Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I think you made the right call when you indicated some discretion. This is much like what was done earlier today. The Speaker called for a vote, and a member stood up who was not wearing a tie; the member was still allowed to have his vote counted. I support what you have implied, which is that the member should be able to finish what she had to say, and you made a very clear statement on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, again, because I know there are certain members who are listening this time around, I will just repeat what I had indicated earlier. We saw the Speaker make a ruling, inadvertently, by allowing a member to stand for the introduction of a vote on a bill not wearing a tie and then, in your ruling, you used discretion in this situation. My understanding was that it was just so that we can get through the rubric. It is a one-time issue where we saw something earlier in a vote, and it is not something that is going to be accepted going forward because you are giving a detailed explanation. That was my understanding, so I would suggest that we just continue to get through the rubric. Members on all sides of the House have taken note of what you have said, and I am sure that the respective whips will make sure that it is reinforced in caucuses.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member in that there are a number of issues related to money laundering and the impact it has on Canadian society, in many different ways. One could talk about that very strong criminal element and how it gets into our communities. Therefore, it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I am glad to hear that the member is anxious to see the bill go to committee. Does the member or the Conservative Party already have a sense at this time of some amendments they would be proposing, or are they going to wait until committee stage?

Mr. Speaker, the member, in his concluding remarks, talked about unintended consequences, and at the beginning of his speech, he said it has taken a number of years to get the bill to this stage. One of the reasons it has taken the time it has is so we could do the proper consultation necessary. We need to allow civil servants to do what they do best in terms of ensuring that we have something of substance, in good form, so it can go to a standing committee to see if there are ways we can improve upon it there. Issues such as individual privacy are of great concern; there is no doubt about that. My question, as I posed to his colleague, is this: Does the member, having looked at the legislation, have any specifics about where he, personally, would like to see some changes?

Madam Speaker, the member has accurately captured the essence of what this legislation is doing. It is in essence establishing a national program. It does not matter, ultimately, where one lives in Canada; individuals will have access to, or potential access to, $10-a-day day care. It speaks volumes in terms of how legislation can change the future of Canadians, in particular for families that have young children, in such a positive way. I am wondering if the member could provide further comment on the significance and the benefits of a program that is national.

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to such important legislation. I suggest that what we are talking about this evening is historical legislation. If we take a look at it from the perspective of the Canada Health Act, the Canada Health Act has ensured that we have the health care system we have today. That is the way I look at Bill C-35. Bill C-35 is a very powerful statement. It is a statement to all Canadians, no matter where they live from coast to coast to coast, that says the government recognizes child care is of the utmost importance. Having a national program will make a difference in a very real and tangible way. Bill C-35 would put into place an act to ensure early learning and child care is there not only today but for future generations. It ensures that the federal government recognizes that it has a very important role to play. Not only will it be providing money, but there will be a higher sense of public accountability and transparency. It will ensure there is an affordability element to child care, no matter where one happens to live in Canada. This is something that I believe will make a positive difference, and we have already seen some early results. When the minister talked about the bill an hour or so ago, she talked about the number and percentage of women in the workforce today. There are record numbers in North America. We have more women entering into the workforce than we ever have. That is going to continue to grow. We know that, because we can look at the province of Quebec to see how successful its program has been. We have taken what has happened in the province of Quebec and amplified it to apply across the country. Everyone wins. I do not quite understand the Conservative Party's position. It was long ago when we attempted to do this before. That would have been 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the first thing the Harper government did was rip up the idea, the agreements and the thoughts on this. As a result, it set back a generation or two of people who would have received good-quality child care, not to mention what I suspect would have been better wages and resources for child care workers. Because there was no legislative component to this, Stephen Harper had a very easy time destroying it. Let us flash back to just a couple of years ago, when there were 338 Conservative candidates running around in the federal election. What was the Conservative Party saying then? We did not have full agreement from all the provinces at that time, but even at that point, less than two years ago, the federal Conservative Party was saying that it did not support this and that it would also rip it up. If we contrast the Conservatives with us, it is night and day. They do not support affordable, quality child care. What we have done since the election is accomplish an agreement with all of the provinces and territories, along with indigenous communities. That means provincial and territorial parties that are not only Liberal. They are Conservative and NDP. When I say “Conservative” I mean Progressive Conservative. I should qualify that because the current Conservative Party is a very far right Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, the member who is laughing understands exactly what I am saying. One only needs to read her comments. I think it is a positive thing that we have been encouraged by the Conservative Party to bring in this legislation. However, from my personal perspective, even if the Conservative Party was supporting the concept of affordable, quality child care, I would still be advocating for legislation of this nature because it is good legislation. If the Conservative Party was not so far to the right, I would be advocating for it, but with today's Conservative Party, it even becomes more important to have this legislation. I listened to the shadow minister. We do not call them critics; we call them shadow ministers. It is kind of scary when we stop to think about how the Conservatives are going to vote on this legislation. If we listen to the critic, we would think they are going to be voting against it. I look at that, as I know many of my colleagues do, and ask who they are actually listening to. Obviously it is not their constituents. Instead, they try to give a false impression that this is broken. They then go on to talk about all the day care and child care problems, being very critical of the provinces, which have the responsibility of providing child care systems. I wonder if they have the support of the provinces to rip up things of this nature that we are proposing. I wonder if the provinces are aware of just how critical the Conservative Party of Canada is in regard to the performance of provincial governments across this country and those in the territories, because that is who its members are criticizing. We finally have a federal government, a national government, that has a vision of progress, of moving Canada forward on child care, yet we have a Conservative Party that has an attitude of “No, not here in Canada”. It does not want money being spent, which we hear constantly coming from the Conservative Party. Yes, there is a cost to this. I recognize there is a cost going into the billions of dollars, and I think that is what offends Conservative Party members at the national level. However, let me suggest that if they open their eyes and try to get a better understanding of both the social and economic impact of a progressive policy of this nature, maybe they will do one of their traditional flip-flops, support the legislation and go against what they campaigned about on this issue. We all know the flip-flop they have taken on the price on pollution. Here is another good flip-flop for them, but a flip-flop in a positive way, where they would be supporting a national child care program. That would be encouraging to see the Conservative Party do. Let us think of the economic advantage. We would have more people in the workforce. We would be making a more equal playing field. Many more women would be able to plan a career and not need to worry about the cost of day care, child care or early learning. These are the advantages. When they get into the workforce, they will be paying taxes, taxes that in all likelihood they might not have been paying because they did not have affordable child care. It is healthier for the economy. There are parents who have their children in $10-a-day child care. We talk about other issues in Canada, things like inflation. This is helping families today in a very real and tangible way by putting thousands of dollars in their pockets, yet the Conservatives do not like the idea. They need to really start thinking about how society would benefit. It is not just the family who would benefit; it is everyone. All of us benefit when we have programs of this nature. Bill C-35, in essence, ensures we will continue to have a national child care program and a national commitment to financing and contributing to the care of children. That is a good thing. I hope the Conservatives will flip-flop on this issue and support it. I see the member is already standing to ask a question. I hope she will give a commitment to support the legislation. That is the question I would pose to her.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to Melissa that the Conservative Party has no ideas. It does not even want to contribute. It does not understand and appreciate what a national program is. For the very first time, we have a national government demonstrating that it wants to contribute to addressing the issue of child care. That has been a long time coming, and part of the fear is that the Conservatives might try to get rid of that step forward. I would suggest to Melissa that she might want to consider voting for any other political party but Conservative. Otherwise, child care would be going backward, and that would not be a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, the member will recall from the comments I made that we looked at how successful the program in Quebec was and saw Quebec is leading the country on the issue. We knew if we took the idea from Quebec and applied it universally from coast to coast to coast, we would see some very positive results, like affordable, quality child care and more women being engaged in the workforce. We are already witnessing that. A number of provinces are already at $10-a-day day care, and we have the highest percentage in North America of women engaged in the workforce. This is just the beginning, recognizing that Quebec has led the way. One of the nice things about being in a federal system is that when one province does something and excels at it, Ottawa has the opportunity to promote, encourage and, in this case, take specific action so that future generations will benefit, as with the program that was introduced by the Province of Quebec. I love the fact that the Province of Quebec brought in the program.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize right up front that in a minority situation it has been good to see progressive policies where the NDP and the Liberals have been able to work together so that we can ensure that this important legislation ultimately will be able to pass. The member highlights a situation that is very obvious. The Conservatives are putting up this number of speakers, because ultimately they like to delay legislation and prevent it from passing.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the incredible growth of the Indo-Canadian community over recent years has really put an emphasis on the need to look at international flights. I am tabling a petition from constituents who in essence are saying they would like to see an international flight from Winnipeg directly to India and preferably right to Amritsar. We need to see more international flights going from Canada to India. The petitioners are calling upon the government to take that into consideration and to work with and lobby the airlines, and in particular the Winnipeg International Airport, to see what can be done. This is not only for Indo-Canadian members, as the demand to fly to India as a desired location far exceeds even the Indo-Canadian community.

Madam Speaker, David Christopherson talked about David Johnston as an individual who had incredible credentials. Taking the issue seriously, the Prime Minister appointed David Johnston as the special rapporteur and agreed that, if the report said there should be a public inquiry, the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry. David Johnston got the security clearances, looked at all the facts and made some conclusions. This did not meet what the opposition party wanted to be able to see. Does the NDP still have personal confidence in David Johnston?

Mr. Speaker, if there were a way to wipe all that out and just start fresh, that would probably work best. When one starts talking with Canadians to try to understand what they want us to be talking about here in Ottawa, we find that we get caught in the Ottawa bubble at times. Just last week, we had a constituency week. During the constituency week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stopped by Winnipeg. She met with a wonderful group of people and visited a couple of businesses. The Minister of Seniors also stopped by and made a wonderful announcement about the New Horizons for Seniors program. I tried pickleball for the very first time with the Minister of Seniors, which went pretty well. Then there were a couple of other announcements, and I met with a lot of constituents. In fact, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg just last week and had an open public town hall. Hundreds of Winnipeggers, and I suspect others from outside Winnipeg, attended it. Whether it is from any of the events I listed or from my annual visit at the local McDonald's, I can tell members that not one person raised this issue that seems to be so deeply engaged in what I classify as the Ottawa bubble. It makes me reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister often tells us how we want to ensure that our constituents' ideas, thoughts and concerns are being brought from our constituencies to Ottawa and not vice versa. This is what we are hearing a lot about, and we need to put this into a real-time reality check. What are we talking about here? When we stop and think about it, we are talking about foreign interference. Opposition parties have already made their decision; they want to spend millions of dollars to have a public inquiry. What we need to do is look at how this issue has evolved. In the first place, we need to recognize that this is really not something new. Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the issue of foreign interference brought up to him and his government many years ago. He chose to do nothing, which is fine. It is the government's prerogative, I guess. The current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada today also chose to do nothing. We need to remember that he was the minister responsible for democratic reform at the time of those allegations. He chose to do nothing. We fast-forward to today, when he now chooses to be ignorant of the facts. Remember, the reality is that we have a special rapporteur, who comes by and makes his report. In his report, he does not recommend a public inquiry, for a wide variety of reasons. He sets in place a special annex, and in order to be able to look over that part of the report, one needs a certain security clearance. He has invited the leader of the Conservative Party to read it, but the leader of the Conservative Party says, “No, no, I don't want to do that.” He comes up with some lame explanation. The reality is that he does not want to know the truth behind the report. It is the same thing for the Bloc party. I will give the NDP credit in the sense that its leader recognizes that there is nothing wrong with being more informed on the issue of foreign interference. I give him full credit for that. He is doing this as opposed to blindly saying things and politicizing the issue, which is what we have been hearing from the Conservative Party for weeks now. Its members are more concerned about ratcheting up the political interference issue. They are doing this to such a degree that, I would ultimately argue, they are almost doing what foreign interference is meant to do. This is to try to instill a lack of public confidence in our democratic system. They go out of their way on social media to get their constituents upset about an issue that has been there for over 10 years. Imagine, we have the leader of the Conservative Party tweeting out all these horrors of foreign interference, but while he was the minister of democratic reform, those horrors were taking place and he chose to do absolutely nothing. That seems to be a double standard. What we are seeing from the Conservative Party is not what is in the best interests of Canadians, our democracy or our institutions. It is what the leader believes is in the political best interest of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what we are witnessing. Just because there is united opposition on an idea does not make it right. Even a minority of one can be correct. Who is the special rapporteur? He is the former governor general of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointment and someone who has actually done thorough investigations in the past. Members can read what Stephen Harper had to say about the Hon. David Johnston at the time of the appointment. He was outstanding and unquestionable in terms of his integrity and “a great Canadian”. Members can also look at the investigations Mr. Johnston conducted previously. If members think that Mr. Harper was wonderful in his praise and recognition of the integrity of David Johnston, they can take a look at what the former senior NDP member David Christopherson from Hamilton had to say. I do not have the actual quote, but I heard it earlier today. If members think that Stephen Harper was kind, generous and truth-telling in describing the Hon. David Johnston, they should read what David Christopherson had to say, a former senior New Democratic member of Parliament who was universally well respected by all political parties. He gave him glowing marks. How could one possibly question his integrity? However, because we have opposition parties prepared to politicize this issue to the nth degree, I would suggest they are prepared to throw a great Canadian under the bus so they can score cheap political points. I do not say that lightly. It is not like this issue surfaced three or four years ago. This issue has been there for many years. The procedure and House affairs committee had the opportunity to investigate the issue. How many motions did we receive three years ago from the Conservative Party or any other political party at PROC suggesting that we look into foreign interference? It was there and it was real, but it was none. Standing committees have wonderful opportunities. They can travel the country to investigate and can call all forms of witnesses before them. They can do that to come up with recommendations and policies and provide guidance to the government, political parties and their leadership circles. However, that did not take place. One of the first actions we took as a government with this Prime Minister was establishing the parliamentary security committee, which is a committee of the House of Commons with all-party participation that has top secret clearance. Its members have the highest security clearance one can have, and they have looked into this issue. I suspect they are looking into the issue even more, and there are other agencies doing so. By the way, this is a committee that the Prime Minister put into place. The parliamentary secretary for electoral reform listed off about six or seven items that this government has acted on since we became government. This is a government that has taken action on foreign interference, unlike Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party when he was minister of democratic reform, who did absolutely nothing on the issue. This government has actually taken action on the issue. What the Conservatives do is everything they can think of. This is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc. Before the Prime Minister was the prime minister, we sat with third party status in the far corner. If we read the S.O. 31s from that time, we will see that they were about personal attacks on the then leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. Even after we became government and the leader of the Liberal Party became the Prime Minister of Canada, every opportunity they have had, whether it was justified or not, they have attached the word “scandal” so that social media lights up, with the plug-in being from the Conservative Party of Canada. They are on the track of doing the best they can with character assassination, not subject matter. It is not about the issues of the day. The issues of the day, I would suggest, are inflation, housing, immigration and health care. These are the issues that Canadians are talking about if we listen to what constituents are saying. However, that is not what is happening in the Ottawa bubble, because the Conservative Party wants to continue to push an issue that it took absolutely no action on when it had the opportunity to do so, contrary to what this government has done. We talk about the foreign registry. The Conservative Party clicks its heels and says to make it happen and then asks why it is not happening today. We are moving in that direction. There is the word “consultations”. They need to take place. The Conservatives know there is an obligation on the government to work with other stakeholders. They know that, but they seem to believe that all one needs to do is wave a magical wand around and, poof, we now have a foreign registry and everyone has to register. It is completely incredible the way the Conservative Party is so focused on not what is in the public's best interest but what is in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is unfortunate. Take a look at some of the numbers. CSIS provided a report, and I would like to quote from that report. This is actually their annual report of 2022. It is apolitical, unless they are now going to accuse our law enforcement agencies of being political: In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security. In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference— Let us underline those two words, “foreign interference”. —terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada. I said to underline the words “foreign interference”. Let me go on to the next paragraph. There is something really important here: “In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports.” Here is the next part, which I want to underline: “In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence [reports].” It is a busy agency. When we think about those reports, we hear about two or three members of Parliament. It is a lot larger than that. They provided federal briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I do not know if that means we are going to have another 47 matters of privilege being raised. I suspect that those briefings are taking place. Maybe what we should do is have PROC look into the matter. However, the Conservatives do not want anything unless it can be publicized with the word “scandal” attached to it so that they can fundraise off of it. Shame on them. It is not only members of Parliament. There are 26 others provincially. I am assuming they are talking about parliamentarians, or MLAs in the province of Manitoba. They also note 17 municipally elected officials, who could be, I suspect, anyone from a mayor to a councillor to a reeve. There is no denying that there is a serious issue. The Prime Minister himself has said that an attack on one is an attack on all of us, but it is about the manner in which we choose to deal with the issue. When I posed a question to a Bloc member, he said we could have had more detail; we need more detail. Bloc members need to realize, like the Conservative Party, that their very own leader does not want the details. The Bloc has already agreed that it wants a public inquiry. There has been no difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc. They have wanted a public inquiry right from the very beginning. Where was the Bloc when Stephen Harper saw this? Why did the Bloc not argue for a public inquiry when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of democratic reform? Where was the Bloc then? It did not have a very strong footprint here, that is true, but I can tell members one thing: Even with that little footprint it was nowhere to be found. Today, what is the difference between the Bloc and the Conservatives?

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing to see the shameful behaviour of the members opposite when they undertake personal character assassinations of someone as distinguished as David Johnston. It is important to recognize that David Johnston was in fact a Stephen Harper appointment. To get a sense of the integrity of Mr. Johnston, I would suggest they read what Mr. Harper had to say about him. To get an even better sense of that, all they have to do is read what David Christopherson said at the PROC committee. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing is the shameful behaviour of character assassination against a distinguished Canadian. I say shame on the members opposite who are choosing to take this course. My question to the member is this. Where was the Conservative Party when there was foreign interference being applied here in Canada while Stephen Harper and the Leader of the Conservative Party had the reins of power? It was nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, at times we can barely tell the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc members when it comes to certain issues, and those issues are more and more frequent. It is unfortunate because we have seen a character assassination of an outstanding Canadian. He is someone who was appointed by Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister. He has provided a report. Part of that report is an annex and, to receive and read the annex, one has to get a certain security clearance. The leader of the Bloc Party has chosen to say that he wants to be completely ignorant of all those facts. He does not want the briefing. The briefing would explain why the former governor general chose not to recommend a public inquiry. Could the member give a clear indication as to why the Bloc Party, more specifically the leader of the Bloc Party, is refusing to get the clearance necessary to see the documents that led to the recommendations of the former governor general?

Mr. Speaker, I will give a bit of a different approach from that of the member opposite and recognize that foreign interference is something that is not new to Canada. In fact, we have seen it now for well over a decade. When I take a look at what the former administration did, I find that it did nothing. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible, he chose to do nothing on the issue of foreign interference. We have taken a number of actions to date on the issue of foreign interference, and I am wondering if the member could speculate as to what he believes the Conservative government should have been doing, if anything, when the issue was raised with that particular government. Does he believe that this is the only government that has been in a position to deal with the issue?

Mr. Speaker, the same principle of the statement the member just made should have been put to himself, looking in a mirror, prior to him standing up on the first point of order. I can assure this House that the tone of my voice is at times not quite as loud as that of the member who made the point of order. Getting back to the issue at hand, at the end of the day, this is an issue of a government that has in many different ways taken tangible actions to ensure that the integrity of our system is in place and protected. As the parliamentary secretary clearly indicated to the House in a very detailed way, the government has taken a number of steps. Those steps, I believe, are somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven or eight tangible things that have made a difference. There are opportunities for us to deal with this issue. The issue for me is whether the Conservatives and the Bloc in particular are going to want to continue to use this as a political tool. Are they prepared to put the politics aside and deal with this based on what is in the best interests of Canadians as opposed to those of their respective political parties? To me, that is the real question, because if they really want to get down to business, there are all sorts of ways we can do that in a co-operative way. Something we have consistently been saying from the beginning is that for an issue of this nature, an attack on one is an attack on all. We will continue to do our best to ensure that any sort of foreign interference is minimized.

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like there is still a sense of soreness on the other side that they did not win in the last election, so now they are trying to come up with excuses or any sort of rationale that they can blame, as opposed to it being their platform or other issues related to the Conservative Party. I will provide a quote from an article for the member, just so that he is aware. It says, “The U.S. Ambassador to Canada says the question of whether or not foreign election interference is happening is less important than whether it’s been successful, and he hasn’t seen any proof that alleged interference attempts by China in Canada’s elections have managed to affect the results.”. I know the member thinks very highly of the American counterparts. Maybe he would recognize that at least this particular individual is right. Maybe that would give the member a little more sense of comfort in recognizing that the Conservatives were not defeated because of foreign interference, but because of the campaign period itself.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the special rapporteur, David Johnston, comes out with the report. A part of the report is an annex. That annex explains and provides justification for the report for not having a public inquiry. It is really important for Canadians to understand that the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Bloc Québécois have made the decision that they do not want to hear the facts on the issue. They do not want to know why the former governor general came to the conclusion that a public inquiry was not warranted. I would suggest that Canadians from coast to coast to coast should be asking the question of why it is that the Conservative and Bloc leaders do not want to know the facts. It seems to me it is because they are more interested in the politics than they are in the facts, and that is somewhat unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the official opposition in the House when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The member can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that Thomas Mulcair ever raised the issue, even though we know foreign interference was taking place then. The Conservative Party has seen the political optics for calling for a public inquiry and tying it to some sort of scandal. The Bloc has bought into it, but hopefully the NDP will not buy into it because, as the member knows, even when Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the NDP, sat in opposition, he never raised the issue of foreign interference, even though it was happening then. Today we have a government that has taken numerous actions to deal with foreign interference. It seems to me today that the opposition is more prepared to deal with the partisan politics of the issue as opposed to dealing with what is in the best interests of Canadians, including protecting our democratic institutions. If opposition members were concerned about that in the first place and felt a public inquiry was necessary, why would they not have argued it when it was happening years ago? Why did they not raise the issue years ago? I would suggest it is because there is a new, shiny leader of the Conservative Party who has determined that this could be a good political issue. Other opposition members are buying into it or do not want to be seen as being soft on the issue, when there are other ways this issue could be dealt with that would minimize foreign interference. That is what I would recommend members to look at doing.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the correction. The member is correct that the Conservatives did lose three consecutive elections. However, it is a bit dangerous to ask me to put myself in the minds of Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party as to why they chose not to call a public inquiry. Back then, I would not have supported it, and I have serious doubts about it today and do not support it. When dealing with international foreign interference, there is a better way of doing it. I believe that, if we are prepared to put party politics to the side and start dealing with issues that Canadians and constituents want us to debate in the House of Commons, everyone would be better off for it. It is not an issue of avoiding the topic. As I say, this topic has been around for 10 years. If we listen to experts, we will find that it will continue to be around, and that is one of the reasons why it is worth us taking a look at it, and why we have committees that are looking into it. It is to ensure that we can minimize foreign interference. In no way is it acceptable to any parliamentarian, no matter where they sit in the House.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could expand on his comments about the commissioner, David Johnston, making it very clear that there is an annex to the report, which has a security-related issue, and has really encouraged all three leaders of the opposition parties to listen to the briefing, read the report and participate so they will have a better understanding of why there is no need for a public inquiry. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that.

Madam Speaker, in my comments earlier I made reference to the Ottawa bubble, and I really do believe there is an Ottawa bubble on this particular situation. We had our constituency week last week. The Prime Minister was in Winnipeg and did a town hall. Hundreds of people showed up for it, and no one is talking about this in the community. Canadians are concerned about a wide variety of other issues. This specific issue has been there for over 10 years. It is only in the last couple of years we have seen more attention being given to it. There are other mechanisms. I am wondering if the member can provide the sort of feedback she is getting from her constituents on the priority of issues.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been underestimated is public awareness. I think a great deal of education could be espoused by making more people aware of the degree to which wood is making a comeback as a building product. We are now seeing skyscrapers being built with wood. Most people would be of the mindset that we require metal or steel to build anything above six or seven stories. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts with regard to the way that wood is making a comeback in that industry.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have had the opportunity to express some thoughts in regard to Bill S-222. In fact, it is an issue that has been debated for quite a while here in Ottawa. What surprises me, at least in part, is the fact that we have not ultimately seen its passage. As the member has referenced, this bill has been other bills in the past, and there does seem to be a fairly wide base of support for what the bill is actually talking about. I think we constantly underestimate the true value of our wood products here in Canada, which can be broken down into different areas. The area that seems to get a great deal of attention is softwood, the trading that takes place between Canada and the United States, and how the wood barons from the States want to upset the apple cart, believing that, by doing so, their own specific industry will benefit. However, that has proven not to be the case, and it is a thorn in the side that has caused a great deal of hardship here in Canada and, I would suggest, also in the United States. I appreciated the question posed to the member in regard to it, because dealing with wood tariffs and the trade-related issues and the impact they have on the industry here is an ongoing issue in terms of production and harvesting of wood, as well as impacts on the consumer in the United States who wants to be able to have Canadian wood to use in building homes and so forth. I just want to start off by recognizing the fact that this is still there and continues to be a thorn. As the Minister of Finance and the Minister of International Trade will tell us, what is important in dealing with that issue is that we make sure we get the right deal, a fair deal for Canada, and that we do what we can as a government to minimize the cost. There is significant cost related to companies and job losses and so forth in Canada when these types of trade issues surface, and it is indeed unfortunate. When we think of timber buildings or timber, most people would be quite surprised not only to find the degree to which wood is better for the economy in many different ways, and for our environment, but also that it is something we can use in the construction of large buildings. In the late 1980s, I remember going downstairs in a house I had purchased and finding out it had a wood foundation. That was quite a surprise for me. I had always thought the foundation would be made of concrete. Then, after investigating the matter, I found that, in the late 1980s, people were talking about the insulating factor and the structure of the wood being more than adequate in terms of longevity and the life of the home. Ever since, I have been very much open to the idea of how we could better utilize wood. The member spoke of it from an industry point of view, and there is no doubt that Canada is very well positioned in this industry. I am not sure we rank number one, but we would definitely be in the top three, possibly second. I think it is between Canada and the United States. However, wood harvesting is a strong, healthy industry, and there are multiple players, both advocating and ensuring that we have an ongoing stock of trees into the future. That is something critically important. When we look at timber buildings now, my understanding is that, more and more, we are starting to see them built higher than 10 floors. The record is probably somewhere between 14 and 20 floors; I do not know offhand. However, I know that, in speaking to the legislation in the past, I have made reference to a couple of the buildings. If one had the opportunity to take a look at the construction and see some of these towers of timber, they would be quite impressed by their strength and the tonnage that can be held by the construction of these buildings. They are becoming more and more popular. I think that, in the last decade or so, we have seen a growth in that industry that is fairly impressive. In fact, I was looking at one story that made a comment in regard to how, in the city of Toronto, a number of the skyscrapers, condominiums and so forth, are being made of timber. That is why I really believe this would expand opportunities. Over the weekend, Winnipeg hosted the 2023 Skills Canada National Competition. Skills Canada does a fantastic job of bringing young people who have skills and are working in the trades to the city of Winnipeg, where there were literally thousands of students who attended in the convention centre. They got a sense of the degree to which those skills are there and are very real, producing jobs into the future. One would need to look only at the carpentry area and some of the construction being done with that component. I think there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 different skill sets. Many of them are related to wood products and construction. Organizations directly and indirectly benefit from the development of that particular industry. This morning, my colleague made reference to forest fires in her area, and there are forest fires virtually throughout the country. We all need to be concerned about that. It raises the environmental issues. It is an issue of stewardship and making sure that, as much as possible, we are minimizing the negative impacts on our environment and expanding where we can in industries that make us that much healthier as a nation. I would suggest that, through the passage of the bill, we would see the promotion of timber and wood in construction areas, with the federal government playing a role; it could contribute to ensuring that the industry continues to grow, and that is one of the reasons I had posed the question to the member opposite in regard to public awareness. I really and truly do not believe that the public as a whole is aware of the fact that skyscrapers nowadays can, in fact, be built using wood products, that there is a surge taking place, and that it is becoming more common to hear of buildings six storeys or more being built primarily with wood. I think, when we take a look into the future of the growth of our country, whether industrial, commercial or residential, the demand for wood is going to continue to increase. It is going to be important that the federal government work with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders in ensuring that this is an industry that does well into the future because of the many positive environmental reasons, plus the creation of jobs and so forth. There are all sorts of opportunities there, and I am glad to see that the bill is once again before the House. I believe, as I am sure all members do, that it will pass through, and I look forward to it ultimately becoming law.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that, at least in good part, we have support coming from the Bloc with regard to Bill S-5. One of the issues that the hon. member raised was guaranteeing a healthy environment for Canadians. When I look at the legislation, it is a very strong and powerful step in the right direction. I think Canadians as a whole would see it as positive. I have no doubt that it would take a bit of time to work out how we best deal with ensuring that right. Does the Bloc believe that the only way it could be dealt with is through a constitutional change? If so, does the member really believe that, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or any other jurisdiction, people want to see the Constitution reopened?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts in regard to the issue of toxic chemicals. Given the way technology has advanced and given chemists' contributions to many aspects of life in general, we know there is a need to stay on top of the issue of toxic chemicals and chemicals that could be listed as toxic. Does she have any insights that she would like to share with the House with respect to that?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Going out of second reading, there was a sense that we would be receiving virtually unanimous support. Although the Green Party had reservations in regard to Bill S-5, it looked as though it was going in a forward direction, with the Conservatives actually supporting it. Having listened to Conservatives earlier today, the best I can tell is that they do not want to support the bill because of an amendment related to tailings ponds. The member was there at the committee stage. Can he explain to the House what he believes is so substantial within the amendment that it is now causing the Conservative Party to vote against the legislation as a whole?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that will have a very positive impact on Canadians. If we listen to what Canadians are talking about, we often hear the issue of the environment coming up. Within the Liberal caucus, I can assure people who are following the debate that, whether it is me or members of the Liberal caucus, we have a high degree of sensitivity in wanting to ensure that what we are doing here in Ottawa reflects Canadians' desires and interests in terms of what they are telling us. Canadians tell us that the environment does matter and that it counts. We have a government in a minority situation. They would like to see members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, recognize the importance of the issue of the environment and start taking actions to support the words we use during an election. We see the position that the official opposition is taking on the environment. I want to use two examples. Today, it is all about Bill S-5 and what is happening with it. It is about how the Conservative Party has once again made a change towards the environment. I would suggest that this is a negative change. This is consistent with what the Conservative Party did in the last federal election. We constantly get criticized by the Conservatives regarding a price on pollution. Most Canadians see and recognize the value of this, as do other countries and jurisdictions around the world. They see that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on pollution. However, only the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons, from the get-go, said it opposed a price on pollution. After being tuned up by Canadians, it actually said it is now in favour of a price on pollution. In the last federal election, every one of the members sitting here today actually said they agreed with a price on pollution in their election platform. They all campaigned on it. However, with a new, shiny, ultra-right leader, they now say they do not support a price on pollution. How is that relevant to the debate we are having today? It is relevant because not that long ago, about two weeks ago, the Conservatives were telling Canadians that they voted in favour of Bill S-5 and they thought Bill S-5 was a good idea. They were right two weeks ago when they were telling that to Canadians. They were ultimately responding, in part, to what their constituents were telling them. One of the biggest things in Bill S-5 deals with the right to a healthy environment. Imagine taking a statement of that nature and incorporating it into law. This is why I asked my NDP colleague to provide a comment on it. Given what Canadians are telling us about the importance of the environment, how could someone oppose that? How is it possible that the Conservatives would vote against it? If we want to talk about popping the bubble of hope, that is what the Conservatives have done in recent days. The Conservatives have said that they now oppose Bill S-5. Why did they flip-flop?

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the leader of the Green Party and the suggestion about looking at the right to a healthy environment. At the end of the day, it is incorporated into the legislation. I suspect that what we will see will be more information being provided on the issue of those rights in the coming days, weeks and months ahead. I think we need to recognize that this is a significant step forward, where we have a government policy, in essence, making it very clear. It is more than just a policy; it is done through legislation. Canadians have a right to a healthy environment. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is to talk about this. There has been a lot of discussion about the environment in general, but when we get a statement of that nature in law, it is a significant step forward. Obviously, it is not going to resolve all the issues. Mechanisms, protocols and so forth need to be established. At the very least, we have a government for the first time that is actually incorporating that sort of a principle in legislation. Would he not agree that the incorporation of a right to a healthy environment is good for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, they say it is because of me. I do not think I carry that much influence within the Conservative caucus. I can say that the Conservatives are on the wrong side of yet another important environmental issue. They need to understand that the environment does matter. When they say they are now opposed to it, what are they voting against? They are voting against what their leader often talks about: common sense. Why would one oppose the right to a healthy environment? Yes, a lot of regulations and protocols need to be established to ensure that right, but, again, for the very first time, we actually have that now in legislation, the very same legislation that the official opposition is going to vote against when it comes up for a vote. Maybe we should wait another week or two. Maybe they might change their mind again on this issue. It is an important vote. We are dealing with additional regulations to deal with toxic chemicals. What is it about toxic chemicals that the Conservative Party of Canada feels, within this legislation, is bad? We are not hearing that. The Conservatives are not saying that they do not like this legislation because of this particular aspect. They are talking about tailings ponds and apparently that is what caused them to flip, even though, before the amendment, it came to the House from the Senate with it. One has to start questioning where the Conservative Party is on the environment. I will give part two when we begin debate again after question period.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue speaking to Bill S-5, which we began debating again a few hours ago. When I started my comments, I made reference to the fact that I think there is a great deal of disappointment from many stakeholders due to the Conservative Party's change of heart. If we were to check Hansard from a couple of weeks back when we were talking about Bill S-5, I suspect one would see that I even implied that the Conservative Party was in favour of Bill S-5. Something has happened in the last little while that has convinced the Conservative Party to vote against Bill S-5. I do believe that it is a bad decision by the Conservatives. They still have a little bit of time to think about what they are doing with Bill S-5. I hope they will considerate it once again and adopt their original position of voting in favour of Bill S-5 because it does a wide variety of things, all of which, I believe, support the wishes and desires of many Canadians, the constituents we represent. It is interesting to look at the legislation. It covers a number of areas that I know Canadians are very concerned about. I wanted to highlight a few of those spots and then maybe go into depth on the issue of our environment and how important it is that, as parliamentarians, we do what we can to support legislation of this nature and broaden that support so it goes beyond just legislation. There are many budgetary measures. Canadians are watching. They are very much concerned about how politicians are voting on important issues of the day, the environment being one of them. It has been really interesting to listen to the debates, not only now but also during second reading. I had the opportunity to not only address the issue in part but also to listen to a good number of people. Whether it was in the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, or the standing committees of Parliament, we have had a great deal of debate on this issue. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a substantial piece of legislation that provides a great deal of comfort to Canadians, is being enhanced and given strength after a couple of decades. There are some areas that I know people would be very, very pleased with. There are areas of concern, such as animal testing, for example. We are seeing non-animal testing methods being incorporated to a degree that it is going to be encouraged. I see that as a very strong positive. It is something that should be mentioned during the debate. It deals with the issue of reconciliation. Thinking about the environment and the stewardship of our environment, how can one not factor in our first nations that have taken such good, quality care of our environment? If we get into the beliefs, heritage and culture of indigenous peoples, we get a very encouraging reflection on our environment and how important it is that we are there for mother earth. We can think of UNDRIP and the recommendations through reconciliation. As a government, we made the commitment to respect UNDRIP and its ruling. We will continue to support that. That is also incorporated into the legislation. There are ideas about the toxic substances out there and how those substances could be labelled. It is important that the minister has the ability to ensure there is more transparency and accountability on this issue. Again, this is within the legislation. The expectation from the public as a whole is that information is knowledge. Finding out the content of many of these substances through labelling so the government can ensure there is higher transparency is a very strong positive. Those are three of the things I want to provide a brief comment on, as well as emphasize a couple of other points that are really quite encouraging. I talked about the idea of a right to a healthy environment. This morning there were a number of members who made reference to that aspect of the legislation. It is encouraging to hear members, whether from the Bloc or the NDP in particular, supporting that right in a very tangible way. It was interesting when one member of the Bloc suggested it should be incorporated into Canada's Constitution. Even the principles of protecting the environment and what could be incorporated into the Constitution interest me, but I do not think Canadians as a whole want to see that debate on the Constitution opened up, not at this time, and I suspect, not for quite a while. However, it emphasizes the point, which is the reason I make reference to it, that people are very much concerned about environmental rights. This bill not only talks about the importance of a right to a healthy environment, but also, for the first time, incorporates it into legislation. I see that as a very strong positive. We will get more details as time goes on as to how that is going to be assured, as well as the protocols and procedures that will be established to ensure Canadians feel comfortable knowing not only that they have that right to a healthy environment, but also that it is incorporated into the legislation for the very first time. I know the Green Party has some concerns with the legislation. It is with some admiration that I look to the leader of the Green Party and her history on this particular file. She had pointed back, I believe, to 1988. That was the year I was first elected, and I can say that, back in 1988, there was not much debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the environment. There is no doubt that over the last three decades we have seen a substantial growth of public debate and discussion on the issue of the environment. I would acknowledge that she is one Canadian who has been at the forefront of some of these environmental pushes. Where we disagree would be when I talk, for example, about the right to a healthy environment, I believe it is substantive, but I know members of the Green Party would have liked to have seen more to it than just the statements being referenced in the legislation. The idea of providing strength to the regulations regarding toxic chemicals, and the way in which government needs to play a very strong role, is absolutely critical, and this legislation deals with that. When I posed questions earlier to, and listened to comments from, in particular the Conservative Party, it was a Conservative member who seemed to be upset with the fact that there are too many regulations and too much paperwork involved with environmental policy. That is what he was making reference to. I would suggest that these regulations are really important. When we talk about toxic chemicals, legislation does not deal with every aspect of it. Rather, it establishes the framework. We rely on our civil servants to be able to provide the details, through regulations and other forums, so we know we are in fact doing what the principles of the legislation set forward in good part. Therefore, unlike what the Conservative member earlier today was trying to imply, I would suggest to members that good, solid environmental regulations are absolutely critical to supporting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The member should not be shy in terms of recognizing that, but that was the only member who actually made reference to that. When the critic brought up the issue, I had posed the question in regard to why the Conservative Party had changed its positioning on this legislation, because the only thing we had really heard, officially, coming from the Conservative Party was in regard to the tailings ponds. If the Conservatives were to look at the tailings ponds issue, they would find that there is no substantive difference in terms of what came into the House of Commons during second reading, went into committee and then came back. I would challenge the Conservatives to explain that difference in terms of the degree to which it has caused the Conservative Party to reverse its policy position on the legislation. The bottom line is that, in regard to the issue of the environment, there is an obligation for legislative measures and budgetary measures. I asked the question in terms of how we mix those things in together, and I want to provide what is a fairly extensive listing of the types of things that we do to complement the legislation. Let us think of it in this way. This is what the Government of Canada is doing today: clean electricity investment tax credit; clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit; clean hydrogen investment tax credit; enhancing the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit; expanding the eligibility for clean technology investment tax credit; a clean electricity focus for the Canada Infrastructure Bank; supporting clean electricity projects such as the Atlantic Loop; securing major battery manufacturing here in Canada; delivering the Canada growth fund; enhancing the reduced tax rate for zero-emissions technology manufacturers; and supporting clean technology projects. There are so many things that one could actually make reference to with respect to the environment, including banning harmful single-use plastics and making zero-emissions vehicles that much more affordable. I have already commented extensively in the past about the price on pollution. These are all things, both budgetary measures and legislative measures, which the Government of Canada over the last number of years has put into place as a direct response to listening to what Canadians' expectation of the government is. We are bringing that to Ottawa, listening to what our constituents are saying and developing legislative and budgetary measures that support the desires of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and for good reason. All one needs to do is take a look at what is happening in our environment today and listen to what is happening around the world. Canada does have a leadership role to play, and this is a government that is living up to that leadership. We see every day, through the minister, with respect to the car he drives, the policies he announces and the budgets he presents to the House of Commons through the Minister of Finance, that this is a government that is committed to protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in terms of everything this legislation has actually gone through, whether in the Senate committee meetings or the House of Commons committee meetings. I was not present during those House of Commons standing committee meetings, but I can tell members, from everything I have heard, that the Conservative Party's decision to not support Bill S-5 was because of an amendment that was brought forward by the NDP and then supported. It is an amendment that raises an issue in a public fashion. In terms of substantive action, though, I am not too sure. Can the member, who will likely get another question, tell us specifically what it is with that particular amendment that would have an outcome such that the Conservative Party has made the decision to ultimately change and flip-flop its position on Bill S-5, given the importance of this legislation? I would suggest that the member cannot clearly demonstrate that.