Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, within the current legislation and regulations, when we think of visitor visas or temporary visas generally speaking, the civil servants have a system that includes things such as good character. The civil service is very much aware of the issues that are taking place in Iran. Could the member provide her thoughts on how our current system seems to already accommodate and take into consideration what the first and only recommendation would do in limiting temporary visas to individuals who should not be coming to Canada?

Madam Speaker, I must first reflect on how much I appreciated the ruling of the Speaker, which recognized that members should stick around for questions and comments after giving a speech. Having said that, I want to disagree with what the member said when he talked about just how evasive he believes the Government of Canada wants to be. I do not think the member realizes how much we appreciate the Charter of Rights. We were the ones who introduced it. When we look at the legislation, it is substantive in the sense of protecting the privacy of Canadians, whether with the huge data banks of our government, such as the health data banks, or private companies, such as Tim Hortons. The previous speaker gave an indication that the Conservatives do not like the legislation and gave the impression that they would not support the legislation. Could the member provide his support for the legislation and indicate that he would like to see it go to committee?

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise yet again on Bill C-11. I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions already to address the House on what I believe is an important piece of legislation. When looking at Bill C-11, members need to reflect on the Canada Broadcasting Act in terms of when we last saw substantial changes. We would be going back to the early 1990s. In fact 1991 was the last time we had a thorough debate in regard to the Broadcasting Act itself. I would suggest that members should reflect on 1991 compared with 2023. Before I get into that, I just want to commend the Senate, having had the opportunity to go over the bill and giving it a great deal of effort. I want to compliment the senators on their efforts in bringing forward a series of amendments. Obviously not all the amendments are acceptable from the government's perspective. There are a number that we will not be proceeding with. I want to make very quick reference to a couple of the ones that cause a little discomfort, if I could put it that way. I am thinking about amendment 2(d)(ii), which seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to include online undertakings, undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet in a broadcasting system. Then if one goes to amendment 3, this would affect the Governor in Council's ability to publicly consult on and issue a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs. It would also prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technology changes over time. There are a few amendments that we disagree with, looking at the scope of the legislation and wanting to keep the integrity and the intent of the legislation intact. Some of the amendments that we would agree with include 1(a)(ii), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d)(i), 2(e), 4, 5, 7(b)(i), 8, 9(a), 10 and 12. These amendments that were proposed by the Senate are fairly well received. Having said all that, as I indicated, I wanted to provide my compliments and thank the Senate for the thorough review of the legislation. I know that for some of us, making the legislation stronger is of great benefit. We want to see that. We saw some changes or modifications that were talked about at the committee stage. It is important that we recognize why we have this legislation here in the first place. I referred in my opening remarks to Bill C-11 being all about updating the Canada Broadcasting Act. I have had the opportunity to draw the comparisons from the previous 1991 technology to where we are today. For all intents and purposes, there is no real comparison. It is almost like two totally different worlds. Bill C-11 would put the system, the platform versus our traditional broadcasting, on a level playing field. Not to support Bill C-11 is to say that it is okay to continue in the fashion that we are currently going, where there is an unlevel playing field for those traditional broadcasters versus what is happening with online platforms. If we take a look at 1991, and I have referenced this in the past, we used a telephone line for Internet, and we actually called into it. We would hear the buzzing and so forth, and ultimately a double click that said we were now online. The type of computer technology used at that time had a fraction of the speed and the capacity of what we use today. In fact, things such as Disney+, Crave, Netflix, Spotify and YouTube were virtually non-existent back then, so the Canadian Broadcasting Act did not reflect the technology and the advancements that would come in the years beyond 1991. The legislation would put all those platforms on a level playing field because we recognize that Canadian content really does matter. One only needs to look at those traditional media outlets and the impact the Broadcasting Act and Canadian content have had on the traditional media forms: the CTVs, the CBCs, the radio programming that is out there and so forth. I suspect that if we looked at many of the stars we have today and in the past, they would recognize that Canadian content mandates ensure that Canada is better reflected in what is actually being produced and promoted. This is not only the case here in Canada, but the mandates also, in a very real and tangible way, enable Canadians to become sensational hits outside of Canadian borders. I can tell members that at the end of the day, some of the programs I watched when I was growing up existed, in good part, because of the Canadian content laws. If we did not have them back then, I do not know to what degree we would have had some of the programs or the success we have witnessed. In the Liberal Party, we recognize our arts community as an industry that not only provides jobs and opportunities but also reflects our heritage in many ways. Who we are as a nation is often seen in the types of programming that come out of Canadian content. This is something that should be encouraged. On many occasions, I have used the example of Folklorama, because I really believe Folklorama embodies so much, in terms of our heritage, that it is worth mentioning again. Once a year for two weeks, Manitoba, and in particular Winnipeg, comes alive with our celebration of diversity and heritage. I attend some of the pavilions. There are roughly 50 pavilions. There are 24 or 25 that are one week long, and then the following week there are another 24 or 25 pavilions. By touring the pavilions, one may see some amazing talents. There are performers who will act, sing and provide all forms of different services in the production and hosting of these pavilions. I would go deeper by saying that when I see some of these young singers or performers, it is not just during that one week. It becomes a venue for them to ultimately showcase their talent. However, we will see that they are actually practising, rehearsing and often getting other gigs, if I can use the word “gigs”, throughout the year. Many of these performers, actors and singers will often get to the next level where they will participate in the film industry, or we will hear them on the radio. These are types of things that we should be encouraging. On Saturday night, I was at the Canada Life Centre, where the Winnipeg Jets play, and we had some guests from the Philippines: Moira DelaTorre and company. It was a super-fantastic show. Thousands of people came to witness it. Prior to that show, some incredible local talent was highlighted. I say that because events such as that, the Folklorama events and many types of events take place in arts and performance throughout our communities and virtually in every region of our country. We have the potential to support those events by getting behind Bill C-11. If they understand and appreciate our heritage and the potential industry and how it can deliver for Canadians, all members should be getting behind Bill C-11. It does not take too much to reflect on some huge international success stories. I would use the example of Schitt's Creek to counter what the member opposite is saying. Some of the actors originate from some good Canadian content in previous years. Many of these actors and singers get their opportunity to contribute, especially in their earlier years, in part because of Canadian content and if not directly then indirectly. I can say that Schitt's Creek is a wonderful production here in Canada, and many people can understand and appreciate values that are being espoused here in Canada. The program is recognized worldwide because of all the awards that it has received. One can talk about endless numbers of actors, singers and performers who have made it big on the world stage. A lot of that would not have been possible if not for directly or indirectly ensuring that we have Canadian content. That is why I believe members need to reflect on the importance of Bill C-11 with respect to levelling the playing field. I would also like to mention the jobs that are created. If not every week then every other week it seems that there is some form of production taking place in Manitoba. In other provinces and territories, it may be more so or less so. All I know is that there is a healthy industry there to support a growing industry as a whole. Within that, there are jobs that are contributing in a very real and tangible way. Therefore, Bill C-11 would do more than just promote Canadian content; it would also ensure a healthier and more vibrant industry. As a direct result of that, some of the small centres are actually seeing productions being carried out. I think of a program like Corner Gas from the Prairies. These are productions, I would suggest, if not directly, then indirectly, that are provided the opportunities because of issues such as Canadian content. There has been some movement toward Canadian content from different platforms, but nowhere near enough. When we think in terms of what the legislation would do, it would be a modernization of 1991. It says that one has an obligation to contribute. More specifically, what would the legislation do? It would bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. It would require online streaming services that serve the Canadian market to contribute to the production of Canadian content. It would prioritize support for the content from francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ2+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators. It would ensure online broadcasters showcase more Canadian content. In essence, it would modernize outdated legislation and bring the system into the 21st century. This is what the legislation would do and, for whatever reason, the Conservative Party is voting against the legislation. Let me tell colleagues what it is that the legislation would not do. The Conservatives will try to give a false impression by trying to ratchet up hard feelings toward Bill C-11 or by providing support for misinformation about the legislation. This is what the legislation would not do. It would not impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media. There is one Conservative member who is anxious to get up. I can tell by the comments she has consistently been making. Such members do a disservice to Canadians when they try to say anything other than the fact that it would not impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media. To say otherwise is not true. It would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. It could not be more clear than making that statement, yet we still get members of the Conservative Party who will say that it would.

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to what the legislation would not do. It would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. When I sit down and the member opposite stands up, she will give all sorts of contradictions to some of the things that I am saying here, yet we know for a fact that it would not do that. One can ask why and I will pose that question after I finish talking about what I think is probably the most important thing that this legislation would not do. It would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way. Last time I spoke on this legislation, I think earlier that day I got an email from one of my regulars. We all have regulars. This individual, I suspect, may not be overly sympathetic to me or my party. He was being very critical. He said that Bill C-11 was going to take away his freedom and he was not going to be able to communicate the way he wants to communicate in terms of the Internet, or be able to express himself. He said we were putting limitations on this particular individual. We all know that is not the case. What happens often is that an opposition party, and over nine times out of 10 it is the Conservatives Party, will oppose legislation. There are key things that it likes and it will amplify those. In this case, it is trying to give the false impression that Bill C-11 has an impact on a person's freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth. I take great pride in the fact that a Liberal government many years ago, before I was elected for the first time in 1988, brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are the party that guarantees rights and freedoms. When we look at what Bill C-11 is all about and the work that has been done on this legislation, it is not like it is new. This is legislation that has been debated now, in one form or another, for years. It has been debated for years, yet the Conservative Party is still stuck on wanting to raise money. It likes to say the government is attacking Canadians' freedoms and their ability to speak. Then it says if people agree and want to donate to its party, please do. The fundraising will hopefully come to an end on this issue. Even members of the Bloc are relatively supportive of the legislation. In fact, I think the Quebec legislature actually passed a unanimous resolution supporting the legislation. The creators and the individuals who are so impacted, not only today but yesterday, are thinking about the future and are supportive of the legislation. This is legislation that would make a positive difference in every way if we stick to the facts. If we want to talk about rumours and false information, it could be an endless debate as the Conservative Party of Canada has clearly demonstrated. As the next speaker who stands up will clearly demonstrate, it will be all about how big government, in co-operation with the Bloc, the NDP, the Green Party and most Canadians, is trying to limit our freedom of speech and ability to upload documents onto the Internet, whether it is a cat file or whatever it might be. That is the type of thing we have to deal with. I ask my Conservative friends to give it a break. Let us look at the facts and move on. This legislation went through the House before the last election, when it was first brought in, and then after the most recent election, it was brought back in. It went through second reading, and there were interesting debates and discussions during the committee stage. It then came back here for report stage and third reading, and ultimately passed on to the Senate, which has had the opportunity to take a look at the legislation. It brought forward a number of amendments, and the government has agreed to a number of those amendments. It is time we pass this legislation. There is no justification to do otherwise outside of the Conservatives' desire to raise more money on false information. There is no justification. If we want to support the industry and level the playing field, now is the time for us to support it. Let us get this legislation through the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comments that have offended the member. Members will notice that the member was saying “if this” and “if that”. If all of these combinations of things occur, then something could happen. Well, the minister, me and many others here on the floor and inside the committee have made it very clear that this is not the case. The member talks about clause 4, so I will note that the minister's intention has always been clear to exclude the content of Canadians and social media creators. Some online platforms only act like broadcasters right now. Those are familiar streaming services like Netflix, Crave and Disney+. Other online platforms consist entirely of user-generated content. They are clearly excluded in proposed section 4.1. The member knows this, yet she, along with others, continues to say it. That is why I say it is a form of misrepresentation of what the legislation is doing. We are not in any way doing what the member is suggesting. It is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the member puts quite well trying to understand the official opposition and the obstructionist role it is playing as we try to modernize Canada's Broadcasting Act. As I said, the essence of the legislation is to ensure there is a level playing field and that there is Canadian content. Canadian content, in the past, has been clearly demonstrated to be very effective. One only needs to look, from a historical perspective, at how successful it has been at elevating, encouraging and developing local artists of many different forms in different regions of our country. Those who support our arts community should get behind this legislation. The member brought to my attention that the economic costs of not doing so are very real and tangible. Let us show the arts industry that we genuinely care. We have had all sorts of discussions over the years, so let us get on with it and pass the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am personally a dog person. Between cats and dogs, I like dogs. However, whether it is cat or dog videos being uploaded on Facebook with their owners, it is great to see and is encouraging. In no way, as I have pointed out and tried to make as clear as possible, is this bill going to put any sort of limitations on individuals. At the end of the day, Bill C-18 deals with a good part of what the member was referring to. That is the online news act, which would ensure that big companies, such as the Googles and the Facebooks, pay their fair share. All we are asking for, whether it is in this legislation or Bill C-18, is to ensure that we are levelling the playing field and that everyone is contributing a fair share. In this case, it is about Canadian content.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen over the last number of months is a great effort by a large number of people to ultimately see if there are ways we can improve the legislation. We have had recommendations at the committee stage, between second and third reading, and now today we have amendments proposed by the Senate, most of which we are accepting. Where there are changes that go outside the scope of the legislation, we are recommending that we do not accept those changes. However, all in all, I think we have a good piece of legislation here, which has been made even better with some of the amendments proposed by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member, the only positive thing I can take from her comments is the fact that once again the Conservative Party is showing great contrast between what the government is trying to do versus what the Conservative Party wants. We in the Liberal caucus understand and appreciate the arts community and how the Canadian Broadcasting Act has done absolute wonders for our industry, for actors, actresses and creators, in many different days. The modernization of this legislation is absolutely critical. After all, since 1991, a lot of things have happened. As I mentioned earlier, Netflix, Spotify or Crave were not there. The need to modernize is there and is very real. The Conservatives want to march us back. The question is how far back they want to go. Will the member stand on her principles and make very clear to Canadians that the Conservative Party's intent is to get rid of the Canadian Broadcasting Act in order to level the playing field in the name of so-called misinformed freedom?

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I look at, and that the member made reference to, is the fact that the Broadcasting Act has not been updated since 1991. Things have changed. Virtually none of those platforms existed then in any form, whether Netflix, Spotify or others. This legislation would modernize the act, thereby allowing us to enhance Canadian content and ensure there is a fair playing field. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the advancement of technology, which has enabled the Internet to be as successful as it has been? The government has a responsibility to bring in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Farzana Elham Kochai, who was a member of Parliament in Afghanistan. I believe I pronounced it relatively right. She is a young woman with a very powerful voice who is now in Winnipeg. I had the opportunity to meet her at the local McDonald's restaurant on one of my Saturday visits. When I look at the legislation we are debating today, I think we all have a responsibility to find ways to ensure that it reflects the interests of the people who are out there. I know I, for one, will be sharing my thoughts with Farzana and getting some direct feedback. We can talk about why it took as long as it did, and so forth, another day, but we need to recognize that it is important legislation to pass for the people of Afghanistan. Could my colleague provide his comments on why it is important that we get that support?

Madam Speaker, I think the member is not recognizing some of the realities of the situation. We have seen dramatic increases in the number of refugees. When we factor in Ukraine, Afghanistan and other countries around the world, I believe it is fairly accurate that Canada is definitely, per capita, the best in the world on the refugee front. Even in hard numbers, not on per capita basis, we are doing exceptionally well. Even the member from the opposition commented on the technicalities and the legal complications of the legislation. It is not like one can just bring a bunch of legal people to the table and say, poof, let us have the legislation. There is a process, yes, but the member is trying to give the impression that the government has not been active on the file. I would suggest that she just needs to look at the number of refugees and look at the increases in aid support, overall, that the Canadian government has been putting forward.

Madam Speaker, to answer the member's question, the government has made it a priority, and that is the reason we have seen the co-operation and the push not only for humanitarian aid but also for ways in which we can assist those Afghan refugees once they can get out of Afghanistan to come to Canada. Canada has led the way on that particular issue. Recognizing there are many different agencies and individuals in Canada today who are very supportive of us continuing to provide that aid, and that this legislation we are debating today is in fact going to assist in Canada having an ongoing and more stable—

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see the all-party support, and it is important to recognize that the legislation goes beyond Afghanistan. We are talking about aid where terrorism is involved, and it is broader than just Afghanistan. Afghanistan amplifies the issue for us all, so we can better relate to it, but the federal government has a responsibility, and this is what I like about the legislation; it deals with the bigger issue. Afghanistan in itself is a gigantic issue, obviously, but this bill would deal with that in such a way that I think it would position Canada better, in some ways, than countries that have not brought forward such progressive legislation. I wonder if my colleague would not agree that getting the bill to the committee stage, so that we could perhaps even get some of the questions he has put forward answered, would be a positive thing for all of us to see happen today.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, in relation to its study of potential trade impacts of the United States Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, seven members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the Spring of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. And that, in relation to its study of human trafficking of women, girls and gender diverse people, seven members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia; Toronto, Ontario; Brampton, Ontario; Mississauga, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, in the Spring of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the important issue of finances and the direction in which the government has been leading Canada in order to support Canadians in every region of the country. Before I get into that, I want to quickly make reference once again to the Conservatives' bringing forward a concurrence motion in order to prevent government legislation from being debated. In fact, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-26, which is about cybersecurity, something important to Canadians. However, it is not the first time we have seen the Conservative Party show disrespect for important issues Canadians want us to deal with. In fact—

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to be very clear, when a member rises on a point of order and causes the Speaker to stand, it does not take away from the time allocation a member is supposed to be given for their speech. With that in mind, I would suggest that I did not make reference to any individual at all. The member is just assuming, correctly, that it was Conservatives who abandoned the chamber so I could not actually ask the questions.

Madam Speaker, let me switch a bit, because the Conservatives are a little sensitive on the issue of accountability and responding to questions being posed to them. We witnessed that last night. Having said that, let me assure those who are going to be following the debate today, first and foremost the many individuals who are interested in the whole issue of cybersecurity, that we will get to that debate eventually. It is just that the Conservatives have chosen to play a bit of a game. Fortunately, it is an area I really enjoy talking about, because it is an issue that is so important to all Canadians, and that is the budgetary measures the government has to put into place in order to ensure the economy is working for all of us. Since we formed government back in 2015, we have had a very clear and concise message as a government. This is a government focused on supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. This is a government that has been there to have the backs of Canadians during a worldwide pandemic. This is a government that has recognized the need for the government to take actions, even at a time when we have inflation rates that are not acceptable. Members opposite will talk about inflation and they will give a false impression. If we listened to what the Conservative Party is saying, we would think this government is the cause of worldwide inflation. One member says it is. We are not quite that influential around the world; I can assure the member of that. At the end of the day, if we take a look at Canada's inflation rate, we can compare it to the countries of the G7 or even the G20, our allied countries. We can look at it in terms of the United States. We will find that our inflation rate is actually lower than the U.S.A.'s and than that of most countries in Europe, whether France or others. Our inflation rate is still of concern to the government, because we understand. As members of Parliament, we go home and understand the pains our constituents are experiencing, and that is the reason we take seriously the issue of consultations, something Stephen Harper really did not do. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who still does open, public town hall-type meetings, something the former Prime Minister never really did. We have a Minister of Finance in the department who aggressively goes out to consult with Canadians and different stakeholders consistently throughout the year, but in particular in the lead-up to making those important budgetary decisions. We do this because we recognize how important it is, as a government, that our budget reflect what Canadians expect the government to do. Yesterday, the Conservatives wanted to focus on one aspect. They wanted to talk about the possibility of 15¢ for 24 bottles of beer and the impact that was going to have on Canadian society. That is what their focus was yesterday.

Madam Speaker, the point was that the Conservatives could have talked about what the member just heckled about, which is jobs. We could have talked about jobs yesterday. Does the member not realize the number of jobs that have been added to Canada's economy since before the pandemic got under way? We have seen an increase of over 830,000 jobs, closer to a million. Can members imagine that? It took Stephen Harper 10 years to achieve a million jobs. We went through a pandemic, and because we had the right priorities, unlike the Conservatives, we protected Canadians. We were there to support small businesses. Never before have we seen the type of programs that supported small businesses, whether it was with loans or wage subsidies. Millions of jobs were saved as a direct result of that. Companies were prevented from going bankrupt in many situations because of that. We were able to support Canadians through the CERB program. Imagine the eight million-plus Canadians who genuinely needed the program, which allowed them to put food on the table, pay their mortgage and so forth. By providing those types of supports, we were in a good position to rebound and build stronger after the crux of the pandemic. As a result, there are more than 830,000 more jobs today than there were at the beginning of the pandemic. This is far better than, let us say, the United States or some other countries in the world. Why is that? It is because the federal government chose to work with Canadians, chose to work with different levels of government, and implemented policies that really made the difference. If I were to cite some of those policies today, we hear Conservatives talk about their Conservative ideas. There are a few that come to mind, some that we put in place and some that the Conservatives wished they could have put into place. We go out and consult. What does the leader of the Conservative Party do? He says that consultation is not necessary. After all, we have YouTube. Remember cryptocurrency, which was economics 101 and his first major policy statement recommendation for Canadians? The Conservative Party of Canada was saying that the way we avoid inflation and really reap the profits was to invest in cryptocurrency. This is something he advised Canadians to do. I will conclude with those who took the advice of the Conservative leader. They had their savings wiped out, with 60% to 70% gone. It was incredible the amount of money that was lost on cryptocurrency, going into the millions of dollars. Individuals on a fixed income who believed what the Conservative leader was saying paid a very heavy price. Now the Conservatives are talking about interest rates. Do members remember what the leader of the Conservative Party said about the Bank of Canada? He said that we would fire or get rid of the head of the Bank of Canada.

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Why would he do that? This is also what the member for Abbotsford posed, and look what happened to that member. I will reference the member and the riding he is from who questioned the Conservative leader's judgment on that issue because the member for Abbotsford now sits way in the back and has been kind of ditched to the side. We very rarely hear from him. However, we have an initiative or suggestion from the leader of the Conservative Party that even progressive Conservatives disagree with. We need to look at some of the other issues. Let us stop with some of the Conservative ideas because they can be painful to listen to. We can think of the child care program. What is the Conservative Party's position on child care? We know that during the election they said they would rip it up. They did not want anything to do with the Liberal plan. Now, because the government had the support of at least one opposition party, we were able to implement a national child care program, $10-a-day day care, throughout the country. Every province, even Doug Ford's Ontario, has signed onto the program. The economic impact of that program will see more people participating in the workforce. There will be more recognition of quality child care. Universally, with the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, it has been well received. I am hoping that sometime between now and the next federal election we will see a major flip-flop by the Conservative Party on this issue. I hope it will not rip up the agreements and will continue the commitment, because we have seen the success of that particular program. All one needs to do is look at the province of Quebec and the positive impact it has had on that province, particularly women becoming engaged in the workforce as a direct result. That is an idea that really makes a difference. Speaking of flip-flops, my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston referred to the price on pollution. We really have to follow the bouncing ball on that one. Representatives from around the world went to Paris where there was a great deal of discussion about what we can do about the environment. They recognized that climate change is real. Climate change is a reality of life on earth today. There are some in the Conservative Party who do not quite understand that, or choose to not believe it is a reality, but it is a reality. From that Paris conference came the idea that we needed to implement a national price on pollution. Some provinces, indirectly or in some other way, had it, so we said we were going to put in a policy to protect the environment, via a backstop to make sure that all of the provinces and territories have it. The price on pollution is quickly becoming the go-to tool for ensuring that Canadians are participating in diminishing greenhouse gases. Other provinces have now opted into the price on pollution because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear, there is a net benefit for the majority of Canadians with the federal backstop program on the price on pollution. That is a really positive thing. The Conservatives, prior to the last election, were opposed to it. They fought it tooth and nail. Then they had a new leader, about two or three leaders ago, and the new leader said that a price on pollution is a good thing. They came up with a different type of design so they could stamp it blue to put it in their campaign. There were 338 Conservative candidates from coast to coast to coast saying they supported a price on pollution, and they got a lot of votes based on that, a lot of votes. A lot of people thought that maybe the Conservatives could be sensitive to the environment. After the election, a new, shiny leader took over and that idea was gone. It was history. It was toast. Now the Conservative Party says not to worry about climate change because, after all, we do not need a price on pollution. It wanted to get rid of it. Getting rid of the price on pollution will be a platform issue, no doubt, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. They will spread all sorts of misinformation. They will attempt to give the false impression that most people are not going to receive, or have not been receiving, a net benefit. They have been talking a lot about doctors and health care workers. The government of Canada has been working with different levels of government to ensure that we can get more credentials recognized. We have been providing incentives for that to take place and looking at ways in which immigration itself could assist. We know and we realize that we want to see an enhancement of health care workers. The Conservatives came up with this next idea about having a common national test. Members can imagine what they are telling Canadians. They are saying to Canadians that they are going to get them more doctors. The way they are going to do it is to have an exam so that someone coming into Canada, or any doctor, I would assume, could write this exam and then go to any province or territory to be a doctor. That is balderdash. A federal Conservative government in the future, heaven forbid, could not do what it is that they are talking about doing. The administration of health care is done through provinces. There are professional organizations and all sorts of stakeholders out there. It is not as simple as saying that we are going to have a national exam and if someone passes that national exam then they are going to be able to practice medicine. When do they think they would be able to implement something of that nature? I think that they are looking at this and thinking they will hoodwink Canadians on this, much like they have tried to trick them on other issues. In the last 20-plus years of its history, the Conservative Party has never demonstrated an interest in health care. What we negotiated back in the 2004 health care accord, was expired by the Conservatives. They are the ones who reduced it from 6% to 3%. They had no interest in meeting federal and provincial first ministerial meetings to deal with the health care issue. One of the first things did, whether in previous administrations or this administration, has been to invest in health care. We achieved health care accord agreements with individual provinces shortly after. We have just invested $198 billion in health care. Health care is a part of our core identity as Canadians, and we have made the investment, recognizing that those are the types of priorities Canadians have. That is what this Liberal caucus is reflecting on: the priorities of Canadians. The good news is that next week we are going to have a federal budget that will amplify what it is that Canadians expect of the government. I look forward to seeing that budget and being able to participate in that debate.

Madam Speaker, our agricultural industries throughout the country are of critical importance. When the member talks about infrastructure, there is no government that has invested more in infrastructure, at least in the last 50, 60 or 70 years, than this government has over the last five, six or seven years. In agriculture, of course it is important. We have to be careful when we talk about interest rates or inflation. Let us do a fair comparison. Take a look at what is happening in the United States. Take a look at what is happening in the G20 countries. To say that interest rates in Canada are going up and that we are not comfortable with the inflation rate in Canada, yes, the government is aware of that. We are taking action. In relative comparison to other jurisdictions, we are doing well, but that is still not good enough. That is the reason why someone such as myself, being from the Prairies, looks at agriculture and the diversity of agriculture. I am very proud of how the pork industry, for example, has grown. I will add comments as—

Madam Speaker, when one thinks about the different fluctuating rates of inflation across the country, one also needs to take a look at natural resources, the provincial GDPs and so forth. All of that has an impact on inflation rates. On the health care issue, I am glad the member brings it up. Jean Chrétien established a clear cash transfer on health care. Prior to that commitment, we were working on a tax point shift that ultimately would have seen Ottawa defunding health care into the future. I was concerned. I was in the Manitoba legislature at the time as a parliamentarian, and there was a great deal of discussion that Ottawa was getting out of health care. Thanks to Jean Chrétien and that particular government, we not only established a very strong presence in health care, but we also continued to grow that through health care agreements and accords to ultimately reach what we have today. That is a $198-billion commitment under this particular administration for health care.

Madam Speaker, in principle I agree with what the member is suggesting. It is one reason the Minister of Finance has in fact put a special tax on bank profits. I want to go back even further than that to the principle of tax fairness. One of the very first things we did back in 2015-16 was to introduce a tax break for Canada's middle class. At the same time, we funded that tax break in good part by putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. By the way, opposition parties voted against that, but at the end of the day we were able to implement it. Through those types of policy initiatives of the federal government, we developed and enhanced the Canada child benefit program, which then took money away from millionaires and put it where people needed it the most, such as with the development of child care. Again, this had a very positive outcome and is one of the reasons literally thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty.

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Green Party is in fact consistent, and she would disassemble some of our currently existing pipelines. The government has a responsibility. We made commitments to transition and to net zero by 2050. We have also worked with other governments. For example, with the LNG project, which I know the member does not support, we worked very closely with the provincial NDP government in British Columbia, and we were able to move ahead on LNG. I would like to think that all parties inside this chamber except the Green Party support it. Maybe the Bloc does not support it; my apologies. At the end of the day, we do have a very progressive approach to protecting our environment. The price on pollution is just one example; another is tax incentives for hybrid vehicles.

Madam Speaker, per capita, Canada is one of the fastest-growing countries in the world. We can look at our population base and find that our population growth is actually incredible compared to that of any other country in the world. This means that more people will be looking for housing. What the member did not include is that the lead on housing is not the national government. The national government plays an important role, but so do the provincial governments and municipalities. The municipalities need to allow and allocate more land for housing developments. Those are zoning requirements. The federal government could provide supports, encouragement and dollars. In the last 30 or 40 years, no government has invested more in housing than the current one. We recognize the need. We are supporting action by other governments. In fact, where we can, we are taking direct action to ensure that the housing stock is not only better maintained but also greener from an environmental perspective. We are also growing the actual number of houses for people with disabilities, as well as non-profit homes, generally speaking.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the Conservatives speak to the legislation, because this morning they did not want to debate the legislation, and I think it is because they support it. It would be nice to see the Conservative Party actually allow the legislation to pass, come to a conclusion in debate and put it to a committee that would be able to deal with many of the issues they are talking about. Does the member believe that there is any onus of responsibility whatsoever for the Conservative Party, once they recognize and support legislation, to at least give consideration to its passing to committee in a timely fashion so that we can see legislation being discussed at committee? Ultimately, if the Conservative Party wanted to, they could drag every piece of legislation out until 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to express some thoughts on Bill C-283 the last time it was up for debate, and I thought that maybe for the last couple of minutes I would talk about the impact of addictions on our communities. I recall sitting in opposition when we talked about safe injection sites, particularly given what was taking place in Vancouver, and the positive impact they were having. This government has been working with other governments to deal with drug-related issues in communities across the country. I want to emphasize that there is so much more that can be done through co-operation with the different stakeholders out there. What we have seen over the last number of years from this government is a high sense of co-operation when working with stakeholders and different levels of government to deal with the very difficult issue of drug addiction and the impact it is having on our communities. I would suggest that one of the best ways we can deal with crime is prevention. This is where things become very relevant. The more we turn to groups such as the Bear Clan Patrol in the north end of Winnipeg, the many professional agencies and services out there and community-minded individuals, the more likely we will have a positive outcome. I believe that by having a positive outcome, we prevent crimes from taking place in the first place. With those few words, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on from where my colleague and friend just left off. I think it is important for us to recognize that from the government's perspective and, I would like to think, that of parliamentarians in general, there should be zero tolerance for international foreign interference in our elections. Ultimately, I would suggest this should be done in an apolitical fashion. The Conservatives, for a wide variety of reasons, fundraising being one of them, have chosen to politicize this issue. It is indeed very unfortunate, because they do a disservice to an issue that is very serious. Canadians are looking for responsible leadership. We see what the Prime Minister and the government have been able to accomplish over the last number of years in dealing with the issue, and we see a huge vacuum of leadership—