Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I do not believe the manipulation of stats that are often portrayed from the Conservative Party of Canada. If one listens to the Conservatives, one would think there was never any crime when the Conservatives were in power. They have this attitude of “get tough on crime” and they know all the wonderful spin words. The Conservatives were in power, true, and they supported bail and probation officers and the important roles that probation officers and judicial independence at times play in society, or at least they would give that image. Does the member believe that our judges and the independence of our judicial system, our probation system, are fundamentally flawed? Is that what the Conservative Party believes today?

Madam Speaker, this is a quote I pulled up from Statistics Canada: There were over 2 million police-reported Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic) in 2021, about 25,500 more incidents than in 2020. At 5,375 incidents per 100,000 population, the police-reported crime rate—which measures the volume of crime—increased 1% in 2021, following a 9% decrease in 2020. In 2021, the violent crime rate increased 5%, while the property crime rate decreased 1%. The quote ends with the part I want to emphasize: “Following a large decrease in 2020, the property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965.” I am wondering why it is the Conservatives are trying to give a false impression. When I get an opportunity to speak, I will expand on the misinformation and what is on the borderline of a word I cannot use so I will not. Why are the Conservatives doing it? I think they are more concerned about fundraising—

Madam Speaker, I made reference to a specific quote I put to the member before. It was coming from Statistics Canada, which says, “Following a large decrease in 2020, the property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965.” In fact, if we take a look at the murder rates, the most serious of crimes out there, we can talk about the first three years of Harper. There were 597, 614 and 611 homicides, compared to the first three years of this administration, when there were 611, 616 and 667. If we listen to the Conservatives, one would think that everything is broken, that everything is falling apart, that people should be aware that crime is on the streets and that it is rampant, yet the facts, the reality, do not reflect what it is that the Conservatives are preaching. Why is the Conservative Party using such an important issue, when one talks about victims and so forth, in order to raise money?

Mr. Speaker, I want to make quick reference to a couple of facts that come from Statistics Canada. In 2021, the violent crime rate did increase by 5%, while the property crime rate decreased by 1%. Following a large decrease in 2020, the property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965. If we take a look at the homicide murder rates for the first three years of Stephen Harper's administration, there were 597, 614 and 611. In the first full years of this administration, there were 616, 667 and 662. One would think, if one listened to the Conservatives, that the whole system is broken. It might need a nice little bumper sticker, but the reality is that there are some concerns, and we are working with the provinces. I will be able to elaborate more on that. Could the member opposite tell me honestly if he believes that people on probation did not commit crimes when Stephen Harper was prime minister? How ludicrous is the Conservative argument today?

Mr. Speaker, I do believe it is more about fundraising for the Conservative Party. Let me give an example. Conservative after Conservative stood up and talked about a rape, an assault, that had taken place in the province of Quebec. Then they turn to the Government of Canada to blame it, as if that person is not serving one day in jail as a result of that sexual assault, and as if we are the ones to blame. It was a provincial court, a provincial prosecutor who ultimately made that decision. Ottawa is working with provinces to deal with a wide spectrum of issues, including bail. The Conservatives are convinced they need to blame Ottawa. Ottawa has nothing to do with that case, yet several members stand up and use that. I do not support what has taken place there. I suspect the member does not support what has taken place in Quebec. Why do they use that specific example when they know it is misleading?

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the debate on the motion that has been brought forward by the Conservative Party today. Suffice it to say, if members have not detected it in my questioning of the Conservative Party, they will find that I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative motion that we have before us. I have had the opportunity to act in many different capacities over my parliamentary career, whether it was as a justice critic in the province of Manitoba or sitting in a quasi-judicial youth justice committee as a chairperson and as a board member, dealing with the issues surrounding things like parole, bail and so forth. I would like to reflect on the things I have done in the past and, more importantly, reflect on what I believe based on discussions I have had, whether it was with law enforcement agencies, officers, constituents or the many different stakeholders out there. I will try to summarize it all by saying that we are all concerned about safety in our communities. We all want to feel safe in our communities, and I think we all have a responsibility to do what we can. I would suggest to my Conservative friends across the way that, yes, there have been some tragedies that have occurred where real lives have been affected in a very profound negative way because of criminal behaviour. One does not have to belong to one political party over another in order to understand and appreciate the severity, the emotions, the anxiety and the blame that take place. I appreciate that and I am very much concerned about victims, not only today's victims, but the ways in which we, as a government or as parliamentarians, can advance the minimizing of future victims by investing. This government has invested literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of resource dollars and others in non-profits and other levels of government, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous communities, and so much more in terms of dealing with issues such as dysfunctional families, alcohol and drug abuse or addictions and investing in communities, health centres and issues such as mental health. These are all things that I have a holistic approach to. We want to prevent crimes from happening. We realize that criminals will eventually leave jail, and we are discouraged by that revolving door. At the end of the day, we have a system in place. It is not perfect, and I myself have some very serious issues with some of the things I have seen over the last number of years, but those years go beyond just this government. If one listens to the Conservative Party, one would think that people who were out on bail or on probation when Stephen Harper was prime minister were never in violation or never committed any crimes. However, not that much has actually changed. The Conservatives make reference to Bill C-75, but that bill did not make it easier to get bail. I would argue it might have even been the opposite. However, the digging and taking advantage of tragedies that have occurred, those high-profile cases, and trying to say that the system is broken, well, that is something the Conservative Party leadership is trying to say on all issues. They are trying to convince Canadians that in every way society is broken because of what has taken place over the last seven years under this administration, and they are wrong on all accounts. Let us be very clear on that. When the Conservatives say it is broken, which they say about everything because that is the theme of the Conservative Party, they are wrong. They are saying some numbers today to try to get Canadians worried and try to convince them that things are broken. To those who are following the debate, I would suggest they do not listen too closely to what the Conservatives are spreading in terms of misinformation. I went to Statistics Canada. Listening to the Conservatives, one would think there is crime in every corner and everywhere we look. Stats Canada, in 2021, said the violent crime rate did increase 5%, while property crime rates decreased 1%, following a large decrease in 2020. The property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965. The Conservatives talked about homicides. They said that is where we have really seen this huge, dramatic change and that is why the whole system is broken. Let us look at the first three full years of Stephen Harper. During the first three years, and this comes from Stats Canada, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the numbers were 608, 597 and 614 for the number of people who were murdered. For our first three full years, the numbers were 616, 667 and 662. Our population might have grown by a million, but that is a side point. The point is that the system is not broken. The example that many of the members stand up and talk about is the issue in the province of Quebec. I am upset about it. I am very upset about it. I think anyone who assaults and rapes a woman should have to spend time in jail. That upsets me, but it was a provincial court that made the decision and it was a provincial prosecutor. That is still to be determined. Is the prosecution going to appeal that decision? I would hope so. I am not in a position to make that decision. That is why the minister himself has said we are working with provinces. Here is a newsflash: We have been working with the provinces on bail reform since well before the Conservatives raised the issue within the last few days. In fact, back in October, the Minister of Justice and the department were actually working on consultations. During the last couple of days, those discussions have been even more amplified. Conservatives do not care more than the Liberals care about the victims of some of these crimes we are hearing about. Our prayers, best wishes and condolences go out to the families that have been so profoundly impacted by it. Today, we have the Conservative Party taking a look at those tragedies and putting together a motion. All one needs to do is take a look at the word “broken”. How often do they use the word “broken” nowadays? It is a political spin message, to try to give the impression that the Conservatives want to be tough on crime. It is interesting that the critic for the Conservatives said that under Stephen Harper the number of days in jail actually went down from an average of 126 to 105. She implies that when they were in government, the number of days in jail went down, yet they are really tough on crime. It is because they are in opposition. The wording they are using is to help them, as an opposition party, get a few more headlines and create more false impressions, at least in part, in order to be able to raise more money for their coffers. It is no reflection on the law enforcement officers, the non-profit organizations, the victims or anything of that nature. I would suggest they might even be taking advantage of that situation. We are trying to deal with it in a very real and tangible way, with legislative changes and budgetary measures, which is making a difference. We will continue that dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that our judicial system is a shared responsibility between Ottawa and the provinces and territories. That means there are ongoing consultations and discussions taking place at virtually every level. That is important to say. I can be very emotional on all sorts of issues, especially when I catch the Conservative Party trying to twist and play with facts and manipulate Canadians. They do not necessarily represent what Canadians are saying, but rather they manipulate and try to influence Canadians with misinformation. That does concern me quite often in the chamber. I think, at times, it is important for the opposition to hold the government accountable, but there is also some importance for the government to hold the opposition accountable for its remarks. That is one reason I am very critical of the whole cryptocurrency idea that the leader of the—

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member caught the beginning of my comments. I talked extensively about how the government plays an important role in dealing with the types of issues the member has raised, whether it is through budgetary measures or legislative measures. I would cite Bill C-75, which the Conservatives are critical of. Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail. For example, the bill imposed what they call a reverse onus. There is a wonderful opportunity for the House of Commons to be able to debate the importance of the need for making changes. However, we also need to recognize that it is not just for the House of Commons and that we have an obligation to work with others. Those others include the shared responsibilities with our provinces, territories and indigenous communities, among many other stakeholders. It is not as simple as saying here is an idea, let us make it happen and bring in the legislation. There is a need for consultation when we have shared responsibilities. This is something that the government has strived to do. We have tangible examples of investing financial resources and legislative resources to try to improve upon our system. It is far better than it was, but it is something we can always look at ways of improving.

Mr. Speaker, looking at the legislation we have before us, it is important to recognize that, whether today or during the pandemic, the government has recognized and supported our disability communities. The minister and the parliamentary secretary made reference to the numbers and the impact it would have on millions of people. This is indeed progressive legislation, and it sets a framework to ensure that people with disabilities are provided with support. Realizing that there is some ongoing work required to complete or complement the legislation, would the member not agree that this is a positive step forward? This is why we expect the legislation will pass, hopefully with support from all parties of the House.

Mr. Speaker, one thing is important for us to recognize. The member made reference to it, and I believe it is really important: The types of disabilities vary, obviously, with a very wide spectrum, and we need to acknowledge that in every aspect of our society, people with disabilities contribute in every way. When we talk about supporting people with disabilities, we should not in any way whatsoever infer that they are not contributing in a very wholesome way to Canadian society. What we are talking about is ensuring there is a basic level of support coming from the national government for people with disabilities. I remind members that we should recognize the immense contributions people with disabilities make. A disability does not mean they are not capable of doing anything that any of us would be capable of doing, in many ways.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that genuine supports would be going out. We saw it during the pandemic, where the government came forward with one-time payments for people with disabilities. This legislation demonstrates a clear commitment to continue to provide supports. One of the issues raised when we talk about federal supports going to people with disabilities is the issue of the potential threat of clawbacks at different levels of government. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on ideas for potential safeguards or on issues related to the potential of other types of clawbacks from other jurisdictions taking place. Is there anything she would like to say on that particular point?

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member would likely find individuals in every provincial or territorial jurisdiction who would make similar arguments. Many of them might actually be separatists in their own jurisdiction. The issue I have is this. Canada is a nation with 10 provinces and three territories. Would the Bloc be advocating that Canada should just dismantle CRA and have all provinces operate on their own? It seems to me that the Bloc has an approach to take anything that would minimize the federal government's role, in essence, any resources we get, just to be that ATM. Things like OAS and many other programs that the federal government provides, I think, are really important. Would he not agree that, for example, if one is a senior in Quebec or a senior in B.C., Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, one should be entitled to the OAS? The federal government is, indeed, in a good position to administer many programs.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the line of what the member said was the truth. We heard a sense of the truth from the member when he indicated that really what this is about is separating from Canada. That is what seems to be the primary motivation for Bloc members in making their presentation, if we listened to what the member was suggesting. I would like to hear the logistical arguments on why it would be in Canada's best interest as a nation to do what the Bloc is proposing without a separatist bias. Every province and territory has separatists who live in them. However, if we listened to what the member was articulating, it was not about the logic behind the bill. Are we to say that every separatist in every province is saying they should have their own taxation, or that they should forget about OAS and they want their own OAS program? I suspect the separatists inside this chamber would say they do not want a national OAS program. I beg to differ. I would suggest that with the OAS supplements, GIS and many other programs that are out there, all Canadians in every region of our country benefit from them. The Bloc has failed to demonstrate why it is in Canada's best interest, including the province of Quebec, and why there is an argument to be made for a single system that is solely based on the province of Quebec versus Canada. I believe the Liberal caucus is open to the arguments, but not with the bias that I heard demonstrated by the former speaker who last addressed the chamber. I believe in the distinct nature and uniqueness of the province of Quebec, and I think there is a great deal of sympathy in terms of how we can recognize that in many different forms. However, in no way was that demonstrated in the debate on the introduction of the bill, particularly by the Bloc member who spoke previously. I suggest that the bill, before going to committee, needs to be looked at again. At the end of the day, I am somewhat concerned about how the Conservative Party is placing itself on this legislation. I hope it is not an appeal to garner support from the Bloc side. I think we need to take a look at Canada and the services it provides. If there are better ways we can provide those services, then we should look at those. However, it does not mean that we start taking apart Canada, whether it is separatists in one province or another, which is their ultimate goal and the purpose of the legislation as it was implied in the previous speaker's comments.

Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-35 is that it embodies, in recognizing the importance of early learning and child care, true Canadian values. Not only do we have agreements with the different provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we also have the substantial funding of $30 billion over a five-year period of time. This legislation would embody the commitment from the federal government to ensure there is a strong role going forward. I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on the significance of this historic piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what is significant is that in Bill C-35, we are establishing a fundamental, universal early learning and child care program that would be a first in the history of Canada. We are saying that in working with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, there would be public, non-profit child care that is affordable and provides the type of quality care that Canadians want. This will enable women in particular to get into the workforce if they choose to do that, or volunteer or upgrade their educational opportunities. All sorts of wonderful opportunities would be created here, and it is modelled off what we saw in the province of Quebec. Would the member not agree that this is an absolutely critical aspect of furthering, in a very significant way, child care and enabling women in particular to get more opportunities in the future?

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party. Here we have a very progressive policy for the children of our country and an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the position they took in the last election, when they said they would get rid of the child care program, a program that has been signed off on by provinces and territories. It is an opportunity for Canadians to have affordable child care. The legislation we are voting on today is not meant to provide the details the member is looking for. Look at the agreements. It is in the agreements. This is the framework. Why is the Conservative Party sticking to its election platform and throwing out a national child care program when, in fact, this is the type of program we should all be supporting? It is the only party in the chamber voting against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if the member would like a copy, I would be pleased to provide him with a full list of the numbers. If a revised response to Question No. 881, originally tabled on December 2, 2022, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 956, 966, 968, 970 to 973, 975 to 978, 981, 982, 984, 985, 988 to 999, 1002 to 1007, 1010 to 1012, 1014, 1016 to 1018, 1020, 1023 to 1025, 1027 to 1033, 1035 to 1037, 1039, 1041 to 1044, 1046, 1047, 1051, 1052, 1054 to 1058, 1061 to 1063, 1066, 1069, 1071 to 1073, 1077, 1080, 1081, 1083 to 1086, 1088 to 1090, 1092 to 1094, 1096, 1099, 1101 to 1108, 1111, 1113 to 1117, 1119 to 1122, 1124 to 1130, 1132, 1134, 1135, 1138 to 1140, 1142, 1144 and 1145 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and speak to legislation that is very historic in nature. It is not too often that we see a national government taking an initiative as significant as the one we see today. What we are talking about are the core principles of what a national child care program will look like. It is the type of thing that I hope all members of this House will get behind. Over the summer, I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Stanley Knowles School in the north end of Winnipeg. It has been providing child care and day care for the past 30 years, since its creation. What was special about this particular visit was that the Prime Minister was with me. We had the opportunity first-hand to engage with child care workers and parents, and I think he personally enjoyed being with the children. We saw creativity around the tables as children would come up and start playing. We saw the interaction taking place between the children and staff. When we are in a child care facility and see it at work, we see a very caring attitude, one that is nurtured by love. They are not the biological parents; they are workers, but we can tell that their heart is in what they are doing. I could also see that the Prime Minister was thoroughly enjoying the visit. I say that because I know, as we all should, that shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he made a strong indication as a feminist that he wanted to move forward on important issues for women and others, and child care is an important issue. It does so much to ensure that we get fuller participation in every aspect of our lives. When we think about what kind of principles there are in child care, we are talking about access, affordability and inclusivity. We are talking about high-quality child care, and that is within this legislation. It is a framework of principles. I believe it does not matter where we go in Canada; we will find support for those principles, and for the first time, we have legislation that is putting them in place. It is setting out that framework. We have seen the degree to which Canadians have fallen in love with the Canada Health Act and the many benefits that this legislation has brought to every citizen from coast to coast to coast. It was a true, national program, and we can look at the results it has delivered to people today. We love our health care system. Let me suggest that the principles we are talking about today, even though we are debating them, have been talked about a great deal over the last number of years, virtually from day one when the leader of the Liberal Party became the Prime Minister. We have had a number of ministers raise the issues and have dialogue with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, child care workers and all forms of stakeholders. They have a vested interest in a topic that all of us should be concerned about. It is the future. It is for our young ones, the children, that we are enabling, as much as possible, that quality, accessibility, affordability and inclusivity for everyone. It is interesting. When I hear comments coming from across the way, they like to plant the seeds the doubt or to be critical. Let us think in terms of the volume of dollars that are being contributed to this program. It is $30 billion over five years. That is a serious commitment to ensure that not only are we bringing in legislation, but we are also supporting that legislation with tangible dollars. The legislation we have before us today is not the starting point. Ministers and civil servants have had what I suspect are hundreds of collective meetings in every region of our country, and working with indigenous leaders, to ensure that we are able to accomplish something that has never been done before, and that is an agreement on the principles we are talking about. It does not matter what province or territory or community Canadians live in, those principles of child care and early learning are going to be there. That is something I know and am absolutely confident of, because I have had discussions with colleagues in our Liberal caucus who are very passionate about this, and for good reason. We understand and appreciate the true value of the legislation. There is a place we could go to see the degree to which it has been successful, and that is the province of Quebec. For over two decades, Quebec has been dealing with early learning and child care in a far more progressive fashion or manner than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I have even heard some members say in North America, and I suspect that could be the case. The national Liberal Party and the government of the day has said that this is something we believe in, and it is not our first attempt. We attempted to do this prior to Stephen Harper's government. We came very close. This time we believe we can cross the finish line. Once again, we have achieved something that no other government has done. We have the agreement in writing from the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders who have signed off, saying that they support the principles I am talking about. They support what the national government is doing on the issue of early learning and child care. Even though we have accumulated a great deal of support, there is a number of us who have some concerns, if I could put it that way, in terms of where the Conservative Party of Canada really is on the issue. They are fair concerns. Let us think about the last federal election. In the last federal election, the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, made it very clear that he would scrap the Liberal plan. That was the past leader. The current leader boasted about how his former government cancelled Liberal child care plans. People need to realize that 338 Conservative candidates in the last election knocked on doors, handed out materials, were all over social media and had press conferences and so forth on their election platform, a platform that was not positive toward what we are doing regarding early learning and child care. I posed a question earlier today to the critic. It would be nice to believe the Conservatives will change their opinions or flip-flop. Some of my colleagues say, no, that will not happen, but I am an optimistic person. A glass half full of water means there is water in the glass to drink. At the end of the day, I am hopeful the Conservatives will see the light on this issue and change their position.

Madam Speaker, I think that was a legitimate question. The member from across the floor asked if I know the Conservatives' position. I actually have a sense of what they oppose because they have said that publicly, and I have made reference to that. The member's former leader, just so he knows, told him that, when he knocks on the door, he should tell his constituents that he does not like the Liberal plan. That was the former leader of the Conservative Party. The current leader has gone around boasting, as I indicated, that the former Harper government cancelled Liberal child care plans in the past. Do I know what the Conservative Party's position is on this, on child care? No, but in fairness, I do not think anyone knows what its policy is on child care. I suspect it has something to do with the trickle-down private sector. I do not know that, but it is my suspicion as they are quick to criticize. The implementation of what we saw in Quebec has achieved wonders. Think of it in terms of single parents, 90% of whom are women. That is why this is a very strong feminist policy. Think about a single mom who is not able to get into the workforce because of her inability to afford child care. That is a reality. No matter what the Conservative Party may want us to believe, that is an actual reality. There are people who have a difficult time being able to afford child care. With the Province of Quebec coming in with a program that made it affordable, at the end of the day thousands, not hundreds, of women were able to get into the workforce. That is because they were prepared to take a chance in that province. When I say thousands of women in Quebec, that is a very low estimate on my part. It could go into the tens of thousands, especially when factoring in the number of years. One could ultimately ask what the benefit to the mother or, on the odd occasion, the father, has been of being able to get out of the house, whether to volunteer, work or get additional educational opportunities, all of which could, in all likelihood, create better outcomes in terms of household income. There are tremendous opportunities created for the individual. Collectively, I would suggest, it is even greater for society. The benefits to the individual are many, but the benefits to society are even greater. With more people participating in the workforce, especially one that continues to grow, that helps all of us in society. There are more resources generating GDP. In other words, the economy benefits. There are literally tens of thousands of jobs out there. We are very dependent on, for example, immigration policies and international workers, because there are so many jobs out there. In many ways there are people in Canada who would like to be able to work, but for a number of reasons, and the financial affordability of child care is one of the primary ones, they are not able to do that. Let us imagine other families that have one parent working during the day and one working at night because they cannot afford child care. They are losing out on the opportunity of having more quality family time, if I can put it that way. There are many things in society that would benefit from recognizing the principles we are trying to put in place through this legislation. Having a Canada-wide system with a federal vision would benefit all Canadians. We need to recognize that there is a long-term funding component to the legislation. There is a national advisory council on early learning and child care that would be created. We need to recognize that we would have reporting from the minister to the public with regard to ongoing progress in this area. That shows an ongoing commitment to financing. Putting this into legislation would make taking it apart even more difficult, in particular for the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we believe, as the New Democrats, the Bloc members and I believe the Greens do, that providing access, affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care is in the nation's best interest, the parents' best interest and the child's best interest. By having this legislation, taking up the framework and continuing to work with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we would ensure that child care and early learning become a reality for more people. To me, that is what this is all about. We want to ensure accessibility and that we have these opportunities, because by doing that, whether it is the child, the parent or society as a whole, we all collectively and individually benefit. I hope the Conservative Party will not try to give mixed messages, like saying they kind of like the legislation but will have 150 amendments during committee work.

Madam Speaker, I thought I was being very clear about the legislation and what it would do. It would put into law principles to ensure accessibility, affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care and early learning. I truly believe that through the financial commitments this government has put in place and through working with provinces, territories and indigenous communities, we will make child care and early learning available for all.

Madam Speaker, as we try to figure out where the different political parties are on the principles of the legislation, hopefully it will pass sooner as opposed to later. I think a lot will depend on the Conservative Party's positioning on the legislation, but it will go to committee. The member might want to take up her question with the minister responsible for the legislation. I am sure that at the committee stage she will be able to get a more detailed answer than I would be able to provide her at this time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my answer a bit beyond that to the current leader of the Conservative Party. I made reference to the fact that he boasted about the cancellation of child care programs, and I suspect those are some of the child care programs he was referring to when boasting. That is why we should all be concerned with regard to what I would suggest is a hidden agenda within the Conservative Party, which does not support the type of child care that I believe, and we in the Liberal caucus believe, Canadians want to see.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, within the Liberal caucus there is a great sense of accomplishment on this particular file. We understand that there is a lot more to do, but I can tell the member that when we reach out to our constituents and talk to some of the child care workers and some of the parents, there is a high sense of excitement. That is why I believe this is sound legislation that should be supported by all parties of the House. If we believe in the importance of accessibility, affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care, then this is good legislation that will enshrine the principles of those things into law. We can then continue to work with our constituents to ensure that more jobs are created. Also, there is going to be more opportunity and more free time for people to get involved in the workforce, in volunteer work and in many other activities.

Madam Speaker, I am trying to be a little sympathetic to constituents of mine who have children and are not able to afford child care. For the first time, they can now look at maybe not having as much work, where one parent has to work in the evening and the other in the daytime and they are not necessarily able to make the connection they would like with their family unit. I am suggesting that at the end of the day, this particular program, which has been achieved through a great deal of effort with different levels of government, is ultimately going to provide more opportunities that will be for the betterment of the child, the individual parent or guardian, the child care worker and Canadian society as a whole. That is the point that needs to be emphasized.

Mr. Speaker, first, if I may, I would like to speak about the passing of Jim Carr, a dear friend and someone I have known for a number of years. I would like to extend my condolences, prayers, love and best wishes to his family and friends. I had the opportunity in 1988 to be elected at the same time as Jim Carr. He was appointed as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba. I was the deputy party whip. From virtually day one to what we witnessed just a few days ago in the House, he served as an inspiration to me personally. I genuinely believe that, no matter where Jim went or what he went through in his life, he left a large footprint. He has deep respect in all corners. I do want to make quick reference to what he said in his last speech in the House, because I think it embodies many of the wonderful attributes Jim brought not only to the chamber but beyond. He stated: Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing some deeply held emotion. I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived. He went on to say: In wrapping up this debate, I want to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, without whose confidence this would never have been possible. He concluded his remarks by saying: It is with gratitude, thanks and a deep respect for this institution that I humbly present this bill to my colleagues in Parliament. I am very grateful for the fact that the building a green prairie economy act passed. It was something I know Jim spoke at great length about both inside and outside the chamber. It was one of a number of visions he carried, one of a number of ideas that he shared with so many Canadians in many different ways. I appreciate the opportunity to share those few thoughts. With respect to Bill C-18, the online news act, this legislation is an absolute must. The minister made reference to Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act and now Bill C-18, the online news act. These would assist us in modernizing our systems. So much has changed in regard to Internet accessibility, from what it was to what it is today. The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. It continues to grow as an essential service, and we need to overcome some challenges that are there. As we look to the weeks, months and years ahead, in terms of conquering some of those challenges, one of the biggest ones is getting that fast, reliable Internet service into our rural communities. We have made significant progress over the last number of years, ensuring that it is taking place. I believe we are on the right track and are aggressively pursuing better interconnectivity for all Canadians. It is absolutely essential. The act itself is something absolutely essential. I am pleased to see it is at the third reading stage. I was listening to what the minister was talking about. One can sense the passion and urgency just by listening to the minister. When we think about Canada and our democracy, one of the fundamental pillars of democracy is to have a free, independent media. I recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature and seeing at least 10 or 12 members of the media in the gallery. There were representatives from all the major networks and local community newspapers. There might even have been a few others. When I left the Manitoba legislature back in 2010, I might have seen one or two reporters in the media gallery. When we look at what has happened to our media and our news sources over the last 10 years or so, we have seen a mass reduction in the number of professional journalists. We have seen literally hundreds of news outlets in one form or another close. I do not believe for a moment, and I do not think anyone would even attempt to suggest, that it is nothing more than what we have been witnessing taking place on the Internet. We have seen a tremendous rise in things such as fake news. The minister made reference to the war in Ukraine, and we talk about what happened during the pandemic. Canadians and people around the world, but particularly here in Canada, are very dependent on that essential service and ensuring what we see and read is factual. One of the ways we can ensure that is by going to the mainstream media. One of my colleagues made reference to that fact that we have a wonderful ethnic media. I often look at the Pilipino Express, CKJS and numerous Indo-Canadian newspapers. There is the Portuguese community, the francophone community, the indigenous community and all of those different independent news outlets. For our community newspapers, whether rural or urban, there are things we can do to ensure they continue to be independent and continue to be supported, rightfully so, because of the Internet. These are some tangible examples. Google and its search engines have benefited from mainstream media and from our media outlets. All the work has been done at one level, which is the creativity and reporting, and Google has directly benefited from that. There is advertising on YouTube, and in social media there are things like Facebook. The amount of advertising done through Facebook has been estimated to be, in terms of the advertising dollars going into media, as high as 80% in those giant companies. This legislation would ensure, by utilizing the CRTC, that we can level the playing field. We could ensure that, for the information being conveyed by these giants like Google, Facebook and YouTube, they are paying their fair share. There would be an obligation in the legislation. By doing that, there would be better, more appropriate and more fair compensation for those media outlets. It would ultimately ensure that we have a healthier and stronger independent media. That is good for Canada and good for our democracy. It is the type of legislation that is necessary to get us back on track with regard to what we have been witnessing over the last number of years with the reduction of news media.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts and ask a question of the member. We have members on all sides of the House who are very strong and powerful advocates for issues related to human rights. It is interesting that the member has chosen to have that discussion. In doing very quick research, as the member was speaking, former prime minister Stephen Harper, according to Hansard, never once spoke about Tibet while he was prime minister. In opposition, he mentioned it four or maybe five times, according to my research, but never in government. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to this. Canada does play a very important leadership role on the international scene regarding human rights. I believe that the Government of Canada has been there on human rights around the world, not only through this administration but also through the Harper administration in certain ways. I wonder if the member could provide any update on whether he believes that Stephen Harper made any sort of statement in regard to Tibet.

Madam Speaker, the member made one reference saying that Stephen Harper actually met with or had conversations with the Dalai Lama. There have been communications between the current Prime Minister and the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama at one point recognized Pierre Elliott Trudeau and commented in regard to the refugees who have come from Tibet. Canada can play a leadership role, and there are many members of the House on both sides who understand the human rights violations and are strong advocates for those rights. The government has been and continues to be a strong advocate for human rights around the world. I am wondering if the member could provide any other additional thoughts in regard to the importance of Canada demonstrating that leadership, as our current Prime Minister has, and also the previous prime minister, on this particular issue the member made reference to with the Dalai Lama.

Madam Speaker, to pick up on my colleague's last comments in regard to human rights' advocates and the questions I asked earlier. There are very strong advocates on all sides of the House on the issue of human rights. I think of individuals like Irwin Cotler, who has been a powerful advocate not only within Canada but internationally. Could she provide her thoughts with respect to the strong leadership role that the House of Commons can play in the world today? That is one of the reasons why we should try to depoliticize the issue of human rights as much as possible.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate some of the remarks the member put on the record, and in part I agree with him. When we look at the many different political issues that we face as a House, the issues related to foreign affairs should, as much as possible, be depoliticized. I like the characterization the member has referenced. I have had the opportunity in the past, at both the provincial and federal levels, to sit on committees that are far less partisan. I found that the most effective non-partisan discussions take place when there is a consensus versus a hard vote. The moment we start putting in hard votes, especially if it is done to make one MP look worse than another, partisanship often kicks in. I am interested in knowing the member's thoughts on whether the foreign affairs committee should be striving to base its decisions on a consensus as opposed to a hard vote. Does the member have some opinions on that?