Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I think members need to reflect and show empathy as opposed to sympathy. Imagine if we had one of the businesses or were an individual waiting in need for this legislation. Anything that causes an unnecessary delay would cause some anxiety. We should be promoting and talking about buying local. It may have even been a Conservative member who started this, but we have been talking about it for quite a while within our caucus. Now is a great time to support some of our local businesses. There is a wonderful plant store in Winnipeg North. There is also the Jeepney Restaurant and the Water Plant. There are so many local businesses in our communities, and Christmastime might be a nice time for us to promote our local small businesses.

Madam Speaker, back in October, the Prime Minister talked about why we needed to continue to support our communities. Supporting communities means healthier communities. The Prime Minister talked about Bill C-2 back in October. In essence, it is the first real bill. We also have Bill C-1, although I do not know exactly what its contents are offhand. However, in my books, Bill C-2 is the most important bill. That is why it was listed as the first priority coming in, and opposition members have known about it for many weeks, going on months now.

Madam Speaker, with respect to the government, the member believes he has found a number of flaws. At times, we will no doubt have to agree to disagree, and he will continue to advocate on that. However, I appreciate and want to recognize that the member, at the very least, sees the bill as one piece of legislation and to advance the issue, it is important that we keep the bill as one. I suspect he is not going to lose any of his enthusiasm for critiquing the government based on his speech. This is more of an open comment and an expression of appreciation for recognizing the value and importance of the bill to all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, when we look at the motion before us, one of the suggestions the Conservatives have put forward is that a minimum of 15% of federal real estate and properties in Canada be converted. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage pointed out, 35.7 million of those hectares are from Parks Canada. Let us keep in mind that the figure the Conservatives are talking about is 41 million. If we do the math and add Parks Canada, Environment Canada or National Defence together, it adds up to 39 million or 40 million hectares. The Conservatives are talking about 41 million. Their numbers just do not make sense. Would the member opposite agree that some fundamental flaws in the Conservatives' basic arithmetic just do not seem to make sense? Could he provide his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, my question is about the broader context of the motion that has been brought forward. Members of the Liberal caucus have been challenging the opposition to provide some detail as to where they believe they will get the minimum 15% from Canada's land bank given that, in essence, our military, Environment Canada and Parks Canada have close to 90% of it. Where did the Conservatives get their numbers? Did they pull them out of the sky? Is there any substantiation to justify the numbers they are talking about?

Madam Speaker, I want to expand upon the question I posed to my colleague across the way. There are serious fundamental flaws with this motion. Over the years I have seen many opposition motions. When I look at this motion, I really do not know where it is coming from. I do not know what math the member for Carleton, who is likely one of the authors behind it, used. I want to be very specific about clause (a), which reads, “review and consolidate all federal real estate and properties in Canada in order to make at least”, and I would underline this part, “at least 15% available for residential development”. The member who introduced the motion said there are 41 million hectares, so it would be 15% of that 41 million hectares. Basic math tells me that we are talking about over six million hectares.

The Conservative member says it is ridiculous. It is a Conservative motion. I agree it is ridiculous. Let us think about it. Parks Canada has 35.7 million hectares, Environment Canada has 2.3 hectares and National Defence has 2.2 million hectares. If we add up those three, it equals 40 million hectares. The Conservatives are saying 15% of 41 million, so are they suggesting that we get rid of parklands? Yes, based on their own numbers, they are. I do not understand where the Conservatives are getting their numbers. When we read the motion, we see that this is just one example. Most take housing very seriously. Some understand that the national government has a role to play. I have been a parliamentarian long enough to have witnessed Conservatives oppose any sort of investment in housing from a national government perspective. When I was first elected back in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I was given two titles: deputy whip and critic for housing. Provinces play a critical role in housing. Municipalities are creations of provincial laws passed in provincial legislatures. Municipal and provincial governments have predominantly played the lead role in housing in Canada. I remember having a debate with NDP member of Parliament Bill Blaikie back in 1993, in which I said the national government needed to play a stronger role in housing, but Bill Blaikie argued that was not the case. I represent a riding in Winnipeg North where there has been a need for social housing for decades. It was marginally addressed in 15 years of a provincial NDP administration. Political parties of all stripes need to do a little reflection and come to the table about what can be done, but to say that this government has not been concerned about housing is so misleading. We would have to go back generations, 50-plus years, to find a prime minister or government that has done more for housing at the national level. The opposition could not show, over the last 50 or 60 years, a prime minister who has committed more financial resources to support Canada's housing. That can be substantiated by real dollars and real commitments. It is easy for the NDP to click their heels and say it will build 500,000 homes. I kind of miss Adam Vaughan. He had a way of expressing the degree in which the Liberal Party and this government understood the housing issue and the many ways in which we were tackling that problem. However, I can tell members that it will take more than the federal government to resolve this issue. Yes, the federal government has a role to play. Since 2015, we have seen hundreds of millions to billions of dollars go to the first-ever national housing strategy, which was put in place by the Prime Minister, by this government, which is something no other opposition party in the last six years, or prior to that, argued for. There are plans out there, and there are real, tangible dollars being put forward and on the table. However, we recognize that we need to get partners. We have worked very hard at having provinces and municipalities do what they can and play the role they need to play. We have a very proactive Minister of Housing, and he is out in the communities virtually every day. We thought of making him an honorary member of Parliament for Manitoba because of his interest in Manitoba and the presence he has had in the province of Manitoba. He genuinely cares for all regions of our country and understands the issues of housing, whether it is in Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax or the many rural municipalities out there. We understand, whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, how important it is that we fight to have adequate homes for all Canadians where they can feel comfortable. We can provide that hope. This is something we are not only striving for, but that we can also cite examples of. However, when we talk about those examples, opposition members will say that we are patting ourselves on the back. This government has likely accomplished more on housing than the previous Harper government. I do not know the actual number, but I think we are at or getting close to 100,000 homes or units in the last number of years under this administration. There are about 300,000 that the government has assisted with in some form of repair. There is also the ongoing support of tens of thousands of non-profit housing units, which is something the federal government continues to commit to and look at ways of expanding. I hear, especially from my New Democratic friends, talk about the importance of housing co-ops, and I agree. Housing co-ops are important, which is one of the reasons we were there, shortly after we got elected back in 2015, to support housing co-ops that were having great difficulty because of mortgages and related issues. We supported a number of housing co-ops, and the minister is very open to looking at how we can expand housing co-ops. We want to talk about a resolution, and the NDP members are not too far off on this. They are talking about indigenous leaders coming forward to the table with indigenous housing plans. We have to appreciate indigenous people's housing needs and how we can support it. However, there are many other types of housing programs. If we take a look at Canada's housing stock, we get a better appreciation. There is a need for us to make sure that we maintain that housing stock. We came out with a program just last year called the Canada greener homes grant. It is $5,000 for people to improve their homes. A few hundred thousand people could be eligible for that particular grant. That improves the quality of homes in our current housing stock, which does help out significantly. It is better for our environment. It creates jobs. It improves the housing stock. I am a big fan of encouraging and promoting members in our communities to get engaged in housing co-ops. Housing co-ops and condominiums are great ways to get people engaged in ensuring they will be able to have ownership because there is a big difference between a tenant and someone who is a resident in a co-op. A resident in a co-op has a vested interest. It is his or her community in a very real way. It is a big difference from being a tenant, and I am a strong advocate of it, as I know many of my colleagues are. We have organizations in our communities, and I want to give a special shout-out to Habitat for Humanity Canada, particularly here in my city of Winnipeg. Habitat for Humanity has done more than three levels of government for building new homes in our communities. It definitely has done a super fantastic job in Winnipeg North. Whether it is in Point Douglas, along Selkirk Avenue, in the Maples or everywhere in between, new homes have been popping up in Winnipeg North, and it is because of Habitat for Humanity. The work they do bring people together to ensure that people who would not normally have the ability to get a home do, in fact, become homeowners. I have raised this organization as a model organization that government should get behind, and I am glad that the federal government today is providing some support. I would appeal to the current minister to continue that support. Habitat for Humanity is an organization that I believe has a very important role to play in dealing with the housing crisis we are in. The people who are involved in organizations like Habitat, because there are other organizations, also need to be taken into consideration. We have resident groups, as an example, in our communities. We have advocates for people who are financially challenged. We have people who do not have homes. There are so many people who are out there. The idea of having that debate on the floor of the House is far better than what is being proposed today, even though I am still allowed to talk about it, but that is not what we are actually voting on. What we are voting on has significant flaws to it. I made reference to the land usage, and yes, we need to see more land and more homes. That is nothing new. We all know that, but it is not going to be the federal government releasing 41 million hectares and closing down our parks and so forth. The way we are going to see the number of homes that are needed being built is not by Ottawa opening the purse and building them all. Ottawa needs to keep doing what it has been doing, coming to the table with substantial financial resources, working with the different organizations and levels of government, trying to develop a strategy that will see more homes being built in our communities. That is why the motion before us misses the mark. The primary recommendations I would have put forward in a resolution dealing with housing in Canada would be all-encompassing. They would address the finances, but I do not believe there is a member in the House who can say that as a government we have not committed enough financial resources. If members attempt to do that, I would ask them to reflect on their own election platforms. We are at the table. We want to work with the different stakeholders toward a resolution that encourages not only Ottawa, but provincial jurisdictions of all political stripes and municipalities of all different sizes to recognize that we have a national situation, from coast to coast to coast, with which Canadians want us to deal. We want to build the consensus. We want to see the different levels of government move forward on the file. We want to empower the many different stakeholders that have the ability to contribute. The riding of Winnipeg North has a lot of things within it that could be carried throughout the country, such as the demographics and economic fabric of the community. In Amber Trails, for example, beautiful brand-new homes are being built, ranging from $600,000 to $700,000 or even more. More modest homes, around the $300,000 range, are being built in Tyndall Park. Some of the older and more established homes with a great deal of character are in the traditional north end, ranging from $150,000 to $200,000 in the Point Douglas area. I could be out somewhat with my prices, but the point is that we need to take a holistic approach to dealing with housing in Canada. For the first time in generations, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Housing and the Liberal caucus are committed to being at the table and making a difference when it comes to housing. We would appeal to all members of the House of Commons to get on board, to realize what actually is on the table and to start to work with the different levels of government. They can talk to their MLAs, city councillors, rural municipal reeves and mayors, and reach out to organizations like Habitat for Humanity and the many other non-profit social progressive-minded organizations and others to tap into how they might be able to contribute to a housing plan, a plan that the Prime Minister and all of us want to see. People have a right to have a home. We need to continue talking about that and saying it. It is important we do that.

Madam Speaker, I am happy the member seems to be backing away from the Conservative idea of the 41 million hectares. He can read the speech of the Conservative member who brought that idea forward. I am happy to hear the Conservatives are retracting that. It makes sense. With regard to his specific question, the federal lands initiative is already happening today. He can look at it. I am very proud of the fact that in south Winnipeg, what used to be Kapyong Barracks is being redeveloped for housing, an indigenous-led initiative. We are very much aware of our current stock. That is why we established the federal lands initiative, to do exactly what—

Madam Speaker, in my closing comments, I spoke of this. If members generally believe what they are saying, one of the most important things they can do is talk to their provincial counterparts, city councillors, mayors, rural reeves and so forth. If we allocate the money and some of that money is tied to provincial and municipal participation and prioritization, that is partnerships. I suspect that not all of the money will be spent, but at least, for the first time in generations, we have a Prime Minister and a federal government saying we have a role to play. We are going to play that important role in dealing with housing in all regions of Canada.

Madam Speaker, one thing I realized early in politics is that statistics can be easily manipulated. The member is trying to leave the impression that 150 or a thousand or so housing units that were being subsidized are no longer being subsidized. I would have to look into that a little more. Maybe she can provide that information for me. I would be more than happy to take a look at it. One only needs to take a look at the national housing strategy. Never before, in the history of Canada, has such a dollar commitment been seen—

Madam Speaker, when I was with the Weston Village Residents’ Association, one of the things we did was establish the Weston residents co-op. Very early after leaving the military, I understood and appreciated the true value of housing co-ops. Shortly after coming to the government benches, we provided the assurances to many co-ops in Canada in regard to the mortgage issue that would have caused a great deal of relief for the future of co-ops. Many members within the Liberal caucus are very strong advocates for housing co-ops, because it is an excellent form of housing. We need to expand upon it.

Madam Speaker, I should know better. My advice for the Conservative opposition members would be to delete paragraph (a) and then they do not have to worry about taking away parks from Canadians. While they are doing that, please delete paragraph (c) as well, because paragraph (c) says “commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences.” That is just a silly thing to say, because we have been saying that for a long time.

Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons I was surprised to see the motion. I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper virtually ignored the housing issue. In my comments, I made reference to the fact that all levels of government have an important role to play when it comes to housing in Canada. That is why I am very proud of the fact that for the first time in generations, we have a Prime Minister and a national government that recognizes that importance and has not only put the money on the table, but is working diligently with organizations and different levels of government to improve our housing stock and supply.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see the Conservatives backtrack somewhat on this motion, and I have read the motion. The person who introduced the motion made it very clearly about 41 million hectares and at least 15% of that. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the critic stand up and introduce it, and then farther down the speaking line have the finance critic say that he did not know what he was talking about. Let us be clear. Does the Conservative Party realize that it made a mistake, and that maybe it should amend its resolution so it reflects what the member for Carleton is saying and not what their critic said at the beginning?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I could probably agree on the ways in which organizations in our communities can contribute positively to our current situation. Where I am inclined to somewhat disagree with the member is that the Conservatives seem to be of the opinion that there are vast quantities of land, millions of hectares, that the federal government can convert, taking it away from Parks Canada, National Defence and Environment Canada. That makes up 95%. They are talking about millions of hectares. I am wondering if the member could explain to the House where the Conservatives got that number from. Was it the member for Carleton who said there were millions of hectares of land that we could convert? Where did they get the six million number from?

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on something. Today, after question period, there was a question posed for unanimous consent. That unanimous consent would have meant that a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences would be a no-go factor. The Liberal government said that we wanted the Conservatives to be onside to vote against it, but the Conservatives denied that motion to even come forward. Does the member not recognize that there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative Party? With the 15% of land that is going to be available, what parks are they going to shut down or take land from in order to fulfill that commitment?

Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to support the motion, for many different reasons I articulated earlier today. I am asking the member to recognize, if we are going to be successful at overcoming the housing crisis in Canada, that the national government has been at the table historically with this Prime Minister. We have not seen the dollars, financial resources and commitment brought to this particular issue in generations. We would have to go back 60 years or 70 years. We have a Prime Minister and a government committed to the housing file, but we also need provincial governments and municipal governments. How important is it that provinces and cities continue to work with the national government to try to resolve this issue?

Madam Speaker, the Conservative/Bloc coalition is somewhat demonstrated through this motion. I kind of feel sorry for the Bloc, in that the Conservatives obviously did not share the motion with them before instructing them to support it. No doubt there would have been some changes. We heard from a couple of members of the Bloc that there are flaws in the motion. I am not going to vote for this motion because I believe it is fundamentally flawed. I do not see the positive of misleading Canadians in this particular motion. I do not believe that we should be looking at closing down some of the parklands to provide additional housing. Those are the types of things that are incorporated, along with other misleading information. Does the member not recognize that, yes, the federal government does have a role? I am glad the Bloc has conceded that the federal government does have a role to play in housing, but so do the provincial and municipal governments. We can talk to MLAs and city councillors, working—

Madam Speaker, part of the problem is that members do not necessarily know. The example just given is happening today. Civil servants are already looking at buildings with the idea of conversion. In fact the member who asked the question will know about Kapyong Barracks, former federal land now being converted to indigenous-led housing. This motion is fundamentally flawed. There is all sorts of misinformation and the numbers just do not add up, yet the Bloc is cozy with the Conservatives and is supporting it blindly. Would the member not rather support a motion that provides for co-op housing and other progressive measures, some of which the member himself referred to? Why not have that in a housing motion, a motion that calls upon the federal government to work with other stakeholders to make it happen? I wonder if the member would prefer a motion of that nature, as opposed to what he is obligated to vote in favour of today.

Madam Speaker, the member said “this good motion”. Even the Conservatives' coalition partners in the Bloc agree that this is not a good motion. They will still vote for it, but it is not a good motion. We have a government that has invested historic amounts into social housing. The member across the way would not be able to point to another government that has ever invested as much in national housing. My question for the member is this. Does he recognize the hypocrisy of the Conservatives? They are now calling for the federal government to act on social housing, when Stephen Harper did absolutely zip with respect to that, while this government has invested historic amounts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, two copies of the 2021 access to information and privacy reports for the following: the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces; Military Grievances External Review Committee; Military Police Complaints Commission; Communications Security Establishment and Non-Public Property; and Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces. While I am on my feet, I move: That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Madam Speaker, I see what is happening today as a very strong signal of the government's priority. I applaud my New Democrat friends for recognizing that by allowing us to move to orders of the day. Whether the government is supporting our businesses or individuals, the pandemic is still there, as the minister has referred to. We need to have the backs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and this particular legislation is going to support them in a tangible way. We are talking about disposable income and saving jobs, and this is really important to all of us. Given the relatively short time span and the importance of passing this legislation, would the minister not agree that pushing it through in this manner will provide peace of mind? That is what I want: peace of mind for Canadians so they know the House of Commons is still there to support them through this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we recognize is that Canadians afforded the House of Commons a minority government. This means that the government does work, has worked and will continue to work with opposition parties as best as it can to speed up legislation, as legislation does require the support of another party to pass. In the past, we have been sometimes supported by New Democrats, and sometimes by members of the Bloc. We have even had support from the Conservatives. The majority of members of Parliament are saying we should proceed quickly on a piece of legislation for whatever reasons, just as, I trust, the Bloc will identify an important piece of legislation. Based on that, would the member not agree that this says a lot about the urgency to get this bill through for our health care workers and for workers because it is in the best interests of both?

Mr. Speaker, the feedback I have received on the legislation has been very encouraging, such as health care stakeholders recognizing that Ottawa parliamentarians see and understand what they have had to go through with the protests. During the debate, I found out that the Province of British Columbia was also bringing forward paid sick leave. I believe it is for five days. The federal legislation covers a much smaller percentage of the workforce. Would the member agree that by the national government providing action on sick leave, we could see provincial jurisdictions following suit and, to that end, workers across Canada would benefit? Could he just provide his thoughts on the leadership role that Ottawa can play on progressive legislation such as this?

Madam Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute, and recognizing the enormous value that our forces and those who supported our forces provided in Afghanistan at a time of need. Beyond that, the first thing that comes to my mind is to ask where that advocacy was when I was in the opposition and asking for English translators in Afghanistan to be able to come to Canada in the first place? Stephen Harper and his regime resisted. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied here. It is important that we be consistent, as I have been, whether in opposition or in government.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the member could expand on this. Parliament has a standing committee structure. It would seem to me that many of the issues or concerns the opposition wants to deal with could be dealt with by the foreign affairs committee. It has the ability to make those communicational links between the immigration committee and other committees that might warrant it. Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to our standing committees and the potential role they could play in this issue?

Mr. Speaker, the member makes the appeal that we can do anything if the political will is there. There is a great deal of goodwill, I would suggest, that comes from all sides of the House in trying to resolve this in a co-operative manner. I reflect on the motion, and at the very least one could say it might be somewhat premature. We have standing committees if we want to look at the refugee file. I know the member opposite has always been fairly keen on the refugee issue. Would she not agree that one of the best ways we could deal with that specifically is to not only discuss it in the foreign affairs committee, but also take it to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where many members have a very active interest in the refugee file and could possibly have a lot to contribute to the debate in terms of how to be of help to Afghanistan? Would she not agree that that is also a good thing to do?

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of others and would be interested in the member's response to it. We have standing committees on foreign affairs, immigration and defence. They have been known to coordinate in the past. There would be more involvement by members of Parliament. I am wondering if the member believes that our standing committees have a role to play in this. Should they be pushed to the side in favour of this motion?

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting and important discussion we are having today. Earlier I posed a question to the leader of the official opposition, and prior to asking the question, I commented on what we share in common. The aspect both of us agree on is our appreciation and love for members of the Canadian Forces and, over and above them, service members who were engaged in what took place in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan issue has been before the House of Commons at many different points in time over the last decade or more. In fact, it very much predates my first election to the House of Commons back in 2010. I want to approach the issue of process first and foremost as a parliamentarian and second as someone who has gone through the election and heard what the Leader of the Opposition and other members talked about regarding the election call, priorities and so forth. Back in the day there was a war taking place in Iraq, and there was a great deal of pressure on then prime minister Jean Chrétien that we be engaged. We were being criticized, from what I can remember, by the Conservatives for not committing. I believe the NDP was opposed to it. The former prime minister, back in the day, made the decision that Canada would not get directly involved, even though the Americans wanted us to be. We argued that we wanted to work with the United Nations and others in dealing with the issue of terrorism and the other issues that were taking place in that area of the world. The decision was made somewhere in the early 2000s, in 2001 or 2002, that Canada would have a presence with members of our forces. We should never take that lightly. We have heard members indicate they have served. The former minister of defence is, from my perspective, a hero. I believe he has served two or three terms in Afghanistan or in that area of the world. There are a number of other members of Parliament who have served. I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces, but that was in the early eighties so I was never deployed. However, on November 11, I would be walking with World War II veterans in parades, which was immediately followed by going to the legions and listening to the horror stories of World War II. The sacrifices made by members of the Canadian Forces are important to recognize, and we need to state very clearly that we will never forget and that where we can learn, we will learn. At the end of the day, I believe that not one Liberal member of Parliament is saying there is nothing we can learn from what has taken place. There are already standing committees, and there is nothing that prevents standing committees from dealing with what is being proposed today by the official opposition. I believe there is a bit of politics in the motion. Those who say there is no politics in it should read some of the speeches provided by the leader of the official opposition. Members cannot tell me there is no politics within the motion, because there is. If opposition members believe it is time we put politics to the side, at least at the onset of this, I suggest they are undermining the potential value of our standing committees. They are proposing a committee that would have, I believe, 12 members. Standing committees such as foreign affairs should absolutely be dealing with it. In fact, it could even be coordinating with our other two standing committees on immigration and defence. More resources and more members of Parliament would all be able to contribute, if in fact what the official opposition said was true: that it is not on a political witch hunt, but is trying to get a better understanding of what has taken place. Let us see what happens in the standing committees. Depending on what takes place, there might need to be a follow-up motion of this nature. Anything before that, I would argue, is somewhat premature and possibly politically motivated. This is not the first time Afghanistan has been the type of issue it is today. In 2009, when we were in a minority and the Conservatives were in government, the production of papers was always an important issue. We recognize and understand that. That is why the government House leader, the other day, stood in this place and provided an option to deal with what was happening with the Winnipeg lab and the records that were being demanded by members of the opposition. He put something on the table that would alleviate the concerns parliamentarians had with regard to the release of documents. When we were in official opposition and the Conservatives were in government and there was a need for documents that could potentially be of interest in terms of national security and beyond, an agreement was signed by Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and the leader of the Bloc. They understood that a blanket motion, such as the motion that we have seen today, was not in our best interests. Let me go back. I said earlier that as a parliamentarian, I was very interested in one aspect of the motion. I will read that part. It is really interesting. When I was in opposition, there is no way I would have supported a motion of this nature. The Conservatives are saying: [A]ny proceedings before the committee, when hybrid committee meetings are authorized, in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved.... The Conservatives talk about parliamentary tradition, but there seems to be a bit of a double standard here on the standing committees, or at least the standing committees that I have participated in. I would ask my colleagues from the opposition, if they are going to vote in favour of this, to tell me that this is another standing committee, especially if the Conservatives are in government. They are saying that whether a member is in the government or the opposition, members will not be able to continue to have dialogue and ask questions. It was interesting to listen to the leader of the official opposition when he was giving his comments. He said that maybe if the New Democrats did not work with the Liberals, they would be able to get this thing passed. It is kind of a bit of a rub with the NDP. We all recognize that, yes, the NDP play a very important role in this and, yes, the Conservatives can maybe shame the NDP into supporting what they are trying to do here, but from a parliamentarian's perspective, I do not believe that it is a healthy motion that deserves the support of the House of Commons. It needs to be amended, at the very least. The Conservatives would never advocate for that for opposition members in other standing committees, because they understand the importance of a member's right to be able to say something in the standing committees. At times there is a need to get things through, and unfortunately there are limits that are put into place from time to time, but I do not believe, given the subject matter we are talking about and the makeup of the committee, that this aspect of the motion is good. The motion states that: (vi) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in both official languages within one month of the adoption of this order, with any proposed redaction which, in the government's opinion, could reasonably be expected (A) to compromise national security, military tactics or strategy of the armed forces of Canada or an allied country It goes on to talk about the need for national security, so within the motion itself it is realized that there are very sensitive documents that one has to have a higher security clearance level to deal with. We already have a standing committee that can deal with the issues that are being proposed. We are a part of the Five Eyes, which as of today has an all-party agreement and the security clearance to deal with this. We already have a motion on the floor from the government House leader, as I pointed out, to deal with the lab and the release of documents that have security concerns through the Department of Health. There is an arbitration mechanism. There is a wonderful opportunity for all parties. It is a very apolitical mechanism. Where is the official opposition, in particular, in terms of wanting to genuinely come to the table and say, “Okay, let's work this thing through”? It can be done if the opposition has the political will to make it happen. Where we agree is on the need to look into these matters and to pose these questions. It is not just members of the opposition who have questions. There are many government members who have questions and they, too, want to hear answers. We are not trying to hide anything. That is not the intent of the government, but much like when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and another issue regarding Afghanistan was before the House, an agreement was put in place that involved the three larger parties in the House: the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. What has changed, other than that the Liberals are on the government benches and the Conservatives are on the opposition benches? Does the Conservative Party have no interest now in trying to resolve this? When passing this motion, which is yet to be determined, I would hope that members of the House would take a look at what is being asked of them. In 2001, there was participation in some form or other from the Canadian Forces. I do not know the details of what it was. In 2002, the Canadian Forces really began to be deployed. In 2006 or 2007, the forces were deployed in a much larger number, and in 2014 the then government pulled the Canadian Forces out. In that period of time, 159 members of the Canadian Armed Forces died as a result of being engaged in Afghanistan, not to mention the injuries and the psychological issues that have followed, and not including the non-military personnel. I believe that we owe it to those people to make sure that we do this correctly and appropriately. At least at the very beginning, let us take the politics out of it. There is a need to show compassion. Members have mentioned that during the election we said 20,000 refugees. In 2015, when there was a crisis in Syria, we committed to 25,000 refugees. The Conservatives seemed to indicate that we would not be able to do it: that it was just an election gimmick. We more than surpassed that, by huge numbers. We take very seriously the commitments that we have made. We talk now about 40,000. The member makes reference to those who supported the Canadian Forces. I remember talking to the media when I was in opposition about English translators supporting our Canadian Forces, and the need to accommodate them. It was in 2013 or 2014 that we first raised the issue and challenged the government to respond to that need. We do not need to be told. We understand. We know what Canadians expect of the government. We will hit our targets that the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about, and the commitments coming from the Ministry of Defence. I really believe that the opportunity to provide humanitarian aid is there today. Our global diplomats have a focus on the refugee situation. I applaud those civil servants and diplomats who are going through some very difficult files seven days a week. I believe that the government is open to ideas, whether from members of the Liberal caucus or members of the opposition caucuses. At the end of the day, I believe there are things we can learn from this. I am just not convinced that the motion before the House is really in our best interests. I understand why the official opposition has moved the motion, and I suspect that other opposition parties might be following suit. Maybe there could be some potential amendments. If the opposition came to the government and talked about it, maybe we could resolve this in a positive way, just like the positive resolution in 2010 that Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper and the leader of the Bloc signed off on. They did so because they recognized the importance of national security and the interests of Canada and of all the thousands of people who were directly affected by the release of information. That is why I would have much rather preferred to see negotiations before getting to this point. My challenge to opposition members is to never give up on the negotiations. Bringing forward motions of this nature is an easy way out.

Mr. Speaker, when I sat in opposition, I stood up for translators and argued that they should be able to come to Canada, given the service they had provided our nation. I believe most, if not all, parliamentarians recognize the valuable contributions locals in Afghanistan performed, endangering their lives in many different ways. We are all concerned. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and this government have made the solid commitment of 40,000 refugees. We will hit that target, and if anyone needs to be convinced of that, one needs only to look at the commitment we made to Syrian refugees, when we more than hit the target of 25,000 we set back then. That sense of commitment is there. The passion and compassion are on all sides of this House, as we all want to resolve this in a positive fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I would turn to the agreement signed by Gilles Duceppe, the member's former leader, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper. They recognized that there was very sensitive information, yet an agreement was achieved and documents were shared. We are not saying we should not be studying this issue. The government is not saying that. There are questions on how to best do that. The government House leader made a recommendation on Health Canada and the lab issue, which would allow for it. Given the political desire to deal with this issue in an apolitical fashion, why not allow for negotiation to draw this to a conclusion? Instead, the opposition party is trying to force the government or the Speaker to make a ruling. This can be negotiated; it should be negotiated.

Mr. Speaker, the member knows Mr. Christopherson from Hamilton. I would sit in committee with Mr. Christopherson, on such topics as on the Elections Act, and he would talk endlessly. As much as I would get a bit bored of what the member was saying, I respected what he was attempting to do. I believe that, through standing committees, we can negotiate compromises that will improve upon things. Whether it is in provincial legislatures, here in Ottawa or in parliaments around the world, filibusters do, at times, improve situations. I would appeal to members to consider what should be done here. This motion is, in fact, premature. There is an obligation in this House to attempt to negotiate the best interests prior to bringing forward a motion of this nature. I wish that is what had happened. If Gilles Duceppe, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper could negotiate on an Afghanistan issue back in 2010, why can we not do it here? Why is there this confrontation? I do not think the confrontation is necessary because we all agree that we want to look into it, study it and learn from it.

Mr. Speaker, there is the core of the problem, from my perspective. That is not accurate because, if there is an attempt to redact anything, the committee can say no and reverse it. This is one of the reasons. I would recommend the members take a look at the government House leader's response to the issue on the health labs, getting information and the mechanism that is set up. I believe that we need to have a mechanism to deal with national security and the best interests of the Canadian Forces, as well as the best interests of the public as a whole. That is what we need, and that is not within the motion.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot we can learn from the agreement achieved between the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives back when Stephen Harper was prime minister. There is a lot for us to learn. My suggestion to the opposition parties and, in fact, to all members, is to take a look at the advantages of negotiations. I know the government House leader is very open to talking this thing through and getting it resolved. Every member of Parliament, including Liberal members of Parliament, want to see a study on this take place.

Madam Speaker, the many issues to come out of Afghanistan, including its refugees, are of a great, serious nature. We recognize the value of having committees. I stood up to speak to our standing committees. The official opposition is spearheading this through this particular motion, yet I would rather have seen a negotiation take place among the different parties to ensure that it was depoliticized, that the politics were taken out of it. I think we owe that to members of the forces and those who have been engaged in what has been taking place virtually since 2001. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts, at least at the onset going into this, on whether we should be trying to depoliticize this so we can get right to the facts and have the necessary dialogue. Maybe at some other time in the future, if the opposition wants to make it political, they can do so. What are his thoughts?

Madam Speaker, no one in the Conservative opposition cares more or has more compassion for what is taking place in Afghanistan, whether we mean today, yesterday or back in 2001. No one owns a monopoly on the issue. We all care about the types of stories the member just finished raising in the House. Where we seem to differ is that the government is concerned about the confidentiality of secret documents, which is apparently something the Conservative Party does not care about. We do care about certain things that cannot become public information. The opposition knows that. That is why there was an agreement between Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and the Bloc party back in 2010. Whatever happened to the principle of ensuring secrecy? Why will the Conservatives not negotiate with the government so we can protect Canadian—

Madam Speaker, I am someone who advocated many years ago, when I was in opposition, that we get Afghan translators to Canada, and I do to this very day. I am joined by my Liberal caucus colleagues and all members of this House in recognizing how critically important it is that we open our doors and accept refugees from Afghanistan. There is no doubt about that. We also believe it is absolutely essential that our committees on defence, immigration and foreign affairs deal with this. Within the motion there are serious concerns about security. There is information that could potentially be harmful for Canada's future and the best interests of real people today. Does the member not have confidence in our standing committees? Why does he feel the Conservatives were unable to negotiate something? It seems to me to be a bit of an easy way out. Can he explain?

Madam Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the member's service and that of other members who have contributed to the debate. I thank them for that. We hear of so many heart-wrenching examples and the types of things that are happening there that are so horrific. I would not want members to give an impression that there are some members of the House who care less than other members. We all want to make a positive difference in what is happening in Afghanistan. Back in 2010, Stephen Harper was the prime minister; Michael Ignatieff was the leader of the Liberal Party and Gilles Duceppe was the leader of the Bloc party. The three of them came together to deal with the concerns that we are trying to deal with: the issue of security and confidentiality. An agreement was actually signed off on by those three leaders. Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Does the member believe there should have been some responsibility from the current opposition at least to achieve an agreement or, at the very least, let the standing committee—