Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the Canada Infrastructure Bank provides opportunities for capital investments, and one of the significant aspects of capital investments is to have a green transition. A good example of that is in Brampton, where zero-emission buses will be put in place as a direct result of agreements between the City of Brampton and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the potential positive role the Canada Infrastructure Bank could have in investing in green transition.

Madam Speaker, anyone listening to the member opposite could very easily get quite depressed. I do not think that Canadians need to be as worried as the member tries to portray. A lot can be twisted around in the numbers, so let me share a couple of reality numbers for jobs. Jobs are important, and today our unemployment is at record lows. We would have to go back generations to get a lower unemployment rate. Do not quote me on this, but I believe it is right around 5.5%. It was many years ago that we had that sort of unemployment rate. When we talk about the issue of inflation, which gets a lot of airtime here, it is important to recognize that there is a global situation, whether it is the pandemic or the war in Russia. The inflation rate is higher in the U.S. It is also higher, in terms of the average, in the European Union countries. Would the member provide his thoughts on those two statistics?

Madam Speaker, originally I thought I would ask a question in regard to seniors, but I am going to pass on that. The changes have, in fact, been made, in good part, and the budget finalizes that. We have been very supportive of our seniors over the years, from day one. My question, more specifically, is in regard to the member's historic perspective in terms of accountability of the House. One of the things, I would argue, being a parliamentarian for 30 years, in terms of the importance of getting that accountability and transparency, is looking at our rules. It is the Standing Orders. It is the way in which we process our daily proceedings. For example, if we were to, heaven forbid, look at the modernization of our House and our rules, and many of the concerns that the member opposite recognizes as something that is important, which I personally believe too, would she not agree that it is time that the House of Commons look at modernizing our rules to ensure that we can have ongoing transparency and accountability no matter who is in government?

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that what is happening in Ukraine today is horrific in nature. I believe that inside the chamber there is virtually unanimous desire and willingness to support Ukraine in whatever way we can to get through this very difficult time. It goes far beyond Ukraine's borders, but impacts the entire free world. We wish Ukrainians the very best, and we will continue to support them in whatever way we can. The member is trying to give the impression that if Canada were to export oil today, money going to Russia would dry up. We all know that even if the political will and the desire of Canadians as a whole was to have that happen, it could not happen overnight. I wonder this. Could the member provide his thoughts and comments in regard to that? We do not want to say something that ultimately we know we cannot deliver.

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have stood up for this in the past and will continue to stand up in the future. Obviously we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. When the member makes reference to the word “just” and then throws in “in”, he is actually making reference to the Prime Minister of Canada, who does have a title. I would ask that we respect all titles, whether it is the official opposition leader, members, ministers or whoever it might be.

Madam Speaker, it does not surprise me that the member is not voting for the budget. Wow, what a surprise. I can tell members that, unlike the Conservative members, we recognize that there has been a pandemic, a world pandemic, which brought on the need to spend billions of dollars, not only here in Canada, but also around the world. We also recognize, as one of his former members recognized, that there is a war happening in Ukraine, and there are economic and world conditions that have actually led to, yes, inflation. Compared to the United States, our inflation rate is less. Compared to many European Union countries, our inflation rate is less than theirs. Does the member not believe that he is misleading Canadians when he tries to give a blanket statement, trying to give the impression that Canadians need to be frantically worried because of inflation and not necessarily putting it into a proper perspective?

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways, the member was wrong in what he stated. The fact is that this government has invested more in rural broadband expansion than the previous Harper government did in its 10 years. We continue to invest significant amounts of money, recognizing how important getting those connections to our rural communities is. I am a little confused about the Conservative approach to Ukraine and the sanctions there, so I am wondering if this is a Conservative Party position. The member, on one hand, says that we need to do whatever we can to support Ukraine and the Ukraine war effort. We are seeing the world coming onside, and Canadians as a whole want to see that. Is the Conservative Party officially saying that the fertilizing industry should be completely exempt from having to pay any tariff, specifically with respect to Russia?

Madam Speaker, as a prairie member of Parliament, I would suggest that the member is off base on a number of accounts. When the world price of oil was going down, we were criticized because we were not allowing it to sustain itself. The Conservatives wanted it to be higher. Today, the Conservatives are criticizing us because the price of world oil is too high. When it is too low, it is the government's fault. When it is too high, it is the government's fault. The member asked about the need for oil production. Stephen Harper brought not a drop of oil to the coastlines. At least we have put a pipeline in that is going to the coastline. Can the member take a look at the real numbers, the jobs and job growth? If we take a look at the economic activity, Canada does exceptionally well, especially if we compare it to our neighbours in the south, the United States. My question to the member—

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and the government have been working very closely with industry on a number of different files, and over the last number of years we have seen, through a lot of federal investment, growth in the industry and of our agricultural community. If I take a look at my home province of Manitoba, I see substantial growth in industries such as our pork industry, which continues to grow. Jobs were just added in the community of Saint Boniface, and as a direct result of those jobs, we will end up with more jobs in Saskatchewan, Alberta and even, to a certain degree, Ontario too. Our agricultural community continues to grow, and I think the member is underestimating the value and the contributions our farmers and rural communities are making to our economy when he tries to give the impression that we are seeing shrinkage. In fact, there has been government investment, and we have seen growth in our rural sectors.

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts. She started to talk about the child care program, and we do have a national child care program. Even though we at times see governments spend money, there are many derivatives that come out of that. That particular program will also generate revenue and it will also have a real, tangible impact on the lives of many. Can she just provide her thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, far from being tired, this is a government that is very progressive, and it continues to move Canadians and this country forward. It is interesting. The Conservatives stand up to say that we have abandoned the oil industry, and the Bloc stands up to say that we are giving too much to the oil industry. The bottom line is that we understand what Canadians want. They want clean air, good jobs, a healthy environment and a strong economy. I have good news for my friends in the Bloc and my friends in the Conservative Party. We can actually do both, and that is what this budget does. Does my friend and colleague not recognize that? One of the things he criticized, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to get zero-emission buses in the city of Brampton. There are a lot of positive things in this budget, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing a lot of positive things.

Madam Speaker, for the first part of his speech, the member talked a great deal about supply management and tried to plant the seed of doubt in terms of where this government stands on supply management. Virtually from day one, going back to 2015, the Minister of Agriculture has been very clear that we support supply management. In fact, it was a Liberal administration many years ago that created supply management. The difference is that the government understands that Canada is a trading nation, and we continue to negotiate the trade agreements that provide the types of jobs that are so important to our middle class and for growing our economy. Does the member not recognize the benefits of having these trade agreements and understand and appreciate that there is no hidden agenda here? We created supply management. We will continue to protect the need for supply management for the fine work that it does.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe budget 2022-23 provides a great deal of hope for Canadians. I say that because, even when we take a look at what the member was talking about, a good portion of her time was spent on housing. I think we need to recognize that the federal government has put into place a number of initiatives to assist Canadians in being able to afford a home, but it is not just the federal government alone, and that is my question for the member. Would she not agree that the only way we can deal with the issue of housing is to incorporate municipalities, for example the zoning requirements and the bureaucracy that is involved in that? Provincial governments provide literally tens of thousands of units in my own home province of Manitoba. It is going to require governments of all levels to start working more closely together to ensure that Canadians will be able to have affordability. As a national government, we are demonstrating our leadership on that file.

Madam Speaker, the member has selective memory when it comes to health care. He is really off base. When we think about it, Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing. He did not negotiate with the provinces and, in fact, let the Canada health care accord retire. There were no negotiations at all. One of the first things we did when we came into government was negotiate individual health care accords with the provinces. Today we have record amounts in health care transfers going to the provinces, but that is not enough. We have recognized the importance of mental health, long-term care and the cost of drugs for Canadians. We are prepared and willing to do more, and our consecutive budgets have demonstrated that. How could the member, after reflecting on the last number of years, possibly give the speech he has just given when in fact things are quite the opposite? This is a government that cares for Canadians and the health of Canadians, and it is demonstrated in every budget, including this budget.

Madam Speaker, when the member makes reference to the issue of deficits, one of the things that has to be factored in is the fact that, over the last number of years, yes, the government has spent a great deal of money. We spent a great deal of money to support Canadians and small businesses, whether it was millions of people who found themselves without a paycheque or literally hundreds of thousands of businesses and others that needed supports such as wage subsidies and rent subsidies. By doing that, Canada was in a much better position to be able to recover from the pandemic. We are seeing that in terms of the job growth, as our economy continues to do better than any of the other G7 economies when it comes to job recovery. I am wondering if the member opposite has any remorse or regret, given that the Conservative party actually supported the many expenditures that we made, the billions and billions of dollars.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite made reference to the issue of taxation. Within the budget, it is being proposed that there would be a tax, for example, for our banks, and there is an expectation of over $1 billion in 2021. I believe it is somewhere around 15%. Could he provide his thoughts regarding that? Does he believe there are exceptions where government should be applying some sort of a tax increase?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on yet another budget from this administration. Since 2015, we have seen budgets and legislation that, in many ways, have been there to invest in real people, economic growth, and a clean future. From day one, this government has ultimately been there to support Canada's middle class. At the start of and during the pandemic, there were budgets to support Canadians through that very difficult time and ultimately to now. Before I go any further, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I want to pick up on a few points that were raised already today in the debate. I am very sensitive to the issue of the cost of housing. It is of great concern for me and, I believe, for all members of this House. As we serve our constituents, we want to provide them the assurance that all politicians, at all different levels, are in fact listening. I put this in the form of a question earlier today to a member from the Conservative Party. When we talk about the issue of housing, I believe the national government has been playing a very strong national leadership role. Never before have we seen a national government invest as much as this government has into housing. There are a number of programs. I often see the Minister of Housing in the province of Manitoba announcing yet another program, whether it is a specific program where a project is being announced, or a more general announcement that everyone could benefit from, such as the benefit for first-time homebuyers, where there was a doubling of the tax credit. The multi-generational home renovation tax credit is one that I really would encourage people to get a better understanding of. I believe it is around $7,500. That program is there to encourage people to construct live-in suites for family members. I can see how, in many ways, that would be of great value and benefit for many of the residents of Winnipeg North. We have seen legislation and budgetary actions to deal with issues such as people abroad purchasing homes but not living in them. There will be a special tax in one situation and, in another, an outright ban. The point is this: As we have made these investments, we have also worked with municipalities and provinces to encourage a holistic approach when dealing with the issue of housing, because as much as the national government can provide that strong federal leadership, we need to recognize that the way to overcome these types of prices is with the different levels of government working together. All of us have a role to play. A local city or municipality, for example, can zone properties to make more lots available for individuals to acquire. Today, in the city of Winnipeg, if one tries to purchase a lot, it is virtually impossible because it has to be done through the developers. Allocating 150 acres, 300 acres or 400 acres in a municipality like Winnipeg would go a long way to making lots available. In order to increase the supply of housing we need to recognize that it is not just Ottawa that has to play a role, and that is a good example. I say that because I believe that what we have seen over the years is a national government that has recognized the importance of working with other jurisdictions. We have seen excellent examples of that. The CPP comes to mind and the increase for the first time in many, many years. It was one of the first actions we took a number of years ago. With respect to the health care accords, today we have record amounts of transfers going over to the provinces. Provinces are always going to want more money when it comes to health care, but let us recognize that no government in the history of Canada has given as much money to our provinces and territories toward health care. We did get health care accords with the individual provinces. Let us look at the most recent huge development and financial commitment in terms of a national child care program. There are even, from what I understand, some Conservative leadership candidates who actually support this initiative. It is not all of them, so we do not know where the Conservative Party will land on this issue yet, but the bottom line is that it took the different levels of government to work with Ottawa in order to make it happen. The minister responsible did a fantastic job in terms of pulling it together and making it happen. I say that because, when we went into the pandemic, we saw provinces, municipalities and Canadians as a whole take a team Canada approach to taking on the coronavirus, and we worked together. As a result of working together, what we see is that Canada is probably, I would ultimately argue, one of the best countries getting out of the pandemic. One just needs to look at the job numbers. Job creation and economic growth are important. When we look at how Canada is faring, we see the unemployment rate is around 5.5%. We would have to go back generations to get that kind of unemployment rate, and that is where we are today. We were able to do that because there was a high sense of co-operation taking place. The government, in particular the Prime Minister, has been very much focused on Canada and how we can make our country a better place for all. We have seen much attention given to the issue of inequities in taxation policies. We have seen a deficit of social programming, and we now have a Prime Minister who is committed to addressing some of that. We have seen expenditures in things such as infrastructure. We have seen areas of our society, such as seniors, where there have been historic amounts of investment to ensure that, for example, our seniors have a better standard of living. These are the types of programs that have made a difference in a very real and tangible way. It is about investing in people, in economic growth and in a clean future. When I think of our environment, I think of recent announcements by the government, in co-operation with the private sector and other levels of government, in regard to zero-emission vehicles being manufactured here in Canada. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars combined between different levels of government and the private sector in order to ensure that we are on the right road in terms of investing in zero-emission vehicles. We see that in terms of public policy, whether from our Minister of Environment or our Minister of Natural Resources, who are saying the same thing in all the different regions of our country. This is a government that recognizes the true value of having a budget that provides hope, and budget 2022 does just that. It is a budget we can all be proud of. It deals with all the different sectors, whether it is business or individuals, to ensure that we will be able to continue to grow our economy and support the many different social programs that are there and that Canadians value.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member gets that, because that is just not true. In fact, if we were to compare Stephen Harper's approach to national housing, we would find that it is lacking. Let us compare what we have done with regard to housing over the last seven years to what Stephen Harper had done. That might open the member's eyes to the reality that we finally have strong national leadership and a government that is prepared to do whatever it can to support Canadians' desire to become homeowners, and to demonstrate leadership. We have done that. We now need to see more of the provincial governments and municipal governments coming to the table to come up with ways in which we can expand the housing supply. I think this is one of the challenges we will have to deal with. It means governments of different political stripes and different levels of government coming together and seeing how we can make it even more affordable.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is lowering the age for OAS from 67 to 65, or whether it is the dramatic increases that we saw for people collecting GIS in the first couple of years, to the last couple of years, when we have seen a 10% increase to OAS, not to mention the one-time payments that were provided during the pandemic and the hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to non-profit organizations in order to support seniors activities, programs such as New Horizons, I would challenge the member opposite to show me any government that has done more in recent generations to support our seniors in Canada. We have a caucus that is committed to listening to seniors and being there in a very tangible way, and I look forward to continuing to be very progressive on the needs of our seniors going forward, including long-term care standardization and what we can do there, issues of mental health and so much more.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if we were to take a look at the 10 years in which Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the number of temporary workers who were converted into permanent residents, we would find that in the last few years we have more than exceeded what he did in 10 years. More and more, we are looking at ways in which temporary foreign workers could ultimately land. With the idea of being able to study in Canada, if one is good enough to study in Canada or good enough to work in Canada, one should be able to land in Canada. That is an approach that many of my caucus colleagues believe in, and we are working toward that in a very diligent way.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member, and one of the things that comes to my mind is the reality of truth. The member makes reference to there not having been any increase to health care, but there has been an increase of over $2 billion. He asks what the Canadian Infrastructure Bank is doing. Talk to the city of Brampton and other cities and municipalities. The city of Brampton got a $400-million zero-emissions public transit program. When Conservative members stand to speak, they need to take the Conservative spin off the papers that they are reading or quoting from and focus on the reality. The reality is that this budget supports Canadians, supports businesses and provides hope for the future of Canada.

Madam Speaker, for almost 20 years, I was a provincial member of the Manitoba legislature, and there was never a year that would go by in which provinces across Canada would not ask for more money with regard to health care. That is just the reality of things. Every year, provinces unanimously asked for additional funds, and why not? What the member does not reference is that under this administration, we have signed health care accords with all of the provinces. We are now giving out record amounts, historic amounts, of cash to the provinces through transfers. In this budget alone, we are seeing a $2-billion top-up to help with emergency backlogs for surgeries. We have allocated support for long-term care, something that even the people of Quebec and other provinces want to see. There is also more money for mental health, and we are looking at ways to ensure that pharmaceuticals are cheaper. Would the member not recognize that Ottawa, according to the Canada Health Act, has more of a role to play than just being an ATM machine? We need to work together with other administrations to ensure that Canadians have the best quality health care that we can provide.

Madam Speaker, I look at it as a way in which the Province of Quebec and the people of Quebec recognize its true value. For example, the member referenced electric vehicles and, yes, there is a tax incentive provided by the Province of Quebec for electric vehicles. Now there is one nationally. By having a national and provincial incentive, it means that those who want to see fewer emissions will be that much happier to see that both levels of government recognize that. I only wish that the Province of Manitoba would do likewise. Would the member not agree that having ambitious goals, whether they are federal or provincial, that address what the population wants to see is a positive thing?

Mr. Speaker, I really do believe there are a number of Conservatives who completely close their eyes when it comes to economic matters. Do they not realize when they talk about inflation that there are some things they need to factor in, such as that there is a war taking place in Ukraine and there is a world pandemic that has taken place over the last two-plus years? If we look at the inflation rate in the U.S.A., it is higher than in Canada. If we look at the inflation rate in many of the European countries, it is higher than in Canada. Yes, as a government we have invested in the people of Canada. Yes, this is a budget that will ultimately provide hope and future jobs. By the way, when it comes to jobs, Canada again is ahead of the U.S. in regard to recuperating the jobs that were lost during the pandemic. I am wondering if my friend would open his eyes and acknowledge that inflation is a concern, but we need to put it into a proper perspective.

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting speech. I will say that much. I would also add that it was a little devoid of reality at times. The bottom line is this. The member makes reference to it being serious, and it is a serious budget. It is a budget that reflects the interests of Canadians and truly cares about Canadians. We continue to support Canadians. Here are some basic facts. In 2019, our unemployment rate was at 5.4%. That was at a 50-year low. Today, the unemployment rate is at 5.5%. Canada is doing exceptionally well coming out of the pandemic from an unemployment perspective. The member spent so much time on inflation. What he does not tell us is that, with respect to world inflation, Canada is at 5.7%, the U.S. is at 7.5% and the average of the G20 countries is 6.1%. Again, Canada is doing exceptionally well. This is a budget for Canadians. It is a budget that is going to make a difference. It is a budget that is going to continue to show that this is a government that cares and has a vision going into the future. I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts as to why he believes Canada continues to make historic gains with respect to unemployment levels, especially following a pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think members from all sides of the House should be supporting is the government's ambitious commitment, through budgetary dollars going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to double the number of housing starts over the next decade, something we all know is critically important. We also know that it is not just the federal government that has to play a role. In fact, what we will see is the municipalities, the provinces and other potential stakeholders working with the national government to ensure we see a dramatic increase in housing starts in the country. I wonder if the member could indicate whether the Bloc party supports the government's efforts to double the number of houses being constructed. That support would imply that we will continue to work with the municipalities and provinces to make it a reality.

Madam Speaker, what I know is that Canadians as a whole do not want to get into a constitutional debate. I believe that today the Prime Minister has put into place a system that will see truly independent senators going to the Senate. I see it as very strong positive that we are taking the partisan party politics out of the Senate, and we have seen that in the appointments the Prime Minister has made to date.

Mr. Speaker, I actually have two petitions. They are both of the same nature, so I will combine the two of them as one. When things occur in countries abroad, often community members here in Canada will respond. For example, when India passed legislation related to farmers in India, particularly in Punjab, many of my constituents took great exception to the new laws and actually submitted and signed off on a petition asking the Government of Canada to be aware and to do what it could. It was really quite encouraging to see that there have been some changes, which no doubt will make my constituents a little happier, and I wanted to table these petitions today.

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by the member with regard to the differentiation between urban and rural, because there is a significant difference in the type of representation there. I am wondering if the member can expand on this. Is he trying to say between the lines that it should be a smaller percentage of population in rural areas than in the bigger urban areas? Is that what he is trying to indirectly imply?

Madam Speaker, I would like pick up on something the member made reference to. At the very end of his speech, he started talking about the different potential changes we have seen. For example, in the last federal election, we had more engagement with mail-in ballots. When we talk about electoral changes going forward, there are some very important aspects of Elections Canada and the way we implement things to make sure that our elections are fair, effective and engaging. I am wondering if the member would provide some additional thoughts in regard to voter empowerment and how we can see a higher percentage of people going out to vote.

Madam Speaker, the province of Quebec today has 78 representatives here in the House of Commons. This legislation would ensure that they will have 78 seats going forward. The member makes reference to the needs and desires of the people of Quebec, and I believe that this legislation meets them. However, I do not believe that it will ever meet the needs of the Bloc Québécois because the Bloc Québécois wants to play a destructive force for the federation. The Bloc Québécois does not see what a vast majority of Canadians and a majority of people in Quebec want. They want to see a strong, healthy government that provides progressive services through things such as health care, interprovincial trade and international trade. I am wondering if my friend could be honest by telling members of the House that there is nothing we could do that would ultimately appease the Bloc, other than the breaking up of Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. We all recognize the importance of representation. In good part, we have a fairly good appreciation of it because we are all elected officials, and we can understand and appreciate the degree it takes to get elected to the House of Commons and all that is involved. What we are talking about today are our boundaries. Contrary to what we just heard from the Bloc, every 10 years there is a boundary redistribution. When the indications came out about the numbers and the idea that Quebec could actually lose a seat, there was a great deal of concern among Liberal caucus members. There was a great deal of dialogue and an understanding. It did not take much to reach a consensus that we needed to do something about that. We have heard from the debate thus far, whether it is New Democratic Party members or Conservative Party members, and although we have not heard from any Green Party members yet, I suspect that they also recognize it, that it is so important that we put a guarantee of 78 members for the province of Quebec in the legislation and ultimately for any other province going forward. Even the province of Manitoba might access what we are attempting to put in today. We do not know what the population will be, but we can hope. I would like to think that on average our population in Manitoba will far exceed the average throughout the rest of Canada, but I cannot guarantee that. No one can. We do not know what the population shifts are going to be over the next number of years. We can speculate. What provides me a level of comfort is the fact that the House of Commons, from coast to coast to coast, has recognized the importance of establishing that base for many good reasons that have been articulated, whether by the minister responsible or by the other members who have spoken thus far. If we use the province of Quebec as an example, which has really inspired us to bring forward this legislation, we need to recognize the French language and its historic significance here in Canada. I feel very fortunate being from Winnipeg, where we have a very healthy francophone community in Saint Boniface, Winnipeg and in many rural areas such as St. Pierre Jolys. My family's roots went from Quebec to St. Pierre Jolys to Transcona Yards and, finally, to Winnipeg's north end. At the end of the day, we have a healthy and vibrant francophone community in the province of Manitoba with, no doubt, members of Parliament, members of the Manitoba legislature and city councillors. In fact, at one point Saint Boniface was a city of its own, but things do change. Populations dictate that we need to take a look at the boundaries. There are special considerations that do need to be looked at. I will use the example of French and the francophone community, which we have recognized in the past through guarantees, such as that for Prince Edward Island that the number of House of Commons seats will never be fewer than what is in the Senate chamber. We have it in terms of the territories, as was pointed out earlier. We have it in terms of ensuring that there is a base number that has been adjusted to take into consideration what was going to be happening in the province of Quebec, but if this legislation passes, we would address that issue. I see that as a very strong positive. I would like to think that, if people want to support that idea and ensure we have the base for that, we should receive unanimous consent for this legislation. It will be interesting to see what my friends in the Bloc will do with this particular piece of legislation. I believe that the people of Quebec would, in fact, support the legislation, and I would encourage the Bloc to do likewise. Elections Canada is recognized around the world as an outstanding, independent institution. In fact, Canada is respected as a very healthy and vibrant democracy. In good part, we owe it to the people of Canada and those who put their names on the ballot, whether they win or lose, and the hundreds of thousands of people who volunteer in the elections process. All of that comes together and is organized in a apolitical fashion through Elections Canada. Every 10 years, electoral commissions are established. In Canada, we will have 10 of them, one for each province where there will be the redistribution of boundaries. They can be very significant changes. I have gone through boundary changes, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. There is a great deal of interest from elected officials and from individuals who are looking at whether they want to run in the future as potential candidates. To the public, as a whole, community leaders will be looking and asking where their community will be after the redistribution. In most parts, we want to try to hold communities together. For example, Tyndall Park is well-identified community in Winnipeg North and I would not want to see Tyndall Park divided. Elections commissions are able to do that more often than not. It is more of a common thing, especially in urban centres, but it is not always done. We could take a look at Winnipeg North and go to Amber Trails. A portion of Amber Trails is actually in another federal riding outside of Winnipeg North, yet it is perceived as one community at the local level. There are restrictions and things that have to be taken into consideration. We often hear about vast, rural ridings versus highly concentrated ridings, and what sort of population bases should a representative actually have. Back in 1988, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, I believe there were 26 MLAs in the city of Winnipeg and 31 MLAs in rural Manitoba. Today, if we look at it, there are 31 MLAs in the city of Winnipeg and 26 MLAs in rural Manitoba, as the city of Winnipeg has grown. We see that there is a balance that has been taken into consideration. If we look at the last provincial boundary redistribution, we will see that out of the 57 ridings, I believe 56 of them actually had modifications to the boundaries. The same principles apply, at least in part, where we will see some fairly significant changes to federal boundaries. After all, there are going to be some new ridings, but there is also going to be significant population shifts. Both of those have to be taken into consideration. In the last federal redistribution, the map originally proposed for Winnipeg North was actually quite different from what it is today. I remember working with the Progressive Conservative member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul, Joy Smith, on this redistribution. We sat down and talked about how what was being proposed for Winnipeg North did not seem to make too much sense. Having two members of Parliament from different political parties work together helped when it came to the presentation to the commission, and ultimately it was changed. I suspect a number of the presentations made to the commission were listened to. I say that because there is a process, which the minister made reference to. We know there are going to be new boundaries before the next election, and the process enables the public to have direct input, and when I say “the public”, it includes members of Parliament. The Province of Manitoba is in fact starting the process of drawing the lines for the new boundaries. Manitoba has 14 ridings. From a percentage point of view overall in Canada, its numbers did not increase to the same degree on a per capita basis as Alberta, Ontario and B.C., so it will remain at 14 seats. I would argue that we have seven or seven and a half urban Winnipeg rural seats and six or maybe six and a half rural urban seats. I look at Kildonan—St. Paul as an urban rural seat. I know that between the next couple of weeks and October, the independent elections commission will be looking for feedback on the boundaries that will be drawn in the coming days and weeks. The results will be published, and there will be a great deal of interest in what those new boundaries are going to look like. I anticipate that the commission will, as it has in the past, try to accommodate individuals to have in-person meetings as well as submissions of ideas and proposals. When the final maps come out after the original drawings and consultations, they will ultimately come back to Parliament. I believe they will also go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would think there would be virtually no changes made. I do not know if that has been the case historically, but I suspect that the only real changes we might see once we get the final report will be of a naming nature. Members of Parliament might reflect on what they heard from the community and might find it appropriate to change the name of the constituency on the final map. Ultimately, it will pass through the House and come into effect on a certain date. If there is no election before that date, then the new boundaries will take effect. Then there are party infrastructures, political infrastructures. Political parties will have to reorganize based on the new boundaries, the 340 new ridings, and significant amounts of money will go into those newly constituted ridings in the form of transfers from old ridings. There are all sorts of infrastructure that will need to be worked on to ensure that when the next election comes in 2025, which is at least what we are anticipating, political organizations throughout the country, whether they have elected representatives in Ottawa or not, can participate in each and every political riding. It also affords Elections Canada a way to put its machinery in place. In other words, it is not simple to do, but it is absolutely necessary. Every 10 years, when Statistics Canada provides the census reports, we will see those significant population shifts and the growth of Canada's population overall. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 38 million today, whereas 10 years ago I suspect it was probably closer to 34 million. Members should not quote me on that, but I believe it was around 34 million. Where permanent residents end up landing is, generally speaking, where there will be the need to make some of the changes. In terms of communities, I could speak of areas in my own community of Winnipeg North where there is a lot more growth. In Winnipeg, it is hard to grow in the inner city unless the growth is upward. Some cities, because of their density, are far more effective in growing upward. Examples are Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. We can see there is a need there.

Madam Speaker, Calgary is also one. Part of the discussion today is about space versus density or a rural community versus a high-density urban community. It is a different type of representation. At the end of the day, there are things that have to be considered and that I believe will be considered. The whole issue of representation has always been of interest to me. I can recall when the decision was made to reduce the size of the city of Winnipeg from 29 councillors down to 14 or 15. The idea was that if we enhance the ability of members to provide services, it helps them accommodate the growing population. Let there be no doubt that with 338 constituencies, Canada's growth in recent years of over a couple of million people, at the very least, means that the average population of constituencies is going to grow. One of the ways to compensate and ensure that members are able to provide the types of services constituents expect is to ensure that there is adequate financing for members to provide the services that are warranted. The whole area of boundary redistribution is of great interest to us as a government, to individuals and to Canadians, because it really does matter. The bill before us today reflects the interest of parliamentarians of all political stripes, rural and urban, in recognizing the importance of Quebec retaining 78 seats. I see that as a positive thing and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I think the best way I can answer that is to reflect on my home province and the francophone community, which has done exceptionally well and continues to grow, and I think that it is because there is a desire from the Manitoba legislature and from all political entities. I believe the French language will always be there in a very real and tangible way, because not only members of Parliament from Quebec but members of Parliament from all regions of the country see the intrinsic value of being a bilingual nation and will continue to fight for the French language, not only in the province of Quebec but in all regions of Canada. I believe that the more bilingual we are as nation, the healthier we are as a nation. I do not believe that the representation in my home province of Manitoba has deterred, in any way, the growth of French and the desire to see French being spoken.

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago I actually conducted some discussion on the issue of electoral inform in the Province of Manitoba. I can recall that the issue of 16-year-olds being able to vote was raised in high school settings in the communities of Dauphin and Steinbach in Manitoba, and what really amazed me was that some of the harshest critics of allowing that to occur were the 16-year-olds, the high school students. I think it is an interesting idea. Where it actually falls, I am not 100% sure. I do not know if the member might have already done this, but he might want to actually do some more canvassing among high school students. If we had more time, I would even welcome the opportunity to share going to a local high school, possibly here in Ottawa or even in Winnipeg, to be able to expand on that particular point, but I am open to all sorts of changes with regard to Elections Canada that would ultimately make our democracy healthier in the future.

Madam Speaker, I suspect the legislation will be, at least in spirit, moving toward the court decision of 1991. The member's colleague, the official opposition critic, detailed that quite well. With respect to the second part of the question, the only impact this legislation would have on the 10 independent commissions, from what I understand, is with respect to the province of Quebec and its commission, as they will have to wait to see whether or not the bill will pass. If it passes, it will have an impact on that commission. For the rest of the nine other commissions, it should not have any impact.

Madam Speaker, the member is welcome to come to Winnipeg, and I am more than happy to take him around so he can get that francophone feeling. For example, we could go to École Garden Grove or École Stanley Knowles, where he will see young children speaking French, English and, in many instances, either Punjabi or Tagalog. I could take him specifically to the St. Boniface area, where he would see an enriched, strong French flavour and many monuments to Louis Riel. I know the member is very supportive of that hero. We have a Louis Riel Day. We have the Festival du Voyageur. We have all sorts of special celebrations related to our francophone heritage. I would welcome the member and be happy to drive him around to visit some of those sites if he would like.

Madam Speaker, the member has been very positive in his words with regard to Bill C-14, and we look forward to seeing its passage. I am somewhat curious about recognizing the importance of timing, because there is a timing element to this. As I said, I believe Manitoba and maybe a couple of provinces are already starting to draw their boundaries, with the idea of providing a report and allowing for public consultation all the way up to October. The quicker the legislation passes, no doubt the easier it will be for Quebec's electoral commission. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on when he would ultimately like to see the bill pass.

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke seems to have a differing opinion from the official Conservative caucus position on this. I do not know if he was just expressing his personal position and he will be voting against the legislation, but my understanding was that the official opposition recognizes the true value of the legislation and is going to be voting in favour of it. I would like to assure the member that it was not the Bloc that influenced the government to bring forward the legislation. The Liberal caucus, as a whole, recognizes the true value of ensuring that we give that base floor, something which does not necessarily make the government unique. Even Conservative governments in the past have done the same thing. I would like him to provide his thoughts regarding how he will be voting on the legislation.

Madam Speaker, one of the single largest increases in the number of members of the House of Commons was under Stephen Harper. It went from 308 to 338. If we follow the logic of what the member is saying, we would think that it was the previous administration that deferred the decision on something that the member is being somewhat critical of us for not debating today. Does the member feel this might be a type of ongoing discussion, possibly in the format of an opposition day, in which we could continue to have this debate? I realize there is a need to ultimately see this bill pass so that the Quebec commission is able to continue to do its fine work.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in terms of what the member is talking about. It is a whole lot easier to get from Edmonton or Calgary, let us say, to Ottawa than it is from many Ontario communities. In fact, one might have to take a long drive to an airport to take another airplane to come to Ottawa: Canada's capital. My concern is that, number one, the member should not try to give the impression that one has to live close to Ottawa to have influence. I like to consider that I carry some influence, as the member no doubt carries influence, and I am from Winnipeg. One does not have to be from Ottawa in order to have influence. That is my suggestion to the member. Second, with respect to the bill itself, would the member not recognize that the simplicity of the bill is to ensure that we recognize that no province should have a reduction in the number of seats based on the last federal election? Would he not agree, simply put, that this is a good thing and something worth voting for?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any order adopted by the House, as of April 25, 2022, at their discretion, witnesses appearing before any standing, standing joint, special, special joint or legislative committees may either do so in person, or by videoconference.

Mr. Speaker, I really and truly believe that French is such a beautiful language. It is something that pleases me a great deal when we go to schools, bilingual schools, in the north end of Winnipeg, such as Stanley Knowles or Garden Grove, and we see individuals of, let us say, Filipino heritage being able to speak French, English and Tagalog, or of Indo-Canadian heritage speaking French, English and Punjabi. I am wondering if my colleague can talk about the benefits of how Canada has been evolving, where more and more young people and children, through bilingual programs, have recognized the true value of and just how beautiful the French language is and why we need to continue to support our schools.