Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the member for Abbotsford for getting a little off topic there, too. My first experience in dealing with wood in a substantial way, which goes beyond the general framing of a house in Winnipeg, is when I had actually bought a home on Burrows Avenue. I went into the home. We had to replace some drywall. Instead of a concrete foundation, it was actually a wood foundation. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. I am somewhat familiar with the construction industry. I have family members who have been doing it for many years. A thought that crosses my mind right away when I touch a wood foundation versus a concrete foundation is there is a far better insulation value. If one is from a city like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or Regina, out in the Prairies, insulation value is quite important. If members were to do a Google search, which I have, they would find, to the surprise of many, how skyscrapers are actually now being made. Someone made reference to a wooden structure of eight floors. In Wisconsin, there is a 25-storey timber building. In Canada, if we look at British Columbia, by UBC, I believe it is called the Brock Commons. It is an 18-storey complex. More and more, we are seeing wood being used in these taller buildings. I believe it is a vastly underestimated potential for Canada's wood industry. Like others, I have had the chance to travel abroad. Often in the countries I have visited, we do not see wood being utilized as we would here in North America. I believe that it is speaks volumes to the potential markets out there if one could really get out there and communicate the advantages of wood over other products. We have talked a great deal about the transition to a greener economy. When we think of that greener economy, a big part of it is within the construction industry itself. As we see our wood industry grow at least in part, recognizing the potential of that growth and talking about it would add even that much more value to it. This is not the first time that we have had this type of legislation come to the floor of the House of Commons. Some have already made reference to, I believe, Bill C-354, which went through a while ago, passing in the House of Commons. It was the election in 2019 that killed the bill because it did not quite get through the Senate. It bodes well, in terms of where we are today, talking about Bill S-222. Within that legislation, given the very nature of the fact that it is originating from the Senate, and we have seen the wide support from a previous House, where members on all sides saw the value of supporting it, I suspect that Bill S-222 would in fact be able to pass the House, and ultimately receive royal assent. That is a very strong positive. As I said, there is nothing new, from a government perspective, in dealing with the environment and having a greener transition, because I think it fits what we have been talking about. We have seen a number of legislative and budgetary measures to support a greener economy. I am thinking of those magnificent timbers, beams, one-by-threes for sidings, two-by-fours and, nowadays, two-by-sixes that are being used in many of the construction codes for exterior walls, for example. We have seen far more opportunities in recent years. As building codes continue to evolve and give more strength, I believe we will see that the demand for wood will continue to increase. At the end of the day we do want to see a reduction in greenhouse emissions, and the bill would support that in principle, because of the product itself, a product that is renewable. Someone made reference to the province of B.C., where one tree comes down and three are planted in its place. We have a commitment to plant two billion trees, coming from our government. Many of those trees are going to be planted within our cities to provide beautiful plush green canopies over our municipalities, cities and communities, but a good number of trees we see that are planted today are there so that we can ensure that we can continue to harvest. We have heard a great deal about British Columbia, and we do not want to give the impression that it is the only place where there is an industry of that nature, because one could easily talk about hardwoods and others that go from Ontario to Quebec and a couple of the Atlantic provinces, where there is very much a healthy industry, and that is not to say my own home province of Manitoba does not have great potential in the development in that industry. I think that, in looking at the bill, we see sustainable forest management. We see a government that is committed to greening federal buildings, whether it is by retrofitting, building new or just completing repairs, and what the legislation would do is allow the minister to recommend wood usage, not necessarily compel it, but recommend it.

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, for many years, in a substantial way, we have had legislation dealing with the issue. It stems from a Supreme Court decision. The member has made reference to that. There has been a great deal of dialogue over the last half a dozen years in regard to what we are actually debating today. We have a standing committee that has been overseeing it as of late. We have some deadlines. I think the legislation allows for more discussion by having the extension. One of the things lost in the debate is the issue of situations where, because of the supports that are there when someone is looking for medical assistance in dying, they get some sort of treatment that ultimately takes them off the thought of having medical assistance in dying. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on the medical professionals and others who are out there who are, in fact, providing a service that has been deemed by the Supreme Court as something that is necessary? How we define that is really what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of speakers make reference to the issue of mental health and this member, the leader of the Green Party, also referred to palliative care. The greatest contribution that Ottawa can do in regard to the areas of mental health, health in general, palliative care and hospice care is provide the financial resources and then use the Canada Health Act and raise the profile of the issue itself. We can put a checkmark on all three of those with respect to the last five or six years of this government. At the end of the day, we do need to see more working together with provinces and indigenous communities, in terms of continuously raising the profile of the issue to make sure the resources are being properly allocated. When she reflects on the legislation and the special joint committee that is out there, is there something specific that the leader of the Green Party would filter out or like to see?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think no one inside this chamber would advocate using MAID legislation as an alternative because of a lack of services to mental health, from a federal government's perspective. I do have a question I would put to the member. He talks about the importance of mental health, yet when we take a look at it, the government has put a great deal of emphasis and financial resources behind the issue of mental health. The Conservative Party is more inclined to say it will give provinces the money and not have any conditions at all on how they are giving the money. The member cannot say that they want to have more mental health and not say that the Conservatives are going to enforce their will with provinces by encouraging the provinces and the territories to spend more on mental health, because from the Conservative Party's perspective, they just want to hand over the money. We believe in the Canada Health Act. We believe mental health is a part of health, so this is something I think is quite different between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Would the member, on the record today, say that he would be encouraging, through the Canada Health Act, provinces to invest more into mental health?

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have witnessed over the years while we have been debating the issue of MAID, from 2016 and onward, is that there is no unanimous consent coming from the Conservative benches. There are many individuals even within the Conservative Party who have differing opinions in terms of what it is that the member himself is suggesting. If I am wrong on that I would be very much interested in the member telling me that I am wrong. The reason I say that is because there was a special joint committee for MAID that has been out there doing a great deal of consulting, working with Canadians, looking to health experts and talking to individuals who are either direct or indirect stakeholders. There has been a great deal of discussion. On the legislation itself, I suspect that the member is going to be voting in favour of it, but I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts in regards to the fact that even within his own political party there is no overwhelming sense that what he is suggesting is in fact the best way to be going.

Mr. Speaker, I support the need for additional mental health for Canadians. That is why I am very proud of the fact that we have a $198-billion agreement with the provinces now over the next 10 years, as provinces will determine how best to use that money. There are some qualifiers for that. There is going to be more accountability. There is going to be transparency. Let us contrast that, as Conservative members stand up and are critical of the government, saying that we are not doing enough on mental health. I think we need to be honest with Canadians in what the Conservative Party is proposing to do on mental health, which is nothing. There is no commitment coming from the Conservative Party to deal with mental health, rural or urban. If there is, I ask the member to please tell me where the announcement is. What is the Conservative Party doing? Give me another half-hour, and I will be more than happy to explain what it is the Liberal Party is doing in support of mental health. Depression is not going to be used as access to medical assistance in dying. I have more confidence in our medical profession.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite because, for the most part, I concur with what the member is saying. In the debate that took place in regard to Bill C-14, if the member looks at Hansard he will see that the issue of palliative care and hospice care was huge. Members on both sides of the House understood how important it was that we have that in our communities, as we did not want to see people using MAID as an escape because of not having that care. Again, when I reflect on what we are talking about now, more and more members are talking about the issue of mental illness. It is good that we all have a consensus. No one is talking about depression as being something that would allow someone to apply for MAID. If they do apply, the doctors and medical professionals are not going to authorize something of that nature. We are talking about the extreme situations. That is my understanding. It is good to hear those independent voices on this particular issue and, as much as possible, I would concur. I would just ask the member to continue to expand upon why it is important that we take the party politics out of it, because it is very much a personal issue.

Mr. Speaker, just to provide a little bit of clarity on the issue of mental health, I challenge the member or others who want to make this more partisan to tell me of another government that has invested as much money in health care or mental health, and has focused so much attention on mental health, as this national government has. Stephen Harper definitely did not do that. My question to the member is related to the special joint committee. There is a special joint committee whose membership comes from all sides that is doing a lot of work on the issue. Does the member believe there are no exceptions himself where any form of mental illness could be eligible for MAID?

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat offensive to even give an impression that we want death on demand, or that any member of the House of Commons would want death on demand. That is really quite an extreme statement. As a government, we have invested an immense amount of resources towards mental health, far more than previous governments. I do want to address one issue. When an agent of veterans affairs, a civil servant made that recommendation, I think it greatly offended every member of the House of Commons. My understanding is that that person is no longer talking to veterans. I am wondering if the member would provide this clarification. Would she not agree, whether it is a veterans' agent or individuals who do not have the authority to even deal with the issue of MAID, they should not be recommending, in any circumstances, that MAID be—

Madam Speaker, I would concur that there are many ways in which people can access the types of supports that are out there, and it would be good to see more support going into mental illness, health and well-being. We hope that is what we will seeing with our provincial and territorial governments, and work with our different communities, rural or urban. The issue I have is when we take a look at the legislation, the legislation is proposing a pause. There will be some time for members to continue to reflect on and hear what health care professionals and experts have to say. To what degree should health care experts and other stakeholders play a role in this debate?

Madam Speaker, since the Supreme Court decision in 2015 and going into 2016, the government has been working very closely with members on all sides of the House, even today, in passing legislation. It takes more than just government members to pass legislation. I suspect that virtually all members will be supporting and voting in favour of this legislation because they see the value in what the government is proposing, which is to put off and ultimately delay things for a year so we can feel more comfortable in making sure we are getting things right. Does the member acknowledge that the Government of Canada has appointed a task group of experts to develop MAID practice standards in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, regulatory bodies and clinicians across Canada? Does the member feel that those organizations and stakeholders should have any say in the future of MAID legislation?

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that reinforces something that has been discussed and debated in the House now for quite a while, two political regimes out there and the impact they are having on the world today. We hear a great deal from members of the opposition talking about the issue of inflation. Looking around the world at the current level of inflation rates, I often stand and talk about the reality of what is happening in the world that, in part, is causing inflation to occur, such as the two regimes I would like to spend a bit of time talking about, and why this legislation is before us today. The war in Ukraine has caused so much hardship in many different ways. There are Ukrainian communities not only in Ukraine but around the world, and I believe that if Canada is not second it might be third behind the United States with respect to the size of our Ukrainian heritage community. I say that because, typically, whatever takes place in Ukraine, whether today or back in 2014 at the Maidan or Independence Square, or the independence of Ukraine back in the early 1990s, the people of Canada genuinely care. That should not surprise anyone when we look at the demographics of Canada. Over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage call Canada home. It is not just people of Ukrainian heritage who have made that connection, but in good part it is the neighbours, the working environment and our educational institutions, where we find a great deal of discussion concerning Ukraine. I am much more familiar with what is happening in Ukraine than I am, I must admit, with Iran, and I want to be able to amplify that. I know there are so many people in my home province, and in fact in Winnipeg, who are following the war in Ukraine, or the war that is taking place in Europe. This weekend I will be hosting a special lunch at one of our local Ukrainian churches. There is no doubt that the number one issue I will be addressing Sunday afternoon is the illegal war taking place in Ukraine. I have asked for some numbers, and based on the community numbers provided to me, we have seen well over 12,000 people, and someone suggested as high as 15,000 people, displaced from Ukraine who are now living in Manitoba. When we look at the numbers and we drive around Winnipeg or the rural communities, whether Dauphin or even the community of Gimli, what we see is substantial support for Ukraine in the form of Ukrainian flags being flown in office and home windows. I say this because of what has taken place over the last year with respect to how the Ukrainian community, not just in Ukraine, Canada and the United States but around the world, has really come together in solidarity. The friends of Ukraine, people who are not necessarily of Ukrainian heritage, recognize that, like Canada and its allied countries, they need to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. I remember standing up and speaking in the House, where I was talking about how we should be providing support for Ukraine. It was maybe just over a year ago. The Prime Minister had indicated to me not to forget lethal weapons. It is important that the types of supports we are putting in place for Ukraine, in working with allied countries, are really making a difference. A part of that support speaks directly to the legislation we have today. The legislation deals with one aspect of the things we are doing to show the world that Canada is behind Ukraine. That is the issue of sanctions. When the war broke out in Ukraine, there were many demands put on the Government of Canada. We did not necessarily have to hear them, as we had ministers taking up their responsibilities and already taking action. However, we literally had thousands of people throughout the country stand up in rallies saying, “What can we do as a nation to protect the interests of Ukraine?” There were ideas such as humanitarian aid. I remember we said we would match Canadians' contributions to humanitarian aid and I believe it was a $12-million commitment that we made, though I might be out by a bit. It was just a matter of weeks, if not days, that the cap was hit, so we had to expand that cap because Canadians wanted to see humanitarian aid. When it comes to the military, more than 35,000 Ukrainian soldiers have benefited from our Canadian Forces and the training we provided. We have provided all forms of ammunition and other types of supports. Very recently, Ukraine has received one of our tanks, a Leopard tank I believe. Members will find that we are providing multiple numbers of many different things. The point of this is to recognize our support, whether it is lethal weapons, humanitarian aid or providing leadership with our allied countries so there would be a united front in taking on Russia. One of the areas in which Canada has made significant headway is on the sanctions. It is having an impact. Canada has taken a very strong approach in regard to a multitude of tools we can use in order to clearly indicate that there will be consequences for what is happening in Europe with this unprovoked, inhumane war that Russia commenced on Ukraine a year ago. The people of Russia are, in fact, starting to see the consequences of economic sanctions that have been put on to the country and of sanctions for the regime itself. Canada will continue to be there for Ukraine in a time of need in regard to holding Russia accountable. Banning close associates and key supporters of the Putin regime, including those responsible for Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, from entering our country is one of the many ways we are holding Russia accountable for its crimes. We will continue to exercise all options to uphold freedom and democracy. When we look at Bill S-8, we see that there are amendments being proposed that are needed to align Canada's sanctions and inadmissibility frameworks to ensure that those who are responsible for Russia's aggression, and already subjected to sanctions, would be inadmissible to Canada. Individuals and entities that have been sanctioned for their support of terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations are inadmissible to Canada. The changes we would be putting in place would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to deny entry to, and ultimately remove, sanctioned individuals, and would allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials to deny visas. Once in force, these amendments to the IRPA would apply to all foreign nationals subject to sanctions by Canada, as well as to any accompanying family members. We can take a look at many of the actions throughout this war that are taking place today or have taken place in the last 10 or 11 months in Ukraine. We hear about human rights violations. Just yesterday we were talking about the notwithstanding clause in the House, and highlighted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian values. If we were to apply Canadian values to what is taking place in Ukraine, it is very obvious. We could show that in a classroom of grade 1 students. We could sit down and explain it to a child, and the child would understand that very clearly. That is how blatant, in Ukraine in a time of war, the types of actions that Russia has taken are. We can cite specific examples of things, from mass murder to rape and all forms of seduction and torture that are taking place in Ukraine, so it is fairly easy to put forward that particular argument. I can change channels and talk about Iran and the regime in Iran, because even though I spend most of my time talking about Ukraine, the legislation would also apply to the regime in Iran. One can only imagine, in terms of what it is that, in particular, women today have to put up with in regard to what is taking place in the Iranian regime. Again, Canada will continue to hold the Iranian regime to account for its crimes and human rights abuses. We stand in solidarity with the women and demonstrators across Iran who are advocating for their rights and freedoms. That is why we are implementing the strongest sanctions in the world, which include banning senior IRGC operatives from Canada. The government continues to be unwavering in its commitment to keep Canadians safe by taking all appropriate actions to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world. We have a moral responsibility to hold the Iranian regime to account, and we will do just that. The restrictions on women are very upsetting. I pointed out what is taking place in Ukraine, which can be explained quite easily to virtually anyone who wants to listen. The Iranian situation has been taking place for a while. It has been very difficult in certain aspects for women, and it is gender based. The economic and social hardships that they have had to overcome are because they were born female versus male. On the issue of human rights and Canadian values, in certain areas of the world, we all need to be concerned about advocating in a stronger and more aggressive way for the recognition of women and their proper place in world society, and there is much work that needs to be done. Some countries, sadly, are so extreme in their behaviour that it is completely unacceptable, especially with respect to discrimination against women. There are countries that will sponsor terrorism to invoke the element of fear by killing randomly and by suppressing the rights and freedoms of their own populations. We have a great deal of debate inside this chamber about the issue of human rights and what we can do. If we were to take substantial, tangible action to deal with those hours of debate we have had over the years on this issue it would be to support this piece of legislation. The legislation before us would send a very clear message, whether to Russia, Iran or other countries that do not share the types of values of Canada has. We have tools we can use to ensure we are promoting our values. That is what Bill S-8 is. It is about ensuring that we have sanctions and that we could prevent people from entering Canada or from ever being in Canada. It would also enable us to get rid of individuals here in Canada who have been associated with this issue in a direct way. I encourage all members to support this legislation. It would be a wonderful message to send on this issue to see this legislation pass soon.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member said. I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion. Let us look at it from the perspective of what the government brought forward. There are financial sanctions banning certain products. There are some things still flowing through Russia. Fertilizer is something that Conservatives argue that we should not even put an extra tariff on. In the end, the sanctions take many different forms. With this legislation, we would ensure that a very powerful message would be sent about who could come to Canada. The message, very simply, would be that if someone is part of the regime causing hardship and human rights violations, we do not want them in Canada. I see that as a—

Madam Speaker, part of it is ensuring we have the appropriate tools in place. That is one of the nice things about the legislation. That would be one of the tools on the tool belt that will enable us to enforce the sanctions. We are enabling Canada border control and immigration to be able to deal with some of the sanctions. The member is wrong to try to give the impression that there is no enforcement. There is enforcement that is in place. There is a real impact. To say that there is nothing is just not true. Canada continues to work with our allied countries. The sanctions that are being put in place, not only by Canada but also by like-minded countries around the world, are having a real, tangible impact on Russia.

Madam Speaker, from my understanding of the legislation, the member is quite correct. This legislation is a wonderful tool that would enable Canada to support that enforcement. My New Democrat colleague wants to ensure enforcement, and this goes a long way in supporting that. We want people to know that there is inappropriate, inhumane behaviour taking place, and that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. We do not want individuals of that nature coming to Canada and, for those who are already in Canada, it would enable us to get them out of Canada.

Madam Speaker, we believe there are individuals in Canada that this legislation, if and when passed, would have an impact on. If someone has gone online to start the process of an application to come to Canada for a nephew, a niece or whoever it may be, it is hard to give a conclusive answer to what the member is proposing. The legislation, in principle, would have a very positive impact in ensuring that we could prevent people on the sanctions list from being able to come into Canada. I have confidence, arguably, probably more confidence than the Conservative Party does, in our civil service, and believe that it understands the sanctions list and will not let people slip through.

Madam Speaker, I have no idea how many Stephen Harper let in. The member is trying to turn this into a political issue by asking if there could be people in Canada. Could the member say she can guarantee there are no sanctioned people that Stephen Harper ever let in? From my perspective, it is a ridiculous question. With the legislation we are passing, ultimately, there could be individuals or their family members who are sanctioned, but who came to Canada two years ago before the sanctions were put in place. I suspect there might even be people who Stephen Harper and the former Conservative government let in. This does not have to be as political as the member is trying to make it. We would be making a very strong statement to the world by bringing forward this legislation, and I hope that the Conservative Party would want to pass it.

Madam Speaker, I am very reluctant to start providing comments on individuals on whom I do not have the full story. I do not support any terrorist or anyone who threatens the sort of violence that the member referred to. I do not believe that any member of the Liberal caucus or the House of Commons who supports any type of terrorist being in Canada. That is why we have a system through CSIS, through Canada border control and the many other agencies that are well staffed by professional civil servants to protect Canadian society. This legislation is about protecting Canadian society and about ensuring we have sanctions against regimes like Russia and Iran because of the barbaric things they are doing.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to give the member the actual count, but I can assure him that Stephen Harper had dozens of pieces of legislation that came from the Senate into the House. It could be as high as 45. He might want to reflect on his last comment. Yes, we would like to see the legislation pass. The member mentions what he will refer to months from now. We only need to look at this week. It is Friday. There was a Tuesday opposition day and a Thursday opposition day; Wednesday is a short day. Monday was a government day, but the Conservatives brought in another opposition day by bringing in a concurrence motion; therefore, we were not allowed to debate government bills. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot play political games in the chamber and then say the government is not calling legislation. We would like to see this legislation pass. What are his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding the fraudulent documents. Many years ago, I was also on the immigration standing committee, and I remember the representation on that, because it applies when we talk about individuals who attempt to get into Canada, quite possibly even if they have been sanctioned. However, when we took a look at some of the documentation that was being provided, we found out that we have a whole industry out there that is built on designing documents that look authentic. We need to work with other agencies, particularly other international governments, to deal with that particular industry, because those documents are very convincing. I wonder if the member could provide further thoughts regarding the appearance of some of those fake documents.

Madam Speaker, no matter where one lives or what one earns, health care services throughout the country are something we all believe in. They are a core part of what it means to be a Canadian. There will be $198 billion in additional federal dollars to support health care over the next 10 years. That is a commitment to a national health care program, with access to family doctors or nurse practitioners, support for health care workers and a reduction in backlogs. Mental health is part of health care, and there must be support for data and science, transparency and fairness. The Canada Health Act matters to all Canadians. I am proud to be part of a government that is so committed to providing one of our core values.

Madam Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that advocates meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of openness, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intense nationwide campaign of persecution to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are common. Thousands have died. The petitioners are in part asking us to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Madam Speaker, I was encouraged by many of the thoughts the member expressed to the House, and I would concur that at the end of the day there is a powerful statement to be made by the passage, with what appears to be unanimous support, of the principles of the legislation. I just want to ask the member to provide his comments in regard to the following. When we have legislation of this nature and it ultimately passes, or at least the principles of the legislation, it sends a wonderful and powerful message abroad, a message that people need to hear, which is that there is a consequence to regimes that behave against Canadian values. Would he not agree?

Mr. Speaker, we signed off on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and brought the Canadian Constitution home back in 1982. I cannot imagine that, at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien envisioned, for example, the Province of Ontario using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive way to put limits on labour. As we go through the debate today, it is important just to recognize how, in recent years, some provinces seem to use the clause as a pre-emptive measure. I think a great majority of Canadians would disagree with that kind of usage. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on governments, whether national or provincial, taking advantage of that clause and using it in a pre-emptive way?

Mr. Speaker, on that note, the member says the Conservatives will always stand for the freedom and rights of Canadians. Would that very same principle he spoke about apply also to the Province of Ontario when it did a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to limit labour negotiations? Does he believe that was an appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause by Ontario, in its pre-emptive way?

Madam Speaker, I just want to be very clear. For example, the Province of Ontario, in a pre-emptive way, took actions that went against labour in a very significant fashion. It is the position of the Bloc that Ottawa should not even be stating any sort of opinion on the matter. It is not an issue of jurisdiction as much as it is standing up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and saying what is right, in many ways. To be very clear, the member is saying that Ottawa should have no place to provide comments.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my colleague's very last point where she talked about the pre-emptive nature. The example I have been providing is that of the province of Ontario with regard to labour issues that impacted literally thousands of labour people, people working in our teaching profession. Using a pre-emptive attitude toward the notwithstanding clause, I and many members of our caucus felt, was just wrong. I wonder if she could expand upon her thoughts in regard to whether they are using the notwithstanding clause in that pre-emptive fashion.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and address this particular motion brought forward by the Bloc. I am not surprised by Bloc members bringing forward this motion, because, after all, from the Bloc Party's perspective, they want to cause division, even though when we look at their attempt this time around, the member for Kingston and the Islands is correct in his assumption. If we think through the logic, what the Bloc is actually proposing is to say that the federal government plays no role and that it should be silent when a province wants to invoke, in a pre-emptive way, the notwithstanding clause. The best example I can use offhand is the Province of Ontario, which is the largest province by population in the country. When the Province of Ontario makes the statement that it wants to take away labour rights, all of us should be concerned as it affects thousands of people. The Bloc tries to give the false impression that it is sympathetic to the labour movement or the working person, but this motion contradicts that. However, I am not surprised by the Bloc. I expect that. I can tell members that Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition, which is what I would like to pick up on. I would suggest that one of the greatest values we have as Canadians that we treasure, besides health care, which is a debate for another day, is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand how important that is. In terms of values, we like to share our values around the world, and there are countries around the world that have adopted Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada has demonstrated leadership for 40 years on the issue of human rights and the protecting of freedoms and rights for the individual. One would think that the Conservative Party of Canada would care about that when it applies here in Canada, but that is not the case. In reference to the teachers' and union issue in Ontario and the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to walk all over the rights of thousands of people in Ontario, here is what the Prime Minister had to say: Canadians themselves should be extremely worried about the increased commonality of provincial governments using the notwithstanding clause preemptively to suspend their fundamental rights and freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot become a suggestion. Since 2017, we have had Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and, to a certain point, the Province of Saskatchewan, entertain or use pre-emptive notwithstanding, which I would suggest is a form of threats, to take away rights. The Prime Minister, demonstrating leadership, makes statements in regard to it. However, the current leader of the official opposition is nowhere to be found. If members watch the debate today and take a look at the debates that have been occurring on this very important issue, they will find a vacuum of leadership coming from the Conservative Party. Liberals will stand and defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognize how—

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to take a brief look at the summary of Bill C-290. It proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any supervisor, add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers and repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set out the standard of serious wrongdoings. I want to highlight for members the importance of whistle-blower legislation. I had an opportunity here in Ottawa in the past and in the Manitoba legislature to talk about the importance of enabling whistle-blowing and enhancing legislation where we can. We know that the government has been working with stakeholders regarding how we can improve legislation, which is a process that has been under way for a while now. I do not necessarily know all of the details of it, but I do know how important it is that we recognize this particular process and, at the very least, acknowledge those who have put in so much effort to bring us to the point where we are today. The legislation we are talking about, I would suggest, has a number of concerns within it. At the very least, if the legislation were to go to the next stage, no doubt it would require a number of amendments. Our civil service puts in a phenomenal effort in many different respects. It was not that long ago that we turned to our civil servants and said, when going into the pandemic, that we needed to ensure we could develop the types of programs that would be there for Canadians. I want to acknowledge the types of efforts that were put in, and then at the tail end, I will talk about why it is important that we have whistle-blower legislation at the provincial and national levels. I will start by giving credit where credit is due. When we went into the pandemic, there was no such thing as a CERB payment or a program that would provide hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars to Canadians. Virtually from ground zero, civil servants stepped up on a program of that nature. Earlier today, we talked at great length about the wage subsidy program. Again, it was civil servants who stepped up to provide that program. In general, the vast majority of things that take place within our civil service support Canadians seven days a week, 24 hours a day. If one wanted to illustrate how effective our civil servants were, and still are obviously, in the creation of the programs I just referenced, we can put it into perspective: Nine million-plus Canadians received benefits, and none of that would have been possible if not for our civil service. It provided the financial resources that were necessary for people to sustain themselves. We can talk about the tens of thousands of businesses, some of which were highlighted earlier today and the CRA will follow through on, that benefited from the efforts of civil servants providing the programs and processes necessary to sustain companies and protect jobs so that Canada would be in a much better position. The speaker before me on this legislation made reference to the issue of immigration. We have civil servants around the world who are there every day to ensure that we continue to grow and prosper as a nation through immigration policies. As immigration grows, the demands on those civil servants continue to grow and we provide the finances. It is not all perfect, as we know. There are ways in which we can look at improving the system. I want to relay some statistics in regard to issues. For example, from 2007-08 to 2021-22, there were 161 internal disclosures that led to a finding of wrongdoing and 443 internal disclosures that led ultimately to corrective measures. PSIC had 17 cases that led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures, along with two cases that led to corrective measures without finding any wrongdoing. In fact, eight cases were referred to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. There have been no findings of reprisal. I think that is really important. This is the reason why we look at whistle-blower legislation and how we can improve upon the civil service. This is how I ultimately view it: How do we enhance what we already have as a world-class civil service? One of the ways we do that is by protecting those civil servants who are put into positions where there is a moral obligation or, at times, some form of quasi-legal aspect of having to report on something, so that there are no reprisals as a direct result of having to make that claim. From 2016 to 2021-22, there were 505 reprisal complaints received by PSIC, leading to 62 investigations that were launched, with 22 of them being resolved through conciliation. I think it is important to note that data was not reported from 2007-08 and 2015. Over the last five years, the number of new allegations of wrongdoing made internally has averaged around 269 per year. Over the last five years, PSIC received an average of 145 disclosures of wrongdoing and 48 reprisal complaints. I could go on with some of the stats, but I want to emphasize that we believe public servants who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected. We recognize that. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the federal public sector. As I started off my comments, I would like to conclude them by saying that I have witnessed first-hand, for many years as a parliamentarian, the outstanding performance of our civil servants at the national and other levels of government. Comparing Canada as a whole to other nations around the world, I think we can take a great sense of pride in it. I am glad to hear that the department itself is looking at ways in which we can even improve the system by incorporating whistle-blower legislation that will add true value to the process and protect our public servants.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague says, truth is hard to hear at times. At the end of the day, we have not heard any significant word. Yes, they were obligated to address it a couple of times, but they were virtually forced to do that. If we read the content of the speech, the Conservatives are more concerned about talking about the Conservative spin lines that they get from the Conservative MP lobby. These are the types of things the Conservatives want to talk about. When it comes to issues of great substance that impact the rights and freedoms of Canadians and I pose questions for the Conservatives on this, they just scramble and do not know what to say. In fact, one of the members said they do not have anything to do with it and that it is completely up to the province. They asked, in one of the questions I got on the record today, why they would participate in that sort of discussion. However, the Conservatives do not like to stand up because they do not want to be held accountable on this particular issue. I made reference to the number of provinces that had been using it since 2017. I suspect that since 2017 we have probably seen more usage of pre-emptive-type measures than we had seen in the previous 35 years. I do not know that for a fact, but I suspect that could be the case. At the end of the day, when the people of Canada are looking for their politicians here in Ottawa to stand up for those rights and freedoms, the Conservatives are being silent. I hope that maybe they will reflect during question period and decide to participate genuinely in this debate. Does the Conservative Party support, for example, what Doug Ford was doing when he pre-emptively took the notwithstanding clause to walk over the rights of union people in Ontario, affecting thousands of workers? Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who will stand up in this place and say that was wrong? Of course the Conservatives will not do that, but it is nothing new because they will not do that for any provincial jurisdiction, based—

Mr. Speaker, as we walked into members' statements, I was trying to highlight the importance of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that we should never take it for granted. I believe that over the last 40 years we have seen that Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, not only have recognized the importance of it, but it has become a part of our values. When parliamentarians or others travel abroad, we get a sense of pride in the fact that so many other countries around the world look to Canada to demonstrate leadership on the issue of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, there is a clause in there called the notwithstanding clause. At the time, back in 1982, when it was ratified and when Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Queen and Jean Chrétien as the Attorney General signed off on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there was a great sense of optimism. We can hold our heads high in terms of the way Canada is perceived around the world. The notwithstanding clause was a part of it, and it was something that was put in place in order to demonstrate that Parliament is supreme. It is also something that should be very rarely used or referenced. What we have seen since 2017 is the issue of the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause. We should all be concerned about that. We have Liberals on this side of the House who have stood up on that particular issue. The official opposition is nowhere to be found on the issue. That is quite concerning. When I ask questions of Conservatives attempting to address the issue, the simple answer they provide is that it is not federal jurisdiction but provincial. I find that unfortunate because I think the vast majority of Canadians look to the Parliament of Canada to protect the fundamental freedoms and rights of individuals. I have run out of time. I hope I get a couple of questions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the motion the Bloc has brought forward to the House today, which is of very grave concern. All of us should be taking a look, and the example we have used is with regard to the Province of Ontario using the notwithstanding clause as a pre-emptive measure in order to squash union rights for free bargaining, affecting thousands of Ontarians. This was not in the 1990s. This was just last fall, and I would think that members on all sides of the House would be concerned. The Minister of Justice has made reference to the fact that we need to be clear that pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is of concern to the government. The Prime Minister himself has made reference to that. The Conservative Party, in contrast, has been nowhere to be found. This is such an important issue, reflecting on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the notwithstanding clause, and the Conservatives have been silent. That is unfortunate. The member might want to refer to something a number of years back, but what we are talking about is the issue of pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. We should all be concerned about that.

Madam Speaker, I am not going to raise up the many times New Democratic administrations in provincial governments brought in back-to-work legislation. I am not going to fall into that trap. I believe what we are really talking about is governments, provincial governments in particular, using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion. I am emphasizing that, because whenever we institute the notwithstanding clause, we are talking about taking away rights and freedoms, and the example I am using is one that is very recent. What I would like to see is members reflect on what took place in the province of Ontario and cite their opinion. I have no idea. The Conservative Party's position, for example, seems to be “We don't care about what the Province of Ontario was doing. It's not our business, because it wasn't in our jurisdiction.” I would argue that they should care. When we are talking about the notwithstanding clause and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we all have a vested interest. How many times have we talked collectively about human rights abroad? Countries around the world look to Canada and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They see the notwithstanding clause, and if in fact it is abused by pre-emptive measures, that does not reflect well on us as a nation.

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member, one would think the primary motivation for the motion we have today from the Bloc is to talk about division and try to plant and continue to grow a seed of division inside the province of Quebec. The example I have been talking about is the Province of Ontario. I did not even make reference to Quebec. Ontario took a pre-emptive measure by using the notwithstanding clause to take advantage of labour unions, which affected thousands of teachers. I am arguing that the federal government has a responsibility, and all the Bloc wants to talk about is the notwithstanding clause only applying or being utilized in the province of Quebec. Every member of the Liberal caucus has a love and passion for the province of Quebec that is just as great as that of the member opposite. The member sees Quebec in a different light. I see the province of Quebec as a very unique province that adds so much to our Canadian heritage, but what we are talking about—

Madam Speaker, this should not be a debate about the province of Quebec. This should be a debate about the notwithstanding clause, the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, and the arguments for or against it. The example I use continually is that of the Province of Ontario and the teachers' union. I would be interested in the member's thoughts regarding the Bloc's position concerning the notwithstanding clause being used in a pre-emptive manner against the teachers' union. Could the member also explain why René Lévesque himself did not incorporate a notwithstanding clause in the Quebec charter when he was the premier?

Madam Speaker, it is actually an opposition day, so it is the opposition that gets to determine what is going to be debated today. However, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the Conservatives get an opposition day next week. That will be an opportunity for the Conservative Party to give all sorts of false information on the record. The bad news is that, on this opposition day, we are still waiting for one Conservative to have the political courage to stand up and say that what Doug Ford did in regard to the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause to go against the rights of unionized workers, against thousands of teachers, was wrong. I will say that. Will the member be the first Conservative to be bold enough to say that Doug Ford was wrong?

Madam Speaker, for months now I have had residents of Winnipeg North sign a petition asking for the federal government to work with the provinces with respect to the issue of health care. Health care being the important issue that it is, and given the fact that the Prime Minister and the premiers had discussions yesterday and billions of dollars have followed, I thought it was most timely to present this petition, which calls on the federal government to provide the extra care necessary for mental health and long-term care, as well as additional financial commitments and support for health care workers. I am glad to see that many of the questions posed in the petition have actually been answered.