Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: 1. That, in relation to its study of the situation at the Russia-Ukraine border and implications for peace and security, seven members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Brussels, Belgium; Helsinki, Finland; Stockholm, Sweden, and Warsaw, Poland, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 2. That, in relation to its study of Arctic sovereignty, security and emergency preparedness of Indigenous Peoples, seven members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; Kugluktuk, Nunavut, and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 3. That, in relation to its study of large port infrastructure expansion projects in Canada, seven members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montréal, Québec; Toronto, Ontario; Hamilton-Niagara region, Ontario; Vancouver, British Columbia, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, what is taking place in the legislation is a form of potential arbitration that will ensure a more level playing field, with the social media giants and the large search engines, which benefit from the local news outlets, sharing advertising dollars, as an example. On the issue of fake news, Canadians want a high level of comfort regarding certain traditional news outlets that have a history of reporting and have built that confidence. If we look at the pandemic, there was fairly clear evidence that getting the vaccine was safe. However, there were some within the industry who were propagating or promoting that it was a terrible thing. At the end of the day, I see the legislation as ensuring that those agencies, like CTV or radio stations, have fair compensation that they are not getting today, yet their material is being utilized.

Mr. Speaker, something that the legislation would actually do is require that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to publish a list of digital news intermediaries and news businesses that are eligible under the online news act. Throughout the legislation, it talks about the CRTC's role with the overall principle and objective of ensuring that we have a higher sense of fairness in regard to revenue and how that revenue could be distributed. Hopefully, the industry is able to do it in a consensual manner. If not, there are ways we can ensure it does.

Madam Speaker, I would recognize that we have seen a dramatic decrease. Some have estimated it as being as high as the mid-40% of journalists losing their jobs in a relatively short period of time. The government is very much aware of it and it is one of the reasons we brought forward the legislation. I do believe that, if not directly then indirectly, it would continue to support a critically important industry in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect there is widespread support in recognizing that tech giants, whether it is Google, YouTube or Facebook, which really dominates the social media industry, get billions of dollars in revenue every year, and a lot of their sourcing comes from news agencies that are finding things difficult. There is a sense of unfairness there. This legislation would ensure there is a higher sense of fairness. The creators and news agencies are reporting on the news, and their content is being utilized by these giants, which are not paying anything for it. Do the member and the Conservative Party believe that Google, Facebook and other giant conglomerates have a responsibility to pay for some of the creative journalism we are seeing in our communities?

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, he member made reference to Jim Carr. It did mean a great deal to Jim when the member and one of his colleagues walked over to shake his hand afterward, which I thought was a classy thing to do. I wonder if the member could provide some additional thoughts on this. Many different other types of media outlets do not get the same sort of reference to which the member mentioned, magazines and so forth. They could be automotive industry or sport magazines. There are a number of them. The CRTC would be given a fairly significant responsibility. The ultimate goal is to ensure that we have an independent and free media that is far-reaching. Could the member provide further thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments prior to question period that were made by the New Democratic House leader. With respect to the Facebook, YouTube and Google search engines, they have been a major benefactor of journalism here in Canada, yet the creators, the journalists and so forth of a lot of the things that appear in social media do not get the credit and, in particular, the compensation. What this bill would do, in good part, is ensure through the CRTC that there would be an appropriate compensation of sorts. I am a bit surprised that the Conservative Party would not support that and I do not quite understand why. I wonder if the member has some thoughts in regard to the importance of passing this particular piece of legislation and if he wants to provide commentary as to why the Conservatives would not support this.

Madam Speaker, to add to your comment, I congratulate the member on her marriage. I wish her many years of wonderfulness. The issue before us today is about the reality that the Conservatives do not believe, as they are showing in their actions, that the tech giants, from Google and search engines to social media giants like Facebook, should have to pay into any sort of pool that would enable fairer compensation for creators here in Canada. This issue is having a devastating impact on journalism, and the member even made reference to it closing down. Does the Conservative Party not recognize that the message it is sending to these giants is that they do not need to make changes? The Conservatives might say there is a need for changes, but when it comes down to voting, they are going to be voting against this legislation. They might have some issues with it, but at least it would enable a fairer playing field for our journalists.

Madam Speaker, listening to the member or, in particular, the Conservative member who spoke prior to him, one gets the impression that the Conservatives have an answer. Instead of voting in favour of the legislation or instead of recognizing that the CRTC has an incredible history of serving Canadians and ensuring there is Canadian content and a much higher sense of fairness overall, the Conservative Party's approach seems to be not to worry. We should have trust and confidence in Facebook and in Google search, and they will come up with agreements with the different community media outlets. I do not have that trust and confidence that the member seems to have or the Conservative Party seems to have. Does the member not recognize that it is only the Conservative Party inside this chamber that seems to have that trust? Could it be that its trust might be misplaced?

Madam Speaker, it is like following a bouncing ball. The Conservative Party said that it liked the Australian model, and put that in its campaign platform. The Liberal legislation is a reflection of the Australian model, and now the Conservative Party is saying that it does not support Bill C-18. The member says that, well, they want to be there for the smaller community newspapers, but a question was just raised that indicated that there has been a greater uptake than expected in the Australian example and community newspapers have benefited by it. However, the Conservative Party, even though its members talk about the community newspapers, what they are really talking about is empowering Facebook and Google search engines to distribute the money how they feel is appropriate and that they will work with different media. I wonder if the member does not realize that it is a pretty hard ball to follow because the Conservatives are bouncing all over the place on a very important issue.

Madam Speaker, I find the Conservative Party interesting. I understand the Conservatives actually had an election platform issue on which all the Conservative candidates were saying they supported what is taking place in Australia and the Australians' approach to dealing with it. That is the approach this bill is a reflection of. Therefore, it seems to me that the members of the Conservative Party are saying, once again, that even though they would have made the commitment to do something, they obviously met with someone. Something has caused them to change their minds. Now they do not believe government should play a role in Google search engines or Facebook. They are saying we should just have trust in Google and Facebook, because they will work it out with all the other media outlets. Why did the Conservative Party once again abandon an election platform? Is it the change in leadership? Is it the so-called new direction that the Conservatives are taking? Why did they abandon that policy commitment to Canadians?

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House: (a) Bill C-278, An Act to prevent the imposition by the federal government of vaccination mandates for employment and travel, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Carleton, shall now stand in the name of the member for Niagara West and be placed in the order of precedence at the same place and stage as Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, and be deemed to have been reported to the house pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 recommending it not be designated non-votable, and the order for the second reading of Bill C-285 shall be discharged and the bill withdrawn; (b) Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate), standing in the name of the member for Bow River, shall now stand in the name of the member for Cloverdale—Langley City; and (c) Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures), be deemed adopted at report stage on division and be deemed adopted at the third reading stage on division.

Madam Speaker, advertising on Facebook and advertising in community newspapers, both of which I do, has not compromised in any way my wanting to see this bill pass. The Conservatives who advertise on Facebook take the position, after a reversal, that they no longer support the government's bringing in legislation to ensure that companies like Facebook, YouTube and Google are obligated to support media here in Canada. I wonder how members of the Conservative Party can justify flipping their position from the last general election, now telling Canadians that this bill is bad for them, when in fact the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals and I believe the Greens—

Madam Speaker, whenever a member comes up with a private member's bill, it is always encouraging to see it get through to third reading. I understand that there still are a number of members who would like to speak to the legislation. At the end of the day, there will be a great deal of sympathy towards seeing the change that is being proposed in the legislation before us. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of recognizing members who have been very supportive of the name change itself?

Madam Speaker, it pleases me to see that the legislation received wide support at its introduction, at second reading and at committee, and now we have the legislation before us today in its first hour of third reading. Based on the comments we have heard consistently over the last while on this legislation, I expect that all members of the House of Commons will be supporting and voting in favour of it, and for good reason. When the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo was standing up and reflecting on his time as a prosecutor, he said that he was prepared to take on and continue the challenge of going after these offenders. It made me reflect on a discussion I had with a police officer a number of years ago. The police officer said that he and a couple of others were involved in gathering information related to child pornography. What we are now talking about is widening the scope of child pornography to call it “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. There was an impact on that particular police officer, and he provided comments on that. He was making reference to Calgary at the time, because I believe that is where some additional attention was given by the government of the day in terms of going after Internet exploitation. It had an impact on individual investigators, and it was difficult for those who had children to go home and see them. One can only imaging having to deal with that on a daily basis. I can sympathize with individuals who look at the legislation and say it must happen. There is no doubt in my mind that we will see the change. I say that based on discussions I have had with caucus colleagues and after listening to members across the way talk about it. Replacing the words “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” broadens the scope and gives a much clearer and better sense of what we are talking about. Child pornography is, in fact, one of the most disgusting and horrific ways one can abuse a child. When we talk about it, we need to have an understanding of the impact it has. It has a devastating impact on the lives of not only the victim, but the people around the victim, such as their family and friends. Obviously most important is the victim. As the words say very clearly, we are talking about a child. When we think of the ages of the children being exploited, as has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions, we are talking about children as young as six months old to children up to the age of 18. Regarding the type of exploitation that takes place, I do not know if trying to describe it in terms of actions is the way to go here, but what I would like to do is emphasize the degree, because often when people think of these materials being circulated, they think of things such as organized crime being behind it. I would like to highlight two things that I find so upsetting in dealing with this issue. One is the end-user, the individuals who are participating and who ultimately cause any form of a demand for it. They are the consumers of these disgusting materials where children are being exploited. That is what offends me most. The individuals in question might actually surprise some. I was at a discussion where we were talking about child exploitation, and I was surprised to hear that there is a very strong component where we get family members who will exploit their own children. How does a mother, father or any guardian take a four-year-old and put that four-year-old in an environment where there is some form of exploitation, sexual exploitation in particular? When I posed that question, I was told that there is an issue in many third world countries where the child is the source of income for the family. In my mind in no way does that justify the exploitation of the child, but I learned something from that. We could then bring it forward to that more organized crime element, where it is well thought through. We could call it Internet luring. There are also individuals who will hang out at terminals where they know young people will go by. They lure young people through all forms of trickery, and before we know it, they are being exploited and being taken advantage of. Whether it is the individual guardian or parent exploiting their own child or it is organized crime where we get that exploitation taking place, and everything in between, I believe Canadians look at it in the same manner I do and see it for what it is: a horrific crime of child abuse in the worst way. At the end of the day, we factor in all the things that need to be factored in, and we take a look at the legislation. It is legislation many would argue is fairly straightforward legislation. It is legislation, as I indicated, that I am expecting all members to be voting in favour of when it comes to a vote. It is pretty straightforward in the sense of changing or replacing the word “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, which I said at the very beginning widens the scope and provides a better clarification of what civil society, our neighbours and our constituents, would want us to do. It is indeed a very serious issue, and I believe all members on all sides of the House recognize the sensitivity of it. As I said, I do believe that all members will in fact be voting in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, I look at the very principles of the legislation. It is encouraging, whether it is from the former Conservative speaker or the member across the way, that it would appear there is once again legislation before the House for which there is unanimous support. We see that as a good thing when we take into consideration Canada's leadership role on the global scene in regard to the issue of human rights. This does deal with it in a very direct fashion. I believe Canada plays an important role. When we look at what is taking place in countries like Iran, and in Ukraine with the war, it sends a very strong message. Could my colleague provide his thoughts in regard to the type of support we are witnessing today, recognizing the need to reflect in our refugee policy, or even immigration in general, that those who have caused harm abroad or who have violated human rights would not have a place through immigration to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the member might be aware that, in 2017, we had a standing committee through foreign affairs that came up with a number of recommendations that are, in fact, reflected in the legislation as brought forward through the Senate. We know we have a fairly substantial legislative agenda, especially going towards the end of the year. Everyone seems to be very supportive of the legislation. As I said, it has already been before a standing committee indirectly. I am wondering if the member would not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to pass this legislation or attempt to get it to committee before we break at the end of the week.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take anything away from members of Parliament and their efforts on this particular project. As I pointed out, members from all political entities came to the foreign affairs committee recognizing the issue. We did have a pandemic, as I am sure the member will recall. It was not that long ago, and I am sure it had a bit of an impact. The pandemic was more than just two years. We also have to deal with the current and huge number of pieces of legislation that were brought forward. However, it does not mean that the government did not prioritize. The Senate often brings forward legislation that is a priority for the House of Commons. The point I hope would be recognized is that, whether in the Senate or the House of Commons, there seems to be a great deal of political will. I would suggest that the timing is right. We have seen, this year, the war taking place in Europe. We are seeing human rights violations in Iran. This is a good piece of legislation and a good reflection of the fact that it is time for Canada to send a strong message. Would the member not agree?

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the foreign affairs committee meeting back in 2017. I did not catch if she was a member at that time, but that committee sent a report to the House. When the member talks about the process in the House of Commons, it is important for us to note the principle of the issue was sent to a standing committee and has also now been thoroughly debated in the other chamber. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on why we could perhaps be reasonably hopeful, or a little optimistic, that there is a chance we could pass it before the end of the week.

Mr. Speaker, I realize it is a very sensitive time and there are no doubt other members who would like to be able to contribute at a more appropriate time in giving our condolences to the family and friends. We all know Jim's passion for his country. We saw that in the speech he delivered just last week. For now, with the support of the House, we could take a two-minute recess and then get back into S.O. 31s at that point, if it is deemed appropriate by you as Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the issue of public confidence in the judicial system. The minister made reference to those high-profile cases where a judge is being judged by the public, if I can put it that way, because of a particular ruling and questions of doubt are planted. When I look at the legislation, one aspect is important to recognize: We assist in ensuring public confidence in the system when we put in the checks we are putting in today. Could the minister provide his thoughts on the—

Madam Speaker, one cannot help but recognize, in many of the spins the Conservatives like to put, as though they are tough on crime, is that they seem to want to marginalize the true value of our judicial system, in particular, our judges. They do that by saying they do not have confidence in judges, and therefore, they need to not only support the minimum sentences of today, along with the many problems that are a part of that, but also would like to see additional minimum sentences. Does the member not believe that judges are in a better position to be able to give a disposition, rather than instituting or putting on them minimum sentences in every situation?

Madam Speaker, one of the issues I have raised is confidence in the judicial system, in particular the public's confidence. I think it adds value to public confidence when we get legislation like this that is supported unanimously in the House. My understanding is that the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the legislation. Can the member provide his thoughts on the importance of having legislation of this nature, which reinforces public confidence in the independence of the judiciary?

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the importance of the passage of the legislation. It is encouraging to see the type of unanimous support the legislation is receiving. That speaks well of the legislation itself. It also adds value to what I have made reference to in the past, which is public confidence in our judicial system and its independence. Then the member started to talk about the appointment process, which has always been of keen interest to me. Where I disagree with the member is that she seems to think the appointments are political appointments when in fact they are not. I truly believe that about the judicial appointments that have been made to date. The member mentioned that there are some other countries looking at it, and I expect there are a lot of countries looking at it. Can she cite a country with which she feels comfortable in the way a judge is appointed?

Mr. Speaker, when individuals reflect negatively on the system, that in itself feeds the answer the member provided to me the last time around. In other words, if we have a system to which other countries look to see how Canada manages things, then I think we set a very good example. I challenge the member to indicate which members of the judiciary, any judges, she believes this government appointed as political partisan decisions.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I have brought up is that the Conservatives seem to be on their own island when it comes to the price on pollution, but it has not always been that way. As the member will recall, in the last federal election, all major national parties supported a price on pollution. Even the Conservatives made a commitment to have a price on pollution. I wonder if he can provide his thoughts on this, that what the Conservative said at that time was fairly misleading, given the fact they told the electorate that they would support a price on pollution and given the position they are taking today.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the price on pollution is something that has been around for many years. We have seen provincial governments of different political stripes bring it in. We have seen the national government in support of a price on pollution, along with New Democrats, the Bloc members and the Greens. It would appear as if the Conservative Party is alone in its opposition to a price on pollution. I wonder if my colleague could provide some of her thoughts on the caribou population and the impact on environmental change in northern Canada, just to get a better sense of awareness for our Conservative friends of the real impact of climate change.

Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. The petitioners are calling upon parliamentarians to do what they can with regard to organ harvesting and, in particular, to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs. I am presenting this petition because of what we will be voting on next Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the leader of the Green Party is bringing what is a very important issue for her constituents to the floor of the House of Commons, first in the form of a question and now during the late show as a follow-up. I think most people would see the issue for what it is worth, and obviously, we are very much concerned about our coastlines. As a government, we are committed to working with other stakeholders. The member said that there has been no consultation that has been completed. I would be somewhat surprised if over the years there has not been representation on the Port of Vancouver, whether it was directly through the Port of Vancouver, or indeed members of Parliament such as herself, or directly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Transport Canada in making sure that the government and other authorities are kept up to date on it. The member talked about the 100-plus incidents. I think she said 102 incidents. Of course, that would raise issues of safety. We want to ensure that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is, in fact, closely monitoring what is taking place. I would ask, and the member will have a minute to follow up, what it is the member is suggesting. Are there alternative locations? Maybe she could fill in more in that area, what she is aware of, or possible solutions outside of an outright ban. Has she done some work with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority? These are questions that I personally would be interested in getting her thoughts on. It is a discussion that I will carry forward to the best of my ability. She talked about killer whales, which I am very much concerned about too. I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would also carry that same concern as would the people of Canada. One does not have to live on the coast to appreciate its majestic beauty and the need for us to protect our ocean environment. The government has invested both financially and through regulations and laws to protect our ocean ways, and has invested a great deal of money. I suspect that the interest is there, which I am sure the member can appreciate, as I do. I remember being in the third party when the prairie wheat was being rained on and the prairie wheat farmers wanted to get it out. I recall raising the issue of these large ships being anchored just outside of Vancouver. I asked why we could not get the grain out. It does seem to me that we do need to work more collaboratively with the port authority to see what viable options could be there going forward. Suffice it to say that I am not surprised that the member is in Montreal doing the work that she is doing there. I am pleased that she has taken this issue to the late show to raise awareness on it. I will be sure to pass on her concerns to the appropriate minister.

Madam Speaker, I happen to have a list here. The doubling of the GST rebate for six months helps 11 million people. The Conservatives originally opposed it, as the member might recall, but they were shamed into supporting it. We are glad they flip-flopped. We thank them very much. The Canada housing benefit was opposed by the Conservatives. That was to help two million people with rental support. The Canada dental benefit is the program that 35,000 children have already put in an application for. The Conservatives opposed that one, too. The Canada workers benefit creates more payments and helps at a time of need, i.e. a time of high inflation, as the member knows. The Conservatives opposed that one too. Wiping out the federal interest on Canada student loans was also opposed by the Conservatives, unfortunately. Child care is a really big one. We are talking about a lot of money. The Conservatives said it was absolutely wasted and we should not have done it. It was to ensure that child care is affordable from coast to coast to coast. In fact, Conservatives say they will rip it up and will not support it. Obviously, they voted against that. If I had more time, I am sure I could come up with even more details.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts in regard to the last federal election. In the last federal election, the member, like 337 other Conservative candidates, adopted a policy platform position saying to all Canadians that the Conservative Party of Canada supported a price on pollution. Today, contrary to what they told Canadians they were committed to doing and advocating for, they have taken a complete and absolute reverse on that position. I am wondering how the member can justify that policy reversal to her constituents today.

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process we have with our rules in the House. Opposition members are afforded the opportunity to bring opposition day motions. I have talked about this in the past in terms of how opposition parties will establish different types of priorities. I will give credit to the Conservatives. They are definitely focused. They are focused on the price on pollution. They are on a little island of their own, not only here in Canada but around the world, where they are now convinced that a price on pollution is bad. I believe this is the seventh time the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, has decided to bring this issue to the floor. I do not know if it is because it likes to feel really important, being the only party in the House that supports getting rid of a price on pollution. After all, the Bloc supports a price on pollution. The New Democrats support a price on pollution. Members of the Green Party support a price on pollution. We all know the Government of Canada supports a price on pollution. It should be no surprise. Back in 2015, the world came together in Paris. In the dialogue that occurred there, Canada was well represented by all sorts of stakeholders, including provincial entities. What came out of that, and was one of the ideas that really resonated, was the need to have a price on pollution. Shortly after forming the government, we made the decision to listen to what Canadians were saying, appreciate the importance of our environment and implement a national policy ensuring a price on pollution. In Canada, we were not alone. There were provincial jurisdictions that already had a price on pollution. Members might be surprised to know this, but in potentially the first jurisdiction in North America to take the principle of a price on pollution and put it into a budgetary measure, the Conservative Party did this in the province of Alberta many years ago. The Province of Quebec, under Jean Charest, brought in a price on pollution. There have been a few leadership contests within the Conservative Party, but in the most recent one, interestingly enough, Jean Charest was one of the candidates. He received substantial support, and he too was an advocate. His Liberal government, in the province of Quebec, brought in a price on pollution. The Province of British Columbia has a price on pollution. People around the world are looking for ideas. We came back from the Paris conference saying we needed to get onside and recognize that a price on pollution is one of the most effective ways of being able to deal with the climate crisis of the century. I can appreciate there are climate deniers within the Conservative Party. There are actual members of Parliament on the Conservative side who do not recognize that climate change is a reality. When we first brought in a price on pollution, the Conservative Party actually opposed it. In the lead-up to the last election, not the last Conservative leadership race but the one before that, the Conservatives actually changed their position from their original one of opposing the price on pollution. Just last year, during the election, the then leader of the Conservative Party actually put it forward in the Conservatives' platform. All Conservative candidates, in 338 ridings in Canada coast to coast to coast, had a platform document that said the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution. Another leadership contest took place and the Conservatives now are not really too sure what they are saying. They just skip answering the questions when asked about the price on pollution, as I just finished demonstrating by my question for the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. They made the decision that it is just bad, that Canadians should believe them and that we should just be getting rid of the price on pollution. So says the new leader of the Conservative Party. Do members remember the other idea the leader of the Conservative Party had, about cryptocurrency? The leader of the Conservative Party told Canadians that, if they want to fight inflation, they should invest in cryptocurrency. How did that idea pan out for the Conservative Party? Much like the most recent position of the Conservative Party on the price on pollution, that idea did not fly. At the end of the day, those individuals who followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada have lost a great deal of money, well over 60% of their investments. In fact when I say “over 60%”, I am probably being a little conservative in that estimate, as many people have lost a lot more. Let us think of the seniors the Conservatives often talk about, as if they were advocates for seniors. We still have not even heard any regret or apology coming from the leader of the Conservative Party or from any Conservative candidate in regard to that idea. What are the Conservatives waiting for now with the price on pollution? They like to say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, as they call it. In Winnipeg North, eight out of 10 people actually get a net benefit with the price on pollution. There is the climate incentive cheque, which is given out four times a year. The Conservatives should be saying that, if they are going to get rid of the price on pollution, they are also going to be getting rid of those rebate cheques. Winnipeg North is not alone. Eight out of every 10 homes in the country receive them. When the Conservatives say there is going to be a tripling of the price on pollution, and of course they are not talking about this year but about an increase over the next eight years, what they do not tell Canadians is that the rebate will also increase. We have the price on pollution and we have the rebate. All the Conservatives want to talk about is the price on pollution. They are more concerned about the bumper sticker, going into the next election, saying, “Axe the carbon tax.” That is what their priority is. It is not about the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment for the Conservatives. They do not even have a plan, as has been illustrated time and again. The last time they actually had a plan was for the price on pollution, and they abandoned that plan. The Conservative Party is not reflecting the desire of Canadians to see some sort of plan dealing with the environment. To make matters even worse, they are spreading misinformation intentionally. If the Conservatives were to come into Winnipeg North and we were to do a bit of door knocking, the Conservative candidate would stand beside me and say they were going to get rid of the price on pollution. However, I would say that if they get rid of the price on pollution, it would mean they would also get rid of the rebate. A person would get more money because of the rebate than they would pay on the pollution, generally speaking, for 80% of my constituents. Then, not only that, but at least as a government we are recognizing that the environment does matter and is an important issue, unlike the Conservative Party. I suspect that if the sole debate were on that issue in the constituency of Winnipeg North, I would get more votes than I received in the last federal election. I am very grateful for the over 50% I got in the last election, but I believe I would even get more support if that were the only ballot issue being decided, because the rebate puts more money in the pockets of my constituents, and it deals with the price on pollution for climate change. When we talk about farmers, the department of agriculture spends far more today than it did when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister. In fact we are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars, well past a billion dollars, supporting farmers, supporting our prairie farmers. We had one Conservative member say that this year was the third best on record in Canada for our farmers, and in particular our prairie farmers. My focus in Manitoba is canola, wheat and flax, all of these wonderful bumper crops, not to mention the other commodities, whether in the pork industry, the cattle industry or our chicken industry. All of these industries, we value. That is why we have a very proactive Minister of Agriculture. Not only is she proactive, but we are providing cash support. We are ensuring we can move toward a greener economy, just like other countries around the world. There is an expectation that Canada has to demonstrate leadership, and I believe it is important we do just that. By recognizing the importance of moving forward in a positive way with the environment, we will be in a much better position in the months and years ahead to ensure opportunities well into the future. We need to do this so Canada can continue to play that important role it does in the world, whether by providing food or through the many other industries Canada leads in. The Conservative Party likes to say this is all about the issue of inflation. Inflation is a very serious issue. I like to think it does not matter what side of the House we are sitting on. We all recognize how important inflation is to address as an issue. The Conservatives bring forward a motion that really would not deal with the issue they are talking about in a tangible way that would assist the majority of Canadians. We have put into place, over the last number of months in particular, a series of policy announcements that do deal with and support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. When the Conservative Party says that it is concerned about inflation and the government needs to do more to support Canadians, unlike the Conservative Party, we are not going to sit back and just watch things take place. There is a role for government. Before the Conservatives make the suggestion, as they are now, that government should not play a role, let me talk about the larger picture of inflation outside of Canadian boundaries. We know Canada is doing better with its inflation rate than the United States of America. We are doing better than England and many different European countries. We are well below the average of the G7 countries overall. From a world perspective, our inflation rate is doing well. I find this interesting. I looked up the inflation rates of the United States and Canada over the last two years of Stephen Harper. I think this is appropriate, because the Conservatives are trying to tell us what we need to do, as if they have wonderful experience in dealing with inflation. In the last two years of Stephen Harper, the United States of America's inflation rate was lower than Canada's. In other words, Canada had a higher inflation rate in the last two years of Stephen Harper. Today, if we look at our administration, in the last two years our inflation rate has been lower than that of the United States. I do not think we need to follow the advice of the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular the leader, who recommends things like cryptocurrency, to deal with the types of policies that are not only important in having an impact on the overall inflation rate, but that we can use to support Canadians at a time when inflation hurts. Even though I pointed to the U.S.A. and how Canada is doing relatively well, my constituents, like everyone else in Canada, are hurting with respect to inflation. We are very much aware of the grocery prices and how much it hurts their pocketbooks. I too am offended that farmers are putting their blood, sweat and tears into ensuring we have food production but are not reaping in huge profits or rewards for their efforts to anywhere near the same degree others are. There are things we can do to help, and I could list them off. We can talk all we want, but the Conservatives continue to vote against measures to support Canadians, whether with respect to issues like the dental program for children under the age of 12 or the Canada housing benefit to provide rental subsidies that would benefit two million Canadians. There are already 35,000 children who have put in applications for the dental program since we brought it in a couple of weeks ago. Also, the doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months will benefit 11 million Canadians. When it comes to the Canada workers benefit, by making quarterly payments, thousands of Canadians will benefit from that. There is the elimination of the federal interest on student loans, which will benefit thousands of students, and that is not to mention child care. This government, unlike the Conservative Party, recognizes there is something the Government of Canada can do, and I can tell members that every Liberal member of Parliament will continue to fight, day in and day out, to ensure that we can marginalize the negative impacts of inflation, because that is the right thing to do, even though as a nation we are still doing better than the U.S.A. and most G7 and G8 countries.

Madam Speaker, the specifics of that answer would probably be best put, in terms of a question, to the Minister of Environment, but what I would note is that with respect to the province of Quebec, I need to recognize Jean Charest. He was, even though he was a Liberal premier at the time, very progressive in his thinking in regard to the environment. He ultimately led the country, through the province of Quebec. He was a very strong nationalist who understood that the environment matters and who led a lot of initiatives. That is why I think, when we take a look at it, with regard to that last federal Conservative leadership race, where Jean Charest actually did quite well, he has got to be looking at the Conservative Party's positioning today from a Progressive Conservative position of saying that a price on pollution is good and remembering how he led the country through the province of Quebec while he was the premier. To see the Conservatives taking this sort of position, I suspect there are a lot of Conservatives who are wondering what the heck has happened to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am not going to blame the recipients of CERB payments as the reason for inflation. Families found it very difficult. We are talking about millions of families, nine million families, virtually, who needed to have CERB for a wide variety of reasons. The Conservative Party might want to try to blame those families, but from the government's perspective we needed to be there to support Canadians going through the pandemic. Had the Conservatives been in power, it is obvious that they might not have done that. As the result of a Liberal government doing it, as a result of a Prime Minister who understood the importance of having Canadians' backs, we were in a better position to be able to get out of the pandemic in the fashion in which we have. I will compare our record to any G8 country that is there today. We have done exceptionally well. There is always room for improvement, and at the end of the day I look forward to continuing the dialogue on that particular issue.

Madam Speaker, I talk to my constituents about putting into place a national policy, so that in every province, no matter where a person lives, there is a price on pollution. I talk about the two billion trees that are going to be planted as a result of policy. It is interesting. We often get the question, “Where are those two billion trees?” They start as seedlings, and it takes a little while for them to grow. I am very confident that we will continue to look at ways, whether it is the banning of single-use plastics or the planting of trees or having a price on pollution, not to mention the numerous budgetary measures to support getting Canada on the right road to a greener economy. That is what I would be telling my constituents.

Madam Speaker, the issue of disabilities and how we can assist and support those disabilities was really amplified by the problems during the pandemic, when it came time to ensure that we could provide direct payments to people with disabilities. At the time I thought it took a while before we could ultimately create the databank or the mechanism that would ensure there would be a disability payment going out. We were able to do that. I know the minister responsible also has some fairly historic legislation. I do not necessarily know all the details of it. I am open to it. In the legislation the member just referenced, there is the intergenerational credit for housing, which helps seniors and people with a disability for whom additional suites can be built. That is a positive thing. This might not be the type of detailed answer the member would want, but that is the best I can give at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate what my colleague has brought forward for the House of Commons. At the end of the day, there is a history that Canada has that needs to be talked about. This is an example of why it is so important that we look at Canada's diversity and how it has enriched our country, while at the same time recognizing that we have made some horrific mistakes. For me, it is about education and tolerance. Can my colleague just provide his thoughts on the importance and significance of what he is proposing in terms of just heightening public awareness through education? As I say, it is important that we not forget even the bad things that have occurred in our country's history.