Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, it is quite possible I missed the word “tailings”; that does happen at times. My apologies. I did not mean to offend the member. Having said that, when we think about tailings ponds, members will find that this is covered within the current legislation. At the end of the day, I would refer the member to the amendments adopted at committee that related to the concept of vulnerable populations and cumulative effects. There are other situations that empower and allow for the minister to track and, ultimately, enforce issues related to tailings ponds. The member, I suspect, would likely be aware of that. As I indicated, information on tailings ponds is already collected through CEPA. Members tend to give a great deal of attention to this particular issue. I know the member is anxious to ask a question, but unfortunately we are going to run out of time because I only have another minute to go. I think one of the things we have missed is the recognition of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals. The government takes that very seriously. The right to a healthy environment is being enshrined and supported in a very real and tangible way. Canadians are very much concerned about our environment. Through this legislation, there is a direct connection that would enable Canadians to express their concerns where there will be attention drawn to that concern. That is something I really have not heard in the relatively short amount of time that we have had to debate the issue, but it is something we should be talking about. We see our constituents growing more and more concerned about our environment. Having a statement that is very clear as to the rights of Canadians to have a healthy environment is something that is very positive. I would like to see more of a discussion the next time the bill comes up, when maybe I will get the tailings—

Madam Speaker, first, I will provide a different perspective by recognizing that this is a substantive piece of legislation. I must acknowledge, right at the very beginning, that it is difficult to get one's name in a position, as a member of Parliament, where one is able to bring forward legislation or a motion. What we have before us today is a substantive piece of legislation that would really make a difference. I want to recognize the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his efforts in getting it to the stage where it is now, whether it gets to committee or not. We will wait and see what happens. I was quite impressed to hear that the member has two older daughters who are perfectly bilingual. That might not surprise many people, depending on where they live, but if someone is living in British Columbia, or a province like Manitoba, it is noteworthy and ultimately emphasizes the importance of enshrining, where we can, language rights. Just the other day, we were in the chamber, talking about Bill C-13 and the importance of Canada's being a land of two languages, English and French. What we have seen over the years is a commitment from the government to protect the minority languages. What takes place in the province of Manitoba with our francophone communities in particular, though not only them, but all over the province of Manitoba, is that we value the protection of the minority languages outside of the province of Quebec. The same principles apply whether it is in British Columbia, Atlantic Canada or anywhere in between, or up north. With respect to the province of Quebec, there is an emphasis on the important role that Quebec plays in ensuring that the majority French language not only continues on but is healthy. It speaks volumes not only for Canada, but also, in fact, for North America. This is a government that has emphasized the importance of languages from coast to coast to coast, with an emphasis on protecting minority languages. Let us put that in the perspective of when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. There used to be a court challenges program that predates this government, but it was Stephen Harper who ultimately cancelled the funding for that program. I suspect that might have been one of the triggers for the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to look at the legislation. In that draw, the member is provided the opportunity to do a wide spectrum of types of legislation or resolutions. He could have taken the easy way out and said that we would have such-and-such day being recognized. However, he chose an issue important to his constituents and to all communities in Canada, because we are talking not only about language rights but also about human rights. I listened to the member for Lethbridge, and at times it can be tough to listen to her. However, there is absolutely no doubt in her mind that if the Conservatives, heaven forbid, form government, this program is gone. That is an important part to the debate, because it amplifies why my friend from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is trying to see this legislation get through. It is an important issue. Does anyone believe in Canada being a country of two official languages? Does anyone believe there is a need to protect minority languages? I, for one, believe that is the case. I also believe it is important for us to recognize that there are organizations and individuals that at times feel threatened regarding those rights, and the issue of financial support is of absolute necessity. We talk about the independence. It is arm's length. I am not going to question the independence of a post-secondary facility like the University of Ottawa. I am disappointed in the member for Lethbridge trying to give the impression that universities are not independent. I think of the University of Winnipeg. Lloyd Axworthy was a member of Parliament for many years and when he was president of the university, I never saw him as someone who would do anything other than what was in the best interests of the University of Winnipeg, recognizing the academic excellence and expectations that people had for the university. The University of Ottawa has been, in essence, delegated the responsibility, and I believe that responsibility is taken very seriously. There is a reason it was being financed previously, going into the Stephen Harper regime, and there is a reason we have reinstated that funding. It was a few years back when we reinstated the funding and, in this particular budget, we are enhancing the contribution to the university administration in order to be able to run this critical program. Individuals might want to raise concerns around the need to incorporate it into legislation, but there should be no doubt about the value of the program. Having a court challenges program to protect and, as I say, expand the rights to incorporate human rights I see as a positive. Maybe this is one of the considerations that was being taken, as to why, in a time of constraint, we enhance it. We are looking at ways to ensure that these human rights and language rights are protected. As a government, we recognize that it is good to not only talk about it, but support it. One of the ways we can support it is to ensure that the budgetary needs, at least in good part, are being met by the government through supporting that arm's length organization and allowing the organization the opportunity to do the tertiary things required in order to select the types of cases that need to be heard at the court level. I believe it has the expertise in order to do that, far greater than members in this House, especially if we take them at random. It has been depoliticized. It has a program. The member is mocking it because it has money and questions the administrative costs. I do not think the member realizes that there is a carry-over year to year. Suffice to say, support for the court challenges program is worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, a very popular petition in Winnipeg relates to the growing Indo-Canadian community and, with that growth, a large demand for more international flights. In particular, this petition calls for flights that fly out of the Winnipeg international airport into Europe and such countries as India, specifically Amritsar. It is with pleasure that I present this petition, recognizing the exceptional growth and the need for more international flights. The petitioners call upon international airlines and government MPs to do what they can to get those flights.

Madam Speaker, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, the Harper government did absolutely nothing when it came to housing. If we contrast that with the current government, we have invested literally billions of dollars into housing, developed a housing strategy, and worked with the different provinces and the many different for-profit and non-profit stakeholders. My question for the leader of the official opposition is this. Will he not recognize that, although Ottawa has stepped up to the plate and contributed in virtually every way, even though the Conservative Party has opposed many of those measures, the provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders also need to step up in order to resolve Canada's housing issues?

Madam Speaker, I think, at least in the province of Manitoba, non-profit housing units have been in that range of 25% to 30% since 1988, but closer to 30% nowadays. The federal government, through the years, continues to contribute a majority, from what I understand, of those operating costs. I could be a little off on that, but I believe that to be somewhat accurate. It is really important for us to recognize the need to increase the size of Canada's housing stock, and it is not going to be one government alone, nor should it be just Ottawa giving a pile of cash. We do need to see provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders step up to the same degree that Ottawa has been for the last number of years. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on other jurisdictions also playing a critical role in dealing with the housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend can provide his comments regarding the important non-profit sector. I think of Habitat for Humanity, which has built brand new homes and made them accessible to people who would never have the opportunity otherwise. It is a group we have invested in and supported. Could the member provide his thoughts on both the need for additional housing and the growth of the housing co-op industry?

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting how the Conservatives have brought forward a motion today that, for the most part, the government is already doing. It is almost as if the Conservatives are looking for some policy ideas, reviewing what is happening and is now trying to amplify them. I wonder if the member can give a clear indication of something that is truly unique, something the Conservatives are saying that is not a bumper sticker saying.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could tell us why, when the government, in an attempt to help Canadians, brought forward the housing support program, the one-time payment, which ultimately helped over half a million Canadian renters, the Conservatives voted against it. I look at the resolution today, and it seems to be more about trying to convince Canadians that the Conservatives genuinely care about housing. The member spoke of “taking inspiration from the Harper era”, which did nothing for housing. That was the reality of it. Harper did nothing to expand Canada's housing market. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on those two points.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I want to take a bit of a different approach to the issue because people who are following the debate should get a bit of a history and an understanding of why we are where we are today, who is responsible for what, and what the current government has done. I believe that the government, in a real and tangible way, has stepped up to the plate. Let me expand by commenting on what I talked about at the beginning. When I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988, I was appointed as the housing critic for the Province of Manitoba. Therefore, virtually from day one, I have had an interest in housing. With respect to public, subsidized housing, the cost was always somewhere in the range of 25% or closer to 30% of an individual's salary, and they would be subsidized in the tens of thousands of non-profit housing units in the province of Manitoba alone. With respect to federal contributions, one of the biggest ongoing contributions that Ottawa provides across the country is for non-profit, low-income housing, which is there for people with disabilities, seniors, individuals on fixed incomes and individuals who have low income or virtually no income at all. We tie in literally hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and that is how Ottawa, in essence, has that ongoing support. I want to go to 1991 or 1992. It was during the Charlottetown accord debate. I was in the north end of Winnipeg, and I was debating Bill Blaikie, an NDP member of Parliament at the time. Bill Blaikie was defending why Ottawa does not have a role in housing and why provinces and municipalities should be responsible for housing. I disagreed with that back in 1991. Every political party supported divesting of Ottawa's authority in housing back in 1991-92. That is why I was not surprised when we saw cutbacks in housing in the following years. I opposed it then, and I would oppose it today, but the difference today is that we finally have a Prime Minister who understands the important role that Ottawa plays in housing. Therefore, I am hoping that members of all political parties will recognize that, whenever there is a constitutional debate, hopefully sometime in the distant future, never again will we see federal politicians not recognizing the importance of housing to Canadians. It is important that Canada, as a national government, does play a role. Let us go back over the last number of years since we have replaced the Harper regime. We have seen not only hundreds of millions of dollars but also multiple billions of dollars being invested in a national housing strategy, which includes things that are being proposed by the Conservative Party today in its motion. The Conservatives know that. Do we think they would come up with an original idea? What they are doing, in many ways, is taking some Liberal ideas and amplifying them. We could talk about the accelerator fund to speed up the construction. In the budget, the Minister of Finance and the government have been very clear that we want to double construction over the next decade over what we are seeing today. The accelerator fund is an investment of billions of dollars to speed up the process while working with municipalities. I would hope that people who are following the debate today would have an appreciation that there are limitations on what Ottawa can actually do. We can use financial incentives, which we are doing. Like no other government in the history of Canada has ever done, this government has stepped up to provide the financial incentives to see more construction and more homes built in Canada. However, we are only one of several players. I would argue that our municipalities, both rural and urban, need to come to the table in a larger capacity. The zoning issue, the bureaucracy of red tape in construction, is of critical importance. If anyone wants to try to buy a lot in the city of Winnipeg, I wish them good luck. No one can buy an individual lot. If, by chance, someone might discover something, we are talking about huge amounts of money. Around 1990, I purchased a lot for $30,000 or $32,000. A few years later, the lot prices skyrocketed. Now, people cannot get lots. However, in some of the rural communities in Manitoba, people can find those $30,000 lots. Let us ask the questions. Why? Where is the money being invested? How can we ensure that housing remains more affordable, that there are larger quantities of space for the building of homes, and that there is more construction? In order to do that, as the seconder of the motion, a former mayor, made reference to, cities must play an absolutely critical role and step up. In our case, we are encouraging that. Provinces also play a critical role. When I was the housing critic at the provincial level in the late 1980s, infill housing was really important. We needed to look at ways to build homes on vacant lots, particularly in areas that were in need. Housing co-ops are another form of housing that Canadians could truly benefit from. There is a difference between a housing co-op and an apartment block. I like to say that people in an apartment block are tenants, and that, in a housing co-op, they are residents. There is a big difference. Being in a housing co-op is similar to being a condo owner of sorts. There are opportunities for us to be able to expand. That is why, when the Minister of Housing indicated that we wanted to see the expansion and supported that expansion of housing co-ops, I saw that as a good thing. There are organizations, third parties out there, that have done phenomenal work. I am thinking in particular about Habitat for Humanity in the city of Winnipeg and in the province of Manitoba. Habitat for Humanity has built 500 new houses over the years. One of the biggest benefactors has been the community of Winnipeg North, whether it is in The Maples, the traditional north end, Point Douglas, or all over Winnipeg North. Habitat has been there to support people who would otherwise not have had the opportunity, in all likelihood, to become home owners. Habitat is not unique to the province of Manitoba; it is across Canada. The federal government has supported that. The federal government continues to work with willing provinces wherever it can. The point I am trying to emphasize is that the federal government, like no other government in the history of Canada, with the possible exception of when the World War II war homes were being built, has come to the plate and has been there in a very real and tangible way, with more than just dollars. Our commitment to support Canadians and the housing industry is second to no other in the history of Canada. We do want, and we are prepared to continue, to work with the stakeholders, whether those are private, non-profit, provincial governments, territorial governments or indigenous governments. The former Kapyong Barracks is a wonderful parcel of land that is being developed today. It was formerly federal lands. There is so much more to say, but I will leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting question. The office closures mentioned by the member actually happened in Brandon, Manitoba as well. I think there were nine veterans offices that were closed down coast to coast to coast. I know that my colleagues in Atlantic Canada remember this quite well because of the impact it had there. What I find interesting is the statement that the current leader of the Conservative Party made when I posed a question to him regarding the investments we put into housing. In essence, his response was that we would have been better off not to have spent the money. I believe that the Conservative Party, if ever given the opportunity, would cut back all expenditures in regard to national housing. Even the member who spoke before me said we should take inspiration from Stephen Harper. The leader of the Conservative Party was one of his ministers. He is a former minister of housing, who took inspiration from Harper, who did absolutely nothing, zero, on housing. Now we have the leader of the Conservative Party saying we do not need to provide money. It should concern all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated a number of things in my comments as to how we could improve our current conditions, but it involves bringing all the different players to the table. The primary difference between, let us say, myself and the Bloc, or the government and the Bloc, is that the Bloc believes that Ottawa is nothing more than a cash ATM machine, with the answer being we should just give the provinces the money and let the provinces do everything. That goes against what I believe Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect of the national government. That has been clearly demonstrated by a lot of the discussions that have been taking place today in the House. The national government does have a role, a responsibility to ensure that there is housing for Canadians, no matter where they live, and to put in the resources, supports and encouragement wherever possible.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party actually captured the answer to that today, in terms of the contrast. One member spoke of taking inspiration from the Harper era. The member who is a former councillor understands that the former era had absolutely nothing, zero, for housing. Then, the leader of the Conservative Party, today in the House, in his introduction, said that money is not the issue. He feels that we should not have invested hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars. I think that is the contrast.

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the government has addressed this issue previously, in part, is because we do value our first responders and our health care workers. We saw some horrific scenes during the pandemic where people protested against health care workers. All sorts of profanities were levelled against them during the pandemic itself in and around hospitals and other institutions. I suspect there is a great deal of sympathy, for good reason, toward our first responders and health care workers. This is not something that is new. Sadly, it has been going on for a long time, but it was really emphasized during the pandemic. Would the member agree?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Shepard, in his question, said that the government cannot pass legislation and that it passed only one piece of legislation last week, and yet the Conservative agenda is often to be a destructive force on the floor of the House. What the Conservatives prefer to do is prevent the government from passing legislation, and they do that by bringing in concurrence motions, by giving no indication in terms of how many speakers would accommodate the passage of a bill, and sometimes by not even wanting to sit late in the evening. Does the member not agree that if they are criticizing the government for not passing legislation and then go out of their way to prevent the government from passing legislation, that might be somewhat hypocritical?

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to nail down the Conservatives on a substantive policy. In parts of his speech, the member said that the grocery rebate was a good idea. In other parts of his speech, he said it was a bad idea. We have also heard members on the other side sometimes say that the Volkswagen idea is a good idea. Then they sometimes say that it is a bad idea. It depends on which member of the Conservative caucus is standing. The Conservative Party has no plan. There is no depth to its policy. Could the member give a very clear indication on whether he supports the grocery rebate, yes or no? Does he support the investment that is bringing Volkswagen to St. Thomas, Ontario, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, we have seen a great growth in our Indo-Canadian community. Along with that growth, we have seen a considerable demand with respect to additional international flights, as expressed earlier, to Amritsar, New Delhi and Chandigarh, many international airports in India. Residents, in particular in the Winnipeg, in the capital region and in other areas, are hoping to see more direct flights, whether through Air Canada, Westjet or other international airlines. The idea is that we try to get more international direct flights. Ideally for me it would be Winnipeg to Amritsar, but the bottom line is that whatever the members of Parliament, the House, the minister, the different airport authorities and different stakeholders can do to enhance air service to India would be seen as a positive thing with respect to the petitioners.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not recognize the degree to which the government has been listening to seniors. Not only have we been listening to seniors, but we have been supporting seniors. Whether it is the huge increase to the GIS in 2016, the one-time payments during the pandemic, the budgetary measures that are meeting an election platform commitment of a 10% increase for those 75 and over, the grocery rebate or dental support for seniors, these are all supports that the government is providing to seniors. We can contrast those to the previous 10 years of the Harper regime. It is incredibly different, yet the Bloc members do not recognize the benefits and continue to vote against initiatives that are supporting seniors. Why do you not respect the seniors? You say you do, but your actions say otherwise.

Madam Speaker, I am going to go back to the early nineties, when all political parties in the House ultimately advocated that the national government should not be playing any role in housing. For the first time in generations, we have a government that has committed billions of dollars, developed a national housing strategy that is investing in things such as housing co-ops and non-profit housing, helped municipalities and supported organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The government is going out of its way to ensure that Canadians are able to have that first home. Would the hon. member not recognize that the federal government can only do so much? It is important that we demonstrate leadership, which we have, but we need the other stakeholders, in particular our municipalities and our provinces, and other stakeholders as well, to step up to the table so we can provide the type of housing that Canadians expect. We need to all be working together. Would she not agree?

Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of what the member has indicated that I would suggest are somewhat misleading. If we take a look at all of the accomplishments the government has been successful in through working with the City of Toronto and the whole 905 and 416 area, I think we would find that it has been overwhelmingly successful on the issue of infrastructure. We can compare that to the Conservative years. We have accomplished so much more in a far shorter period of time, on a wide spectrum of things. Could the member indicate if he believes the Conservative Party would be doing a better job?

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments. I wish he were not a separatist. I like the idea that his contributions to the debate are delivered as constructive critiques. There is always room for improvement. The member highlights some areas which, no doubt, we can improve upon. I want to emphasize that we have a Minister of Agriculture who virtually lives and breathes agriculture. She is very sensitive to the needs of farmers and is a strong advocate for things like supply management and making sure there are supports out there for agriculture, our farmers, producers and so forth. I have had the opportunity, on a couple of occasions, to host her in the province of Manitoba. The passion and knowledge she exemplifies speak volumes, with respect to moving forward as a government and getting things done. My question for the member is this. Would he possibly look at taking some of those critiques and continue to advocate, maybe with the Minister of Agriculture, because he does have some good ideas? I look forward to—

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member continues to push this particular envelope. I have actually been very clear, as have the Prime Minister and other ministers. No matter what the member continues to try to propagate to mislead Canadians, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister has had no direct or indirect communications with the Trudeau Foundation for over 10 years. It is actually a very simple truth. One would think that even members of the Conservative Party would understand that truth. I do not want to insult the member across the way. Maybe the Conservatives are just trying to avoid the truth in order to push an envelope that they have been in since 2014. I think that was the year the leader of the Liberal Party was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party. Virtually from day one, the Conservatives have spared no expense in advertising and in research in terms of trying to find ways they could make this personal and make personal attacks against the Prime Minister. Absolutely nothing has changed. All one needs to do is go back to the days when he was the leader of the third party and listen to some of the S. O. 31s back then. At the end of the day, 2015 proved that what the member just finished saying was wrong and Canadians did not believe the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have never changed the channel. There are so many issues that Canadians are facing today. Instead of dealing with those issues, the Conservative Party continues to use character assassination and attack the Prime Minister. Today, the Conservatives get a kick out of the name of the foundation. We have non-profit foundations that do a lot of wonderful things, including the Trudeau Foundation. The questions the member wants to ask or Conservatives want to ask would be better put to the foundation itself, which is independent, just like many other foundations out there. However, this does not meet the Conservatives' cause. In a tin hat sense, they say there is this and that and who cares if it is true or not. It does not have to be true to be put on the Conservative agenda. They just grab from all over the place, put it together and say there is this huge conspiracy. The reality is that it is very clear. The Prime Minister, over the last 10 years, has had no direct or indirect connection or communication with the Trudeau Foundation. No matter how the Conservatives try to spin conspiracy theories over there, it does not change the facts. The members across the way know the facts, but their approach is not to let the facts get in the way. Their job is to be critical of the person and the family, and that is what the Conservatives have been focused on since before the 2015 election, and it is still the case—

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. I would wonder if the member opposite would walk outside the chamber. Inside the chamber, he has parliamentary privilege. He can say what he wants to say inside here, almost without any limitations. Outside the chamber, would he entertain going out there and having a press conference and saying that the Prime Minister has been directly involved with the Trudeau Foundation? My bet is that he would not go out and say that because if he were to go outside and have a press conference and make the allegation that the Prime Minister does have direct communication with the Trudeau Foundation, he might find himself in a bit of hot water. There is a bit more expectation that if one is outside they have to be a bit more truthful than they are on the inside at times if one is a Conservative member of Parliament.

Madam Speaker, a part of dealing with the issue is bringing in legislation, but there are also budgetary measures that the government has taken in the last few years. We have beefed up the resources for CRA: A few budgets back it was close to half a billion dollars, and several hundred million dollars followed that. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts. Yes, the legislation is really important, but along with that legislation one has to establish, as we have, the financial resources, in good part, to be able to deal with the issue at hand.

Madam Speaker, creating a public, searchable corporate registry would ensure a much higher sense of accountability, and the government over the last number of years has expressed its interest in ensuring that everyone is paying their fair share when it comes to taxes and that there is more transparency. However, it is also important to recognize, as I did in the previous question I asked the member's colleague, that there have been significant amounts of financial resources allocated to the CRA. That money is there to support the idea of looking at who the people are who are paying taxes. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts. It is great that Ottawa is doing it and the Province of Quebec is moving forward on it, but it is really important that we see consistency from coast to coast, with other provinces and territories also providing similar legislation.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member has made. The issue of tax fairness is really important to Canadians. It is one of the reasons why one of the very first actions this government took upon being elected back in 2015 was to establish an increase in the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We see that as a very strong positive. At the same time, we enhanced the tax break for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Through the years, we have been able to invest a great deal of money, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to ensure the CRA has the financial resources to reinforce the issue of tax fairness and go after individuals who are trying to avoid paying taxes. What are the member's thoughts with respect to other provincial legislatures across the country and the important role they play in passing legislation of a similar nature?

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate that the Conservatives want to continue with partisan attacks and character assassinations when there are so many different issues that Canadians are facing today. One of the budget announcements that I am very proud of and feel that Canadians are glad to see is the grocery rebate. That is putting money in the pockets of Canadians, and somewhere to the tune of 11 million people will benefit from it. I think the Conservatives need to get in touch with what Canadians are concerned about.

Madam Speaker, there has been incredible growth of our Indo-Canadian community across the country. In Manitoba, there has been all sorts of growth that has created a significant demand for more international travel opportunities. The people who have signed this petition are asking for the federal government and different airline carriers to seriously consider establishing a direct flight that would go from Winnipeg International Airport to an airport in India or, at the very least, in Europe. It is something that is in need and that is what it is that my constituents are arguing and asking for.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been demonstrating very strong leadership by bringing forward the legislation. We get a sense of the support for the legislation and hope to see it pass. There is an obligation, if I can put it that way, for other jurisdictions in Canada, the provinces, in particular, to step up at the same time. Ottawa is more than happy to assist in working with them where it is needed, but it is important that other jurisdictions also take action of sorts. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of that.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-42 today. I think it is very important for us to recognize that, as time goes by, we have had, very much, a heightened sense of awareness on such an important issue. If I reflect back to a number of years ago, very rarely would we hear about the types of situations that are being debated today inside the chamber. We are very much aware of things, such as the Paradise papers and issues surrounding corporations, the issues surrounding money laundering and so many other issues. Canada and other countries around the world are looking at ways we can deal with the issue of beneficial ownership and the impact it is having. We are looking at a registry and trying to improve the system. Listening to the many comments today from members across the way, and members within the Liberal caucus, we find that there seems to be fairly widespread support. Yes, I respect that opposition members and others do have questions about the legislation. I suspect that will be the opportunity, once we get into the committee stage, to look at what possibilities there might be to strengthen the legislation. I have actually been encouraged by the debate thus far on the legislation. I have had the opportunity to ask a few questions, and I would like to be able to highlight a few concerns, in a broad way, that I have. If I were to respond to the debate today, there are a couple of things that come up. In particular, the NDP made reference to the whole issue of tax fairness and lost revenues. I think that, if we were to canvass Canadians as a whole, we would find that Canadians do not mind paying their taxes, as long as there is a sense of fairness to it. People want to pay or are prepared to pay their fair share. That is the reason why, if we take a look at it, over the last number of years, virtually since we have been in government, the government has taken a number of actions to build on the fact that Canadians' expectations are that we improve and make the system better for all. I do not know how many times I have had the opportunity to talk about some of the initial initiatives we have taken as a government. I would like to start off from the particular point that, shortly after being elected, in recognizing Canada's middle class and supporting Canada's middle class, there were a number of tax initiatives taken, as well as actions by the government. I would like to amplify a couple of those initiatives. The first one that comes to mind, of course, is the tax reduction legislation we brought forward at the beginning of the mandate for the middle class. It was a piece of legislation, very clear, to ensure there is a higher sense of tax fairness by enabling a break for the middle class. At the same time, if we will recall, there was an additional tax that was put on Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is something we recognize is an issue in tax fairness. We have also seen other budgetary measures. I mentioned the issue of tax avoidance and those individuals who go out of their way in order to pay their fair share of taxes. This is something that, I would suggest, we can look at through a lens of tax fairness. However, if we are going to be true to our word, we need to properly resource the CRA to go after those individuals, groups or corporations that are trying to avoid paying taxes in questionable ways. There was a significant amount of money allocated to CRA over a couple of budgets. Prepandemic, we saw an additional investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. Do not quote me on this, but I believe if we were to combine the total investments that the federal government has put in supporting CRA in going after individuals or corporations trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, it is likely just over $1 billion. The expectation for CRA is to look at ways to recover money from lost taxes. The last time I looked, the number of records being looked at was well over 1,000. Pre-2015, it might have been fewer than 100. So we know that CRA is in fact much more proactive today than it has been in the past. Again, from my perspective, it is about looking at ways to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. In the recent budget, we have a sense, in terms of taxes, with respect to banks and insurance companies where inappropriately high profits were taken. We have seen taxes being put onto those sectors in the most recent budgets, again, with the goal of ensuring that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. The member for Elmwood—Transcona also made reference to the whole issue of corporate tax. I noticed that he tried to group the Liberals and the Conservatives together by saying that whether it was Liberals or Conservatives, we believe in giving corporate tax breaks. Yes, there have been corporate tax breaks. I am not one who believes in the trickle-down theory of corporate tax breaks personally, but I would suggest to the member that when the NDP has had the opportunity to govern, particularly in my home province of Manitoba when I was in opposition during NPD Premier Gary Doer's administration, there were corporate tax reductions. I think we have political parties of all stripes that have implemented corporate tax deductions. However, Canadians are very concerned when they hear of that, especially if they are having to pay their taxes when there are all sorts of inflationary demands. So, if we take a look at the comments I just put on the record, there is a need for Bill C-42. Bill C-42 is an attempt by the government to do a number of things. It is not only ensuring that there is tax fairness, but also a higher sense of transparency and accountability. As has been pointed out, money laundering is a very serious issue in Canada, in some provinces more than others. It has caused a great deal of hardship. The best example is likely the one the member across the way mentioned in regard to housing. We have speculators and people who want to launder money using housing as a tool. Not everyone who invests in housing in Canada is necessarily money laundering. I am not trying to say that, but we do know that money laundering does take place in our residential communities and in the development of condominiums. The member made reference to Vancouver and British Columbia. We know it goes far beyond any one province. We can talk about what is taking place in Toronto and find that there is laundering and speculation. That does drive up the cost of housing. With the budgetary measures that we have taken in the past and the budget implementation bills in the past, we have tried to put in some restrictions in order to prevent that foreign ownership, or even put a tax on individuals who are not living in or a resident of Canada, with the idea of having a fairer share of taxation. The issue with respect to the transparency and accountability of corporations really does kick in here. At the end of the day, when we look at the Canada Business Corporations Act, it is all about the modernization of that legislation to ensure there is a higher sense of corporate transparency and accountability. From my perspective, if we take a look at the primary tool, we are going to have a registry that is open and public, and quite searchable for ownership information or beneficial ownership. By doing that, I believe there will be a huge difference. If we look at what the Canada Business Corporations Act does, it enables certificates of compliance, as an example. If a corporation is not in compliance with the legislation, we would have a tool that would ensure that the corporation might not get that certificate. That can have a profound impact on the corporation itself. Without that certificate of compliance, it would have difficulties with things such as loans and suppliers. At the end of the day, I believe the passage of this, and the establishment of a public, searchable beneficial ownership registry, would ensure there is a lot less money not taken into account, so less money laundering and less money being used in illegitimate forms. For me, that is something we need to recognize within the legislation. The government has been committed to a robust and effective regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing to improve the public trust in our corporations. It does not take much for a corporation to fall on the wrong side of the whole issue of money laundering and the impact it has on the corporate community. A vast majority of our corporations are in fact good entities that contribute in many different ways. It is not just jobs. It is all forms of opportunities, community development and so forth. Because of the bad apples that are out there, it does leave a negative stain. Therefore, when we talk about the legislation trying to minimize issues like money laundering and improving accountability and transparency, a vast majority of corporate stakeholders do not have any problem with this. The consultation that has taken place goes back to 2020, going right into 2022 where there was a great deal of consultation with different stakeholders and interest groups. There were even foreign consultations with other nations. We want to make sure that we get it right. We appreciate the privacy issues and that has been raised here. With respect to what had taken place in Europe, there was a court decision in regard to the issue of privacy, so we do want to tread carefully on that particular issue. However, it is absolutely critical that we continue to see the legislation move forward because it would make a difference. There are some provinces that have actually gone further than other provinces. Quebec has passed its legislation and I believe it has been implemented. I am not 100% sure of that. Because in a federal system we have to take into consideration that there are jurisdictional issues, we have to be aware that some provinces still need to do a whole lot more than other provinces. Therefore, taking a pan-Canadian approach to looking at best practices and looking at the legislation that we are bringing forward today would go a long way in ensuring that not only those federally regulated corporations that are registered through the Canada Business Corporations Act but also those in provincial and territorial jurisdictions will have that obligation of ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability. In looking at the legislation and listening to the comments, I believe I have a fair reflection in terms of many of the comments that were said earlier today. I would encourage members to view the legislation in part in terms of the commitment that has been made to try to get this passed before the end of this year, which is faster than we had initially indicated. However, in order to do that, we look to opposition parties to follow through on some of the words that they have stated today in terms of that tentative principled support that they are providing and allow the legislation to go to committee. I would think that would be a positive thing, given that all parties seem to support the principle of the legislation. Therefore, I would encourage members to take the issues, as I know they have, of money laundering and of ensuring more accountability and transparency within a very important sector, in the name of making sure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. Again, that, to me, is what it is all rooted in. Canadians do not mind paying their fair share of taxes and it is very upsetting when they hear of the money laundering that takes place, or of individuals or corporations wanting to get off the hook for paying their fair share of taxes.

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member of Parliament represents an area in British Columbia. Nowhere in Canada have we seen the issue of money laundering raised and brought to our attention more than in British Columbia. It has been raised through the media, showing the complexities of the problems resulting from money laundering. There are very strong criminal and tax avoidance elements to it. It is an issue that is very upsetting for Canadians, because it is about tax fairness. Canadians expect that the government is going to do what it can in order to resolve the issues. I say that pre-emptively to indicate to the member that it is really important for Ottawa to continue to work with the Province of British Columbia and look at joint ways in which we can deal with that very serious issue.

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is in Canada's best interest to have each province create its own collection agencies. We would have 10 or 12 different ones: Revenue Quebec, Revenue Manitoba, Revenue Alberta and so forth. I would be concerned. Once it was provided the additional financial resources during the pandemic, the CRA demonstrated how successful it can be. There have been well over a thousand investigations. CRA is well equipped to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are well represented. I am also concerned about those valuable CRA jobs in the province of Quebec. At the end of the day, people in Quebec and the rest of Canada are well served by the CRA. Once it is provided with the proper resources, it will be able to deal with a lot of the things we expect it to do. That is one of the reasons we funded it with just under $1 billion to do so.

Madam Speaker, a number of things in the legislation would hopefully enable companies to abide by it and recognize that, at the end of the day, we will be able to deal with the issue in a much stronger way. For example, in my comments, I made reference to the certificate of compliance. Often, in order to acquire financial support, a corporation or an individual needs to have a certificate of compliance. If it is not issued, this can have a profound impact on the corporation or the individual. Whether in fines or the certificate of compliance, a number of tools would enhance the opportunity for us to ultimately see more compliance within the legislation. As I said, a big part of it, I believe, is going to depend on our justice system and the CRA and making sure that they are properly equipped. That is why I indicated earlier that it is great to see that not only are we bringing forward legislation, but, as we have demonstrated in the past, we are also providing substantial financial support for the CRA.

Madam Speaker, the government has indicated that it wants to get the bill to committee and has always been open to ideas that would ultimately make the legislation stronger for the betterment of Canadians. I would suggest to the member that if he has some very specific amendments he would like to put forward, he does not necessarily have to wait until the bill gets to committee. Some ideas might flow out of committee presentations from witnesses, or the member might have his own personal ideas. I think of lawyer trusts, for example, which were mentioned earlier today, and how those trusts could possibly be incorporated, or something of that nature. There are opportunities here, and I look forward to the legislation going to committee. I know the member has expressed a great deal of interest in this issue, and I wish him well in terms of working, maybe not in a politically partisan way, towards how we could give strength to the legislation. We should keep in mind that there have been consultations not only here in Canada but also with other nations, from what I understand, to ensure that we have good, solid legislation going to committee.