the parliamentary secretary. The minister responsible for oceans talked about this, that when we became government, 1% of the oceans were protected. Today it is almost 15%. In 2025, it will be close to 25%, and we are shooting for 30% by the year 2030. I see that as a good thing. I hope that will help the member sleep tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that, typically, when we get into discussions of this nature, there is often a right of reply given to members. I want to make sure that the member who introduced the bill is in fact aware of that. You might want to allow that member the right to reply. First, we will deal with the motion. If it does not have to be dealt with, as a courtesy, we should provide the member who introduced it the opportunity to reply, depending on what you get back.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member, one draws the conclusion that he does not support the legislation, yet I suspect that the Conservative Party, when it comes down to it, will likely be voting in favour of it. As much as the member was so critical of the legislation, we recognize that there are Conservative premiers, premiers from coast to coast, saying that the $10 day care and the national plan that we put into place is working. We are getting more day care spots. We are seeing the reduction to $10-a-day child care. Is he going to vote in favour of the legislation? Does he not support $10-a-day day care?

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick quotes, one from Canada's most populated province. “I'm so proud of the work we've done with our federal partners to land an agreement that will lower costs for families across the province.” This is from Doug Ford, who happens to be the Premier of Ontario. Here is another quote: “Our government is proud to work in partnership with Canada to strengthen and grow Manitoba's early learning and childcare system in all communities of our province.” This is from Heather Stefanson, the Conservative Premier of Manitoba, my home province. The Conservatives like to bad-talk the legislation, yet at second reading they voted in favour of it. Chances are they are going to vote in favour of it at third reading. Will the hon. member clarify this for those who are following the debate. Have the Conservatives made up their mind? Do they know what they are going to do at third reading? We understand they do not like it, but will they vote against it?

Mr. Speaker, I suspect people have heard of the phrase “the hidden agenda”. The Conservatives are often accused of not telling Canadians what their real intentions are. We are seeing a very good example of that today. They are very critical of the legislation. They are critical of the $10-a-day child care, but they will not tell us how they will vote. Twice now I have asked them a very clear question. When it comes time to vote on third reading, I asked what the Conservatives will do. My prediction is that the hidden agenda will kick in, the Conservatives will vote yes, and when it comes to it they really do not support it, but do not want to be seen supporting this Liberal initiative.

Madam Speaker, I think the member is right to raise the issue of dangerous cargo and hazardous things that go through our municipalities and our cities. I very much recall what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Just a few weeks ago in the city of Winnipeg in my area, the CP tracks had some issues that caused McPhillips Street, a major thoroughfare that is travelled by 90,000-plus people, to be shut down. A lot of thought was given to what would have happened had the cars gone over and spilled onto the street itself, as opposed to just staying on the top level. There is a great deal of concern. My question to the member is this. We have had a great deal of time. We have had lots of reports and recommendations now on the issue. I would like to know the member's thoughts on seeing this bill continue to progress through the House.

Madam Speaker, like the speaker before him, the member talked about the legislation in a relatively positive way. He was maybe questioning some of the timing of it. I think it is important for us to recognize that we have had a great deal of consultations and work that has been done. We have had two reports dealing with different aspects of the legislation, which were commissioned back in 2017 and 2018. We have had a lot to deal with in regard to the supply chain, which we witnessed throughout the pandemic. I think what we have today is good, solid legislation, and I understand the Bloc supports sending the legislation to committee. Does the member, or does the Bloc, have any sort of specific amendments they would like to see at this time that they would be prepared to share with the government in advance of the bill's potentially being sent to committee?

Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member can recall, it was not that long ago, just a few weeks back, that Winnipeg had a derailment of 12 cars, which ultimately shut down McPhillips Street. McPhillips goes right through the heart of Winnipeg North, so we have very recent first-hand experience of the impact this has on a community, with community members feeling concerned about their safety. Not knowing what was in the derailed cars initially caused a great deal of concern. There was even an economic impact on some of the small businesses. I am wondering if she can provide her thoughts on the importance of getting this type of legislation through, because it will have a positive impact.

Madam Speaker, there is a primary purpose to the legislation, which has taken a while to come forward and get to this stage only because of all the consultations that were required, since several acts would be changed through this bill. The member highlights the importance of the issue of safety, and that is a driving force in terms of the reason we have the legislation, along with the issue of economic development. The member also made reference to a family background, and I think if we take a look at our rail lines, we would see that there are a lot of families that have grown up within that industry. I guess I would ask the member to what degree he feels the legislation is good to go, at least into the committee stage. Does the member have any specific thoughts in regard to amendments at this point?

Madam Speaker, in all honesty, I thought he was standing up to offer his time as an add-on to my time, and I would be more than happy to take his 10 or 20 minutes, or however long he was going to speak, because I have a number of thoughts on this bill. When we think about actions of a government, we see that this legislation is a very good example to not only contrast the Liberals with the Conservatives, which I will get into in a bit, but also to show how the government uses legislation to advance both the economic interests and the safety interests of Canadians at the same time. That is what I really like about Bill C-33. The Prime Minister, different members of cabinet or members of the Liberal caucus as a whole, whether inside or outside the chamber, will often try to emphasize that the government and the Liberal Party genuinely want to deliver an economy that works for all Canadians. From coast to coast to coast, we want an economy that works for all Canadians. This is the type of legislation that can really make a difference to that end. From the very beginning in 2015-2016, we have dealt with issues such as safety for Canadians and support for labour in legislation we brought forward. That is why it was somewhat interesting that the Conservatives seem to be opposed to this legislation. I understand they are going to be voting against it. When the legislation first came up for debate back in March, there were concerns expressed by the Conservative Party regarding labour disputes in our ports and how the legislation was going to deal with them. That sends up a few red flags, or blue flags, since they are Conservatives, to be fair. Ultimately, as a government, we believe in the open and free bargaining process. The Conservatives seem to be hinting that we can anticipate some amendments if the Conservatives allow the bill to go to committee. That is one of the reasons we have to bring in time allocation on legislation. Even if it is legislation that sometimes the Conservatives give the impression they are supporting, like the previous bill that we were debating, or legislation such as this, which the Conservatives do oppose, if we do not bring forward time allocation, we would not be able to get through the legislative agenda. This is where it is nice. They often talk about majorities and minorities. In the last federal election, we got a minority government, and that is true. We are happy to say that Canadians entrusted us with the largest number of seats. We continue to focus on serving Canadians, and we are very grateful that we get a higher sense of responsibility and co-operation from at least one opposition party, and at times a second opposition party, that enable us to bring forward and ultimately pass legislation, which is so critically important. Other members have talked about the benefits of Bill C-33 and what the legislation would do, which I will expand on shortly, but I want to set the stage by talking about how industries in Canada are one of the economic driving forces of our nation. First, we have to recognize that we are a trading nation. Goods need to be transported in all areas of our country, in our ports and our rail yards, and I would even go beyond that. As some members of this House will know, the growth of the trucking industry has been incredible. The area I represent, Winnipeg North, I would suggest, has the highest concentration in the province, and it is growing. In fact, the other day I was out on Eagle Drive, providing support for the trucking industry and opportunity for trucks to travel in a safer fashion. It was the first time I was able to see a semi that was electric, and it was kind of cool to sit in a semi and push the button and not hear anything. The industry, like other industries, recognizes the need for change. This legislation is important, because it would substantially change the way in which our supply chain will be serving Canadians, and it is important that we get it right. When we think of the ramifications on the supply chain if we do not get it right, they are actually quite severe. I remember when I was in the third party a number of years ago, back in 2013-14, and I stood up and raised the issue of grain. I was talking about the piles of grain in the fields in the Prairies, but in the Pacific Ocean just west of Vancouver, there were ships waiting to get into ports, and there was a backlog of farmers wanting to get their grain to market. I do not quite understand all of the technicalities of it, but I can tell members that there were people around the world who wanted our grain, as our producers produce the best grain the world, but we had a difficult time getting it from the fields into the ships, and it was at a substantial cost. Those supply chains, in many ways, contribute to feeding the world, to providing widgets and food products to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, so when we look at the legislation, it focuses attention on ports and trains. However, I would like to focus a little more broadly than that, by looking at my home province of Manitoba. We can talk about the history of CN, CP and other trains, but particularly CN and CP and the impact that has had on the city of Winnipeg, let alone the province of Manitoba. The southern boundary of Winnipeg North is at the CP tracks, which has provided thousands of jobs over the years and continues to provide good jobs for many residents of Winnipeg, particularly in Winnipeg North. When I was a child, the CN yards were out in Transcona, and Winnipeg would not be what it is today if it did not have those rail yards. In fact, I suspect if members went along Pandora, they would find that many of the homes built on that street were built with wood from CN, such as boxcars and so forth. At the end of the day, when we advance a few decades, we will see that these hubs or rail yards have been able to survive through time, with a great deal of modifications, because of how the world evolves and the changes that were required. One could think of the environment, for example, and what is being carried on our trains. We could talk about the Port of Churchill in Manitoba, which this government has invested in a great deal, and not only with financial resources but effort. I think of Jim Carr, in particular, and my colleagues, the members for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital and Winnipeg South, who put in so much effort. I must also say that in Kildonan, former members of Parliament MaryAnn Mihychuk, Robert-Falcon Ouellette and I had discussions, talking about the important role that the Port of Churchill could have, not only today but into the future. Those are the types of things that give life to a community. We could take a look at the trucking industry component that I made reference to closer to the beginning, and how the trucking industry complements both trains, ports and the shipment of cargo, and the supply chain. The legislation talks about the ways in which we can ensure that the changes that have been taking place and the modernization that is taking place within the legislation that we are proposing will ensure that Canada's supply chains, services and products are in a better position to meet market demands, while at the same time providing assurances for public safety. When I think of the issue of safety, it was not that long ago, many Canadians will recall, that there was the Lac-Mégantic incident. It was a horrific situation, because of a derailment and the impact that it had on a wonderful community in the province of Quebec. No doubt it was a driving force in terms of a number of initiatives that were taken, including the rail safety action review that we initiated back in 2017. After doing some work and recognizing that tragedy, along with some other issues, we put together that rail safety review back in 2017. For people from Manitoba, particularly the city of Winnipeg, there was a very recent incident that put a bit of a scare into the community, with the Winnipeg overpass on McPhillips. I made reference to the CP line being my southern boundary. Below the underpass is McPhillips Street, a street that feeds 90,000 residents, most of whom are in Winnipeg North. Twelve railway cars were derailed. The derailment happened just before eight o'clock in the morning. Imagine what rush hour was like then. McPhillips is a very busy street. The best way I can describe the types of cars that were derailed is that they were like tankers, black tube tankers, a dozen of them. At least those were the ones that were actually visible, derailed. Fortunately, even though they were derailed and twisted up, none of them fell over the bridge. None of them actually tipped, which was a good thing. As I say, there were 90,000-plus people just going to the north, not to mention Winnipeg Centre just to the south. That street had to be closed down for a while as we had to deal with that derailment. There was a Transportation Safety Board team that came out to check it out. There were other groupings of individuals that checked the site for hazards. It turns out that it was carrying bitumen that was being used for asphalt. I say that because I am very proud of the fact that in the Prairies we have a lot of commodities. We want to ensure that those commodities get to market. We want to ensure that our railways and our tracks are going to be there, not only for today but well into the future. Often, before it gets to the tracks, we go further west, to the B.C. coast, whether it is Vancouver or other ports. They play an important role. It is not just out west. One of my colleagues was telling me about Saint John, New Brunswick. I understand there are hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in that area, which has yet another port that has trains being hooked up. I think of the importance of that port and how those authorities are ultimately managed. Through this legislation, we are providing more opportunity for those authorities to be able to cover a wider scope of areas of responsibility. We are ensuring that they are going to be able to make those ports more efficient. We are ensuring that there is going to be a higher sense of accountability and more transparency. We have to ensure that people have a sense of what is actually in the ports, in terms of what is in the trains. As has been pointed out, the speed of a train has a profound impact. We cannot afford to get this wrong, because of the economics and because of the safety of our communities. Over the last number of years, the government has signed more free trade agreements than any other government in the history of the nation. That is a true fact. That emphasizes the degree to which the world has confidence in what Canada manufactures and produces and the commodities that we have to offer. It spreads across the spectrum, not to mention all the things that are coming into our nation. We are a trading nation. When the Conservatives talk about issues such as inflation, I would suggest that this legislation would assist with that, and not only for today but also for tomorrow. As a government that is concerned about our infrastructure, not only are we, through budgets, supporting infrastructure, but one only needs to look at CentrePort. The Minister of Transport was in the city of Winnipeg, investing in CentrePort as a way to build a safer environment for rail movement. These investments in infrastructure that we have made, along with the legislation that we are bringing forward, protect our industries. They will ensure that our supply chains are healthier going forward. As long as we have a government, as we do, that continues to work at developing and investing in things like our infrastructure, Canada will continue to be a country that is envied around the world. I would suggest that these strategic hubs, wherever they might be in Canada from coast to coast to coast, are not only economic drivers for the communities in which they are located, but also a lifeline to all of us, no matter where we live. That is why I said at the very beginning that I am quite pleased to be able to talk about this legislation, because it shows in a very real way what a proactive government can do to make a difference in the lives of all Canadians by legislatively putting into place safeguards and by ensuring that these hubs of activity continue to develop and provide economic opportunity. As I said, we want an economy that works for all Canadians. That is something we will continue to strive for.

Mr. Speaker, let me highlight something for the member opposite. There are very few pieces of legislation that are more important to Canadians than the budget implementation bill. I want to read what the leader of the Conservative Party said in regard to the budget implementation bill. He said, “We have announced that we are going to use every parliamentary tool in our tool kit to block this disastrous, risky and inflationary budget from passing until the Prime Minister makes the commitment to balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates.... I will keep speaking and keep speaking and keep blocking...until the Prime Minister rises with a plan”. A few hours later, we passed it, but the point is that the Conservatives will use whatever tactics they can come up with to prevent legislation from passing, even legislation that I think they may end up voting in favour of. From the Conservative Party's perspective, it is a destructive force inside the House. With every piece of legislation, Conservatives try to prevent it from ultimately passing. If we did not have another opposition party that was prepared to assist us in getting legislation through, we would never be able to pass anything, including the budget. Ultimately, that would cause an election.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that one of the ways in which we are able to advance legislation is by getting this support. It is often the New Democratic Party that provides this support. Even when, at times, it brings forward amendments, we will not necessarily support an amendment, for a wide variety of reasons. No doubt, they are very good reasons. However, it then means the NDP has to garner enough support from other political entities in the House. That is the advantage of a minority situation. I am very concerned. I think of a rail line and some of the dangers that are there, where it could be a spark from a train that causes a brush fire, especially when we think of what is taking place in our communities, particularly Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta, with all the wildfires. I am concerned about our water table, whether it is a lake or a river. That is one reason to ensure that we have legislation such as this, which provides more authority for the minister and ultimately provides more protection to Canadians and our environment. It might not answer all the questions coming forward, but it is a modernization. It would make a positive difference. We appreciate the support for the legislation, overall, that we receive from the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to be with the Minister of Transport in the city of Winnipeg on several occasions, I really appreciate the degree to which he would be open to ideas and thoughts. If there are ways in which the legislation can be improved, I would suggest to the member that she does not necessarily have to wait until it goes to committee; she can share those thoughts with the minister well in advance. There is one thing that I would highlight for the member, as I am sure she is already aware, because it was in an answer that I first learned today during question period. The minister responsible for oceans indicated that, when we formed government, 1% of Canada's ocean waters were actually being protected. Today, it is just under 15%. That is almost a fifteenfold increase, and we are on target to having 25% protected by the year 2025 and, moving forward, ideally hitting 30% of Canada's coastal waters. Obviously, this government is genuinely concerned about our coastal waters and our environment. That is why we have seen such significant movement on the conservation of our ocean waters, which we are responsible for.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. I do know that it has been talked about at great length. In the province of Manitoba, there are even individuals who have died this year as a result of rail crossings. I do not know the exact circumstances surrounding this, but I do know that these are tragic accidents. I do not have an analysis of which ones are private, which ones have the crossings and so forth. It would be an interesting thing for the committee to look at.

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. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the recorded divisions on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health; the second reading of Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care; the second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate); and the third reading of Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, be held before the other recorded divisions deferred today.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to support the New Democratic House leader, I would like to read a quote that I think should be taken into consideration in investigating this matter. The Leader of the Conservative Party said that they have announced they are going to use every parliamentary tool in their tool kit to block this risky and inflationary budget from passing until the PM makes the commitment to balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates. He then said, “I will keep speaking and keep speaking and keep blocking...until the Prime Minister rises with a plan”. I would suggest that we have witnessed something that is being orchestrated out of the Conservative leadership's office. I think it is worthy for us to investigate it. It is a very serious matter. One could say the behaviour we have seen from the Conservative Party, both on Friday and today, is in borderline contempt of our rules.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111(1) and section 39(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the biographical notes and the certificate of nomination for the appointment of Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. Pursuant to Standing Order 111(1), I request that the certificate of nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.