Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the support base. Leger did a poll on the issue of gun control and found that 84% of Canadians believe that the government is on the right track in dealing with the issue of gun control. The final report from the Mass Casualty Commission, investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead, made several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada's gun laws. In essence, the report calls for stricter gun laws. It is significant. I am wondering if the member could be a little clearer in terms of specifically what it is in the legislation that she opposes. It is not fair to say that we are taking guns from hunters, indigenous people or farmers. That is just not true. The member is trying to give the impression that hunters and so forth are not going to have guns as a result of the passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, between 2020 and 2021, there was a 5% decrease across the country in gun crime. The member can say whatever he likes, but he cannot change that particular fact. I would remind the member opposite that last year, through border controls, over 1,200 guns and over 73,000 weapons were confiscated at the border. However, as we bring forward legislation and present budgets to deal with the issue of public safety, the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation. Can the member indicate how many guns were confiscated at the border while Stephen Harper was the prime minister?

Madam Speaker, the member talked about bail reform, which is in Bill C-48. Allow me to provide a quote that comes from the association representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel. It was released earlier today, I believe. It states: Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk. We appreciate that [the justice minister and the public safety minister] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised. We have seen a great deal of filibustering on Bill C-21. I wonder if the member is of the same opinion as I am that, when it comes to Bill C-48, we should get some sort of unanimous consent to have a round of debate on it and then allow it to go to committee so we can deal with it in a quicker fashion.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that a number of members have talked about border controls. I have referred to the fact that, last year alone, over 1,200 guns were confiscated at the border. We have invested in border controls. I have posed this question to other members and would like to see if the member can respond to it. Is he aware of any guns that were confiscated, any sense of the number, while Stephen Harper was prime minister, because he did cut back on that? With respect to the bill itself, concerns have been raised not just by the Liberal Party but by all opposition parties regarding the Conservative Party's desire to spread misinformation in order to achieve fundraising goals. I would like the member's thoughts on that.

Madam Speaker, the member is just wrong. He makes an assertion but does not care about the facts. He says that we are not doing anything at the borders. Last year, alone, there was 1,200 guns that were confiscated at the border and over 73,000 weapons. The member knows this because I raised this issue earlier. He just closes his eyes and pretends it did not happen, and he says something that is not true. That is a theme in regard to this legislation. The Conservatives try to give the impression that we are going out and taking all the guns away from hunters, farmers and indigenous people. It is just not true. Does the member not realize that espousing misinformation does a disservice to Canadians? Why does the Conservative Party continue to do it?

Madam Speaker, I would like to read from a news article: “The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada's gun laws.” The headline reads, “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”. Is there any situation in which the Conservative Party would support stricter gun laws?

Madam Speaker, I was referencing the fact that what we have today is very solid legislation. In good part, it is because of all the efforts that have been put into making this legislation what it is today. We could go back to the department and the consultations of hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians and different stakeholders, all contributing to the original legislation, which went through the Senate. The idea was that by having it go through Senate we would get it passed in a more timely fashion. The Senate did a fantastic job, as did the House of Commons and colleagues who sit on the standing committee for the House. I referred to the numerous amendments that were proposed. The Prime Minister has indicated that when we bring in legislation and if there are things we can do to give strength to the legislation as a government, we are open to doing that. It does not have to be a government amendment, and Bill S-5 is a clear demonstration of that. Members from all political parties contributed to the debate and dialogue and listened to the presentations, and many amendments ultimately were accepted. When I started my comments, I was pleased to recognize that members on all sides of the House, like the Senate, would be passing the legislation. As a parliamentarian over the years, I have seen more people becoming concerned about our environment and what we are doing about it. It is a legitimate concern among Canadians, and it is a growing concern. When we think about the legislation, we can talk about the toxic substances in the environment. We can talk about how the legislation would set up a better regime for the management of chemicals, or how it would modernize that, or how it would put in place a system that would allow for the science of today to be applied in many different ways with regard to our environment and the types of policy decisions being made. We ultimately will be passing and environmental protection law. All of this will have a significant impact, but it is not just this legislation. For many years now, we have taken an approach to deal with the environment from both a legislative perspective and a budgetary perspective. Let me give some examples. When people think of our environment, they often think of plastics. How often do we see plastic grocery bags hanging from trees? It is quite a bit. We can talk about the banning of single-use plastics as an example of a government action that has been received quite well among the public. We can talk about how, through a budget, we were able to support and incentivize people to purchase hybrids or electric vehicles. We brought in other legislation that made a very powerful statement about net-zero emissions by 2050 and then have regulations to support that, not waiting a year for reports, much like in this legislation. There would be mechanisms put in place to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability. I like the fact that if individual Canadians have specific concerns, a procedure would be in place to allow them to elevate that concern to the government, with some expectation that at least it would be taken into consideration. When we put everything together and talk about the types of things that we have seen, such as the expansion of land under conservation, the expansion of the number of national parks, bringing in legislation of this nature and supporting the environment through budgetary measures, it has been made very clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been genuine in ensuring that we pass on a healthier, cleaner environment to future generations by putting together a framework that would enable it to continue on.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support this legislation, Bill S-5. I understand, from what I have been told, that all members of the House recognize its value and are in favour of supporting it. As the House will know, it is a substantive piece of legislation. It has been a long time since we have seen substantial changes to our environmental laws, which is the essence of what Bill S-5 would do. In many ways, it would make substantive changes that would modernize the law and make a very powerful statement to all Canadians. They have a right to a healthy environment. The essence of Bill S-5 is about ensuring that Canadians recognize they have a right to a healthy environment. What is interesting is the process that has brought us to where we are today. The legislation has been thoroughly debated in different committees, both at the Senate and at the House of Commons, and it has already had a substantial number of amendments. During the years I was in opposition, it was rare to see amendments, unless of course they were government amendments, but when we think of—

Madam Speaker, I do not know all the details in the legislation to the degree that I could actually give a specific answer to the member. However, when we talk about Canadians having that guarantee of environmental rights, I suspect there are ways to take into consideration a wide variety of environmental issues related to what the member has said. Again, maybe the member was at the committee or is going into details with which I am just not quite familiar enough.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that when the Green Party moved the amendment, it was not like members voted against it; it was deemed out of scope. When an amendment is out of scope, we cannot expect it to pass. The member can be encouraged that many amendments were accepted at the Senate and House of Commons levels, and they were not just government amendments. The government was open to amendments, but there is an obligation when a member introduces an amendment that it be within the scope of the legislation. From what I understand, the chairs at that time did not think it was within the proper scope of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would be inclined to disagree with the member. If we look at the legislation, it would establish a framework that could ultimately be complemented by regulations, which could address some of the concerns she may express during the third reading of Bill S-5. I believe it enshrines the principles of Canadians to have a right to a healthy environment, and that is a strong and positive step forward.

Madam Speaker, one cannot help but ask a question of a Conservative when they stand up and talk about the environment. I am glad that the Conservatives are going to be supporting this particular piece of legislation, but there are many within the Conservative Party who are challenged when it comes to recognizing such things as climate change. There are some who are finding it challenging to review and look at what they told their constituents or voters back in the last federal election, when they said that they were in favour of a price on pollution. Given his current leader's position on the issue, could the member indicate what he would say to his constituents, having told them in the last election that he supports a price on pollution?

Mr. Speaker, with the tremendous growth of our Indo-Canadian community over the last number of years, members would know that there has been an increased demand for international flights, which is what this petition is dealing with. The petitioners are asking the government, international airlines and regional airport authorities to look at ways to enhance international flights, in particular. It would be wonderful to see something flying right from Winnipeg to Amritsar, India, which is an idea being proposed by many people who signed the petition today.

Madam Speaker, I like to think that Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that really demonstrates the government's commitment to bringing forward good, solid legislation with the co-operation of both the House and the Senate. We have seen amendments proposed by all political parties, and different amendments were accepted. I think we have good, sound legislation, and we can all take some pride in its passage. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how ultimately this legislation is in fact advancing something worthwhile by giving Canadians the right to a healthy environment.

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that the leader of the Bloc party is manipulating the immigration issue, which has built this country from coast to coast to coast, as a way to advance his cause. Does the leader of the Bloc party not recognize that we have seen population growth in the province of Manitoba? Without immigration, our population would have decreased. If we look at the French factor in the province of Quebec and in the country, there are more people speaking the French language today in Manitoba than there ever have been. The French factor in the province of Manitoba has been enhanced through immigration. For example, we see people of Filipino heritage and Punjabi heritage also speaking the French language. I believe that Manitoba is a strong advocate for the French language. Why is the Bloc trying to use immigration in a mischievous way in order to achieve its own personal political objectives?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is the leader of the Conservative Party or the member who just spoke. They seem to be in some sort of a dream world. They are trying to give the impression that the Conservatives did a good job on immigration. They need to get serious. If we look at the sponsoring of parents and grandparents, the backlog was over seven years long. It was so bad, the Conservatives actually cancelled the program. They would not allow someone to sponsor a parent or grandparent. In one area, the program got so bad, in terms of sponsoring immigrants, that they actually deleted hundreds of thousands of people who were already in the process and had been waiting years. It was an absolute disaster, including the backlogs to sponsor a loved one. I do not know where they are coming from. They obviously are in some other form of reality. When can we anticipate the Conservative Party to enter into the reality zone when it comes to immigration?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to follow the Minister of National Revenue. If only I could speak as passionately as she does in French. What I really appreciated about the minister's speech is the fact that she talked about how immigration has been of such benefit for the province of Quebec, as it has been for the entire country. That is why I am a bit disappointed in the leader of the Bloc party. In essence, what he is doing is taking the very important issue of immigration and the impact that immigration has had from coast to coast to coast here in Canada in such a wonderful way. We are a country of immigrants. Immigration helps Canada grow into the future. All one needs to do is talk about where the needs are in many different ways in many different sectors of our country and one will quickly come to the conclusion that for Canada to continue to prosper in the future, immigration policy is so critically important. Today, we have the leader of the Bloc party trying to use this as an issue for the party's own personal cause, which is not in the best interest of Canada or Quebec. When I think of the French language and I think of my home province of Manitoba, today there are more people in Manitoba who speak French than there ever have been. If it were not for immigration, Manitoba's population would have been decreasing; it is because of immigration that our province has been growing. It is because of immigration that the French language today is spoken more in Manitoba. With respect to our communities, we should be looking at how our diversity enriches our society not only economically but also socially. Therefore, in terms of the French language, bilingual schools and so forth, it is fantastic when I see someone who is young of Filipino heritage or Indian heritage or someone who speaks Tagalog, English and French; or Punjabi, English and French. Even in terms of the caucus, we just heard from the Minister of National Revenue. We also have a member in the Quebec caucus of Sikh heritage who is francophone. We have had other members speak of the importance of immigration not only to Quebec but, I would suggest, to our entire country. That is the issue that I have with the Bloc: Why would the members try to use this issue and try to portray immigration in any way as a negative issue when it comes to our heritage and the very social fabric of our society? Then we have the Conservative leader, who responded to the resolution. It was hard to stay seated as he espoused the issues regarding immigration. It was hard to sit because I was the immigration critic in part during the Harper era when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table and Stephen Harper and that government decided to cut the parents and grandparents program completely. The leader of the Conservative Party is criticizing us on backlogs. The backlog for sponsoring a parent when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the member was around the cabinet table was eight years. It got so bad that they actually said to the people of Canada that they were cancelling the program, so if someone wanted their mom and dad to come to Canada, they could forget it because they would not be able to come as landed immigrants. That is something the Conservative government did when he was sitting around the cabinet table, and he is talking about backlogs. I still remember the issue when—

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how Canada's rich diversity has actually seen expansion in many ways. I have used the example of Manitoba, where more French is being spoken than there ever has been in its history. With respect to the diversity, I have reflected upon people of Filipino and Indian heritage, in particular from the Punjab. I often meet with youngsters and they are actually speaking French or learning to speak French. I believe this is healthy in the long term for the French language. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the way many immigrants see learning and understanding French as a wonderful thing?

Madam Speaker, the member underestimates the impact of the growth of the French language within the province of Manitoba, my home province, and I do not think this is unique to Manitoba. Through immigration policies, and I made reference to this earlier, more people than ever are speaking French in the province of Manitoba. I attribute it to communities, whether they be Portuguese, Filipino or Indian communities. We can hear people speak French, Tagalog and English. There is a growing admiration for the French language, and we hear more and more people speaking it. Would the member not recognize that, as opposed to trying to paint immigration in a negative light, we can see the benefits of the diversity of people from around the world who come to Canada, learn the French language and pass it on?

Madam Speaker, we will find that members, at times, might raise their voices a little bit when they feel passionate about an issue. Members are always welcome to leave the chamber or turn down the volume if they so choose. I hope that point of order did not take any of my time away. At the end of the day, when the leader of the Conservative Party tries to give the amazing impression that, somehow, the Conservatives understood immigration, it seems they really need to get a reality check when it comes to immigration. I made reference to the cancellation of the parents and grandparents program. One day, they have this other area on immigration. Imagine that someone is in line and has been waiting for years. They want to come as an independent and to be able to do some good things in Canada. They have been waiting for years under the Conservatives. The Conservatives have an idea: Here is how—

Madam Speaker, let us imagine this. We have thousands of people in waiting lines, being processed. The Conservatives say they do not want to deal with this particular stream, so what they are going to do is just delete them all. Imagine being in queue, waiting for years, and the Harper government decides that the waiting lines are so long and that one of the ways they can deal with them is just to delete them, to pretend they did not even exist. A lot of people had a difficult time with that one. One can imagine why the Conservatives say that things are broken. We are still fixing the broken system that we inherited from Stephen Harper. That was truly broken. The leader of the Conservative Party says he wants people to feel good, to feel as if they can make a difference. Do members know what he talks about? He talks about immigrant credentials. That is a very important issue. There is no doubt that it is an important issue. In fact, the government has spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars to assist provinces in getting immigrant credentials recognized, far more money than Stephen Harper. What does the Conservative leader say today? He says that they are going to have a blue seal program, and that a person would come to Canada, write an exam and be a doctor anywhere they want in Canada. That is balderdash. That is absolute, underlined, “cannot say the word”. At the end of the day, the Conservatives do not know what they are talking about. They have no idea what all is involved. One cannot just say, “Here, write an exam and then we will allow you, as a doctor, to practise anywhere you want in Canada.”

Madam Speaker, what I was trying to clearly demonstrate is the fact that the Conservative leader has absolutely no idea, in terms of immigration policy or the types of things that would really make a difference, and we see that. I really wish I had the time and wish we were allowed to ask the Conservative leader questions based on the speech he delivered. Not only was he wrong on so many fronts when he tried to say that our system is broken, when in fact we inherited a broken system, but he also used the opportunity of the Bloc's motion to talk about the immigration policy of the Conservative Party. There is no Conservative policy on immigration. I think he understands, to a certain degree, some of those hot issues, but he has no idea how to deal with them. If we want to talk about immigrant credentials, we have to work with the provinces and different stakeholders. By telling people who are here today, or would-be immigrants, that they just have to write an exam and they will get the so-called blue seal, trying to make a comparison to the Red Seal, the Conservative leader is doing a huge disservice. He is trying to give the impression that the Conservatives would do a better job on immigration, when their record is the absolute opposite. That is the reality of the situation. That is why I found it very difficult to be in my seat while the leader of the Conservative Party tried to explain a Conservative policy on immigration. The Conservative leader needs to go back to the drawing board. He really and truly needs to look at ways to contribute to the debate on immigration, because he failed on all accounts coming into this particular debate.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize the importance of the contributions that immigrants make to our communities. In Manitoba, if it were not for immigration, our population would have declined. If it were not for immigration, many of the industries we have would not be there. If someone takes a walk through any of our hospitals or care facilities, they will find people of Punjabi heritage, Filipino heritage and others, who make up the bulk of the workforce today. Whether it is in health care, the trucking industry or the trades, we will see it is often the immigration community fuelling the labour supply and ultimately contributing to our economy.

Madam Speaker, the member is being a little mischievous. If we were to take a look at the population of Manitoba back in the era in which he was talking about, our population was not that big. In fact, we looked like a little postage stamp. The reality is that there are more people speaking French in the province of Manitoba today than there ever has been. Because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's multicultural policy and commitment to the French language, today we are seeing a multitude of different ethnic groups that are learning to speak French. French is a language that is loved and cherished in the province of Manitoba today because the national government has played a very important role in its promotion. I personally come from an era where, sadly, French was discouraged. Today, that is not the case. Today, we have people of all different ethnic—

Madam Speaker, I take a look at the province of Manitoba, where our numbers of immigrants, on average, are probably about 3,000 a year. We more than tripled that number, and the way in which housing, at least, in part, is being dealt with, we need to recognize that it is not just Ottawa. Ottawa needs to step up and show leadership, and we have done that through the national housing strategy, which has hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars supporting municipalities and the provincial governments. The provincial governments, municipalities and the other stakeholders, all of us, have to step up to the plate to work together to deal with this. All of us want to see an increase in immigration numbers because we see the benefits of a progressive immigration policy. It adds so much value to our economy and to our Canadian heritage.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another petition, similar to petitions I have submitted before, looking at encouraging airlines and governments, all people, including the Winnipeg international airport, to have a direct flight from the city of Winnipeg to a place such as Amritsar, India, at the very least. With the growth of our Indo-Canadian community, I believe, as many believe, that the need to have additional international flights going from Canada to Europe is of the utmost importance. Hopefully, we will get a response coming not only from parliamentarians but also from other vested groups such as our airlines.