Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I want to give a quick example. A number of Conservatives have stood up and talked about the issue of crime stats, and that brought me back to a day when I was inside the Manitoba legislature. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister at the time, and I raised a question about the record number of car thefts. Manitoba was way above every province in the country. I think in a normal year we would get 3,000, but in that particular year it was 14,000. It was a huge increase, and we found out that a relatively small number of youths were stealing a whole lot of cars. We ended up recognizing that judicial independence is important, but it is also a shared responsibility between the provinces and the federal government. Our municipal governments also play a role. To deal with crime in that particular issue, once the province and the city got together and developed a plan, along with MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance, they were able to drive down the number of car thefts in the following years. It proved to be very effective. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the idea that when we talk about crime stats, we have to incorporate other jurisdictions to deal with crime.

Madam Speaker, the legislation, and I have made reference to this in the past, very much recognizes the advancement of technology and how we can make our judicial system better by providing legislation that would allow, in a very formal way, video conferencing. By doing that, one would like to think we would be providing a very viable option that would no doubt be well utilized. I wonder if my colleague could provide further thoughts on that, because he made reference to technological advancements in court proceedings being televised, and so forth. This is all a step forward in the right direction, which is one of the reasons why it is so important to pass the bill, so we can get it to committee to hear the stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order is worthy enough to get clarification. We all know the process for voting virtually, but just for clarification, when we have a recorded vote on the floor of the House of Commons, the expectation is that a member must rise and acknowledge their name when it is stated. My understanding has always been that if that does not occur, the vote does not count. That is all I am asking about. I do not want you to reflect on past votes. I just want you to provide clarification for members going forward. They have to stand and acknowledge the Clerk, and if they do not do that, their vote does not count. That is my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the House leader of the NDP and the Conservative Party respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. I submit that the protection of privacy rights is a unifying theme that links all parts of Bill C-27. This bill is a key pillar in the government's implementation of a digital charter. The three parts of the bill work together to provide a comprehensive framework to build Canadians' confidence in how their personal information is being used, including with regard to the unique risks posed by artificial intelligence systems, and they need to be considered together given their complementary relationship. Part 1 of the bill, the consumer privacy protection act, aims to modernize the privacy law that applies to commercial activities to assure Canadians that their personal information is being protected in the digital economy. Artificial intelligence represents one of the most significant sources of innovation and is a key emerging risk in the use of personal information. We heard, in consultations around the former privacy reform bill, that Canadians are concerned about the use of their personal information by artificial intelligence systems and the potential for bias or harm that may result from the irresponsible use of these systems. Part 1 of Bill C-27 addresses Canadians' rights regarding the use of their personal information in the automated decision system, but there are limits to how privacy law can address concerns about the use of AI systems. The government developed part 3 of the bill, the artificial intelligence and data act, to protect against the systemic impacts of artificial intelligence systems. It would regulate artificial intelligence systems that process personal information and other data about human activities to ensure that risks, such as bias based on race or gender, are addressed from the design stage all the way to deployment. If Parliament considers part 1 and part 2 of the bill without taking into account the full impacts of artificial intelligence systems on Canadians, it will have an incomplete picture of the use of personal information in the digital economy and the steps needed to build the trust of Canadians. This is the first time that the government is seeking to regulate artificial intelligence to govern the use of Canadians' personal information. I have no doubt that members will want to study this part of the bill in depth, and I welcome that. I wanted to give the House the government's perspective on why we think the three parts of the bill are interrelated to the protection of Canadians' personal information. I contend that all parts of the bill are interconnected and should be voted on as one item.

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 is yet another piece of legislation that the Department of Justice is looking at. I know the member has been a very strong advocate for Bill C-5 and has a few thoughts on it that would be of benefit in terms of reinforcement. We recognize that when it comes to Bill S-4, the modernization is an absolute. It is relatively non-controversial and should pass. There has been time on it in the Senate already. I know the member has some very strong thoughts on Bill C-5, and I would ask him to maybe provide a different perspective on another piece of legislation that he is bringing through.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have the Bloc supporting government legislation, which I think will have an impact. In the little time I have had to go over the legislation and listen to some of the comments, what I see is legislation that recognizes that things have changed. There is a technology out there and ways in which we can make our system that much more effective and efficient to provide that quality justice that Canadians expect of our judicial system. I think it is quite encouraging. The member made reference to his waiting for it to go to committee. Does he have any specific amendments that he would already suggest, or is he more content with seeing it go to committee and then have that debate?

Madam Speaker, yes, he was one of the only individuals who mentioned it today. In the past, I, and others, have had the opportunity to recognize the importance of victims and how we can be there to support victims. I appreciated the member's comments. We are taking a look at ways we can use technology, and this would not only make our courts more efficient, but it would also assist victims who have been put in difficult positions. If we can make it easier by working through the courts and getting that consensus to ensure that person can appear via video conference, then we should take advantage of that situation. I was quite encouraged by what appears to be unanimous consent to go forward with the legislation. That is very encouraging. When the legislation comes before us next, I will continue on that point, recognizing that we do have an opportunity to hopefully get Bill S-4 to committee. I respect what the members from the Bloc were saying, that the Quebec legal bar association is looking at ways it can enhance or improve the legislation. I suspect there could be some amendments coming forward. I look forward to its ultimately passage, and I will conclude my remarks the next time this comes before the House.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to an important piece of legislation. I had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of a number of members on Bill S-4. It is a piece of legislation that was in the House previously, but in a different form. It originated in the House of Commons, where there was a great deal of discussion about it, and it has been reintroduced to the House in the form of a Senate bill, with very few substantial changes. Having said that, I look at the legislation as a form of modernization. I do not say that lightly. I recall a couple of instances from years ago when I was a justice critic in the Manitoba legislature. There was a great deal of talk about how we could utilize technology to ensure that our judicial system was more effective. One thing that used to really frustrate me was, when I would drive to the Manitoba legislature from home, I would pass the courts and see all the police cars parked there due to police waiting for trial, many of whom would never even get to testify on that particular day and would be called upon to come back another day, or I would be at another facility where there was serious police traffic, all court related. I remember talking to law enforcement officers who indicated it would be far better to capitalize on some of the technology, such as video conferencing, and the positive impact that would have. I believe it would be quite effective. When I heard about the legislation coming from the Senate, legislation that originated in the House and was then reintroduced through the Senate, I looked at it from the perspective that, at the end of day, Canadians want a system that will be there in an independent fashion, independent of politics. We very much believe in the rule of law and judicial independence, but there is still a role for legislators and parliamentarians to look at ways to improve the system. That is what we are seeing here. This legislation that the government brought forward would ensure better accessibility. It would make the system more efficient and, ultimately, more effective. As was cited earlier, we hear a great deal about the importance of getting justice as quickly as possible. There are certain things we have learned from the pandemic. We often heard, when the pandemic was at its peak, that we should look for ways to learn from the pandemic to improve our systems. The technology can easily be brought into our judicial system. We should at least provide the opportunity for its usage. I like to think that providing that opportunity would make a difference. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that would make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of all participants. The reforms would flow from important work that was done and conducted by the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. When we look at the tangible things coming out of the legislation, we see one would allow an accused person to appear by video conference at a preliminary inquiry, on consent of the parties and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is actually being presented. In addition, it would allow an accused person to appear by video conference for trial for a summary conviction offence, on consent and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is being presented. Another important point to recognize in the legislation is that it would allow an accused person to appear via video conference for a trial for an indictable offence on the consent of parties and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is being presented, except in the case of evidence before a jury. I have two more points to highlight. It would allow an accused person to appear by video conference and audio conference for making a plea on consent of the parties and, where the court considers it appropriate, a plea by audio conference. This would only occur when the court was satisfied that video conferencing was not readily available, and the court could still inquire about the conditions of accepting a guilty plea under subsection 606(1.1), despite not being able to see the accused person, which was proposed in clause 715.234. The last point I would make to Bill S-4 is that it would allow the offender to appear by video conference or audio conference for sentencing purposes, on the consent of the parties and where a court considers it appropriate. Sentencing by audio conference would only occur when the court was satisfied that video conferencing was not readily available, as proposed in clause 715.235. I do appreciate the importance of video conferencing. My New Democratic friend from James Bay—

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member's comment with regard to the importance of legislation of this nature, which puts into place, I believe, a process that assists us in building confidence among the public. That is a very critical point, when we think of justice and policing in general. The public needs to have confidence in those authorities. With the passage of this legislation, what we would do, at least in part, is ensure that this level of confidence continues to be there for our border control officers and the RCMP. In fact, for border control officers this would be for the first time.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that the report was done back in the mid 2000s, maybe 2005 or 2006, and it has been a while to take the action necessary. The member might know it for a fact, but I do not believe that the Canada Border Services Agency was incorporated in the original recommendations by Justice O'Connor. I am wondering if the member could give his thoughts on how, yes, a considerable amount of time has lapsed, but some substantive changes have been proposed, and those substantive changes would complement the overall public confidence in two agencies that are so critically important to all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it seems that every day the Conservatives and the Bloc get closer and closer on certain themes. At the end of the day, there is a government legislative agenda. As I detailed earlier in addressing the legislation, there is a substantial amount of legislation to support Canadians, whether it was through the pandemic or now to deal with inflation, not to mention other legislative initiatives that are historic. They are for issues dealing with a national dental plan, which will be there for children under the age 12, and for issues dealing with a wide variety of things that are affecting everyday Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There is a sense of eagerness to get the legislation and the budgetary measures through. Much like when there are opposition days, there is a process that allows for votes to occur. That same principle does not apply to government legislation and, as a result, if an opposition party wants to prevent something from passing, all it needs to do is continue talking, which then dictates that the government needs to take some sort of action in order to get it passed.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation, legislation that I would have liked, ideally, to see pass earlier. I would like to break down my comments into a couple of different sections. First, I want to talk about something that has already been raised by two previous speakers and that is the issue of timing. It is important that we recognize that a substantive report was provided many years ago, when Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada, that took a look at the ways we could reinforce public confidence in Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, given some circumstances that were taking place at the time. That report came out with a number of recommendations. One of those recommendations was the idea of having some form of an independent commission that would be able to address complaints, with respect to the RCMP, and to be able to investigate. I looked up that report, and I thought that it had been from around 2005 or 2006. I understand that it was actually brought to the House in 2006. Mr. Harper was the prime minister at the time, and he chose not to take any sort of action on it. When the government changed in 2015, we did a considerable amount of work and effort on doing an overall review. The Department of Justice had a number of pieces of legislation that would have been before them. We have been debating several pieces of legislation, virtually from 2015, on a wide spectrum of that department's responsibilities. This is our third attempt to get the legislation through, dealing with the commission. I believe that our very first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which was tax relief for Canada's middle class. Members will recall that this was when we reduced the taxes of Canadians, for the most part. We had the 1% wealthiest get the extra tax, but that was our first major piece of legislation. From then to today, there has been an extensive legislative agenda. We have had to go through some fairly difficult times. For example, the worldwide pandemic required numerous pieces of legislation. I do not know how many times I have stood up inside the chamber to talk about Conservative filibustering on government legislation. We have seen that consistently for years now. We take a look at it and we say, well, today, we are talking about Bill C-20, legislation that is significant. Not only does it reflect on a report that was provided back in 2006, but it is also a reflection on several years of consultations with Canada's border control agency. Not only are we talking about the RCMP today but we are also talking about the Canada Border Services Agency. The CBSA plays a critical role, as does the RCMP, every day, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That whole agency is now being provided the same opportunity that the RCMP with the public and the issues that have been raised with regard to both agencies. I see that as a very strong, powerful piece of legislation that will make a difference. Earlier I asked about the Bloc's support for this. Its members were fairly clear that they would vote in favour of it. They saw the legislation as a positive and were anxious to see it pass through the House. Then we asked the New Democratic Party about the issue of getting the legislation through the House and the NDP seemed to be just as supportive, recognizing the value of the legislation and the desire to see it pass through the House. Both parties were somewhat critical of the government for not passing it earlier. That is why I highlighted the fact that there was substantial legislation. If time permitted, I would go into the different types of legislation that the government has had to introduce. There is a finite amount of time that the House actually sits. That is one reason why, with the support of the New Democratic Party, we were successful in being able to extend hours so we could sit beyond six o'clock. If we need to sit until midnight for more debate, we are in that position, thanks to the support from the New Democratic Party. Both political entities have acknowledged that substantive legislation needs to be passed. One way we can ensure there is time for debate is to provide those additional hours, if more hours of debate are required, particularly by the official opposition, prior to passing the legislation. From questions posed by the Conservatives, I am of the opinion that they also support this legislation. Once again, we might actually find ourselves in a position where political parties support the legislation. I suspect the Green Party will take a position on it, likely in support. I must congratulate the leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for taking on that role again. I suspect we have legislation before the chamber that will receive unanimous support of getting it to committee. It would be wonderful to get a sense from the official opposition as to when it would like to see this legislation go to committee. In other words, how many speakers will the Conservatives be putting up? For example, if they are going to put up more than three or four speakers, maybe they should look to the government and suggest we sit additional hours in an evening, so we can get the legislation passed and get it to committee. It seems to me that the desire is there to see the legislation pass to the committee. There are more government bills on the horizon on which we would like to have debate. When I hear that all members are supporting the legislation, my concern is that the Conservatives might double down, insisting they put up speakers until the government brings in time allocation. The leader of the Green Party will be in opposition to that time allocation and we will have to bring in other parties to support it in order to get the Conservatives to pass the legislation and allow the bill to ultimately go to committee. We should try to avoid all that. If it is not resolved today, I would encourage the opposition House leader, in particular, to let the government House leader know how many actual speakers the Conservatives anticipate, so we can get it into committee. Literally thousands of people are being directly or indirectly impacted. I would argue that all Canadians are, in one way or another, affected by it. With respect to the cost expenditure, we are talking about well over $100 million over five years, but the trade-off with the cost factor is building what is absolutely essential when it comes to law enforcement, whether it for our borders or anywhere in between. Public confidence in our border agency and RCMP is absolutely critical. This is one way we can reinforce the many things that need to be done related to the fine work that both CBSA and RCMP agents do for us seven days a week, 24 hours a day. In listening to the comments from members, I want to provide a general thought with respect to bad apples versus the vast majority. For the vast majority in both agencies, we continue to receive the best service that is humanly possible. I do not have a problem in comparing our national institutions, in particular, the RCMP, to any other law enforcement agency anywhere in the world. Its members are constantly called upon from other countries and from within Canada to perform in many ways, whether it is training and assistance in countries like Ukraine and many others throughout the world to the absolutely fantastic work they do in Canada. The same principle applies to the majority of those who work at the Canada Border Services Agency, and I recognize their phenomenal effort. It is very delicate work, as some members have implied. It is almost like a border agent is a semi-god of sorts when someone comes into Canada. That individual is completely dependent on that border agent to make a decision that is favourable to the nation and that decision could ultimately prevent the person from coming into Canada. The bad apples cause a great deal of issues for both agencies, and we often will see that take place. After all, it is the incident that the public will react to through media reporting which reflects negatively on the institution. For example, when an RCMP officer takes an action that reflects negatively on the entire force, that gets amplified, whether through social media or mainstream media. That is when the seeds of doubt or questionable behaviour are planted in the minds of many, and justifiably so. However, it is because of those bad apples in particular that we need this legislation. This is why it is so important to recognize the finances to support the public complaints and review commission. That is money well spent. The public complaints and review commission will have the ability to review and investigate the conduct and level of service of an RCMP officer or a border control agent when an issue has been raised. That is the essence of the legislation. It will allow the chair of the commission to initiate some form of a disciplinary action where it is deemed warranted. Again, that type of action is necessary. At the beginning, when I talked about the time frame, I put it in the form of a question. There has been a lot of time since the report, but the essence of the legislation is far beyond what was recommended back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The vote of confidence that is established when the commissioner provides a recommendation on a behaviour that has taken place is what provides that confidence. Through that recommendation, we will receive an annual report. That annual report will highlight the many different things with which the commission has had the opportunity to deal. I recognize the importance of the makeup of the commission. I suspect, given some of the suggestions or ideas from the opposition party, we will likely see some healthy debate on this at the standing committee. Given the department's interest and level of time commitment to the legislation, I believe the government is open to suggestions, and I would encourage members to bring those ideas to committee. I understand there are concerns, particularly related to a number of issues of the day. The Conservatives have raised issues like illegal guns crossing the borders. When we think of the Canada Border Services Agency, it is important to note that it deals with issues such as arrests, detentions, removals, human trafficking, customs, trade, immigration and illegal firearms. The Conservatives are quick to criticize the government on that issue. I suggest that the Conservatives might not want to bring that issue up during questions and answers. If they do, I will talk about the tens of millions of dollars in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency that the Conservatives put in place, which reduced the number of border services officers and that enhanced the opportunities for illegal trafficking of guns and weapons coming into the country. I will remind them of their responsibilities to the issue and their lack of commitment and support of Canada Border Services Agency before. Maybe they could come up with a different question, but I will not tell them what they have to ask. I hope, as I explained in depth why it is important, that the legislation passes.

Madam Speaker, I know the Prime Minister takes all issues related to indigenous matters very seriously. We also recognize systemic racism is there; it is real and tangible. We have a caucus that understands the issue, and we look forward to this bill going to committee, where no doubt there will be a healthy discussion on that point. If there are ways we can enhance the legislation and make it stronger, I am sure the department, and in particular the minister, would be open to them.

Madam Speaker, to address many of the phone calls the member receives, what the legislation would do is build upon public confidence in Canada border control agents. If, for example, someone is going across the border and is deeply offended because of an incident that occurred, they would have, for the first time, an independent commission where the issue could be raised so there would be a feeling that justice is served. We know there are bad apples in every profession, including among border agents. Unfortunately, a bad apple is a reflection on all, which is one of the reasons it is important to recognize that legislation of this nature benefits everyone, including border control agents and RCMP officers.

Madam Speaker, I think the chair of the commission is obligated to provide an annual report. It is important that we recognize how critically important this is for its independence. Through the report provided, I would like to think a number of potential outcomes could come about, including how one might want to further a particular investigation that was conducted by the commission or potential substantial policy changes at the government level, whether it is regulations or even future laws.

Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues asked what the Conservatives did when they were in government. At the end of the day, our law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast have the confidence of the government of the day. When I say confidence, that means additional supports and resources that I would argue are probably more plentiful than what the Harper regime provided. What we are talking about today is how we ensure we can weed out or recognize more accountability, because there are bad apples that exist in both agencies.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation appears to be supported by the Conservative Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, and obviously the government has proposed it. It looks like it will have the unanimous support of the House. The idea of the legislation has now been before us for a good deal of time in different ways and in different legislation. It seems that everyone wants this bill to pass. Do we know if the Conservative Party is prepared to allow the legislation to pass, or does the member think we might have to bring in time allocation?

Mr. Speaker, we often hear how important it is to bring the concerns of our constituents to Ottawa. Let me tell members about bringing the Government of Canada to the residents of Winnipeg North. Since the summer, we have had the Minister of Health come to Winnipeg North. We have had the Minister of International Trade come to Winnipeg North and the Minister of Foreign Affairs come to Winnipeg North. We have had the Minister of Seniors come to Winnipeg North. We even had the Prime Minister of Canada come and visit Stanley Knowles in Winnipeg North. This is a government that understands the importance of connecting with real people throughout our country. I am so proud to be a Liberal member of Parliament.

Madam Speaker, it is very encouraging to see the support that is coming forward for this legislation. Earlier today, prior to question period, we had a very clear indication of support, whether it was from the government, obviously, which is proposing the legislation, or support coming from the New Democrats, the Bloc party, or even the Green Party members for the legislation. It has become very clear that the Conservative Party is going to be supporting the legislation. I would like to think that given the type of support it is getting from the House, there would be a willingness to see it go to committee, given that we have had a great deal of opportunity over not only months but years to have that discussion, both informally and formally, inside the chamber and outside. I know the standing committee is anxious to receive the legislation so it can get down to work on it, listening to the public and so forth. I wonder if the member is in concurrence with me that we should try to advance this, even if it means getting support to sit tonight. I, for one, would be happy to be here until midnight if there are more members who want to speak to the legislation. Let us see if we can get this legislation passed. Could the member provide his comments on how important it is to pass the legislation?

Madam Speaker, I have made reference to this before, how great it is to see that the Bloc and, in fact, all members who have spoken to the legislation thus far are going to be supporting it. That is great. It includes members from all political entities in the House. I guess what I would ask is related to the importance of establishing and reinforcing public confidence. When I think of the commission that is being created here to deal with both the Canada border control and the RCMP, its independence and the ability of the chairperson to be able to come up with a disposition in situations where it is warranted, where inappropriate behaviour, for example, has taken place, I see that as a very strong thing, because it reinforces public confidence in the system. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts with regard to how important it is to have a public that is confident in the system itself.

Madam Speaker, I find it tough. The member said that there are illegal firearms coming across our border and we need to do something. Members will remember Stephen Harper and what he did. He reduced the amount of border crossing support, ultimately not recognizing the importance of properly funding Canada border control, and we actually lost agents. My question is more so in regard to that, at the end of the day, we are talking about bad apples. There are bad apples in border control and the RCMP, but the overwhelming majority, whether it is the RCMP officer or the border control agent, should be complimented for the efforts they put forward day-in and day-out, 24 hours a day. During this debate, I do not think we should lose perspective of that. Would the member not agree that this commission would assist in restoring and adding value to the public confidence in the—

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the bill that is before us today. It is really important for us to recognize that Canadians deserve peace of mind when it comes to careers, the amount of effort that is put in and the sense of commitment of workers to employers. I recall many years ago, out in the Transcona area, walking a picket line and talking with a number of individuals who were working for a particular manufacturer. At the time, the amount of money they were receiving, after a number of years working for the company, was a relatively small amount towards a pension. I am talking under the $500 level. For me, personally, I like to think that over the years—

Madam Speaker, the point I was trying to make on this is that Canadians from coast to coast to coast invest the most valuable resource we all have, which is time and commitment. When it comes to the work environment, that sacrifice is often made because of the benefits or contributions that are being made toward things like a pension. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would try to devalue or take away from the importance of pensions. We have, virtually since forming government back in 2015, in many ways taken a look at how we can support Canadians with respect to pensions. It is one of the reasons one of the first actions we took was to reduce the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for people to collect the OAS. It is one of the reasons we had discussions with all the different stakeholders, specifically our provinces, to deal with the issue of CPP contributions. Unlike the Conservative Party, we see CPP contributions as a pension, for deferring income to once a person retires. Much like the defined pension plans we are talking about within this legislation, there is an expectation, and that expectation will be met through CPP contributions. When people in the private sector are contributing toward a pension, there is an obligation for the private sector to contribute to that pension, so that after a person has worked a number of years or however long it might be, they will be entitled to receive those benefits. It is a contract, an agreement of faith in which there is a responsibility for private sector pension plans, defined or not, to be able to maintain that commitment. The unfortunate reality of economics and, I would suggest, poor management by different private sector companies, have led to that contract being violated. The leader of the Conservative Party made reference to Nortel. Nortel is a good way to amplify the issue, and I think that is why there is a great deal of sympathy toward it. We all agree that we should be doing what we can to increase the protection of these pensions. In Nortel's situation, so much money was lost because the corporation did not do its part in terms of maintaining its contributions to a fund when ultimately the company disappeared. The people who were hurt were the workers. I like to think that over the years, as a parliamentarian, I have been a very strong advocate for workers. Virtually from day one, back in 1988, when I debated late into the evenings on the issue of final offer selection, from that point to walking picket lines to understanding the importance of advocating for workers and always doing what is in their best interest, that is something I have strived for as a parliamentarian. That is why, when we formed government, I was very pleased with some of the first pieces of legislation we brought forward. They were to protect the workers, albeit through the unions. Bill C-4, for example, repealed two pieces of private members' legislation, and it was good that it did. We can talk about other commitments that have been made even within this debate with regard to the fall economic statement, where we have the labour mobility tax deduction. We have had a great deal of discussion lately with respect to the whole idea of banning replacement workers in strike or lockout situations, and there is a great expectation from me and others that we will be able to move forward on that file. We have brought in legislation that has passed on pay equity. As the member will know, when we bring in legislation, especially labour legislation, it is critical that an appropriate amount of consultation has been done. I was interested in listening to the leader of the official opposition when he focused his entire discussion on the pension issue. I respect that because that is what the legislation dealt with, virtually from first reading coming into this, so that, when we had the draw, members had the opportunity to look into it and start doing the things they needed to do to feel comfortable voting on the legislation. Because the member was effective at working with some of her colleagues, she was even able to get it advanced. I applaud her on taking the initiative to make that happen. To me, it shows her genuine attitude in recognizing, first and foremost, that there is a serious and fundamental problem. There is no one inside the House who would not appreciate this, when we get private sector companies operating in bad faith and not financially supporting those pension funds to the degree they should be supported so that, in the case of a collapse, those funds are not there. I really look forward to tomorrow when we are going to have the vote on the legislation. Based on the comments I hear, I am anticipating that, in all likelihood, the legislation will be passed. I have not personally made my decision on it, but I can say that I am exceptionally sensitive to the needs of pensions. We in Parliament, and politicians, have a fairly good pension and it is guaranteed. We sacrifice a great deal, but no more than what the factory worker puts on the floor. I want the benefits to which the factory worker is entitled to be realized, as I want the pension of the member herself to ultimately be realized. The issue of pensions is something that, the older we get, the more we want to focus on. From discussions I have had, I think the government needs to move toward ensuring that our way of life is enhanced as much as possible as we grow older. That is why I support many of the measures that we have taken. I am very much intrigued by what is being proposed before us, and I look forward to the actual vote tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago when the leader of the Conservative Party was out canvassing, trying to generate support. We understand and appreciate he got overwhelming support from the Conservative Party membership. It was really interesting. There was a number of aspects of the leadership convention that sparked a great deal of public policy debate, but one in particular was the issue of cryptocurrency. That is why I am somewhat surprised that the Conservative Party has legislation that deals with cryptocurrency. Members can recall that not that long ago the leader of the Conservative Party said that one of the best ways to fight inflation in Canada would be to invest in cryptocurrency. I can recall, vividly, the leader of the Conservative Party making a purchase, suggesting that Canadians get on board, as if we were falling behind, and invest in cryptocurrency, not recognizing the true value of the Canadian dollar. He told Canadians that one of the best ways to fight inflation would be to invest in cryptocurrency. Imagine those Conservative delegates, and possibly others, who listened to the leader of the Conservative Party and invested in cryptocurrency, many of whom might have been seniors on fixed incomes, using part of their life savings to invest in something that was being recommended by the leader of Canada's official opposition party. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has talked a great deal about what we have been doing to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast during this difficult time, a time in which we do see inflation. which concerns all of us. While we are trying to make policy decisions to support Canadians, the Leader of the Opposition is still, to this very day, demonstrating a lack of good judgment by not coming forward and saying to Canadians that he made a mistake back then, that it was not appropriate for people to invest in cryptocurrency, let alone hedging it on inflation. We now have a bill that the Conservatives want, in a very real way, to put on the Canadian agenda. Cryptocurrency is a worldwide currency with which nations around the world have to deal. In Canada, whether it is the national government or provincial governments, we have to deal with it. It was a surprise to hear the endorsement and the degree to which the Conservatives came onside, and the lack of a response to the statements being made just months ago by the leader of the Conservative Party. It makes me wonder how many Conservative members followed the advice of the Leader of the Conservative Party. I have said in the past that one way to find out would be to pose that question to those members. How many Conservative members have invested in cryptocurrency? I do not see any hands up. I cannot say who is here and who is not here, but I suspect there might have been some—

Madam Speaker, the point is that, as he is the leader of Canada's official opposition, there is no doubt that many people would have invested in cryptocurrency based on his recommendation. Those who did make that investment would have suffered a 60% loss or higher. Imagine being a person on a fixed income. Even if people were not on fixed incomes and invested $10,000, they would have lost $6,000-plus of that $10,000. I am disappointed by the policy enunciations coming from the Conservative Party today. Many would argue that we are looking for policy ideas. The Conservatives are very good at critiquing and opposing everything. We have taken a number of options for Canadians to help them through the inflation issues. Whether it is rental support, or doubling the GST, or dental support or permanent relief on interest for students, these are the types of policy ideas we have come forward with and the Conservative Party has said no to most of them. The only idea the Conservatives have generated to fight inflation is cryptocurrency. They need to take this issue back to the drawing board, and the leader of the official opposition owes Canadians an apology.

Madam Speaker, I would like members to flash back to last year, 2021, when the fall economic statement was brought forward. We saw the Conservative Party filibuster that legislation. In fact, that legislation passed earlier this year. The Conservatives held back the 2021 fall economic statement, saying they wanted to speak and they wanted to speak, and it was well into 2022 before it ultimately passed. There are substantial aspects of this fall economic statement that would help Canadians through a difficult time of inflation, and it is imperative that this legislation passes. If we leave it up to the Conservatives, they will never stop talking on the bill. Can the member speak to why it is so important that we pass this legislation?

Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the member and the opposition really and truly just do not get it. At the end of the day, this is about inflation. Canadians are hurting, and the Conservatives consistently vote against policies that are there to help Canadians. That goes to my question for the member. There is the doubling of the goods and services tax credit for six months. We can talk about eliminating the interest on student loans. We can talk about dental services for children under the age of 12. We can talk about the rental subsidy of some $500. There are many measures there to help Canadians deal with inflation. That, in good part, is what the fall economic statement is about. Can the member tell us specifically why the Conservative Party today is not supporting Canadians by allowing measures of this nature to pass quickly?

Mr. Speaker, in the fall economic statement, there are a lot of supports to assist Canadians at a time when we recognize inflation is having a profound impact, even though Canada, relatively speaking in comparison to other countries, whether it is the U.S. or the many countries in Europe, is doing quite well, as our inflation rate is lower than the rates in those countries. Still, we need to understand and appreciate the difficult time that many Canadians are having with inflation. Would my colleague not agree that the quicker we pass this legislation, the better it will be, as it will provide the supports Canadians need at this time?

Madam Speaker, I am glad the Bloc has decided to support the fall economic statement. It is really encouraging to see that. In regard to the gist of the member's comments today on employment insurance and benefits, the minister has been very clear in talking about the importance of reforming and making changes to the EI system. We often overlook the fact that during the pandemic, EI and programs such as CERB were brought to the table to ensure that supports would be there for Canadians going through the pandemic, and there have been modifications to the EI system over the last number of years. I am wondering if the member could provide her comments. I can appreciate that the member wants to see an overall reform, but that is going to take some time as we continue to move forward. However, at the very least could she acknowledge that there have been significant modifications and changes over the last number of years?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have made it very clear that if it was up to them there would never be a vote on this particular piece of legislation, much like with the fall interim budget back in 2021. With that fall budget, the Conservatives continued to debate it well into 2022. There are measures within this legislation that are there to help Canadians during a time of inflation. That is what is in this fall economic update. Will the member not recognize that, at some point in time, even opposition members need to recognize that it is time to let legislation go through? If there is any justification whatsoever for the time allocation, all one needs to do is take a look at the Conservative Party's behaviour from last year. Its members have no intention of passing it. It has nothing to do with debate time. It has everything to do with filibuster.

Mr. Speaker, many aspects of the Conservative Party's positioning on this fall economic statement are quite upsetting, and I am sure a vast majority of Canadians would concur with that if they only knew what the Conservatives were proposing. When the Conservatives talk about wasteful spending, what they are really talking about are the record-high transfers to health care, the establishment of a national child care program, investing in dental care for children under the age of 12, providing rental support and providing a GST credit rebate for the next six months. Many measures are permanent and others are temporary, but all are for helping Canadians deal with the inflation we are experiencing today. Why does the Conservative Party not want to support Canadians on health care and through this inflationary situation?

Madam Speaker, the member recognized some valid points that the government is seriously considering, and some issues we can address. I want to also highlight and get the member's perspective on a couple of progressive measures that we have seen. Within this legislation, we now provide support through getting rid of the interest on student loans. Prior to that, we had the children's dental program, where we are providing dental supports for children under the age of 12. Both issues are very much on the progressive side. They are going to have a wonderful impact in communities throughout the country. Could he provide his thoughts on the importance of progressive policies, such as the two I cited?

Madam Speaker, one thing that needs to be recognized is that never before in the history of Canada have we seen a government that has invested so much in infrastructure in every region of our country. We want to continue to work with the different stakeholders, provinces and municipalities in order to get shovels in the ground. With regard to the specifics, I will ensure that the minister is very aware of the situation.