Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong in what he says about funding for health care. Never in the history of Canada have we had a national government provide as much cash in transfers over to provinces for health care. It has not happened before. In fact, if the member was to take a look at history, and I was first elected back in 1988 in the Manitoba legislature, he would see that Ottawa has always been the place to go to try to get more money, even though during the seventies there was an agreement among the provinces that they would rather have tax point transfers as opposed to cash. The only government that has been consistent in supporting national health care and ensuring Canadians would have the health care they want is the national government. I would ask the member if he would not at least acknowledge that never before has the Province of Quebec or any province received as much cash for health.

Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline, which consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. The Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has gotten about 1.5 million petition signatures over 50 different countries and presented them to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for immediate action to end the unethical practice of forced organ harvesting in China. It is also calling for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong. This is a petition that is signed by a number of Canadians, and it is a pleasure for me to table it today. It is looking for members of Parliament from all political parties to do what they can.

Mr. Speaker, it is always fascinating hearing my colleague and friend across the way present herself in the form of a speech to the chamber. One of the biggest issues I have with the Conservative Party is that there are many members within it that will say, on the one hand, that we need to spend some money. We heard a lot today about spending on different areas from some of her colleagues. Then on the other hand, we hear from other colleagues who say that we need to stop spending money. There seems to be an inconsistency at times. The overall theme of the Conservative Party seems to be to chop and cut programs and to cut back on government expenditures. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on what areas, and which departments in particular, she believes we should be looking at cutting programs or funding dollars.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not designed to make a better world per se, but to be a benefit to Canadians. We recognize that Canadians are having a difficult time. It is a time when there is inflation, even though inflation rates around the world are much higher, on average, than they are here in Canada. Whether one looks at the U.S., England, other European countries or the G20, Canada is doing relatively well, but we are still hurting. That is why there are a number of initiatives within the legislation to provide support for Canadians. I want to very quickly make reference to the multi-generational home renovation program, because I agree with the member on that. We both agree that it is a wonderful program. It will enable people to keep a parent in their home with the construction of a suite. It will also help our communities by keeping seniors in our communities, as opposed to going to care facilities. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to how this is a win-win situation for seniors, the community and, in fact, the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is a fall economic statement. When we get to the full budget, no doubt many of the issues that the member raises will be addressed. I also look at infrastructure as so important to all of our communities. Whether it is a world-class tennis court, an outdoor basketball court, a walking path or splash pad, they are all important community activities that the federal government supported last summer with municipal leadership on those files. However, this legislation is meant to try to, at least in good part, be there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. The member could reference the dental supports for children under the age of 12. We could talk about the rental support. We could talk about the elimination of interest for students on federal student loans, which would, in my opinion, make post-secondary education that much more affordable. There are many things within the legislation that are there to support Canadians during this time. Could the member provide some specific thoughts in regard to that aspect of the legislation?

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's opening comments regarding the four murdered indigenous women in Winnipeg. It is indeed a very sad thing to hear. When I was in opposition, I raised the need for the public inquiry. Ultimately we did get the public inquiry. There are 200-plus calls for justice within that and we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls for action. I believe we have to go the extra mile whenever we can in order to ensure that there is a higher sense of commitment to get to the truth of the matter and to assist where we can, because that reconciliation is of critical importance. I want to compliment the member for starting off her comments with this because this is very important. I know she is not from Winnipeg. Her heart is in the right place in terms of indigenous people as we all try to strive to do better. The question I have is related—

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party supported the government when it spent billion and billions to support Canadians during the pandemic, whether it was wage subsidies, loans to small businesses or supporting Canadians with CERB. Then, all of a sudden an election goes by, and even during the election the Conservatives had said they supported the price on pollution. Now, all that is gone, and they do not support that. Now they say, “Well, we have to cut, cut, cut”, or “chop, chop, chop”, as the Minister of Revenue would say. What about the billions that are being spent on programs such as child care, record-high amounts on health care and the 10% increase for seniors over 75? Does the Conservative Party today support initiatives such as supporting seniors, child care and health transfers?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize this legislation as something that means a great deal to Canadians, because we value our heritage. When we think of historical markers, we reflect on our heritage. There is so much we need to appreciate. Even though this legislation might not address all aspects of our national symbols and sites, it is a very strong, positive step forward. Can my colleague provide his thoughts on how important it is to have a rich understanding of our heritage?

Mr. Speaker, understanding and appreciating Canada's rich and diverse heritage is so very important, and that is what this bill is all about. I appreciate the fact that the member talked about the significance of indigenous people and paid respect in terms of recognizing the need for name changes. I suspect that same principle could be applied in many different municipalities, urban areas and so forth. One of the things I would not want to overlook is that there have been other significant historic moments, the Komagata Maru, for example, where a boatful of people who were predominantly Punjabi or from a South Asian community was rejected and sent away, and the outcome and impact that had on society. Not everything is something that was of great benefit, but we need to understand and appreciate our heritage. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how important it is for us to have a true reflection of our history that we can recognize through things like reconciliation and historic monuments.

Madam Speaker, one of the important aspects that maybe has not been noted strongly enough is that within this legislation there would be a response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, and the member is so correct in terms of the general assessment in regard to the importance of reconciliation. It is important to recognize that this legislation could go a long way, in terms of ensuring there is a great deal of truth that needs to be said. Protecting and encouraging that particular industry would be healthy for all of us. I am wondering if she could just provide her thoughts in regard to that educational component.

Madam Speaker, what a great way this is to wind down government business at the end of the week. Once again, we have before us legislation of a substantial nature, which says a lot about how important our heritage is as a nation. We have an infrastructure in that regard from coast to coast to coast, and it is important that we recognize our history. Whether they are parks, monuments or whatever they may be, they speak a great deal not only for our current generation but for future generations. I will wait for the next time the bill is called to conclude my remarks.

Madam Speaker, back in 2019, and I will reference this in my comments, there was a commitment in terms of a Canadian national strategy to combat human trafficking. One of the things that I think we really need to highlight during this debate is the importance of education and public awareness. For me, I really believe that the fight needs to occur not only in our legislatures, whether they are provincial or national, here in Ottawa, but also in our community streets. The member made reference to how close in proximity people who are being exploited are to where we live. I really do believe that the issue of public awareness and education is critical in terms of being able to continue to fight this particular issue. I would be interested in his comments on that.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this very important issue of human trafficking. As I pointed out in the question I asked the member, it is an issue that I believe is about governments at different levels. Even when I speak of these different levels, I know this is also a worldwide problem. It is a serious issue, and there are international organizations out there trying to raise awareness of it. That is why I thought it was very encouraging when the government, back in 2019, which was prepandemic, came out with Canada's national strategy to combat human trafficking. It recognized that both domestic and international human trafficking takes place virtually every day and takes place in many different ways. We had the opportunity to try to get a good understanding of the victims of this abuse, and it is very much racialized worldwide, especially here in Canada. There is a need to take action where we can. That is why we often hear members, whether it is cabinet ministers or members in general, talk about gender violence. I really believe that if we are ever going to turn the corner in trying to resolve the issue of human trafficking and exploitation, it has to incorporate some form of education and public awareness. The member stated that this is taking place in our communities. I do not necessarily know the stats or the numbers, but I take at face value what the member said. It is a very powerful statement that it is in our communities from coast to coast to coast, and the majority of people do not necessarily see it. They might be driving by it and not even be aware of it. It could be a neighbour who is being exploited and people are not aware of it. This is why I believe there has to be a holistic approach with different levels of government coming together, much like when I advocated on the issue of racism. We also have to factor in the educational component, such as programming in public schools, work environments and so forth. Sadly, there is a demand for the types of services that human trafficking attempts to meet, and it is at a great cost. It is not just criminals that we typically think of who are exploiting children. I had an interesting discussion a couple of years back with some advocates. They were talking about third world countries where young children were being tapped into the Internet to perform all sorts of acts. The people who were causing them to do that in this situation were actually parents, the people a child should trust the most, a mom or dad. The reason they provided, which is no justification, was poverty, and money flowed in as a result of exploiting their own children. Organized crime, a billion-dollar industry, is driven by bringing people into communities. Bringing people into communities from other areas is worldwide. Even here in Canada we will see exploitation taking place. I reflect on one incident a number of years ago when I was talking about ways in which someone could actually immigrate to Canada. One gentleman said to me that he trusted an immigration agent who said that the hospitality industry in Canada was welcoming and that his daughter would be able to go to Canada and get a good job. After the young lady arrived in Canada, she was brought to a place where there were expectations on her to strip and possibly provide additional services. That was not the type of hospitality this family was thinking. Fortunately the young lady was able to get out of that situation. I make reference to organized crime. There are different types of individuals who will seek the exploitation of humans for services in what are called sweat shops or for sexual services. In both areas, one needs to give attention. I would argue that those areas of a sexual nature demand all of us to do whatever we can. I appreciate the fact that the Senate has already reviewed this legislation and it was ultimately brought through the House. We look forward to the ongoing debate on the issue. I do not know the details. The member made reference to a treaty that was signed some 20 years ago. I am not familiar with the treaty. We have had at least a couple of governments since, and I notice this is a private member's bill being brought forward. I do not know all the arguments for or against, but I would like to think that, on the principles of human trafficking, there is not one member of the House of Commons or anyone in an elected office at any level here in Canada who would support any form whatsoever of human trafficking. Just the other day, I made reference to Hollywood and how Hollywood gives a good visual in terms of Internet cyber-attacks. It could be the same principle here. We often hear about and see televised in movies and TV programs the types of exploitation that are taking place. Suffice it to say that even in this era in society, in 2022, there is still slavery, there is still human trafficking and there are people who are being exploited. The sad thing is that we are often talking about children as young as six, and probably even younger, to 18 years old. These are the types of victims whom we need to advocate for to ensure we are taking the actions that are important. Whether it is of a physical nature when walking on streets or being in clubs or it is on our computers through the Internet, all of this abuse is absolutely unacceptable and we need to focus our attention on getting the abusers in this exploitation. That is something I like to believe every member of the House believes in.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in society who does not recognize the potential harm of cybersecurity. The issue is how do we ensure we are well positioned to address vital threats to our critical infrastructure. The member opposite says her concern is that we are giving too much power to one individual. Does the Conservative Party have an alternative to ensure that particular issue is addressed in the form of an amendment? Does the member have any suggestions on that point?

Mr. Speaker, an interesting debate is under way thus far on such an important issue with which we all have to come to grips. As changes in technology take place, we have to take that into consideration. I suspect that legislation dealing with privacy or cyber-attacks will be ongoing. Once the bill goes to committee, I am sure there will be a great deal of dialogue. I anticipate a great diversity of witnesses will come forward with ideas on the legislation. I will pick up on the point I raised with the member opposite about the concern that the minister had too much power under this legislation. Often, when government brings forward legislation, opposition members bring forward concerns about how power is enhanced through the minister's office. I have had the opportunity to briefly go through the legislation and I genuinely believe there is the right amount of balance. That is why I posed the question for the member. She suggested of reporting mechanisms, whether through an annual report or a report to a standing committee, and that has merit. I say that because I know there has been a great deal of effort in formulating this legislation. If there are ideas that would enhance or make the it that much stronger, we should be looking at that. I do believe the ministry is open to that. When the member was quoting, I wondered where those quotes were from. She used those to amplify fears that one might be challenged to justify. For example, the member referred to an “evil government” based on quotes she had received. I am not saying it is her opinion, but she has raised it, saying this is a quote from some third-party organization and if we believe in that quote, it could lead to an evil government. We have witnessed that a great deal from the Conservative opposition on a variety of different issues, as if there is some sort of conspiracy. There is no conspiracy, contrary to what the member said, at least in one part of her speech. The government is not out to spy on Canadians. The government takes the issue of the privacy of Canadians very seriously. We have brought forward legislation to that effect. This government has spent tens of millions of dollars on cyber threats. The government has had working groups and advisory groups dealing with cyber threats. We recognize the changes in technology and the impact they have had on society. I have said in the past that if we were to look at technological advancements, we would be challenged to find an area that has been as advanced as computer Internet technology. Just the other day, I was speaking to a private member's bill, saying that 10 or 20 years ago there were no such things as iPhones. I note the member for Winnipeg South Centre is listening. He will recall that when we were first elected back in 1988, there was a big computer purchase of $5,000 made through Reg Alcock. We had a wonderful computer with a laser printer, which came with a keyboard and a mouse. At the time, when logging into the Internet with that wonderful and beautiful computer, the first thing we would hear was a dial tone. Then we would hear that stupid clicking sound, which meant we were actually connected to the Internet. We were all fairly impressed with that computer, and there were about 20 of us at the time. We can compare that to where we are today. People can buy a laptop for $500 that has abilities and technological advancements more than tenfold of what we paid $5,000 for, with that long dial-up connection. In fact, people can purchase something brand new for $250 that is hooked into the Internet and running at a rapid speed. It is not even comparable to what it was. There is so much advantage to technological change, but with that change comes risk, which is the essence of what we are debating through Bill C-26. Even though society has benefited immensely, we need to recognize there is a significant risk factor. That risk factor not only applies for the individual who might be surfing the net today, but it also applies to military operations taking place in Ukraine today. Computers today are not optional. The Internet is not optional. They are essential services. That is why the Prime Minister, or one of the other ministers, just the other day made reference to the percentage of Canadians who were hooked up with high-speed connections and how we had literally invested billions to ensure that Canadians continued to get that access, with a special focus on rural Canada. We recognize that because it is no longer optional; it is an essential service. The digital economy varies significantly. If we want to get a sense of this, we can turn to Hollywood and like-minded productions found on Netflix, CBC or the more traditional media outlets. We can look at some of the movies and TV shows out there. The other day I was watching an episode of a show called The Blacklist, which is all about cyber-attacks. I suspect a number of my colleagues might be familiar with that show. One member talked about hydro. Manitoba, in fact all of Canada, should be concerned about our utilities. Through Hollywood productions, we are better able to envision the potential harm of cyber-attacks. A well focused cyber-attack can deny electricity to communities. It can shut down things that should never be shut down. We talk about the sense of urgency. One would expect there will be mischievous lone individuals working in their basements, or wherever it might be in society, challenging systems. However, we also have state-sponsored cyber-attacks, and we should all be concerned about that. In fact, that is why it was comforting when the minister made reference to the Five Eyes. I caught on right away that there are like-minded nations. Canada is not alone. There are like-minded nations that understand the importance of cyber-attacks and the potential damage that can be caused. I will get back to the international side of things later, but when we think of what is at risk, think of digital data. Digital data comes in many different forms. One of the greatest collectors of data is Statistics Canada, an organization that invests a great deal in computers and technology to protect the data it collects from Canadians. Statistics Canada is actually respected around the world for its systems. It has absolutely critical data, and that data is provided to a wide spectrum of stakeholders, obviously including the national government. Let us think of health organizations, the provinces and the collection of health records, or motor vehicle branches and passport offices. All of these government agencies have, at the very least, huge footprints in data collection. Those are government agencies. We could also talk about our banking industries or financial industries. We can think of those industries and the information that is collected from a financial perspective when people put in an application for a loan. All of the information they have to provide to the lender, such as their history, is going into a data bank. There is also the private sector. The other day we were talking about apps. One example is Tim Hortons. We were talking about it, as members might recall. The Tim Hortons app is fairly widely downloaded, and there is a lot of critical information within it. Canadians need to know, whether it is a government agency or private agency, that governments at all levels, in particular the national government, have their backs. That is the reason I started off by giving a very clear indication that even though Bill C-26 is before us today, we have been investing substantial financial resources through other types of legislation to provide assurances to Canadians so they know their information is in fact being protected. There are actions on the Internet today related to our small businesses. The member opposite made reference to this and asked how the government is supporting small businesses. If a person has a small business today, chances are they are on the net. More and more consumers turn to the net for widgets and a multitude of different services. As a result of that, there has been a great demand on small businesses. That is why we have a Minister of Small Business who looks at ways to not only provide tax relief but provide support. Sometimes it is done directly through financial measures and sometimes it is done indirectly by providing resources. However, let there be no doubt that there is support coming from the government. Whether it be a small, medium or large business, the government has a vested interest. We will do what we can. A good example of that is the individual who uses an ATM card when they make a small or large purchase at a small business. The attacks we are talking about today can take many different forms. The digital economic side is definitely one of them, but there is also a social component to the Internet. When I think of the social component, I think about issues of privacy and of communications through, for example, social media. Again, Canadians have an expectation that the government is going to be there for them. Cyber-attacks take place in areas we all need to be concerned about. As I said, the more advanced we become, the more risk there is. There are a lot of things that take place on the net that we need to be aware of and take action on. The exploitation of children is an example. That needs to be taken into consideration. In the legislation, there is a very strong compliance component. As I raised, the minister would have the authority to make some things happen with our telecommunications companies and tell them to stop. I think that sort of action is necessary at times. There is also a financial component so we can ensure a penalty is put in place as an incentive for people to abide by the legislation and the regulations, which are all there for one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect Canadians and institutions from risk. That is why we are investing in cybersecurity, ensuring respect for the privacy of Canadians and supporting responsible innovation. We will continue to protect Canadians from cyber-threats in an increasingly digital world. This legislation is one aspect of what the government is doing to accomplish that. I believe that state-sponsored cyber-threats are one of the greatest concerns and one of the reasons we need to work with allied countries. I made reference to the Five Eyes. There are democratic, free, allied countries that recognize the potential harm of cyber-threats sponsored through governments. This legislation really sinks its teeth into that. I hope that all members will get behind this legislation so we can ultimately see its passage to the committee stage. An official opposition member has indicated there is a great deal of interest in reviewing the legislation, the idea being to come up with ways to ultimately make the legislation better.

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily know the details of the case the member has referenced, but what I can say is that even the Conservative critic acknowledged that certain aspects of the legislation would ensure there are financial penalties and opportunities for the minister to virtually stop an action from taking place. Am I concerned that there is overreach? I do not personally believe there is, but I think there is some merit in having that discussion at the committee stage. I posed a question to the member: If the concern is that there is too much power for the minister, what would the Conservatives do differently? I recognize the fact that in a cyber-attack, often it is necessary to take fairly strong action in an immediate fashion. I think all members recognize that fact. The issue is whether there is something the Conservatives would like to see to provide an additional sense of security.

Mr. Speaker, I think Bloc members are hanging around the Conservatives too much. It is usually the Conservatives who go under all the rocks and have conspiracy theories. I, for one, see the legislation for what it is. It is an attempt by the government to ensure that we can effectively deal with the threat of cyber-activities, whether they are state-sponsored or from individuals. That is a very strong positive and is absolutely not unique, as other countries around the world are doing likewise in bringing forward legislation of this nature. In terms of the member's conspiracy theory, I will leave that for another member on another day.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect there would be a great deal of will to continue working with the New Democrats in the House in a minority situation. The NDP has taken a very responsible approach to dealing with the government-sponsored legislation. Where there are changes that make sense, I suspect the ministry would be open to how we could address concerns. Having said that, it does not mean we are looking for NDP amendments. As it has been pointed out, whether it is the official opposition or the Bloc, this is legislation that we brought in today at second reading. We hope it will pass at some point so it can go to committee stage, where I expect there will be a great deal of interest from coast to coast to coast on this legislation. I look forward to the contributions of others and their ideas and thoughts going into it, like the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had regarding an annual report that comes from the minister and how that might be incorporated into the legislation. The sooner we can make the ministry aware of some of those ideas, the better it is. Ultimately, it will go to committee, and there will be representatives from the minister's office there. It will be a wonderful opportunity to get the feedback we are all looking for. If there are chances to make it a healthier and stronger legislation, I am sure the government would act on that.

Mr. Speaker, as the member highlights, when we talk about infrastructure, the whole digital economy and what government does, it would be negligent not to recognize the significance of the private sector and how the private sector feeds into it. In fact, it is a major player of 80% plus. That is why, when we talk about the government's role, ensuring that the national infrastructure is safeguarded against cyber-threats is of the utmost importance. That is the essence of the legislation, along with ensuring that Canadians', business's and governments' interests are well served.

Mr. Speaker, I have made reference to the idea, and I hope it will be discussed at committee stage in terms of a reporting mechanism. I get the sense, based on questions for both me and the minister, that there is some concern related to that. We will have to wait and see if that comes forward through committee. At the end of the day, I think it would be nice to see the legislation pass at some point, where the committee is given the opportunity to provide its recommendations and thoughts on the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on that question. When the minister is called upon to instruct a provider to take a specific action, that would often be required because something has happened in the environment. If the minister does not have that authority, then the opposition might be somewhat critical of the minister not taking action. I wonder if the member feels that it is necessary in the legislation, or does he believe we should have it, but we need to amend it in some fashion to ensure it is not abused. Is that what I am hearing from the member?

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member will be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee. Hopefully many of the concerns he raises on the issues surrounding the worthiness of the legislation, will be addressed at that stage. The legislation would empower the minister to be able to take actions. It would allow for financial penalties. It would allow for us to deal with cyber-attacks from a legislative perspective. That does not necessarily mean that this is the only thing we have done over the last number of years. There has been a great number of financial resources, individuals, committees and so forth ensuring our industries are protected. This is yet another step forward in dealing with cyber-attacks, keeping us consistent with other allied countries. I am wondering if the member would acknowledge the importance of moving forward with allied countries in dealing with things, such as cyber-attacks?

Madam Speaker, I would just correct the member. Yes, this legislation is very important and we hope to see it get to the committee stage where it will no doubt be well discussed and debated. There will be presentations where members can digest information and see if there are ways in which we can improve upon the legislation. However, to try to give an impression that this is the only thing the government has done on the issue of cyber-threats is a bit of a false impression. Not only have we been seeing a great deal of dialogue and actions from different departments to date in the form of formalized advisory groups, but we have seen literally tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the other incentive programs that were there, for the private sector, for example. I wonder if the member would not agree that this issue is not new and this is just one very important aspect in taking a step forward.

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging when we get support for legislation. This legislation goes a long way in recognizing that cyber-threats are something on which we do need legislation to come forward and be voted upon. This legislation would allow for financial penalties and for the minister to take direct action. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance, once we get into committee stage, of listening to what presenters have to say. I understand there are some concerns with regard to the legislation.

Madam Speaker, within the legislation there is consideration given to how financial penalties would empower the minister to take strong action to ensure that providers are keeping up with what they need to keep up with. My question to the member is this. Would he agree that when we take a look at the issue of cyber-attacks, they are not something unique to Canada? It is happening around the world. We are working with allied countries and others. This is one part. It does not stop here. There is a need to continue, as we have for the last number of years, investing tens of millions of dollars and putting people to the task of protecting us against cyber-threats. Could the member just provide his thoughts in terms of the broader picture of cyber-threats?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the Bloc's tentative support of the legislation to go to committee, recognizing that this legislation empowers the minister to take direct, specific actions to protect Canadians and businesses. As the member pointed out so accurately, there is a very real cyber-threat out there. It also ensures that there can be financial penalties. Would the member not agree that this is just one step? We have had literally tens of millions of dollars invested in cyber-threats over the years. We have had all sorts of group discussions and meetings to make sure that the government is keeping up. There are a number of stakeholders with the responsibility of fighting cyber-threats today.

Mr. Speaker, a big part of the reconciliation and the calls for action deal with the issue of incarceration. Part of those calls incorporate the idea that we need to reduce minimum sentencing or reduce the number of times that minimum sentencing is being utilized. Given the Conservative Party's approach to minimum sentences, based on things like Bill C-5, does the Conservative Party support calls for action that deal with the reduction, in any way, of minimum sentences?

Mr. Speaker, there are 94 calls to action, as every member of Parliament understands and appreciates. What I like about Bill C-29 is that it deals with four calls to action. We need to recognize that not all of the calls to action can be done overnight. It is a work in progress. I am wondering if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts on the fact that for many of them, we have to work with other jurisdictions and stakeholders to accomplish a call to action.