Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, talk about seeing something that is just not there. I think conspiracy theory 101 is the lesson from the other side here. What Bill C-11 is all about is fairly straightforward. It is the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. It is as simple as that. Maybe the Conservatives get a gold star nowadays if they mention the word “freedom” in their speeches. I do not know where the member is getting the information from. If the member wants to be consistent with what he said, does that mean the Conservative Party of Canada's new approach to the CRTC is to get rid of it? Are they saying the CRTC regulations should not be applied to other media streams? Is that what the Conservative Party's position is today?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague across the way made, but I take a different approach. He made reference to Bill C-10 and the amendment process. I think it clearly demonstrated the interest of the government, when modernizing the legislation, to get it right. We saw a number of amendments that, in fact, ultimately changed the form of Bill C-11, and I think that is good for the industry as a whole and for future Canadian content. The member made reference to the word “freedom”, and I think there is a fear factor out there, as some are trying to say that this is a limit on an individual's freedoms. Could he provide his thoughts with regard to the issue of the Conservative Party in essence saying that this is an attack on individual freedoms?

Madam Speaker, we often hear, during the discussions, whether it is today or in second reading, about the industry as a whole. I am thinking in terms of the creators and the artists, but there is also a great deal of background work that is involved. From managing the stage to maintaining the programs, there is a litany of other opportunities and jobs. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the industry, as a whole, which goes far beyond just the creators and the artists.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague has brought forward. One of the things that is really important for us to recognize is that over the years we have seen significant change. In the early 1990s, when the Internet really started to take off, we started to see more streaming really beginning. It was not really until the late 1990s. The Broadcasting Act has not been amended in any significant way since then. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is so critically important, just recognizing technological changes, for this act to be modernized.

Madam Speaker, you are quite right. It is quite the comment to follow. I look at Bill C-11 from a totally different perspective from the official opposition: from how they see the bill and interpret the legislation. Understanding that things change through time is really important here. It seems to be something the Conservative Party has not necessarily realized yet. I raise this in the form of a question. When we talk about how things change over time and the need to modernize the legislation, I figured it would have been fairly easy to argue why Bill C-11 was so important to Canada. We need this legislation. I want to talk about why it is so important that we have this legislation shortly. Suffice to say, when I was first elected in the eighties at the Manitoba legislature, we did not have very much when it came to Internet services. In fact, those were the days when we actually had to use the telephone line: We would hear the dial up, the long buzz and then one would know they were on the Internet by a certain sound that came through the computer speakers. It took a while to see that take place. A few years later, as we started to get into the nineties, things became a whole lot more advanced with the Internet—

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to be interrupted with a quorum call. Many people working throughout the day often go to the MP lobby to get something to eat. I suspect we will find that on all sides of the House. It does not mean there is a lack of interest in what is taking place. The lobby is just through the door. I want to pick up on the point that things have changed. Back in the nineties, the Internet started to speed up in a very significant way. There was nothing called Netflix when I was first elected. When we look at the speed that is required to have the type of streaming we have today, it was not even being imagined by most people back then. That was the time we last saw the modernization of Canada's Broadcasting Act. Most Canadians understand and appreciate why it is important to have the CRTC, for example. Based on some of the arguments put forward by the Conservatives today, I am beginning to think they would get rid of the CRTC if they were put in government. That is just based on some of the comments they have put on the record. However, if we reflect on the important role that the CRTC has played in Canadian society, it is really—

Madam Speaker, the games continue to be played. At the end of the day, I can assure everyone that there is a keen interest in this, at least on behalf of three political entities in the chamber. Members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party recognize the true value of the passage of Bill C-11. It is only members of the Conservative Party of Canada who seem to want to bury their heads in the sand, not realizing that as time passes, technology changes. The advancement of the Internet has dictated the need for us to bring forward legislation of this nature. We are bringing forward this legislation to ensure there is a level playing field. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we care about an industry that provides billions of dollars to our economy and provides opportunities to creators, actors and so many other people from coast to coast to coast. It is only the Conservative Party of Canada that does not realize the true value of Bill C-11. Instead, what we get a sense of with the new Conservative Party is a hard right turn. If we look at the member for Carleton and some of the things he has been talking about—

Madam Speaker, to be a bit more sensitive to the member opposite, we have this hard reform element within the Conservative Party. Many of them are Reformers, and that is pretty far to the right. We saw that today. If we listen to and read some of the things the member for Banff—Airdrie put on the record today, it is almost as if the Conservatives get a gold star in the back room if they mention the word “freedom”. If they say the word “freedom”, it is a good thing. It is interesting that just before question period got—

Madam Speaker, I believe I should get a bonus two minutes because of the number of interruptions I have had. The member made reference to the word “freedom”. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada does not need any lesson from the Conservatives with regard to individual rights and freedoms. After all, we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We are a party of the charter. We understand what freedoms are all about. As for the Conservatives, on the other hand, I would again remind them to look at some of the things their colleagues put on the record today with regard to Bill C-11, as if it is some sort of an assault on the freedoms of Canadians. The parliamentary secretary, in introducing it and speaking to it earlier today as the first speaker from the Liberal side, emphasized a couple of points about what the bill is not. It does not regulate the Internet. The bill—

Madam Speaker, the legislation enables the CRTC and the government to ensure that those who are streaming are contributing to the development of the industry here in Canada. It is not necessarily to say that those programs would never have stood a chance, but let us recognize that having things such as the CRTC greatly enhances the opportunity for artists all over our country to have future prospects and encourages more Canadian content to support minorities. Whether it is in our multicultural communities or indigenous communities, it provides for Canadians to tell our stories more than we could without the legislation. That is something that I suspect the member who posed the question could not deny.

Madam Speaker, the member is correct. I am a father and a grandfather, and I am very proud of my children and grandchildren. I know my father would be with me at least in spirit. It is important for us to recognize the important role that fathers play in society, along with mothers too obviously. I really believe that the modernization of the Canadian Broadcasting Act provides hope for future generations of artists and creators and, as I always try to emphasize, the industry as a whole, because it is healthy. I know the province of Quebec has been absolutely incredible. Many would argue that it is one of the leaders of the country in terms of the artists who have come from the province of Quebec. There is truly amazing talent there, but it is also scattered throughout the country. That is why we find so many members supportive of the legislation. It is long overdue. We need this modernization because the sooner we can modernize the act, the healthier and better it will be for the industry as a whole.

Madam Speaker, if the member wanted to get a really good answer, she should probably talk to her House leader. At the end of the day, I suspect that if there was a higher sense of co-operation and less filibustering, all members would have loved to see more opportunity to feel comfortable in knowing that the legislation would pass out of the committee stage in a timely fashion so that we could ultimately see the legislation pass before the summer break. I suspect that had there been some sort of an accommodation for that and maybe a little less filibustering we quite possibly would have been able to have more dialogue on some of the amendments. It was a time issue as not only the government but members of the Bloc and NDP recognized that we needed to get the bill out of committee so that it could come back with the idea of hopefully passing it before the House rises later this week.

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to talk to the minister of heritage, who is looking at how we can ensure we protect our culture and our arts industry. That is one of the reasons why he was very quick to bring forward this legislation. That is one of the reasons why the government is so insistent, with the support of the NDP, in getting this legislation through. I am confident that we are taking a step in the right direction. No doubt, as time goes on, we will have to ensure that the field is, in fact, being levelled.

Madam Speaker, I have sat on both sides of the House, in opposition and in government. I know how often the Conservative Party has been a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. We have seen that amplified over the last number of months. Even though I was not at committee, I can imagine just how disruptive they would have been, just based on some of the dialogue and some of the discussion that we have already heard in debate. We need to realize the Conservative Party of Canada does not like this legislation, so they are doing whatever they can to prevent its passage, unfortunately.

Madam Speaker, does the member not realize that the Conservative Party, for hours and hours, whether in second reading or in committee, went out of its way to try to kill the bill? The Conservatives do not like the legislation, so they brought in a huge number of amendments to the legislation as a way to, again, prevent the legislation from passing. Then this particular member stands up and effectively said, “We just want to make a few amendments to it, and then we'll pass it. We can make it a better piece of legislation.” It seems to me that the member is maybe not even consistent with some of the remarks from some of her colleagues today. The amendment is to kill the bill. The Conservative Party does not support this bill. I would ask the member this: Does she support the CRTC?

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat disingenuous when a member of an opposition party tries to give a false impression to that degree. They do not support Bill C-11, and that is the bottom line. The members can talk about amendments and so forth. I understand what has taken place at committee. The member knows full well, as I do, the games that we witnessed from the Conservative Party with respect to Bill C-11. It was filibuster after filibuster. They did not want it to get out of the chamber. Their intent was to kill Bill C-11. Will the member be straightforward and tell Canadians why the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the modernization of the Broadcasting Act? They had the opportunity to demonstrate their support; all they want to do is filibuster. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiastic support for Bill C-11 and the member's comments in regard to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and being genuine in wanting to improve the legislation and look for amendments. The Bloc members have contributed a number of thoughts that ultimately influenced the legislation that we have today. The member has recognized with enthusiasm the potential within the legislation, in particular for things like the French language, and that it has a very positive impact for young people who are looking at the arts performance area and at being in that whole industry. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regard to the important message this sends to young people who see themselves getting into the arts programs.

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of freedom. The Conservative Party seems to want to paint a picture of Bill C-11 as an offence or an attack on people's freedoms. When we take a look at the legislation, we will find that it does not in any way regulate the Internet, control what Canadians can see or try to tell Canadians what they have to watch. Can my colleague provide his thoughts on the Conservatives arguing that Bill C-11 is an attack on freedom?

Mr. Speaker, a number of the Conservative speakers on this piece of legislation make me wonder whether or not they have actually purchased tinfoil hats. At the end of the day, I am not sure what part of the legislation the member opposite feels so offended by. Members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, and at least one member of the Green Party, support the legislation. It is not just the government or two political parties, and only the Conservative Party has these wild, crazy thoughts that it is an infringement on freedoms. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts as to why the Conservative Party of Canada feels it is a fight against Canadian freedoms. In fact, we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We understand the importance of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at Bill C-11, we hear a great deal of exaggeration coming from the Conservative Party, such as to try to give the impression that a child uploading a video from school would be impacted by Bill C-11. It is just wrong to try to imply that. The member talked about a rush. However, this is not something that has just been in the oven for the last couple of weeks. We have seen this issue being dealt with now for two years in a very tangible way, not to mention the consultations that have taken place between the minister and the industry even before the legislation was presented. If it was up to the Conservative Party of Canada, this bill would never see the light of day. That is apparent, and it is one of the reasons the Conservative Party does not have the support to prevent the bill from ultimately passing. Would the member not agree?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House virtually today. There are a number of thoughts that I would like to share with respect to this piece of legislation. It is legislation that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time. As much as I have been enjoying some of the questions and answers, especially when the Conservatives are being pushed as to when they are going to look at it or whether they would consider the passage of the legislation. Just given the context of what the official opposition members are saying, I do not anticipate that the bill will be passing before summer. I think the Conservatives have some spin notes that they want to try to leave on this particular legislation. The biggest one that comes to my mind is the issue of “soft on crime”. It is especially members of the Conservative hard-right element who like to say that they are much harder on crime, that government needs to be tough on crime and that if it is not a Conservative government, it is soft on crime. Whether it makes sense or not, that is the line that the Conservatives like to give because of public perception. That said, the bill will pass when it will pass, ultimately. I am hopeful that, as we can sense, the majority of the House see the value in Bill C-9, because it is something that is needed. I want to start by making a couple of observations from some of the stakeholders. I want to do that this time around because I really do respect our judicial system as one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. Our rule of law, our judicial system and the idea of independence are held dear by, I would like to think, all members of the House. For that reason, I thought it was important to start off with a quote. It is from the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada and chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council. He stated: Over the past few years, the Council has consistently called for new legislation to be tabled in order to improve the process by which concerns about judicial conduct are reviewed. The efforts of members of Council to develop proposals in this regard have been fruitful, and we appreciate the openness with which the Minister of Justice has engaged the Council in his consultations. I will go to another quote from the Canadian Judicial Council. It states: While the Council will take some time to carefully review the proposed amendments, we are confident that these reforms will bring about much needed efficiency and transparency to the judicial conduct review process. I wanted to start with those opening quotes because of the respect that I have for judicial independence. I also recognize that there has been a great deal of work, whether by the minister or by administration or by civil servants. They have worked very closely with the many different stakeholders while at the same time respecting the importance of judicial independence. That is why, when I look at the legislation—and I concur with some of the comments being made by my New Democratic Party colleagues and Green Party members, who seem to support the legislation and its speedy passage—I would like to think that the bill itself should not be controversial. It is actually fairly straightforward. There will be other opportunities for the opposition members to try to score their political points, if I could put it that way. I do think there would have been a great deal of value in seeing Bill C-9 at least pass through second reading so that it could go to committee stage, possibly during the summer, when feedback could be heard from the public and experts, with the idea of coming back in the fall for report stage and third reading. The Conservative members who spoke before me were interesting. I picked up on two comments; one was the issue of “soft on crime”, which I have already referenced and maybe will go into a little more later, but they also brought up the issue of appointments of judges. I was somewhat taken aback by some of the comments that were put on the record. We were being criticized because we did not make appointments shortly after being elected into government, as we were reviewing and establishing a more independent, apolitical, transparent appointment process to ensure that our judicial system would be that much more transparent. Yes, there might have been some delays in those appointments, but they were taking the extreme position that murderers went free because of some delays in appointments. I would welcome and challenge the Conservative members to cite specific examples of someone who not only allegedly murdered but did murder an individual and ultimately, because they could not get a day in court, were let go without any charges being laid in that situation. I would be very much interested in a name. If they could provide me with one, they can always send it to my P9 email or raise it inside the House. The member went on to talk about Jody Wilson-Raybould, being very critical of her for not making appointments and implying in the comments that she would only make an appointment if the person donated to the party. Again, those were very extreme statements being made by the Conservative Party. It is not fair. It is interesting how they seem to have forgiven the past—at least, most of the Conservative caucus has—in regard to Jody Wilson-Raybould, but I remember the allegations a number of years ago on that front. It is important to look at the appointments that have actually been made. The government has made somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 appointments since 2016. If we do the comparison, I would love to hear the numbers from the previous administration. When it comes to this administration, out of the hundreds of appointments to our judicial system, 55% have been women. I would love to hear a comparison with the previous 10 years under Stephen Harper. About 3% of our appointments, or marginally just above that, were indigenous. That is important to recognize. Over 10% are visible minorities. The LGBTQ2 appointments are over 5%. Not only are we identifying ideal, competent, incredible individuals, but as a result of a more transparent, depoliticized appointment process, I believe that overall the appointments are more effective in better reflecting what our society looks like today. On both of those points, whether it is judges and the appointment of judges or the issue of the Conservatives being soft on crime and saying the government is not tough enough on crime, I would challenge the Conservatives to prove their points, not necessarily on this legislation, but on other pieces of legislation so we can ultimately see Bill C-9 pass. It is important to recognize that we do need to see a balance. We have the fundamental pillar of our judicial independence and it is important there be a high level of confidence held by the public in the administration of justice. I believe the legislation we are looking at deals with that in a very fair fashion. The amendments will ultimately allow for the Canadian Judicial Council to continue to preside over the process proposed in the legislation. This would start with a three-person review panel ultimately deciding to investigate a complaint of misconduct. In some situations, if the complaint is serious enough, it might even warrant dismissal or removal from the bench. In situations like that, it could be referred to a separate five-person panel. In the first case, it would be strictly a three-person review panel made up of CJC members. A judge and a layperson could impose sanctions such as public apologies and continuing education. The current process has turned out, in many ways, to be exceptionally costly at times, and equally as important, it is not very timely. We have seen situations where it could take years before anything is actually concluded. That is the reason our judicial system is saying that we need to make changes. Today, judges facing possible removal from office because of serious allegations of misconduct have several opportunities throughout the process to launch these judicial reviews. However, as I indicated, the process in some cases can be too long and can be at a fairly significant cost. Replacing the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of a federally appointed judge is the essence of what the legislation is proposing to do. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made by the Minister of Justice. The new process would allow for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct which, while not serious enough to warrant removal, may warrant sanctions that are quite different. The current process does not allow for such sanctions. The member for Mount Royal highlighted some examples. Where a judge's actions have been deemed to have offended something and there needs to be a consequence for the actions, there are more opportunities for different types of consequences. We could see anything ranging from verbal warnings to written warnings, to suspensions or public apologies. We could even see additional training being required, and ultimately, of course, judges being released. This legislation enables a suite of actions that could be imposed on a judge, given a certain behaviour or comment that is made publicly. Not only have we heard today, but we have also heard it in the past. We have had private members' bills. I think of Rona Ambrose. She talked about educating judges, particularly in the area of rape victims. Her piece of legislation ultimately received support from all areas of the House. Parliamentarians from all political stripes recognized the need to have some form of educational programming for newly appointed judges to take things into consideration. In fact, my daughter, who is a local representative in the province of Manitoba, had also taken that particular initiative after hearing about what Rona Ambrose had done. Ultimately, the government pushed that legislation through in the years that followed after Ms. Ambrose left the House of Commons, but we attribute it to Rona and we attribute it to the fact that there is a universal desire for that training. It was not that long ago when we had another private member's bill, one from one of my colleagues from Montreal. There was a great deal of effort by members on all sides of the House to see that legislation, Bill C-233, which is still before the House today, pass second reading and go to committee. It came out of third reading because of that desire. For those who are not familiar, Ms. Ambrose's piece of legislation is recognized as Keira's law for good reason. I will quote from an article, “When I brought forward the evidence about abuse of Mr. Brown, we had a judge, for example, who said that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and, 'I'm going to ignore it.'” Periodically statements come out of our judicial system that call into question the public confidence. That is one of the reasons it is so important that we pass this legislation. It recognizes that our independent judicial system and our judges, who we do need to respect, can make mistakes. Obviously, a vast majority of judgments are done in a way in which they meet the expectations of Canadians, but on occasion, when that does not happen, there needs to be a more effective mechanism to ensure there is an appropriate consequence. This legislation would enable some variation of consequences for judges, at times, who cross the line. I have appreciated the opportunity to share a few thoughts and will be more than happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the House of Commons is there is never enough time to have the types of debates that we would like to have on everything that comes before us. That is why we often have to sit beyond our normal sitting hours. The Government of Canada has a legislative agenda. It also has budgetary measures. When we put them together and look at the priorities of the government, whether it is the pandemic or inflation, as we are all concerned about, all of these public policy issues continue to move forward, led by the Prime Minister and the cabinet. At the end of the day, a well-functioning government has the ability to deal with a wide variety of issues, always keeping our focus on the issues that are most important to Canadians. It does not necessarily mean that we just let Bill C-9 go nowhere. It is an important piece of legislation. We have been provided this opportunity to bring in Bill C-9 because of a collapse in debate last night. We have not lost any focus on what the important issues are for Canadians in particular, whether it is the pandemic, the war in Europe or inflation, which are all matters of great concern.

Mr. Speaker, as much as I do enjoy being engaged in debate on the floor of the House of Commons, I would have been more than happy to surrender my time to debate if I had a sense that we could actually pass the legislation at second reading so that it could go before a committee. However, over the last number of months, I have seen the behaviour of members of the official opposition in particular. It seems they have taken the position that unless a bill is under time allocation, we can anticipate a long debate on virtually all pieces of legislation. Maybe I am being a little unfair to my Conservative colleagues, but I firmly believe that if the Conservatives wanted this bill to pass, we would be very much open to having it pass second reading, at the very least, so that it could begin committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I am reflecting more on some of the other comments the member made reference to. He talked about Liberals being soft on crime. Not that long ago, on Wellington Street, which was open at the time and has not opened since, a rally took place that shut down downtown Ottawa due to all the activities that were taking place. The Conservative Party of Canada members, like the member for Carleton, were doing very little, if anything, and maybe even encouraging the occupation to continue. On the other hand, they say we are the ones who are soft on crime. That is a side issue that I wanted to throw in. Bill C-9 is the reason I started by quoting the chief justice, who recognizes that there is a need for us to change the system. They are very much following the legislation. This is not something that was done overnight. It has taken a while. We believe we got it right, and that is why I say we should send it to committee if there need to be some changes. It would reinforce public confidence, which is what the member is getting at in his question. We want to reinforce public confidence in our judicial system because unfortunately, at times and in a limited number of cases, a judge will say the wrong thing and it is likely because something inside needs to be changed, maybe through an educational program or something of that nature. We have recognized it in the past. Let us recognize it today and see if we can get the legislation passed.

Mr. Speaker, the member went into the legislation and picked something out. What we are debating at second reading is the principle of the legislation. If we agree on the principle of the legislation, then we send it to committee. In committee, there will be all sorts of opportunities to get the detailed answers that the member is specifically looking for. If he wants an answer before it goes to committee, the minister is right across the aisle from him. He can drop him a note or raise it with the parliamentary secretary, who has already spoken on the issue. The principle of the legislation is good, solid, sound and necessary, and it will help put more public confidence in our judicial system. Why would the member not recognize it for what it is and allow the legislation to pass, at the very least, so we can get it to committee?

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate. My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

Madam Speaker, I would much prefer to be in Ottawa making these comments, but it is nice that we have the hybrid. It enables me to speak on the floor of the House while I am here in Winnipeg. We are in an interesting debate in regard to Bill C-14. I am not necessarily surprised that we would see an amendment at this stage. One of the things that I have found over the past number of months is that, at times, we get legislation that one would naturally think would flow through the House of Commons: There would be relatively minimal debate, and we would get it through second reading and into committee. I do not see this as controversial legislation. I am not exactly sure where the Bloc actually falls on the legislation. I would hope that it would support the province of Quebec getting a guaranteed number of seats, but at the end of the day, I like to think that this is the type of legislation that should ultimately pass through. Was it necessary, for example, for us to have an amendment? I do not think it was for a report stage amendment. I think that when we get relatively uncontroversial legislation, where it appears that everyone is going to be voting in favour, I would have rather seen a debate on something like, let us say, Bill C-21 and the issue of guns and the safety of Canadians, which is top of mind for a lot of people. True to form, what I have found is that, whether it is good, rather uncontroversial legislation such as Bill C-14 or if it is controversial or potentially controversial legislation, the Conservatives have one approach in dealing with the government's agenda and that is to prevent it from ultimately passing. Having said that, I want to recognize a number of points in regard to Bill C-14. Having had the opportunity to speak on the legislation in the past, I want to be very specific on a few things. One is the need for the legislation. I think it important that we recognize, as has been pointed out, that shifts take place in Canada's population for a wide variety of reasons. One could talk about things such as job opportunities, transfers, the allure of another area, or just people wanting to move to a warmer climate. In my case, they want to come to a nice, cool climate. People change their ridings. Immigration is such a huge factor. Over the years, Canada continues to grow in good part because of immigration to our country. We are very dependent on immigration. Our birth rate is going down. As we grow as a nation overall, there is natural population shifting that occurs. It comes also in the form of immigration. As a result, every 10 years, there is an obligation through an independent mechanism, and I want to emphasize that it really is an independent mechanism, that ensures that the ridings reflect the changes we have seen based on census material. No one was surprised at all that we got a report this year. It was anticipated that we would get a report 10 years after we received the last report. Going forward, every decade we will continue to receive recommendations from Elections Canada, through the commission, as to the need to change boundaries and possibly add constituencies or do some shifting. That is, in essence, why we have the legislation today. It is because of the change in populations. In particular, for Quebec, there is a need for us to establish a floor, a minimum number of seats, for the province. Doing it this way prevents us from having to do a constitutional change, where there is a 7/50 formula in order to enact a change. It addresses, for the most part, the biggest concerns that members of Parliament, on all sides of the issue, have as we recognize how important it is that the province of Quebec not lose any seats. I suspect that is the reason why the legislation would ultimately pass, hopefully unanimously, in the House. Back in November, there was the establishment of these three-member commissions. We have a national commission. The commission establishes individual commissions of three people in a province, and through those commissions they all have a responsibility. That was done in November of last year, I believe. Those commissions then all have a responsibility to develop the new boundaries, whatever they might look like. They sit around, look at the numbers and the maps and try to provide new boundaries that we could be running the next federal election on. Each commission operates independently. Manitoba, for example, has a three-member commission, and it operates independently of other aspects of Elections Canada, of political entities and of different stakeholders, such as community members and so forth. It is important to emphasize that it is, in fact, independent. In developing those boundaries, the commission is tasked with a timeline. That timeline is quickly approaching, and the commissions need to provide a draft of the boundaries. One could be very concerned in regard to the dragging out of Bill C-14. The people who are paying the price for the House of Commons dragging its feet on the passage of this legislation are the people of Quebec. We know we want to see that minimum number of seats for the province of Quebec, and we have consistently said that from day one, as members will recall, when the national commission initially made the recommendation. It was an immediate response that came from not only my Quebec colleagues but from the caucus as a whole: Under no circumstances could we allow the province of Quebec not to have the 78 seats. Until this legislation passes, that three-member commission in the province of Quebec has its hands tied, at least in good part, as other commissions continue to move forward with drafting boundaries, because the boundaries will change within different provinces. There will be tweaks in the city of Winnipeg, whether Winnipeg North grows more to the north or more in the inner city. This is something I wait for with bated breath, in hopes that we see some changes that the community will in fact support. Once that draft is finished, the commission has to make it public. Once it is made public, it has to have public hearings that must take place before the end of October, because by mid-December the report has to be finalized. That is why it is critically important that we pass this legislation. It is so the commission in the province of Quebec can finalize a draft so that it can go to the public, and in turn the public can provide its input so the commission can then provide that final draft by the end of the year. It is an independent process, and that is why I am supporting Bill C-14. I hope all members would support its quick passage. I see my time has—

Madam Speaker, we talk about how members can best serve their constituents in terms of presentation, or physically, and one of the things I have learned over the last few years is the importance of the Internet and the important role that technology can play, in ensuring there is a heightened sense of equity and fairness in enabling people to be fully engaged and to participate. The hybrid Parliament is an excellent example of that and something we should keep in some form or another.

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that the Government of Canada responded immediately by recognizing that we do not want to see the province of Quebec diminished in terms of numbers of seats. That is why we have this legislation, even though other opposition parties may see fit to try to delay it or even possibly cause some confusion about it. What the Bloc members are proposing would require a constitutional change. I do not believe for a moment that Canadians are open to having a round of constitutional debates and discussions on this issue, along with the many other issues that would come out of any sort of a discussion on the Constitution. I think the most important thing to recognize here is that if we want to support the people of Quebec in going through this independent process, we need to allow them the opportunity of having a basic number of seats and let the commission do the work it needs to do.

Madam Speaker, that is a wonderful question. One of the things that I could add to the debate is to say that we all want to have fair representation for the people and communities which we represent. We are talking about the independence of Elections Canada. We could just as equally be talking about the important services that members of Parliament, elected officials, provide to their constituents through the resources provided to them through the House of Commons, for example, a member's allowance, travel frequency and how convenient it is for members to be able to participate. There is a wide spectrum of things that complement a member's ability to represent the communities they have been elected to represent. This type of discussion would be very fruitful going forward.

Madam Speaker, I look at Bill C-5 as a positive piece of legislation. I understand the member's concerns with respect to dividing it, which is what the Bloc wanted to see, but overall I think it is important that we understand and appreciate judicial independence. The idea is that our judges need to have discretionary authority to deal with issues such as systemic racism, which is very real in our court system. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts with regard to that aspect of the legislation and how it would benefit that issue.

Madam Speaker, [Member spoke in Filipino] [English] June is the month in which we celebrate and recognize the importance of Filipino Canadian heritage. It is also the month in which the country of the Philippines celebrates its independence of 124 years. If we were to canvass the House, I am sure we would find a general consensus that the contributions of the Filipino heritage community are second to no other. It continues to grow. It is one million strong. It is with great pleasure that I encourage all members, rural and urban and from all sides, to recognize the important role the Filipino heritage community plays every day of the year. I give a special shout-out to my ate Clarita for the beautiful suit jacket.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to talk about the budget implementation bill or the budget in general. I want to spend a bit of time on what I believe is a very important issue to Canadians, something that I have not really spoken about for a while now and needs to be reinforced. For the first time in many years, we have seen a government that is genuinely committed to a national health care system. We have seen that virtually since day one from the government. Many years ago, I was the health critic in the province of Manitoba, and I can say that back then, there was quite a bit of dialogue with Ottawa and many requests for money. Let there be no doubt that throughout every one of those years, the provinces were constantly asking for more health care dollars, and justifiably so, as the cost of health care has gone up. Our government has responded to that call in a very real and tangible way. Back in the days when the Liberals were in opposition, the health care accord expired. We wanted a new health care accord to be reached, and it was through the efforts of this government that we were able to achieve that by going to the provinces and territories. Today we have agreements, and they will ultimately mean that health care transfers will increase over the next number of years. I see that as a very strong positive. In fact, if we look at the total amount of money we spend on health care today, it is at a historic high. One could easily stop there, but we take the Canada Health Act very seriously. We want to be sensitive to what is taking place. The Prime Minister has argued in the past that there are many things we can learn from the pandemic. One of those things is with regard to health care. All of us, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were expressed regarding long-term care, and the federal government responded to them. There was the immediate response of providing the provinces hands-on support, whether it was through the Canadian Forces or the Red Cross, some of which went into my own riding of Winnipeg North. It is the idea of working toward stronger and healthier national standards for long-term care, something we are very much interested in doing and pursuing. On the issue of mental health, we have seen a huge investment in mental health by the government. We also wanted movement in the area of pharmacare. It was not that long ago that we reached out to willing partners to start exploring how we could develop a national pharmacare program. I am very happy that in this budget we talk about a dental care program, at a substantial cost. If I had a choice, I probably would have wanted more emphasis on the pharmacare side as opposed to the dental care side, but that is a personal preference. The commitment over the next number of years to establish a dental program is a very positive move. I do not think we should forget about the pharmacare program, but I understand that discussions continue to take place. I say that because I often have the opportunity, as we all do, to have discussions with people and constituents. It may be that as we get closer to Canada Day, people reflect on how fortunate we are to live in Canada, but when I ask people about this, especially newer immigrants, I find that one thing allowing them to identify with Canada, which they really appreciate about Canada, is our health care system. I think that is something that often gets overlooked. That is why I thought I would start on that issue today by recognizing our investments as a government into health care, whether it was in our very first budget and the investments that we made in health care or the most recent budget, which expands investment into dental care while still looking at pharmacare, as well as investing historic amounts into health care transfer payments and giving a great deal of attention to issues like mental health and long-term care. I would encourage members to reflect on those activities over the last number of years, and I suggest that we are moving forward on the issue of public policy on health care. It is one of the things I am very proud of. Another issue I want to comment on is housing, because there is a great deal of debate and discussion on it and it is often a topic in question period. We are all concerned about the costs of housing and the shortage of supply, but we have to look at what has actually transpired over the last number of years and what has been incorporated into this budget. This government established the first housing strategy in our country, committing literally billions of dollars. We have looked at new initiatives, and I have always been a very big fan of housing co-ops. I remember many years ago playing a role in the start-up of the Weston Housing Co-op. In my riding of Winnipeg North, we have Willow Park and Willow Park East. One of those is likely the oldest housing co-op in Canada, and some have suggested possibly even in North America. Our Minister of Housing has seen co-ops as a viable investment. It is an alternative. There is a difference between living in an apartment and living in a co-op. In one situation we are a tenant and in the other situation we are a resident. There is a big difference. When we are a resident, we participate in ownership, whereas a tenant will never own the place they are renting. As well, there is a non-profit element in housing co-ops. The expansion of that program will do wonders, and I look forward to possibly seeing some new housing co-op start-ups. We continue to support provincial governments and the many different non-profit agencies. We have literally tens of thousands of units across the country. I do not know the actual number in the province of Manitoba, but I suspect that probably around 20,000 units are heavily subsidized by Ottawa so that people who are financially challenged have an option in finding a home. Initiatives within the budget include the intergenerational grants, a program that is going to enable people to look at their current home and maybe build on an addition, often referred to as a granny suite, or establish an independent unit in the yard for a parent to stay with them. The government is making it much easier to do that. It is a program that is very popular, and it will become even more popular once it becomes better known. We can talk about the idea of renovations. There is the greener homes project, providing thousands of grants and involving tens of thousands of dollars, for people who want to fix up their homes by making their windows or whatever else more energy efficient. When I think of a program like that, I cannot help but think about our environment providing jobs just through the overall housing stock. Investing in home renovations, as we are doing, creates jobs. Renovations are very labour-intensive projects. They create opportunities to have more energy-efficient homes. With programs of this nature, we are improving the overall condition of Canada's housing stock. We can talk about first-time homebuyers and enhancing that program so that people who are purchasing their homes for the first time have more financing that they can turn to. We can talk about the millions going into the rapid housing initiative, not to mention the monies that have been there to support agencies like Main Street Project in Winnipeg and others, such as women's shelters. There is so much we have been able to do on the housing front. Ultimately, I would argue that we have demonstrated that the national government is prepared to lead and work with others, because dealing with the housing crisis that we are in today is going to take more than just the federal government. We will need a higher sense of co-operation, whether it comes from municipalities or from provinces. At the end of the day, we need to see more land being developed. I believe that we need to see individuals being able to acquire properties, as opposed to having to go through a developer, for example. I think there are ways to have provinces look at some of the reviews for housing condos, co-operatives, life-lease programs or the 55-plus types of programs that are out there. What we know is that there is a high need. At the end of the day, when talking about housing and the costs of housing, I am very concerned, like all of my colleagues. However, I do not think we should give the false impression, as the opposition side often does, that the government is not taking action. The federal government today has taken more action on this file than many, many other governments before it. We are talking about generations, a historic amount of investment and an incredible number of programs that have been developed and ultimately administered. I wanted to highlight those two areas because I do not really get to talk too much about those two areas of housing and health care, so I wanted to start off my comments on those. Having said that, I believe that the big issues in regard to the budget can be rooted right back to having a consistent policy that recognizes that the backbone to Canada's economy is our small businesses, our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. This is where the government has done incredible work. From the very beginning, going back to the 2015 election until today, the cabinet and caucus as a whole have been focused on Canada's middle class and their economy. I would like to cite a few examples of that. Prior to the pandemic taking effect, there were over a million jobs created in those first four or four and a half years. Let us keep in mind that Canada's population is 37 million. It was a million jobs. It was not just the Government of Canada alone. We worked with partners and stakeholders. That is where a good part of our focus was. We saw incredible amounts of effort put into trade agreements. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than any other government. That is the absolute truth. In terms of North America and the European Union, those agreements were signed off. I can recall opposition parties saying that this process was derailed, that it was not going to happen. Canada is a trading nation. We depend on trade. I understand that our trading deficit has virtually evaporated. For years, when I was in opposition, that was not the case. We understand the importance of international trade and we invested a great deal in that area. Infrastructure is another thing. Infrastructure is so important to all of us. I would challenge any member to demonstrate another government that has committed as much in financial resources toward infrastructure in terms of real dollars. Again we are going into the billions of dollars. Not only was the government working with municipalities or provinces or other stakeholders, but we also created the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I addressed that issue at the very beginning of my comments where I said that even when I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba about 30 years ago, provinces we always asking for more money. It is just something that is an annual thing. What I found was that during the early nineties, when I was heavily involved in the provincial legislature, there was this threat that we were going to see the federal government get out of financing health care because provinces wanted to continue with the tax point shift, as opposed to a cash over. That is ultimately what I would argue, that back in the late seventies and early eighties there was some consensus that saw tax point shifts. That was part of the problem. Today, we have health care accords with the different provinces. We understand the importance of health care. That is why I spent the first six or seven minutes talking about health care. Today, we have record amounts of health transfers, and we are looking beyond those in how we can support issues such as mental health and long-term care.