Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I am trying to make a fairly simple point here. If we take a look at actions on this issue, we see it is not new. Not only is it not new, but it affects many countries, not just Canada. We can talk about the U.S. We can talk about some countries over in Europe. There are other democracies where we have witnessed and seen international foreign interference in elections. That has been happening for years now. In fact, when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we all know that a report went to him at that time. Ironically, the minister who was responsible for democratic reform is the current leader of the Conservative Party. It is safe to say that while he was the minister of democratic reform under Stephen Harper, they did absolutely nothing when they were made aware of the issue. We can fast-forward to the 2015 election, when there was a change in government. We saw a number of changes by the Prime Minister and parliamentarians back in 2015 that made substantive changes in a wide variety of ways. There were legislative changes that, for example, saw Canada complying with what our other Five Eyes countries were doing by implementing a parliamentary committee of the House, which also has participation from the Senate, with the security clearance to investigate this issue in every possible and imaginable way. As we have seen, our independent agencies, like Elections Canada and CSIS, and the top security adviser to the Prime Minister have given opinions in regard to the issue of the 2019 and 2021 elections. The conclusion has been very clear: Any interference has not affected the outcome of either one of those elections. The Conservative Party is aware of that, yet its members choose to continue to flaunt the issue and ratchet it up in the hopes that they can get Canadians even more upset with the issue. When I hear of issues such as foreign interference, I ask what they hope to achieve. They hope to achieve interference, cause problems and confusion, and cause the public to lose confidence. That is what these agents from abroad are hoping—

Madam Speaker, the point is that the Conservative Party of Canada, in co-operation with a few others, is ultimately doing what a lot of these perpetrators of foreign interference are trying to do, and that is to take away public confidence in our elections. The Conservatives have no problem with feeding into that, even though every member of this House knows full well that we have had independent, well-respected agencies and individuals come forward and be very clear that there has been no impact on the last two federal elections. They know that for a fact. We can look at what has been brought forward by the government just recently with the establishment of a special rapporteur in the name of David Johnston. David Johnston is a former governor general of Canada, someone appointed by former Prime minister Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister. He is an individual with impeccable credentials. He is a true Canadian in every imaginable way. He has the expertise and background to look at the situation, as other independent agencies and individuals have done, and come forward with recommendations. The Prime Minister himself has been very clear that if Mr. Johnston comes back and says a public inquiry is necessary, that will happen. One would think the Conservative opposition, in particular, would respect that. Instead, what they are doing is assassinating the character of an incredible Canadian, much as we have witnessed over the last number of years. The Conservatives have no hesitation in making personal attacks on the Prime Minister or anyone else in the government. I would just suggest and ask that the Conservatives be more open-minded to doing what is in the best interests of Canadians, step aside on some of the partisanship stuff they have put on the table and recognize that David Johnston is in fact a positive way for us to move forward in dealing with this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize, first and foremost, that Canada is not the only country where election interference allegations have been levelled. It is also important to recognize that China is not the only player. The Conservative Party always seems to want to raise the issue of China, whether it is over the pandemic or whatever it might be. I find that most unfortunate. At the end of the day, we need to remain focused. What has been assigned to our special rapporteur is something the Conservatives should be a little more patient and respectful about. Let us see what comes from Mr. Johnston.

Madam Speaker, I believe that if we take a look at what Mr. Johnston has done over the years as an individual, a great Canadian and someone who has contributed, he is virtually second to no other in the capacities and roles he has had in our society. At the end of the day, I believe in his integrity and look forward to ultimately seeing his report. I suspect the member will see a government that is very proactive in acting on the recommendations that are brought forward. However, whether one is a member of the Bloc or Conservative Party, trashing this individual and throwing him under the bus or sandbagging him is very much disrespectful and completely uncalled for.

Madam Speaker, if I was to take a hybrid approach to what NDP members are proposing, I would suggest that one thing I like about their suggestion is that this be broadened to go beyond any sort of foreign interference in elections by China, because there are a number of players. I would also suggest that we take into consideration that Canada is not alone in this as a democracy. There is a much bigger picture to look at. I have full trust and confidence in Mr. Johnston being able to do what is necessary to provide Canadians a great level of comfort through the recommendations he will be coming forth with. I believe that will be happening before the end of May.

Madam Speaker, professional, apolitical civil servants have very clearly indicated that there was no impact from any international interference, particularly citing China, on the outcome of either the 2019 or 2021 election. The Conservative Party knows that. We now have Mr. Johnston looking into the matter. He will be coming back with recommendations. He is an incredible Canadian with impeccable credentials. Will the Conservative Party support his conclusions?

Madam Speaker, Mr. Johnston, in his career, whether it was as Governor General of Canada, in his role on national leadership debates, or many other things he has done in his lifetime of 80-plus years, has been impeccable with his credentials. What is being asked of him is something I, and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians, would see he is quite capable of doing in an apolitical fashion and acting on what is in the best interest of Canada. Based on the member's speech, is the Bloc's position going to be that, no matter what Mr. Johnston reports, it will see no validity to the report?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am really quite concerned. We have a tradition in the House of Commons that if a 10-minute speech has been delivered, there is a five-minute question and answer period, and if it is a 20-minute speech, there is a 10-minute question and answer period. What we are seeing is chicken-Tory-soup, of sorts, where the Conservatives seem to feel they can give a 10-minute speech and then not have to be held accountable for their comments, even on an opposition day. Obviously, that is something I would ask, if not of you, then of the Speaker, to be looked at and reported back to the House. It sets a dangerous precedent to say to members that they can stand up, deliver a speech and feel that they do not have to be accountable for the words they have said by choosing not to stand in their place.

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague who asked me if I will hang around to answer questions: absolutely. It is about accountability. At least the Liberal Party of Canada stands for accountability, transparency and so forth. We have seen a demonstration, and it has happened to me personally today twice, where a Conservative stood in his place and delivered his speech and I wanted to ask him a question, but I could not. One was the former speaker, the official opposition House leader. It is not a reflection on the rules, but I would encourage members, in particular from the Conservative Party, to please understand that there is a tradition of a higher sense of accountability. If they say something in the chamber, they should at least provide members the opportunity to challenge, comment or ask a question. I have witnessed this first-hand as a parliamentarian in the House of Commons, but this is the first time that I have actually been stood up twice when I asked a question of a Conservative and they did not have the courage—

Mr. Speaker, I want to get into the reality of the Conservative opposition motion that they are talking about today. We have to put it in proper perspective. Over the last number of months, there has been a great deal of canvassing. The Prime Minister often says that Ottawa is a great place to be, and one has to bring the issues and the concerns of the constituents in one's ridings to Ottawa. I can assure those who are following the debate that we bring a wide variety of different types of issues from out in our communities to Ottawa. We do this to ensure that we reflect what Canadians want to see. The Conservatives are really focused on things like character assassination. In contrast, we are concerned about making sure that we have the backs of Canadians. I say that because today they want to talk about beer and wine tax. There is no doubt that beer, alcohol, is a very important issue. I do not question that. However, when I do the math, I think it works out to about 15¢ or 16¢ on a case of 24 beers. That is what they want to talk about. That is an opposition day. They get a few every year. I would suggest that if we were to listen to someone like me, who likes to respond to what my constituents are talking about, they talk about a wide variety of issues of great concern, whether it is inflation, health care or the environment. The list goes on. By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona. I can assure everyone that there is a great number of issues. However, the Conservatives want to talk about taxes. They are being selective. One of the very first things we did in government, back in 2015 when Canadians kicked out Stephen Harper, was to reduce the tax for the middle class. How did the Conservatives respond to that reduction, that legislation that reduced the tax for Canada's middle class? They ran. They voted against it. We also increased the tax for Canada's wealthiest 1% of people. Once again, how did we see the Conservative Party vote? It voted against that too. Let us fast-forward, right from the beginning to where we are today. It was not that long ago, three or four months, maybe five, that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, said we want to provide additional tax relief for Canadians. We brought in legislation to say that we are going to double the GST rebate temporarily for the next six months. Originally, the Conservatives actually opposed that tax initiative. In fairness, it took a little bit of shaming, quite a while, but at the end of the day, they actually flip-flopped. I say it somewhat candidly, but I compliment them on their change of heart. I am glad, because that tax break that we provided, if we relate it to this one, would buy hundreds of bottles of beer, that one break. At the end of the day, we understand the benefits and the drawbacks of what is happening in our communities from a taxation perspective. They are talking specifically about alcohol and beer. We are all concerned about that issue. We have a budget coming up awfully soon. I know that I am getting anxious about it; maybe there might even be the odd Conservative who is getting anxious about it. We anticipate that there is going to be a wide spectrum of issues dealt with in that budget. For years, I have been a very strong advocate, for example, on the health care file. Health care, I have argued in the past, is part of our Canadian core identity. I would suggest that it might have been more advantageous to talk about the health care issue based on what the Conservative Party has been talking about for the last few days, something Canadians are genuinely concerned about: the recognition of credentials and how we get more health care workers, whether doctors, nurses or support workers, into the system. Conservatives might not fully understand jurisdictional responsibilities and things of that nature. They might be trying to intentionally mislead people in terms of what they could be capable of doing, especially if we look at the history of the Conservative Party. It is not very good when it comes to health care; I can assure everyone of that. At the end of the day—

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are talking about budget priorities. I believe that at the end of the day, we will see things in the budget that will be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that we all know there is a great deal of consultation that takes place, whether it is the individual member of Parliament, the work members do within their constituencies and talking to constituents or meetings and discussions within caucuses. There are discussions held virtually throughout the year, but in particular, there are the pre-budget debates. At the end of the day, I believe we will see a budget that reflects the interests of Canadians. As I indicated—

I'll stay here for your question. Mr. Speaker, I can say that I am going to be looking in areas that really concern the constituents of Winnipeg North. I know my colleagues will be doing likewise for the ridings they represent. We have been advocating to the appropriate ministers, including the Minister of Finance, in different ways. These areas may be the bigger issues of our health care system, what is taking place in our environment or the importance of many of those infrastructure programs at the local level. We will continue to advocate where we believe the government should be establishing its priorities in terms of budgetary and legislative measures. For those following the debate, as I mentioned at the beginning, we take the ways we can use our taxation policies to ensure we have a healthier economy and society very seriously. We can see this in the tax breaks for the middle class, the tax hike on Canada's wealthiest 1%, the GST rebate and the enhancement to the Canada workers benefit. We can also invest in the CRA to ensure, for example, that they stop the people who are trying to avoid paying their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speculate about anything in regard to the budget, but what I can say is that I believe it works out to 14¢ or 15¢ for a case of 24 bottles of beer. That is less than a penny per bottle of beer. That is the essence of what we are talking about. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about a wide spectrum of issues, whether it is health care, the environment, what is happening around the world today and in Ukraine, how we can continue to support Canadians or how we ensure that there is ongoing transparency and accountability. There is a wide spectrum of things that are out there. I do not know to what degree 12¢ or 15¢ for a case of 24 beers rates as the top priority of Canadians. I suspect it does not.

Mr. Speaker, I am still focused on how the member started the question. He was being critical of the Prime Minister because he was saying he was not happy with the answer when he asked a question. At least the Prime Minister hangs around and answers the question. He stays to respond. The very same member, when I attempted to ask a question, evaporated into thin air. I am not going to say where he was, but he totally refused to answer the question. Therefore, I would suggest that he is consistent with the Conservative policy in general. It is very hard to understand because, at the end of the day, someone would say there is nothing to it. There is no—

Madam Speaker, I see the Conservatives are up to their mischievous ways in moving concurrence of a report. I am not surprised, I must say. I understand the New Democrats were also proposing to bring forward a concurrence motion. I think that was fairly widely known. The members across the way know how to use the rules of the chamber to trump what the NDP was hoping to do today. My question to the member is not to marginalize the importance of the issue of labour and the exploitation of labour, which has been an issue not only the last few years but also for many years, even under Stephen Harper. We will recall Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, and the scary days of the Harper regime. It has gotten even scarier within the Conservative Party, as it has turned an even harder right. Can the member indicate to us what it is that Stephen Harper did to address the concerns he has raised?

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen on the issue of forced labour and the impact it has had not only on Canadians but throughout the world. We have had a number of debates on this issue. It was not that long ago that we debated Bill S-211. I know the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, whom I consider a dear friend, has put a great deal of effort into the issue of corporate responsibility and good behaviour for many years. It is well over a decade. I can recall being in the third party with the member when he talked about this, and sitting beside individuals like Stéphane Dion. We understood and wanted to deal with this issue, which is no doubt of critical importance. One aspect that I always thought of was the way to get corporations to take certain actions as corporations. Individual board members were never really held accountable. There are many aspects in Bill S-211, but one of the aspects I liked was putting more responsibility on the board of directors so we could go after them for forced labour in general. We had very healthy debates on this issue. What I find interesting is the way the Conservative Party has brought forward what we are debating. If I read the motion itself, which does not take long to read because it is pretty straightforward, it says the committee looks at the bill and comes back with a report. It is pretty straightforward. It states: That the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to immediately take any and all actions necessary to prohibit the importation of any goods made wholly or in part with forced labour and develop a strategy to prevent the importation into Canada of any goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labour. This report was tabled here weeks ago. I find it interesting that the Conservatives chose today to ask for concurrence in the report as opposed to just accepting it, because after all, I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who does not understand the importance of the issue, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of the opposition wanting to see something done on this file. I suspect the motivation for the debate today has more to do with preventing the NDP from bringing forward a concurrence motion on a PROC report. It is interesting that the Conservatives chose this particular topic. I understand the way the rules work in the chamber, and at the end of the day, I am always happy to talk about an issue that is so very important. As for the motion itself, I would like to share something with members. I do not need to table it because it is public knowledge. The member across the way who introduced the motion asked what the government is doing. The parliamentary secretary spoke exceptionally well about how Canada, in many different fora, can play a leading role in dealing with the issue of forced labour and the impact it has on our supply chain. The Conservatives were very quick to scoff at that. It is interesting to hear the Conservatives when they are in opposition versus when they are in government. When I posed a question to the member, I noted it is all fine and dandy to be so critical of the government and to make accusations that are not necessarily founded. I asked what the former government did, the Harper regime. The member mocked the question, of course, because Stephen Harper did not do anything. I do not have a problem with contrasting that with what we have been able to do and deal with. The parliamentary secretary made reference to our international presence. What people do not necessarily recognize, which we should acknowledge, is that Canada, with a population base of 38 million people, carries an incredible amount of weight when it comes to international policy. We have seen that in many different ways. I have always been a big fan of Lloyd Axworthy. If we look at the banning of land mines, an issue Lloyd Axworthy championed on behalf of the Government of Canada, and the success we were able to achieve, we again have to put that into the perspective of the world. The same principles apply for a wide variety of different issues, and this is one of those issues. Unlike the scoffing coming from the Conservative benches, I believe in what the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said when he talked about the influence of standing up and speaking out, even in the presence of China. We hear a lot about China, because it was the example and has been the example used. Whether it is the Uighurs or Tibetans, we recognize that, yes, there has been a great deal of exploitation. However, the government is not just talking about that on the floor of the House of Commons. We are talking about that internationally, even in the presence of China. That means the Government of China, and often Chinese officials, will be very irritated, but I believe it is a role that Canadians expect because it is a part of our values. If we look at the sheer immigration numbers and the people who want to come to Canada, it is a very impressive thing. I believe that is because they look at the values and opportunities Canada has to offer, which translates into the House of Commons and the role we play not only domestically but internationally. That is the reason it is important that, whether it is the Prime Minister or a critic from the opposition party, if we have the opportunity to talk about Canadian values, this is the type of value we should be talking about. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations many years ago. It talks about the rights of children and their protection, and there are things we can do. That is one of the reasons why a few minutes back I made reference to a public document, which the parliamentary secretary made reference to earlier. I actually printed out a copy of it. It is the ministerial mandate letter for the Minister of Labour, authored by the Prime Minister. It provides instructions, and members who are watching or following the debate can easily look into it themselves by doing a simple Google search. The letter that comes from the Prime Minister states: As Minister of Labour, your immediate priorities are to work with federally regulated workplaces to ensure that COVID-19 vaccinations are enforced for those workers and to advance amendments to the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 paid days of sick leave for all federally regulated workers. I also expect you to work with federally regulated employers and labour groups, and with provincial and territorial counterparts, to make workplaces fairer and safer for everyone across the country as well as lead our efforts to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains. To realize these objectives, I ask that you achieve results for Canadians by delivering the following commitments. Then the letter lists a number of commitments, and this is one of them: With the support of the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development— I would like to emphasize this. —introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses. I challenge the member who chose to turn this into a political issue by saying the government has not done anything and who then went on to criticize Canada's border control. That is why I posed the question. In opposition, it sure is easy for the Conservative Party to be as critical as it wants, knowing full well that when it was in government it did absolutely nothing on this file. Even during a pandemic and many other aspects like a war, we can see that this is a priority of the government. We have different departments coming together to provide legislation. Tell me where the former government had any interest in passing legislation. The Conservatives can talk about this, but their math is all messed up, as pointed out earlier after one member said it is eight years later. Sometimes it takes a little while to clean up the Conservative mess. We went on to have a pandemic, and now a war is taking place, but we have seen other budgetary measures and legislative measures, some of which have already been pointed out by a previous speaker. There is a very clear indication that we are developing legislation. I will note something interesting in the EU: On 14 September 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to prohibit products made using forced labour, including child labour, on the internal market of European Union (EU). The proposed legislation fits into the context of EU efforts to promote decent work worldwide. I do not know all the details of this, but I think it is important for us to recognize that this is not just about Canada alone. Canada does work very closely with its partners, with its allied forces, the EU being one of them. That was referred to in 2022. The Prime Minister's letter to the minister was back in 2021. It does take time, as a great deal of consideration must be factored in. From a good governance, corporate perspective, companies want to ensure that supply chains are being supported by non-forced labour, and those that are prepared to put in that extra effort will ultimately have more security going forward. I do not believe that Canada is alone. I believe it is working with other like-minded nations in recognizing the harm that forced labour causes. Forced labour takes many different forms. There is exploitation of individuals here today in Canada. When we think about exploitation of labour, we should not believe it is just something beyond our borders. There is a role for provinces in particular, along with the federal government, in looking at what is not only happening abroad but also happening here in Canada. I know it exists. I have advocated consistently in the past against the exploitation of human beings. It is just wrong, and as parliamentarians we would like to make sure we are making progress in dealing with that. Human smuggling takes place, and it is pure exploitation, whether it is getting an individual into a factory or selling an individual for sexual services. Unfortunately, it is something that happens. I believe the United Nations said that it could be as high as 10%. Members should not quote me on it, but I believe it is somewhere in that neighbourhood worldwide, with about 10% of the population of the globe being exploited in one form or another. I mention children more than anything else because that is where my primary focus is, but there are other vulnerable groups, some more than others, that need to be taken into consideration. I like to believe that, as Canada continues to move forward on this file, we will continue to have healthy discussions. My colleague's legislation will be coming forward at some point in the future once the appropriate consultation has taken place. I believe this is an issue that has been here since well before any of us have been around. I am not just talking about inside the House of Commons. I am talking in life in general. It is something that is not going to be cured overnight. At the end of day, we do have a responsibility, a responsibility that has been taken very, very seriously. The government has seen the benefits of trade. Canada, more so than most countries around the world, is dependent on trade. It is dependent on exports and imports. It is not like we are a self-sufficient country in producing that does not require the importation of products. We are far from that. That is one of the reasons that, as we move forward, and we will move forward on this file, we do so in a way Canadians can get behind and support. Interestingly enough, there was reference to the North America trade agreement. We saw, incorporated into that trade agreement, the issue of workers' rights and environmental concerns. As a government, we have signed off on more trade agreements than any other government before us because we recognize just how important trade is to our country. At the same time, we have very much taken a keen interest in the supply chain and getting rid of the exploitation of people. I believe we are going to see more effort on that issue in the coming months and years ahead. With those few words, I am thankful for the opportunity to share some thoughts and look forward to any questions, if there are any.

Madam Speaker, over the last number of years in particular, I have witnessed a great deal of advocacy within the chamber from all sides of the House in terms of dealing with the issue of forced labour in general and forced child labour in particular. I have found that we are now at a stage in which we have a department that is actually developing and looking at ways to bring in legislation. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on how this issue of forced labour is something that offends members on all sides of the House?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward, as I am sure the member opposite does, to the work the department of labour is currently doing to deal with the issue at hand. It is working with other departments and doing the essential consultations. We have to do those consultations, and it is a wide variety of consultations that have to take place. That work is being done, and I look forward to seeing some of the results of that work in the coming months and years ahead of us. On the convention of rights for children, I think that, when we compare Canada to other nations in the world, we do exceptionally well, and we can play a very strong leadership role. That is why I indicated that Canada does often punch over its weight when it comes to ensuring human rights and the protection of children and vulnerable people by speaking out in the forums provided to do so, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an excellent point. That is one of the reasons why, when we take a look at the more recent trade agreements, we will see that there is an environmental component to them. With the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, everyone else seems to understand and appreciate that climate change is real, and that we do have to do things to protect our environment into the future. Incorporating the environment in our trade agreements sends a very strong message. Also important are things such as the Paris conference, which took place back in 2015, when countries around the world came together to recognize that things such as the price on pollution are good things. At one time, even the Conservative Party supported it. There are many things we can do to enhance and promote a healthier environment as well.

Mr. Speaker, never before have we seen the issue of our environment elevated to the degree it has been, not only here in Canada, but also in many places throughout the world. There are some chronic abusers, and there are areas in which we could even improve here in Canada, but at least we have a government that is committed to making a difference. That is one of the reasons why we brought in legislation to ultimately achieve net zero. As a government, we recognize that something has to be done. As a government, we incorporated it into a trade agreement. As a government, we are constantly raising the issue of environment in trade over virtually all other issues. We recognize the importance of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives make a great deal of reference to China. On all issues, they tend to focus a lot of attention on China. What does the member suggest the Conservative Party, in general, would do in dealing with China when it comes to the issue of trade, given that there was a secret trade agreement that was signed with the former prime minister of Canada? Can he provide his thoughts on what kinds of consequences there should be for China generally, based on the comments that we are hearing today from the Conservatives?

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I made reference to during my comments was in regard to the Minister of Labour and the mandate letter provided by the Prime Minister, which gives very a clear indication that we are to be developing legislation. That legislation is, in fact, in the works. I am not going to indicate when we will see it, because I am sure the member can appreciate that it does require a great deal of consultation and working with a wide spectrum of different types of stakeholders. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the type of work that should be done prior to introducing legislation, given the consequences of a substantive piece of legislation that we hope to be producing at some time, whether it is in months or years?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about legislation that all members of the House should get onside with and support. Bill C-23 is all about people, places, our history and our heritage. When I think about our heritage, a flood of things come to mind about our Canadian identity. It was not that long ago that we were talking about the $198-billion, 10-year health agreement between the national government and all the different provinces. I remember saying that our health care system was at the very core of what it meant to be a Canadian. We can talk about a policy of that nature or about Canada's rich diversity, which is second to no other country in the world. In fact, I often have had the opportunity to talk about that diversity when I have gone to a multitude of different types of events whether in Winnipeg North or outside it. We often hear that one of Canada's greatest assets is our diversity. Our heritage is changing everyday through people and the things we do as a society. Compare our values today to what they would have been 30 years ago with respect to diversity and the way in which we approach a wide variety of different areas. When we a look at Bill C-23, one cannot help but reflect on a private member's bill that was passed through the House a couple of years back. It went through second and third reading. It ultimately went to the Senate, but unfortunately it died in the Senate. It was a private member's bill, Bill C-374, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, a man who is very passionate about our heritage and our parks. I believe that legislation received unanimous support in the House of Commons prior to going to the Senate. That legislation was not word for word to this legislation. In fact, there is a significant difference between what we have before us today and ultimately what passed through the House unanimously but died in the Senate. The principle of the importance of our historic places, people and acts is something we have to ensure we preserve. Bill C-23 is all about that. That is why I hope that at the end of the day all members will support it. I did not know about the number of canals in Canada. Why is that important? There are nine historic canals listed in the bill, such as the Rideau Canal, Trent-Severn Waterway, the Sault Ste. Marie Canal. The canal that really made me reflect upon is in the province of Quebec, the Saint-Ours Canal. My ancestry, a few generations back, came from that area. I suspect that some of my family might have even historically been a part of that. The bill goes on to list the canals, whether in Ontario, Quebec or Nova Scotia, and the important role they play. It gives specific directions. I use the canals as an example because if we look at what the legislation would do, it would establish a very strong framework to deal with something that should be important to all of us. The designation of a place, person or event in Canada is something we should all take an active interest in. That is what I like about the legislation. I believe passing this legislation will put us at par with and maybe even better than some other jurisdictions. As the member for Cloverdale—Langley City pointed out to members a couple of years back, it is warranted and necessary, and I am glad the department has made it a priority to such a degree that we are now debating it after it was introduced the other day. I hope members see fit to support the legislation so it can go to committee and hopefully receive some sort of passage. Let us get it back into the Senate, hopefully before the end of the year, because as I said, while it is not identical to Bill C-374, it sure did receive a great deal of support. When I think of the legislation, there are certain parts that are worthy for me to reference. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is something that many members of the House of Commons and I hold very dear. We want to see action on the calls to action. Over the last number of years, we have seen many calls acted on by this government, whether through statutory holidays or the language legislation. Many different calls to action have been acted on, and within this legislation we are seeing call to action number 79. It is gratifying, but at the end of the day, it is hard to believe we need to put this into legislation. I think this should have been automatic many, many years ago, and perhaps decades ago. This legislation would ultimately put into place a guarantee of indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, for example. This is a board that helps portray Canada's history and where we have come from. How can one not incorporate call to action number 79? I am glad to see it has been incorporated into the legislation. I am also glad to see it note that when a board is looking at some form of designation, it would need to take into consideration indigenous knowledge so we ensure there is a fairer reflection of our history. I want to give a tangible example that I think has made a profoundly positive difference in the city of Winnipeg. In the city of Winnipeg, we have what we call The Forks, where the Red River and the Assiniboine River come together. There are some historic buildings there. There is the Via Rail station, which is such a wonderful heritage building where often someone can get their citizenship court ceremony. There is also what used to be freight type buildings. At one time, The Forks was a rail yard and there was very limited access to the Red and Assiniboine rivers. What we had was different levels of government recognizing the heritage within The Forks and investing millions of dollars to convert The Forks into what it is today. They took heritage buildings and converted them to have a modern use while preserving their heritage. We can take a look at the walkways along both the Red River and the Assiniboine River and the value they have added to the city of Winnipeg. Today, it is the most visited spot in the province of Manitoba. I heard a while back there are close to two million visits a year at The Forks, and there is a very important educational component to it for children and adults alike as it continues to evolve. Prior to this investment and recognition, we might have had virtually no people going down to The Forks. Compared that to what it is today, and ultimately there is no comparison. There is no comparison because at one point in time it was hidden away from the residents of Winnipeg and those who were visiting our city, whereas today it is recognized as one of our shining attractions. If anyone is going to Winnipeg, they have to check out The Forks. It is an area that Winnipeggers are very proud of. We can talk about downtown Winnipeg, or we can go into rural communities, where there is Riding Mountain National Park. If we were to check with some of my Conservative colleagues from the rural northern area, we would find they are very proud of Riding Mountain National Park, the many things it has to offer and the museums located in many different communities. What is important, I believe, is that within the legislation, there are mechanisms that would enable anyone to ultimately make a suggestion about and bring forward what they believe should be recognized. It is therefore not just top-down. It is something that allows anyone in our communities to suggest any individual, an example for me being Louis Riel from Manitoba; place, like The Forks, as I highlighted as an example; or event. One could talk about the occurrence that took place in Upper Fort Garry many years ago or what was taking place in Lower Fort Garry, all of which are examples in Manitoba of things that could be recommended in hopes they are accepted. I talked about the fact that this legislation would put into place a very strong framework, and through it and complemented by regulations, we would see criteria. There is no doubt that we all have personal opinions on what we think should be recognized from a national historical perspective; we all have our personal thoughts on that. However, we need to establish criteria. First and foremost, I would say that within the legislation, anyone could come up with their thoughts on a person, place or event, and recommend or suggest that it be recognized. The criteria and eligibility would likely restrict a number of those thoughts and ideas, at least possibly in the short term, but at the end of the day, we have an excellent organization in the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. With respect to issues of transparency and sustainability and the issue of reconciliation, we have a board in place to protect the interests of Canadians in preserving the important things that we hold dear as part of our Canadian identity. As I mentioned, the legislation would mandate full participation from indigenous community members, along with provinces, which have been there in the past, and a few others. At the end of the day, this is the group of individuals who would ultimately provide recommendations and assist in drawing conclusions. One thing I did not make reference to is heritage buildings. We have beautiful heritage buildings across our country, and I made reference to a couple of them in my example of The Forks. I am promoting The Forks today, as members can tell. There are federal buildings throughout the country that have played some historical significance. I think of Pier 21 in Halifax. I remember having a tour of that facility. We get a sense of pride from it, as it is a part of our Canadian identity. Immigration today is so critically important to our country, as it has been in our past, and Pier 21 amplifies that. Let us look at what has been done to the building. Obviously, if we had a picture that is hundreds of years old, it would look quite different from what it looks like today. However, because of intergovernmental investments and many volunteers who recognized the true intrinsic value of Pier 21, when walking through it today, we see a modernized facility that preserves and protects the heritage of the building itself. That is something we should be encouraging. Not only does this protect our history and preserve it for future generations, but it also creates jobs. Through alternative uses, it brings people into the facility so they can learn more about our heritage. It becomes an attraction. If we talk to the Minister of Tourism, no matter where he is in Canada, he is talking about how wonderful our tourism opportunities are. We underestimate just how important our heritage can be in promoting tourism. It is used as a magnet for tourism. If people look at the legislation, they will see it is not controversial. It is legislation that should be universally supported by all members, as we saw when the member for Cloverdale—Langley City brought in Bill C-374 a couple of years back and received unanimous consent. I hope my colleagues in the Conservative Party will recognize that and not want to filibuster this particular bill. Hopefully we will even see it get royal assent before the end of the year. How nice that would be.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would suggest that there is the issue of ministerial accountability. If there was an issue of closing down a canal, I suspect there would be a great deal of thought before a minister would do that, as it goes far beyond a department having to make a decision by itself. There are opposition members who would be more than happy to hold the minister accountable if, in fact, a poor decision was being made. That is not to say that our government would make a poor decision. The member opposite also made reference to why we waited so long. Bringing forward legislation to deal with child care, dental benefits and a wide spectrum of issues to support Canadians, even though the Conservatives did not support most of that stuff, takes time to get through. If only we had more time to bring things back. I can assure the member that it is a priority for the government. We do want to see the legislation pass, and hopefully the Conservative Party would be sympathetic to allowing this bill to pass, given what I suspect is the unanimous support of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is yes. Through time, what we have witnessed is that people continue to understand and appreciate the importance of our heritage and our buildings. To this very day, I find it somewhat shameful that the city of Winnipeg lost its original city hall. It was an absolutely beautiful building. Obviously I was not part of the decision-making process back in the 1960s, but it was such a beautiful, historic building. I do not think for a moment we would have lost that with today's values about or attitudes towards the importance of preserving our heritage. This legislation has teeth. Obviously, it will be supported by regulations. Support for the legislation goes far beyond just the House of Commons, as it also incorporates indigenous community support and provincial support.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree to disagree with the member opposite. I believe the government has made significant strides. In fact, I would suggest that no government in the history of Canada has made more efforts, provided more financial resources and taken more action than the Liberal government over the last six years in addressing the importance of the relationship between Canada and indigenous people. Within this legislation specifically, there is call for action 79, which ensures there is a guaranteed partnership within the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It also ensures that, when the board is making decisions, indigenous considerations have to be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, I would be disappointed if the leader of the Green Party did not bring amendments. She consistently does that. The short answer to the member's question would be that the Government of Canada has demonstrated over the years that we are very much open to amendments if they add strength and make the legislation better, whether they are coming from Liberals, Conservatives, NDP or Green members. The idea behind this is to make better and strong legislation. As I said, it is establishing a healthy framework. The member also pointed out individuals, and there are so many individuals in our communities who do not necessarily hold elected office but who contribute immensely to ensuring that the proper recognition and designation is given to so many things, such as people, events and places. I would like to express my appreciation for the fine work they do in preserving and encouraging future generations of Canadians to have the value we see in heritage sites today.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-23 takes into consideration the calls to action on reconciliation. I believe it is number 79 that ensures there is representation from the indigenous community on the board. The member seems to have some concern about whether or not that representation is within the legislation, but my understanding of the legislation is that it is there. It also ensures indigenous consideration in decisions being made by the board. Would the member not agree that in recognizing that this legislation, in principle, is good and sets the framework, many of the ideas and suggestions she might have as an opposition member could in fact have a positive outcome once the bill gets to the committee stage, where at the very least her questions could be answered more specifically?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that it appears the Bloc is supporting at least the principles of the legislation. When we think of the contributions of heritage, and one could ultimately say our arts community makes us who we are as a nation, it is important that we recognize that heritage. We do that with a designation so people can advocate for names, places and events. It is important that we treasure and recognize it. What are the member's general thoughts on that principle?

Madam Speaker, as members may know, Bill C-23 would enable and encourage recommendations and ideas people might have. The member made reference to a few very specific thoughts. When we think of our heritage, we need to think of people, places and special events, or a combination of any of those three areas, and advance it to where criteria and eligibility need to be met. What is nice about the legislation is that it sets a more detailed framework that would allow this to take place. Would the member not agree, in the principles of the legislation, that this is good legislation that should ultimately go to the committee?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the debate on what I would have thought was fairly straightforward legislation or definitely the principles of it. I do not necessarily agree with the official opposition, but I understand what it is saying. The legislation also has a very significant contribution toward reconciliation with call to action 79. From what I can tell, many of the discussions that have been coming forward could easily be dealt with at committee stage. My concern is to what degree the Conservative Party would like to see the bill passed. Is there an interest on its part to see it passed? As I said, it would be nice to see it passed before the end of the year. Could the hon. member just provide her perspective, given the importance of the principles of the legislation, on when it could go to committee?

Mr. Speaker, in the statements the member has made, there are some aspects I agree with, and others I disagree with. When we talk about Bill C-241 itself, there are issues with tax fairness within the legislation. There is a lack of safeguards within the legislation that the member talks about supporting. There are some technical deficiencies within the legislation. I think that, if we take a look, if I may, at Bill C-19, which was the federal legislation that was brought forward, we would see that, in moving forward with the labour mobility tax credit, it does allow for workers in the building and construction trades to deduct up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses, giving them a tax credit of up to $600 a year. The labour mobility tax credit goes a long way in being supportive of an industry. The member made reference to the construction industry in the province of Quebec, and the construction industry in the province of Quebec is, in fact, very important to the government. We recognize that there are many ways and many areas in which, throughout the country, we can look at how we can further enhance and support the construction industry. There is a labour shortage. The member made reference to the kind of actions, and the number of jobs the government created. I think it is worthy of note. Do members know that over 800,000 jobs have been created if we look at the number of jobs in Canada prepandemic? We can take a look at the number from before the pandemic started, and we can add about 825,000 or 830,000 new jobs since that time. I would ultimately argue that the government has been very successful at ensuring that Canada is in a great position to come back in a better and healthier way when it comes to the whole issue of jobs. Yes, there is a huge demand for employees in the different regions of the country. There are certain sectors, and the construction area is one of them. That is one of the reasons why we look at other mechanisms we could put into place to support. Whether it is forgiving the interest for apprentices on federal loans, the enhancement of the labour mobility tax credit, or other initiatives, I believe that it is contributing and making a difference. We also recognize that immigration can play a critical role in meeting our labour demands, not only for today but also into the future. Further to that, I have always argued that, if we look outside Canada to supply workers, we should also, at the same time, look at ways we can enable those workers to become landed immigrants to Canada. That is something that has been very important to the government. We have been looking at ways in which we can add to the workforce by bringing in international students. This has had a positive impact in Canada, in many different ways, not only filling literally tens of thousands of jobs, but also adding to the social fabric in which we all live in and have grown to appreciate. The numbers of, and I use this as an example, international students today, compared to what it was seven, eight years ago, have multiplied significantly, from the 35,000 or 40,000 to closer to 350,000. There are significant numbers of international students who are studying a wide spectrum of issues. The member spoke prior talked about construction jobs, and many of students are taking those types of construction jobs. They are getting an education at our colleges and, in some cases, universities, to work either directly or indirectly in the construction industry. We are looking at ways to further enhance opportunities for those who want to enter the occupation. There are many examples of low-income families working in the industry. I am very pleased with the fact that we have the federal refund tax credit for the Canada workers benefit program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are directly benefiting from that credit. It is significant. An individual receives just over $1,400 and a family unit receives up to $2,400 to assist workers with a lower income. We can look at the basic tax exemption. I talk about this because taxation policy does matter and does make a difference. The government has looked at the labour mobility tax credit within Bill C-19 and has addressed many of the shortcomings I pointed out in regard to Bill C-241. I had the opportunity to look into what Bill C-241 is proposing, and I would suggest there are too many technical deficiencies. There is an issue of taxation fairness in some of the areas. There is, in fact, a lack of safeguards, as I pointed out. The sponsor of the legislation can maybe sit down with ministers or others and expand on some of those points. When it comes to apprenticeship programs and ways we can support labour enhancement, the government has been very progressive in trying to deal with that and enhance it. I have been with the Prime Minister in Manitoba on one or two occasions to look at how we can contribute to enhancing trade and labour in the province of Manitoba. We have wonderful organizations out there that are developing programs. Earlier today we heard the Conservatives finally get on board with the idea of national opportunities for individuals to be recognized in health care professions and have mobility rights across Canada. They refer to it as a “blue seal”. I suspect they are taking that idea in part from the Red Seal program, which is for tradespeople. Whether it is someone international or someone who takes culinary arts to achieve the Red Seal, it has a profoundly positive impact for that individual. When we look at the construction industry, there is potential growth in that area with regard to getting recognition from a national perspective. The government, through taxation policies, has been there and continues to be there for the construction industry in particular, but also, as I pointed out, for those who are on the low-income scale. Not all construction workers are able to collect the annual money necessary to provide for a full family or even themselves. That is why we have provided the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit program. I believe it is important that we use our taxation policy as a mechanism to support families and individuals in different situations. One of those situations is looking at ways we can enhance our labour market and support the people who are working so hard to get ahead in life, particularly by upgrading their skills. Apprenticeship programs are an excellent example of that.

Mr. Speaker, to my friend across the way, speaking notes are not required here. I can assure the member that what I am sharing with her now is strictly what I personally believe. At the end of the day, we need to put things into the proper perspective. Foreign interference in elections is not new. It has been happening for many years. In fact, it was first really brought to the attention of the government when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada and when the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was the minister responsible for democratic reform. Imagine the current leader and this information being brought to his attention. What did he actually do? The simple and factual answer is he did nothing. Stephen Harper and the government just ignored the issue completely. Contrast this lack of action with what we have done. Virtually from day one, we have made changes. We can talk about the establishment of the parliamentary committee that joined the other four eyes of the Five Eyes countries to ensure members of Parliament on all sides of the House could hear the most secretive information our security agencies have. That was something we put in place months after taking the reins of power in Canada. We have heard from numerous security agencies and civil servants about the issue of foreign election interference. Yesterday, I made reference to the ambassador of the United States to Canada. All of them have said that the allegations of foreign interference we hear about did not, and I underline the word “not”, impact the outcome of the last federal election. This is an issue where partisan politics should be taken to the side, as election interference affects the fundamental principles of our democracy. I do not think any member in the chamber should be accused of not protecting Canada's interests on that file. Not only have significant actions been taken by this government, many of which were initiated by this government, but we have had overtures of ensuring we will continue. The biggest one that comes to my mind is the special rapporteur. A Conservative Party-appointed Governor General, Mr. Johnston, is now charged with the responsibility of looking into the matter and reporting back on his recommendations, which could include a public inquiry in the future. Why do the Conservatives not have confidence in our civil service and in a former appointment made by Stephen Harper?

Mr. Speaker, if we think about it, it is a threat to the Hon. David Johnston, someone who has been an incredible Canadian. The threat is that he had better come with a public inquiry recommendation or they are going to sandbag him at every opportunity. How disrespectful to a true Canadian, someone who has served our country in many different ways. It shows the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to be partisan on this issue. Foreign interference is nothing new. Not only has it happened in Canada before, but it has happened to many of our allied countries. We have a government that has been aggressively pursuing the issue. We now have an appointment of a Canadian with exceptional credentials. I find it unfortunate that the Conservative Party would sandbag such an incredible individual.

Madam Speaker, let me start by recognizing that the member for London West has brought forward to the House a very important issue. Over the last number of years, we have seen the government take a very proactive approach in dealing with housing-related matters. Today, the member for London West, through this motion, has highlighted a critically important aspect to housing and the role that government needs to play: Having and improving access to adaptable, affordable housing is absolutely critical. The manner in which the motion was brought forward heightens the importance of the issue and allows for additional debate. It is a great way to advocate for a community that really needs to get more recognition. It is quite surprising that we do not already have an expert with some understanding of visible and non-visible disabilities sitting on the National Housing Council. I respect the fact that the member for London West is advocating for that. I think it is long overdue, and I hope it takes place. I am not sure about all the individuals who were engaged and involved with the member in the drafting of the motion she brought forward, but I want to recognize that they have indeed brought forward an issue that is very important, no matter what area of the nation we are talking about. At the very beginning, the motion talks about the importance of working with others. It is only with this government that, over the last number of years, we have seen the development of a national housing strategy, and we have seen the investment of hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars in non-profit housing. We have been a very proactive government in ensuring that the federal government has a role to play in housing. That is why I was somewhat surprised when the Conservative members stood in this place virtually being critical of the federal government, when the Conservative Party has given no support to non-profit housing. There are many Conservatives who believe the federal government has no role to play in regard to national housing. We have been working diligently with the different governments, levels of government, indigenous governments and many different stakeholders to ensure that Canada is able to meet the types of housing needs that are going to be there. At least the national government is playing a strong leadership role. We have seen budgetary measures that have incorporated historic amounts of money going into support for the creation of housing, for renovations to housing and for the greening of the housing industry. The government has worked with municipalities, provinces and indigenous nations to try to get the type of housing developed and renovated that is necessary. In the province of Manitoba alone, there are tens of thousands of non-profit housing units. Non-profit housing takes into consideration many different things, such as housing co-ops. We have a government, in recent years, that has taken a very keen interest in the promotion and development of housing co-ops, something of which I have been a long-time advocate. Every year, millions of dollars are put toward ongoing operational costs to support the thousands of homes and low-income people in the province of Manitoba alone. When we reflect on the resolution that we have before us today, it heightens the importance of people with non-visible physical and mental disabilities. We do need to put more of an emphasis on that. Ottawa does have a role to play, whether it is through the National Housing Council, the debates we have here in the House or the discussions that take place between the Minister of Housing and the provincial counterparts, to advocate and to ensure that we continue to support those initiatives at the community level. For those who want to be critical of this government, I would suggest they look at previous federal governments in Canada and tell me of one that has invested more in housing and has been there in a very real and tangible way, whether it is legislatively or from a budget perspective. They will find that there has not been a government that has been as progressive and as aggressive on the housing file as this in the last 40 or 50 years. I will conclude on that thought and applaud the member for London West for bringing forward what I think is a motion that all members should be supporting.

Madam Speaker, if we listened in particular to the Conservative and the Bloc opposition members, we would think that international interference is new to Canada. Not only has international interference taken place to some degree, whether in Canada, the United States or other allied countries, but we also know for a fact that there are countries that interfere. It is not just China; there are other nations that do likewise. The member stands in his place asking what we are doing, but the government has done far more than whatever Stephen Harper and even the current leader of the Conservative Party did. We have put safeguards in place. Would the member not, at the very least, recognize that international interference has been taking place and that, for the first time, we actually have a government that is doing something on it?