Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear members of the Conservative Party stand in their place and say they will be supporting the legislation. What I have witnessed in listening to the debate, just as the member has in listening to the debate, is there are concerns with regard to the depth and the details, or lack thereof. That is being implied by the opposition parties. I have indicated that it is in fact a framework. The minister responsible for the legislation indicated that she is open to thoughts and ideas with regard to improving it. Based on the member's comments, is it safe to assume that the Conservative Party will be bringing forward amendments, and one specifically to ensure there would be annual cost-of-living increases in the program? Is that what the member is advocating for?

Madam Speaker, first I must say that I disagree with the member's conclusions on economic policies with respect to inflation. To imply that provinces and even municipalities do not play a role in inflation is just outright wrong. They do, in fact, have an impact. One only need look at provincial variances, even within provinces. The member used the example of housing. That is something I would expand upon, but it is not what my question is about. My question is about the legislation. Everyone in this chamber supports Bill C-22. That has been very clear. Yes, there are some issues surrounding the details within the legislation, but there seems to be a general feeling that those issues could be dealt at the standing committee. My friend knows how busy the chamber can get and how limited the time is here, whether it is because of the GST tax credit legislation that will be coming up, opposition days or the dental care legislation. We have a good opportunity to try to pass this legislation so that it at least goes to committee, and then we can have all sorts of debate come third reading. Would the member not agree, given that everyone seems to be supporting the legislation, that it would be in the best interests of Canadians and people with disabilities to see the legislation go to committee? It seems to me that the principle of the legislation is universally accepted and supported in the House, so why not get it to committee?

Madam Speaker, I asked the previous Conservative speaker about the possibility of recognizing the fact that there seems to be universal support. All political entities inside the House are supporting Bill C-22. When we talk about the principle of the legislation, it seems that everyone will be voting in favour of it. In a legislative agenda, things get fairly busy, whether it is the GST, the dental plan or opposition days. Here we have a wonderful opportunity to try to pass the legislation, given that everyone is in favour of the principle of it. Why would we not allow it to go to committee, where it could be thoroughly discussed in detail to look at possible amendments, and then maybe have a greater debate at third reading? Would she support and would the Bloc support its quick passage?

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member really emphasizes from my perspective is just how important it is that, as a government, we continue to work with the stakeholders and in particular our provinces. Today, it is a patchwork in terms of support. People with disabilities do not know what type of support they are getting. At the end of the day, we have one system in one area of the country and another in a different region of the country. One of the objectives of bringing in a truly national program is not only to lift many people with disabilities out of poverty but also to, as much as possible, ensure that there is a sense of fairness and equity. Could my colleague provide her thoughts in regard to the role that Ottawa has to play in working with the provinces to ensure that there is that sense of equity and support for people with disabilities?

Madam Speaker, for many of my constituents over the years who have required that super visa, one of the obligations, in fact, has been the insurance. As much as the member likes to talk about his initiative, I think we will find that there are members on all sides of the House, myself included, who have been arguing that the insurance cost was very prohibitive in terms of allowing and facilitating more parents and grandparents to come to Canada. There has been a strong advocacy on this area that predates the last summer. I was quite pleased that we finally had a ministry that had looked at and investigated the situation, done its homework and recognized the value of opening it up to foreign insurance companies. Does the member believe that there is any sort of due diligence required by the federal government to ensure the credibility of some of these foreign insurance companies?

Madam Speaker, this is an issue I am quite familiar with. In fact, I can go back a number of years to the days I was the critic for immigration and a number of actions were taken by Stephen Harper. Within the Liberal Party, we have always recognized the true value of parents and grandparents, even when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and he literally cancelled the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. He shut the door to Canada for parents and grandparents. Then he established a program to try to compensate by saying that we were now going to have a super visa. Some of the concerns that the member has made reference to are concerns I raised many years ago, even when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The Conservatives did not do anything regarding it. Yes, they eventually opened the program for sponsorship, but it was this government, back in 2015, that not only recognized it but showed it in our actions by more than doubling the number of sponsorships coming into Canada. We continue to increase the number of sponsorships. The demand for parents and grandparents continues to increase. We in the Liberal caucus are very much aware of that. We have caucus groups that have dialogue and try to come up with alternatives, ideas and policy changes that would have a positive impact on immigration. We have seen a record number of changes in immigration over the last number of years, with dramatic increases in a whole spectrum of streams. We have seen new, unique streams created, such as for Ukraine immigrants coming to Canada, and for Afghanistan, Syria and the many other streams that are there year in, year out. What about the provincial nominee program? We have all of these changes, and the numbers are very impressive as we continue to land a record number of immigrants coming here. We as a caucus, and many of my colleagues who have spent so much time on the immigration file, understand the true value of the super visa. That is why there was a great deal of advocacy, and we were all pleased when the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship came out before the summer to announce some of the changes that many of us wanted to see. We understand the role that parents and grandparents play today and yesterday in our communities. They support society in many different ways, whether it is by being that foundational rock within homes or supporting young families who are growing. We understand that many seniors are like uncles. I say that as something I am greatly proud of in terms of how communities identify with families and associate the word “uncle” with someone who might be a bit older and continues to contribute. This is not only for families, but they are often there to support small businesses in our community. I know this because I see it every day. The idea of the super visa is a good idea. There were some issues, and the minister brought forward some changes to two of the biggest ones. I have always been concerned about the cost of insurance. If a person wants their mom or dad to come to Canada, they have to pay the insurance. Keep in mind that we may have 30,000 applicants coming in. We may have over 100,000 who want to come in and be sponsored. That is why the super visa is such a good idea. It enables more families to be reunited. As a government, measures were taken to enhance the support of this particular program, one of which was to extend the number of years someone could stay in Canada without having to leave. Initially, that was at two years. In essence, a parent used to get a 10-year multiple entry visa to come to Canada for a visit, but they had to leave within two years. That has been extended. It is a very strong positive. This other issue has really bothered me because it affects, in my opinion, a number of people who would be able to come to Canada. I encourage constituents, where they can, to be reunited with their parents. I know I am not alone among my caucus colleagues in this. As I said, if there is one issue that gets a great deal of debate, whether in caucus, a side room or in the mini caucus on immigration, it is the issue of immigration. The cost of insurance is an issue. Opening it up to say that we are going to have foreign insurance companies participate in this process will, I genuinely believe, make it more affordable. That is something we will all benefit by. I do believe, given the work load that immigration and citizenship has had over the last number of years, that it has accomplished a great deal. Yes, maybe I too would have maybe liked to have seen this earlier, but we have it now. That is a good thing. The member made reference to the low-income cut-off. The low-income cut-off is an issue that goes beyond just a super visa. If the member, for example, was to have introduced a motion or a bill that had the standing committee on immigration taking a look at the principles of the low-income cut-off, not only on the super visa, but also on other aspects of immigration, I think it would be something worthy of our taking a serious look at the standing committee on immigration. I used to be on that standing committee. In fact, if I were on that standing committee today, it would likely be one of the recommendations I would support bringing forward, having a study that could assist policy-makers and members of Parliament on all sides of the House to be engaged in. The issue of visitor visas is of critical importance to Canada as a nation. We get millions of people who come here every year. I do not know how many for the last year or so, but I do know that at one point it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 26 million people internationally who had entered Canada.

Madam Speaker, that is a lot, contrary to what the member may be trying to imply. Many of those people who visit Canada come here because they want to visit family. They are international visitors from countries such as India, the Philippines, Pakistan and many other countries around the world where a visa is required. I write letters of support. Prepandemic, it was likely hundreds every month. I think we are getting close to that same number today. It is coming back. The number of people who want to come to Canada is high. I believe we will continue to look at ways in which we can enhance that to make sure that those who want to come to Canada, and where we are confident that they meet the basic criteria, are able to come to Canada. That is what I know my colleagues within the Liberal caucus want to see. We constantly advocate for it. Nothing frustrates me more as a parliamentarian than when I get some of these visas that were rejected when someone wanted to come for a funeral, a graduation or a special family event. What that tells me is that we need to continue to push and work on this file, as I know many, if not virtually all, of my caucus colleagues want to do. We recognize the importance of families. We recognize the importance that visitors have on our economy and our society as a whole.

Madam Speaker, shame on that member. The member can come over to Winnipeg and I can tell her that after 15 years of New Democratic rule, and it is the provinces that play a critical role in housing development, the provincial NDP failed the citizens of Manitoba. They completely failed. Take a look and take a drive in Winnipeg Centre or Winnipeg North. Members will see the severity of the housing crisis, where we have indigenous people and others living in bus shelters because the NDP, for 15 years, failed to address the issue of housing. That is the reality of it. If we want to deal with the housing crisis, we need to work with the different levels of government and indigenous people. That is something that this government has been doing since 2015-16 under the leadership of the Prime Minister. We do not need to be lectured by the New Democrats when it comes to housing. The member can talk about 1993 and other years. As I indicated, show me a year when we have seen this much investment and support for housing in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I was unable to participate here on the floor of the House of Commons because I had tested positive. Fortunately, now I am testing negative, so I did have a bout of COVID-19. I was able to participate here by using hybrid Parliament. That was just last week. I had the opportunity to address a number of issues on the floor. It also enabled me to vote. To try to wish away the pandemic is highly irresponsible. Believe it or not, we will continue to have the pandemic over the next couple of months at the very least. What we are doing is affording members of the House the chance to demonstrate leadership to their constituents by not having to go into a certain environment. I would not have wanted to come in here, having tested positive, to deliver a speech or to vote. That demonstrates leadership, and that is the type of leadership we should be demonstrating to our constituents. Does the member not agree that it was the responsible thing for me to do to be here by the hybrid method, as opposed to being here in person, because I tested positive last week?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be very brief on two points, with reference to the question of privilege raised earlier today. If I may, I will first provide a comment from the Speaker of the House who issued a news release back on February 18 notifying members. I will read it directly: As per the Parliamentary Protective Service’s (PPS) most recent email notification, a police operation is expected to take place on Wellington Street and other locations in the downtown core of Ottawa. Given these exceptional circumstances, and following discussion with all recognized party leadership, the sitting today is cancelled. More information will follow. I cite that, because at times there are environments in which, through consultation, there is a need for the House, such as in last night's case, to adjourn. That is just the reality, and I think that I am using this to cite the precedent. The other thing I would like to highlight is that I would like to draw to your attention some pertinent details around the adjournment of the House last night. At 8:54 p.m., you, the Deputy Speaker, resumed the sitting of the House. When you did this, you stated the following: “I would like to inform members that we are still having trouble with the network. There is an estimation this will not be solved this evening, so I am wondering if we can come up with an agreement.” Given that you, the Deputy Speaker, made the request that agreement be sought to adjourn, I rose in response to see if there was an agreement to adjourn, given the challenges being experienced. No one's privileges were breached. I was responding to the information and the request from the Deputy Speaker to adjourn, so that the problem could be fixed and so that all MPs could participate.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' back room is working hard. They have the new spin going on in regard to the whole issue of guns. Wherever they can get personal and start attacking, that is what they are going to do. That is what we have heard for the last five or six minutes from the member. It is just comments attacking the integrity of the system. I will stand by the RCMP. I support the RCMP. The minister has been very clear on the RCMP, but the member does not let the facts cause issues. In the legislation, there is the issue of yellow flags and red flags, an area that I think the vast majority of Canadians, and I suspect even some Conservatives, would support. What is the member's opinion on the value of having the red flags and yellow flags in the legislation?

Madam Speaker, I would like to use myself as an example. I was one of the members who tested positive for COVID and was unable to participate in person, and this was just last week. My choice was between coming into the chamber knowing that I had tested positive for COVID or using the hybrid provisions to attend. Because the hybrid format was there, I was able to be engaged in debates, at least on a few occasions. I was also able to vote. I think it sends a message to my constituents in terms of doing the right thing by not coming here and speaking and voting. In that way I can protect my colleagues and ultimately demonstrate leadership in the community.

Madam Speaker, yes, let us assert blame where it is to be asserted in this situation. We are a government that has supported our border agents, recognizing how important that is. There is a different mentality in the United States versus Canada. Consider the number of mass shootings with more than one victim. They take place virtually every day in the United States. In fact, some of the numbers shared with me indicate that there are well over 200 cases of mass shootings in the United States already where there have been two or more victims. It is a totally different mentality. One thing that makes us feel good about being here in Canada is that we understand and appreciate the importance of having safe communities and the role, which we see day in and day out in the United States, that weapons have in our communities. We are talking about issues such as gang activities, and literally tens of millions of dollars, going into over $200 million, have been invested through budgetary measures to deal with gangs. This is not to mention the other additional resources that the government, through infrastructure projects and through working with different levels of government, has been able to put into place, with programs aimed at reducing crime in our communities, especially with an emphasis on gun-related crimes. Bill C-21, I believe, is legislation that has a wide level of support from the public from coast to coast to coast. We might hear a great deal about gun crimes in some of our major cities, but I do not believe it is just limited to our major cities. That is one of the reasons that the approach the government is taking today in Bill C-21 is the right approach. We see that in the support the legislation is receiving. The New Democrats are supporting the legislation. I understand that the Green Party is supporting the legislation. The Bloc party is supporting the legislation too. However, it is no surprise that the Conservative Party is not supporting the legislation. That is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc earlier today. Their first speaker talked about how important it is that we get this legislation passed. She has been waiting for it for a number of years already, yet as we have witnessed over the last number of months, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has taken the approach that legislation is not to pass inside the House of Commons as much as possible, and it will put up barriers to prevent that from taking place. At times, the Bloc members have already recognized this, because there have been times when they supported time allocation. However, today, the Bloc party did not support the need for it, knowing full well, as members will find in the next number of hours of debate, that Conservative after Conservative will stand up in opposition to Bill C-21. As they have demonstrated on other pieces of legislation, the Conservatives will continue not only to put up speakers but to also move amendments.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. As I have said before, no one likes time allocation, but it is a tool that is necessary when we cannot negotiate and have co-operation. We must remember that the mandate was not just given to this government in terms of co-operating. The mandate to co-operate was given to all political entities in the chamber. All it takes is any one opposition party to prevent any piece of legislation from passing, which will force the government to bring in time allocation or to concede the legislation and never see it pass. My question to my colleague is this. Would he not agree that, at the end of the day, this is important? This is what Canadians want to see, which is the type of legislation that would have an impact on our lives. That is why we have to push it—

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc members are going to be voting in favour of the legislation, yet I am a bit surprised about the most recent vote. Surely to goodness they recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that it is the Conservatives' intent to see the bill never go to committee, yet the Bloc seems quite content to allow the Conservative Party to filibuster it at second reading. I was surprised that the Bloc is not recognizing the value of having time allocations, given the track record of the Conservative Party. To that end, my question to the member is this: To what degree does the Bloc party want to see this legislation ultimately passed? She made reference to the fact that it is an important issue, which we know it is. If it goes to committee, she indicated there could be some possible amendments. Would she like to see the legislation ultimately passed before the end of this year?

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek. If we go back to 2009 and compared it with today, what we will find is that there has been a substantial increase of 81% in violent offences involving guns in a relatively short period of time. We should all be concerned about that. This piece of legislation would continue to move us forward. It is an issue the government has been familiar with for a number of years. In fact, one only needs to take a look at the other pieces of legislation we have brought forward and our budgetary motions and measures to deal with the issue of gun violence. Canadians as a whole are concerned. It has been estimated that getting close to 50% are concerned about gun violence and what impact it is having on our communities. As a government, not only have we taken a look at legislative measures, which we are talking about today in Bill C-21, but we have also taken other actions, actions that have led to restrictions on some types of assault weapons and actions such as supporting Canada's border control. We often hear members of all political stripes talk about the smuggling of weapons into Canada from the United States. That is something we take very seriously, unlike Stephen Harper, who cut back on agents at our border.

Madam Speaker, as the member opposite says, that is their job as opposition. That is right. To a certain degree, though, there is also an obligation for members of the official opposition to actually work as parliamentarians and recognize that if they do not want time allocation on all things, they have to at least recognize that eventually legislation has to pass and go to the next stage. A member from the Green Party posed a question earlier today. If there were a higher sense of co-operation in recognizing that members cannot indefinitely hold up legislation—

Madam Speaker, no, members cannot, because if they do that for every piece of legislation, including budgetary measures, the government will not be able to do anything. As we have recognized in the last mandate given to us, we have to work with opposition members to do the things we want to do, as we are doing. Fortunately, there is at least one opposition party that has recognized the value of co-operation, contributing to the debate and trying to effect change. That is in fact what Bill C-21 would do. It would provide a safer community for all of us. We talk about the issue of yellow flag and red flag laws through this legislation. Once passed, this will have an immediate impact. It is an aspect of the legislation that many advocates and different stakeholders recognize the value of. Having a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns has been called for for a while now. It has taken the government, through consultations, a great deal of effort to make sure that we get the legislation right. It is not about killing the air gun industry. It is recognizing that air guns that replicate real guns do have an impact. A law enforcement officer in an awkward or difficult position has no way of telling what is real and what is not because of the resemblance. This legislation has been well thought out. There has been a great deal of consultation, and I believe this is reflected by the type of support, minus the Conservative Party, that the legislation is seeing. I would like to think that passing it to committee would enable Canadians to contribute more directly and listen to what the experts say, because I am sure it will be back come fall time for an additional lengthy debate.

Madam Speaker, the government, virtually from day one, has been taking budgetary and legislative actions to make our communities safer, and we will continue to do so. Bill C-21 is yet another legislative measure that would have a profoundly positive impact, and I can cite it specifically. From the selling and purchasing of handguns to the idea of the yellow flag and red flag laws, these are issues that will provide a higher sense of security in our communities. The Conservatives will have to justify to these communities why they oppose that. In terms of their overall behaviour with regard to all legislation, even legislation they support, they will go out of their way to filibuster in order to fill time and force the government to—

Madam Speaker, when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, I sat almost exactly where the member opposite is sitting in the third party, and even in the third party, I made it very clear that at times there is a need to bring in time allocation. When we do not have any sense of co-operation coming from opposition parties, we have to bring in time allocation as a tool. It is unfortunate. It would be wonderful if there was more of a consensus on the programming that takes place so that it allows for legislation or opposition days. We see that today on private members' bills, we see that today on opposition day motions and we see that through emergency debates. There are limitations. It means that for the bills that are really controversial, we can maybe have more debate time, and for the bills that are not as controversial that everyone supports, maybe we do not need as much debate time. We need to recognize that there is only so much time in a day, in a week and in a year, and that is something the Conservatives fail to recognize.

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: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) on the day the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment or when no member rises to speak during the debate, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed on division; and (b) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to undertake a study on the subject matter of Bill C-28 when the business of the House resumes in September 2022, during the course of this study the Minister of Justice be invited to appear as a witness, and the committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, December 16, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, having had the choice to continue to listen to Conservatives or to myself, I have chosen myself. I hope members do not mind. I want to defend the member for Provencher. There is a valid argument to be made that the centre of Canada is in fact in the riding of Provencher, just east of the city of Winnipeg. If members do not believe me or the member for Provencher, take a drive. It is beautiful country and they will see a lot of sweet things. It is the promised land of sorts, and I am sure the member for Provencher would concur with that, and there is a marker that clearly identifies that it is the centre of Canada. I want to take this opportunity to stand up and appreciate the fact that my colleague and friend has brought forward this legislation. As members will attempt to bring up other issues, I would suggest that names really do matter. There is no absolute guarantee that the next election will have new names or, in fact, a guarantee of boundaries. This is something we suspect because of agreements that are in place, but there is no absolute guarantee. I know, through the campaigning that I have done over many different elections, that people often ask about the name of a riding because it does matter. If something is included or excluded, it is often an issue that is raised with local members, whether at a provincial level or a national level. Therefore, the member who has agreed to bring forward this legislation, not as part of the draw that MPs are talking about but rather as a Senate bill that has been brought forward by the member, still continues to have her draw at some point in time, but recognizes that here is an opportunity to get a name change. I would hope that members opposite would recognize that what we are talking about is private members' hour. It is not an opposition day motion or a government piece of legislation. It is someone who has identified an issue as a member and has seen an effective way of seeking a change in the name. It is not taking away from the member's own personal draw, if I can put it that way, but rather it is something that has come through the Senate. I listened to a member from the Bloc, who indicated, as did the member from the New Democratic Party, the importance of the name for that particular region. I might not necessarily be overly familiar with that region of the country, but I do know that people take it very seriously in regard to, as I pointed out earlier, what is in and what is out and why it has a specific name. I thought it was quite nice to hear the member make reference to a local mayor, who has passed, as someone who has raised the issue, and there are others, no doubt. I want to take the opportunity to applaud the member in recognizing something that is important to her and her constituents. I do not believe it takes away from other issues that could be debated. I have seen many debates, in particular opposition motions, that I would suggest are questionable at the best of times. In fact, in listening to the debate, because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, we have seen ample other issues raised during this debate of a wide variety, whether it is an economic or a social matter. In the most recent debate a member was able to reflect on his own constituency and talked about using the terms the “promised land” and “milk and honey” and I thought he presented a pretty sound argument. Many of my colleagues, in particular those from the province of British Columbia, are very proud of the mountains. When we start to look at our rural communities, we see a great deal of beauty. I represent Winnipeg North, an area that I am very proud to represent. It is a working-class community, an area that is very reflective of Canadian society and how we have ultimately evolved. I look at the many contributions of our Ukrainian heritage community and our Jewish community. About 100 years ago, they came in and built the CP track, or the great divide, if I can put it that way, between Winnipeg North and Winnipeg Centre. Our nation is built not only by nature but by people, and there are many aspects to Winnipeg North. There is natural beauty. We have the Red River, which flows through it. At times, it can pose a challenge because of flood-related issues, but let there be no doubt that our rivers draw people to the riverbanks. The impact, whether at Kildonan Park or The Forks, is quite significant. We can take a look at our industrial zones in Winnipeg North that contribute immensely to the development not only of Winnipeg North but of our country. We can take a look at our long-haul truck drivers, or the backbone of our health care system, our health care workers, like our nurses. There is no shortage of labour coming out of Winnipeg North to support our country. There is also the production of widgets and consumption of honey and milk. No matter where members of Parliament represent, whether it is urban, rural, in the mountains, in the flatlands of the Prairies, at the Great Lakes, on the cliffs of the Atlantic Ocean or up north, we all have a sense of pride in the communities we represent. We all want our riding names to reflect what we believe our constituents want as a name. It does matter. It is taken into consideration in communities, both large and small. The people who live in Garden Grove are very proud of the fact that they have a wonderful, beautiful and unique community. I can talk about the Point Douglas area or we can go to the far north end of Winnipeg North where we have the newer community of Amber Trails, which is growing rapidly. Whether it is the traditional old end of the north end, Point Douglas, Garden Grove, Meadows West, Tyndall Park, Amber Trails, The Maples or those I have not listed, they are all a very important part of the riding of Winnipeg North. Winnipeg North seems to be a name that is widely accepted, as it has been since the sixties. I am not 100% sure on that, but it has been around for a long time. I will not be requesting a name change. I am quite happy with the name of Winnipeg North. However, I do believe that in situations where there is a need for change and a member is afforded the opportunity to bring in that change, then why not? That is what I would ultimately say. At one point, I think we were anticipating that the debate was going to collapse. As I pointed out at the beginning, we had a number of Conservatives wanting to speak to the bill, so I figured I too would share in the glory of Winnipeg North and recognize the value and hard work that members put in and the sense of pride they have in the constituencies they represent. With those few words, I hope that all members at least recognize what the member is trying to do in a straightforward way in reflecting the will of her constituents, and support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand and appreciate the member is not going to be supporting the legislation. The Conservative Party has made that very clear. It is the only political party that will not be supporting this legislation. More things are involved, if the member is aware, within this legislation. For example, the idea of red flags and yellow flags and ensuring there is a higher sense of safety and security for situations of domestic abuse. Does the member see any aspect of this legislation he could actually support?

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a wide variety of issues. I am not allowed the time to address them all in the form of a question, but I do have a very basic question that I have posed before. I am glad to see that Bloc members are going to be supporting this legislation. However, the degree to which they want to see the legislation pass and get to committee did surprise me earlier. We know that the Conservatives flat out object to the legislation before us. They are going to battle the legislation. The only reason the bill will pass to committee is because the NDP agreed to have time allocated so that at least it could get out of second-reading stage. Could the member explain why, if the Bloc members believe in handgun bans, they believed that it was not necessary to try to get the bill rushed to the committee stage? Otherwise, who knows when it would even get there?

Madam Speaker, I was emphasizing what the parliamentary secretary for heritage indicated at the beginning of his comments, which is that Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet, nor would it control what Canadians will see. It would not put any limitations on the individual freedoms of Canadians. On the other hand, shortly after the member made those statements in representing the government, we had one of the freedom fighters within the Conservative Party stand up and talk about the peaceful demonstrations in Ottawa, the heavy arm of the government, other off-topic areas and why people should be concerned about freedom being taken away. I do not know how many times he used the word “freedom”. I could not help but think about the member for Carleton, or the member's statement earlier today when he talked about freedom oil. The Conservatives are really starting to focus in on that word. I do not know why, because when we talk about Bill C-11, nothing could be further from the truth. They know that, yet they continue to do what they can to prevent this legislation from passing. We saw that at second reading. We saw that at the committee stage. There is no will from the Conservative Party to see this legislation pass, and if not for time allocation and if not for the support of most of the parties in the House, we would not be able to get it passed. I want members of the Conservative Party to realize what would happen if this bill does not pass. We all have artists, creators and other people in our communities who directly or indirectly work in this industry, which is so critically important. We heard some of the job numbers. We are talking about thousands of people across this country in every region who, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly understand the importance of Canadian content. They understand the importance of levelling the playing field. How can we say to the mainstream media, for example, whether it is CTV or CBC, that they have to comply with CRTC rules but we should not apply similar rules to streaming services? Only the Conservative Party would argue that the status quo is good enough and we do not need a change, even when it has been clearly demonstrated that our industry in Canada is hurting. The industry itself is asking for the types of changes the Government of Canada is proposing, yet the Conservatives are not listening, I would argue, to what their constituents are saying. There is a leadership vacuum taking place within the Conservative Party, and there is no doubt about that. Maybe that is one of the reasons they find themselves on the wrong side of Bill C-11. However, I would remind my Conservatives friends that they should reflect on the importance of those jobs and Canadian content. We have a lot to be very proud of. I remember that many years ago, we had The Beachcombers. It was set in an area of B.C. that I learned about when I was relatively young because of that particular program. However, I do not believe that program would have existed if not for the Government of Canada having programs in place to ensure Canadian content. We have seen some incredible productions with Canadian content. We have heard reference to Schitt's Creek. It is an interesting program. I did not even hear about it until I heard about the Emmy Awards it won. Then I started talking about it and all of my colleagues seemed to have heard about the program. It can be streamed online from Netflix. It is an excellent program. Another is Corner Gas, a show set on the Prairies. My colleagues from across the way should have an appreciation for the importance of that particular program. We have seen some amazing talent over the years. Some of my favourites would be individuals like Anne Murray and Celine Dion. There are some incredible talents. If we take a look at the important role that CRTC has played in ensuring and fostering Canadian content, we should all have a better appreciation of the important role that government, whether it is through the CRTC or in other ways, could play to support that critical industry. I have talked a great deal about a program called Folklorama in the province of Manitoba. For me, Folklorama embodies a great deal of what one would classify as amateur talent that will ultimately travel the world and get onto screens and radio programs. It is a great feeder. When I think of Folklorama, and it is coming up in the month of August, it is a significant production. It is roughly 50 pavilions of all different ethnic groups. It is often said people can travel the world by coming to Winnipeg in the first couple of weeks of August and visiting the different pavilions. What people would find is some incredible talent, whether it is singing, acting or dancing. As I have pointed out, it is not only about those who are on the stage. There are also the production teams. We have made mention of the creators. We have talked about those who provide the lighting, the sound and the transportation, the bringing to and from. We have talked about the rentals as a direct result and even the sense of just feeling good knowing that a particular production is taking place in the community. These are all direct benefits. This is one of the reasons why the government needs to be involved. When we think of Bill C-11, it is not just what we might see on Netflix or CBC, or hear on a radio program. It filters its way down. Many of the people I talk about when I think of things such as Folklorama will graduate to become professional actors or actresses and be engaged in our artistic world. The member for Edmonton Strathcona made reference to the numerous musical and theatrical activities in the city of Edmonton in the province of Alberta. I could talk about the very same things in the province of Manitoba. I suspect we could go from coast to coast to coast, and we would find some amazing organizations, the vast majority of which are non-profit, that are a part of their communities in very real and tangible ways. Many of those organizations will ultimately be provided opportunities because of regulations and because of organizations like the CRTC, because we recognize just how important it is to have Canadian content. It is about levelling the field. When I talk about the Internet, from yesterday to today, we need to recognize, very clearly, that through the Internet there are large worldwide organizations. The most obvious one that people make reference to is Netflix, but there are others that are out there, whether it is Crave, Pure Flix or other organizations, that are looking and sourcing revenue and opportunities in Canada but are not contributing their fair share. That is what Bill C-11 is really about. Not only does it continue to recognize the importance of the industry to Canada and how critically important it is that we continue as we have over the last number of years in certain areas, but also how important it is that we level that playing field so that those who are streaming online will also contribute in an equal and more fair fashion. By doing this, we will be able to reverse the trend. We have heard that the trend has not necessarily been positive. That is in good part because of online streaming. There are things we can do to reverse it, and by doing that we are creating opportunities, in particular, I would emphasize, for young people, for people who want to get into our arts community in a very real and tangible way. I would hope that members of the Conservative Party would recognize the true value in supporting our young people and supporting the industry as a whole, reverse their position and agree to support and vote in favour of Bill C-11.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I suspect you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following Oral Questions on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, a member from each recognized party, a member from the Green Party, as well as the Leader of the Official Opposition, may make a brief statement.