Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I note that the NDP members, probably more than any other of the opposition parties, often talk about the need to have additional debate time. I want to reference the behaviour of the Conservatives today, and that is all I am specifically focused on right now. It lasted for about two and a half hours of chamber time. Had that not occurred and had we gone right into the process, it would have allowed for at least a two-hour period with 24 members being able to participate, for example in the budget debate, whether with longer speeches or questions and comments. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on these lost opportunities? In fact, we are trying to extend hours and the government is, to a certain degree, being frustrated even in using the hours that we currently have to deal with government business. Next week, we have two opposition days.

Madam Speaker, given today's behaviour from the Conservative Party in trying to prevent debate from taking place on this particular bill, can the member give any indication as to how long she thinks the Conservative Party will continue to delay the passage of it, or when she believes the Conservatives will stop playing their partisan political games so that we can start dealing with legislation and getting it passed for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

Madam Speaker, members of the House earlier today had a demonstration of another matter of privilege that went on for an excessive amount of time. The member is now standing up for yet another matter of privilege, and my concern, to get to the point of order, is that we might be witnessing the use of points of order to prevent members from being able to contribute to debate. I am wondering if you could ask the member if he could give any indication of how long he is going to be. Members are supposed to be concise in their comments.

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation bill is a continuation of the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians last year when he said we would be there in a very real and tangible way. We created programs to put disposable income in the pockets of Canadians and to support small businesses from coast to coast to coast. The budget implementation bill continues a lot of those programs. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we see the budget implementation bill pass, specifically to deal with the continuing pandemic?

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented. The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on. We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary. We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about. Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work. There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House. When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition. I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate. My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it. The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government. Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee. What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was. I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time. Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage. If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo. I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass. That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee. Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate. The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage. At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward. We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together. I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that. We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction. Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition. On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it. We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the NDP members are going to be supporting the motion at hand. Also, the NDP did not object when we made the suggestion, on at least three occasions, to sit longer in the evening to accommodate debate on important legislation. I think one time it was on the medical assistance in dying legislation. At times there is a need to have extended hours. We have attempted it in the past. We required unanimous consent, and unfortunately the Conservatives would not give it. It would be so much better if we could actually see a sense of commitment and could say, “Here is the time we could use on bill X,” then we would be able to pass it on to the committee stage, or get it out of committee in a reasonable fashion so there could be some debate time. I would suggest this window of opportunity is there to do two things: to facilitate more debate and to pass legislation that we know Canadians want us to move forward.

Madam Speaker, committee work is very important. I have always recognized the value of committee work. I wish the member who posed the question or the Conservative House leadership would value time, both in committee and in the House, and not only allow for debates to occur but to see things flow through. Could members imagine if the government used game play to prevent opposition motions or private member's bills from being able to pass? They are all set through a process of time to ensure that they happen. The Conservatives know full well that if they continue to talk or do not commit, it obligates the government to take action. It obligates us to work with another opposition party so that we can have a majority. We are prepared to do that wherever we can.

Madam Speaker, I think the question is best answered with two specific examples. If we reflect on what took place last Friday, we were supposed to deal with Bill C-10 at committee stage. A majority of members inside the House wanted to see limitations put on the committee so we would be able to get the bill back to the committee. In my opinion, the games that were played crossed the line. We saw the Chair occupant challenged inappropriately and harassed, I would suggest. There were all sorts of issues that took place on Friday. If I was a Conservative, I would be embarrassed by the behaviour. With respect to the election, the member is right. We knocked on doors telling seniors age 75 and over that we would bring that 10% increase. This budget bill, Bill C-30, which we want to pass, gives that 10% increase to those age 75 and over. It is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. That is why the Liberals are so passionate about getting our legislative agenda through, because in good part, they are commitments that we made in the last election—

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member that the feelings I often express are not mine and mine alone. Whether they are from my colleagues or constituents in Winnipeg, I think there are points that need to be made. If we can make those points and that helps shape the tone of the debate or causes additional legislation to pass, I would like to see that. I would like to think that my contributions will add value to what is being done inside the House of Commons. I am naive enough to believe that there are times when my contributions do add value. I realize there are other times where I could have said something a bit better or a little stronger, or possibly even toned it down somewhat. However, I understand the member's message.

Madam Speaker, I value the comment. I, like a majority of members inside the House of Commons, want to be able to sit these extra hours to ensure that we can contribute more to the debate on a wide selection of the very important issues I referenced, such as the environment with respect to net zero, the budget, the support of the Bloc to get Bill C-10 out of committee, which is so critically important, or the importance of the Bill C-6 legislation or Bill C-19. There is so much that is there that we can, through these additional hours, allow for more direct input from political entities in our respective parties and the individual opinions that members might want to express on the floor that reflect the concerns of their party or their constituents. At the end of the day, what we really want to be able to do is provide Canadians the types of supports they need to get out of this pandemic and at the same time—

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I will highlight the devastating news coming out of London, Ontario, with respect to terrorist action, and express condolences and offer prayers to the family and their friends. I will let my brothers and sisters within the Islamic and Muslim faith know that we do love and care for them. Our prayers are with the community. I have had the opportunity to listen throughout the day to the discussion we are having, and there are a number of things I want to highlight. One thing a member made reference to is the idea of jurisdiction. Maybe I can deal with that, at least in part. Ottawa does have a role to play, and we have demonstrated that very clearly. However, it is also important to recognize that this is about more than just the Government of Canada or the respective provincial or territorial governments. We will find that many municipalities are involved in housing. We will find that indigenous communities are heavily involved in housing. It is going to take a team effort to try to resolve this major issue, which exists in virtually all regions of our country. Since the Prime Minister took office, the government has made housing a priority, going back to 2015. In fact, members might recall that in 2017, we launched the national housing strategy, the first of its kind. I remember standing in the chamber talking about this massive, multi-billion dollar program. I think it was 70 billion dollars' worth of commitments. Never before had we witnessed that kind of a commitment to housing in Canada. We want to leave a mega footprint, recognizing that Ottawa does have a critical role to play. Many programs have been part of this strategy. The most recent ones that come to my mind are the programs for the rapid housing initiative. It is so nice to see that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, who has been to my home province of Manitoba on several occasions, is talking about housing and announcing things related to housing. We have a minister for housing who is truly committed, not only in good part through the initiative but in all aspects of the department, to making sure that we are there in a very real and tangible way. That is one thing I love about the rapid housing initiative: It is a program that will make a real difference. It was great to participate with the Municipality of Winnipeg on it. The minister, the mayor of Winnipeg and I, along with others, participated in an announcement in regard to it. I say all that because I believe it is important that we recognize, as the government has, that while Ottawa plays a role, there are many partners out there that need to equally step up to the table. I know that over the years some partners have been the table more than others. However, let there be no doubt that this government has been at the table from day one. I made reference to the rapid housing initiative. We could talk about the national co-investment fund and what an opportunity that is, or the rental construction financing initiative. The parliamentary secretary referenced the first-time home buyer initiative, which is helping thousands of Canadians buy their very first home. There are a number of ways we, as a government, are demonstrating leadership and working with stakeholders, in particular provinces, municipalities and indigenous leaders, to make a tangible difference. As the parliamentary secretary responsible indicates, there is always room for us to do even better, to strive to do better, and we will continue to focus more attention on the issue. Housing is a passion for a lot of members in the chamber. When I left the Canadian Forces back in 1985, I bought a little house on Logan Avenue in the west end of Winnipeg North and it cost me $23,000. It was a beautiful home that met my needs at the time. One of the first things I did was join the Weston Residents' Association. Weston is a beautiful little community, an older, more established community in Winnipeg. Through my experience of being involved there, I started to get a good understanding of the importance of housing revitalization, housing stock and housing affordability. Through that association, I ultimately became a board member of the Weston Residents Housing Co-op, which is still there today, providing housing to many people who likely would not have had the opportunity. I am a big fan of co-ops, as is this government and as I know the minister and the parliamentary secretary are. There is a huge difference between a housing co-op and someone renting in an apartment block. Those who live in an apartment block or a rented facility are tenants. Whether people rent a single detached home or an apartment in a high-rise apartment block, they are tenants. In a co-op, people are residents, and there is a significant difference. People in co-ops have something at stake. Not everyone is in a position, and some do not want, to take ownership of a home, but many do. In fact, the majority do. For most Canadians, it will be the single greatest expenditure they will have in their lifetime. I have heard about the dollar values, the prices of homes and the impact they are having. In the days after I left the military, I went into the Manitoba legislature in 1988, where my first responsibility was deputy whip and housing critic. I met with housing organizations, and there was a demand for non-profit housing units. Even back in 1988, there was a huge demand at the time for everything from revitalization to suburban growth, shelter allowances, just name it. A friend of mine, Doug Martindale, who was the president of one of the housing associations, later went on to become an NDP MLA. The need for housing has existed for a long time, and I would challenge any member of the House to tell me when there was a prime minister in the last 50 or 60 years who was more committed than we have been in the last five years on the housing file. Members will be challenged by that, because they will not find another prime minister or government in Canada that has been as committed to housing as the current government is. I always like to attribute my friend, the parliamentary secretary and member for Spadina—Fort York, as one of the most knowledgeable, able-minded individuals when it comes to non-profit housing and its importance in society. I have heard him speak many times. I know that within the industry here in Manitoba there is a great deal of respect for him because he wears his heart on his shoulder when it comes to advocating for social housing. As much as I might like to think, at times, that I can be pretty passionate about the importance of that particular issue, I may not be quite as knowledgeable as my colleague. However, I can tell members that there are many like me within the government caucus who continue to push the importance of housing. It is not just the Prime Minister or the cabinet, but the caucus, as a whole, wants to see those tangible programs, and we are seeing them. Before I comment on the most recent budget, I should provide some context. When we think of social housing and affordability, what are the types of things we are really talking about? We are talking about making sure that people have the ability to purchase homes and that people have the ability to stay in their homes. We know that the higher the rate of home ownership in a community, the greater the likelihood of that community being a better place to live. I do not have enough time to expand on that aspect, so I will ask people to take me at face value. When we take a look at the mix, we have the first-time home buyer program to assist first-time homebuyers. We have housing co-ops, and we are recognizing and looking at ways we can expand those. We have non-profit groups that are out there and co-investments that are prepared to contribute, not only financially, but also their time, energy and other resources in order to make sure we have better housing. In Manitoba, I believe we have over 20,000 non-profit housing units. It has been a long time since I looked at this number, so please do not quote me on the exact number. I believe it is over 20,000 non-profit housing units now that are subsidized. We have infill housing programs and ways we can encourage infill housing, such as supporting Habitat for Humanity, which has done more in Winnipeg North than any other government agency has in terms of infill housing. No other government agency has done more for housing than Habitat for Humanity, and my hat is off to that organization for the fabulous work it does in all regions in our country, but especially in Winnipeg North. I have a lot of time for that organization. Without that organization, many people would not have the opportunity to have the new homes they are working toward. It really matters having a progressive approach on the housing file. I have not seen that from the Conservatives. We are hearing that from many members during the debate who are not Conservative. How is it that this is a Conservative motion, as if the Conservatives really care about the issue of housing? There has really been no indication of that. The Conservative record with Stephen Harper, if we average it out, is about $250 million per year through investments in affordable housing programs. Meanwhile, we have invested well over $27 billion since coming into office and have committed, as I said, $70 billion. It is interesting listening to my Bloc friends. One member made reference to it being like health care. One has to understand and appreciate where the Bloc is coming from. Bloc members do not want Ottawa to administer, to assist with or to provide programs. All they want is for Ottawa to provide the cash. They do not recognize the important and vital role Ottawa can play, whether on a national housing strategy or a potential national pharmacare program. There is so much potential with what Ottawa can do. It can work with municipalities. It does not have to work just with provinces, as we have demonstrated. With the New Democratic Party, I thought it was interesting when the parliamentary secretary asked a very basic question of one of the speakers about the talk of having 500,000 homes and what the cost would be. NDP members have no idea. The amount of money they committed in an election platform was relatively small, and I am being generous here in my comments, compared to what we committed and spent, yet they still believe that somehow one just waves a wand and, poof, 500,000 homes are going to appear out of nowhere. We understand the importance of this issue to Canadians. We have a very progressive and active minister and parliamentary secretary on the file, and we will continue to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way on such an important file—

Mr. Speaker, if I could only have a bit more time, there is so much that one could talk about. We just went through question period, where the Conservative Party asked about eight questions on housing. What was going through my mind was that this might be more questions on that issue than the Conservatives have asked in the previous five years; I have not done the math. It is part of what I referenced earlier, that the Conservatives have surprised a number of people, whether members of the government, the Bloc or the NDP, with the introduction of this particular motion—

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that since 2015, the Government of Canada has made historic investments to increase supply, make housing more affordable and ensure that Canadians have places to call home. That is why there is so much irony in the Conservatives being the ones to bring forward this motion. The Government of Canada has committed and invested over $70 billion in the national housing strategy launched in 2017, as members will recall. The first-time home buyer incentive reduces a first-time buyer's mortgage payments to make buying a home more affordable. One of my favourites is the rapid housing initiative to address urgent housing needs for vulnerable Canadians in all regions of our country. In January of this year, our government introduced Canada's first national tax on vacant property owned by non-residents and non-Canadians. Houses should not be passive investment vehicles for offshore money: They should be homes for Canadian families. We have invested an unprecedented $300 million through the rental construction housing initiative. This is a government that genuinely understands and appreciates the need for a national government to be involved in housing. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, we recognize that Ottawa, the provinces and territories, indigenous governments and non-profit organizations all have roles to play. As I did earlier today, I would challenge any member of the House to name a prime minister or government to have done more, in terms of investing in housing, than we have in the last five years. Members will be challenged to do so because one does not exist. Members would probably have to go back 50 or 60 years, or even farther than that. It might even be that we have never seen these kinds of dollars invested by a government. We do not need to take any lessons from the Conservatives on the housing issue. In the most recent budget, we introduced the Canada greener homes grant. For people like me and the constituents I represent, this is a good, solid program that is going to help people stay in their homes. It will provide financial support for many necessary renovations. It is also better for the environment. This is an area of policy not only on which has the government been progressive, but in which we have seen tangible results in a relatively short time. This is a government that cares about our national housing stock and expanding, where we can—

Mr. Speaker, I wonder where that very same enthusiasm was when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, or Brian Mulroney or other prime ministers. If they are critical of this government on the housing file, I think members have to give their heads a shake. At the end of the day, we have seen not only investments but a national government working with indigenous communities and provinces and municipalities to improve the quality of our housing stock while at the same time supporting Canadians in being able to buy homes for the first time. If previous governments had done what we have been doing over the last couple of years, we would not be in the situation that we are in today.

Madam Speaker, I beg to differ with my friend. I think that Ottawa has a responsibility on the housing file, and part of that responsibility is to work with provinces, territories and municipalities, whether Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Halifax or Yellowknife, as well as with indigenous leaders and governments of all types to try to ensure that we have better overall housing conditions throughout the country. This is a file that we as a government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have given a great deal of attention to. We see it with the current Minister of Housing and his commitment to the many different programs that he is pushing very hard on, such as the rapid housing initiative. He has been in my home province on many occasions to promote that particular program.

Madam Speaker, the member is just wrong in terms of her assessments. If she were to check with the Minister of Indigenous Services, she would probably be better informed in terms of what is actually taking place on the issue of indigenous housing, which is being led and encouraged by indigenous community members today. In regard to changing history, back in 1992-93, whenever it was, I can remember debating Bill Blaikie in the north end of Winnipeg when the NDP were saying that the federal government did not have a role to play in housing. That was back in the early 1990s. It may be hard to believe, but it is true. I was there, on the panel, and so was Bill Blaikie. I do not need any sort of lecture from a New Democrat on the importance of national housing. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are more committed to housing in Canada than any other government I can recall, and I have been around for quite a few years.

Madam Speaker, what I can say, and what I would emphasize because we have heard this from other colleagues of mine, in particular the minister, is that houses should not be passive investment vehicles for offshore money. They should be homes for Canadian families. We recognize that we need to work with other jurisdictions. We have a multi-department approach to try to get to the root of this and how we can resolve it. At the end of the day we want to see houses being used as they were intended, and that is by real people.

Madam Speaker, Canada is a diverse nation that is recognized around the world as the place to be in many situations, and we owe that to immigrants. We are a nation that is very much dependent on immigration. I believe that Canada will continue to grow and prosper well into the future, in good part because of solid immigration policies. In many areas immigration has kept communities alive, and to a certain degree growing. I would invite my friend, if he doubts that, to come to Manitoba. I can give him some very specific examples of some communities he can visit. I would not want anyone to undervalue the potential contributions of aggressive immigration into Canada.

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of Conservatives talk about the legislation. To a certain degree, it is quite disappointing. When we look at the support for the legislation, in the chamber itself there are, not just the governing party, the Liberals, but the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens that recognize the true value of this legislation moving us forward, yet the Conservatives seem to be stuck on an issue within the definition, which the government and others have been very clear on, and for all intents and purposes, cannot be justified as a stalling tactic. Can the member indicate to the House why she believes that all of the other political entities in the chamber seem to be supporting it, yet the Conservatives, with whatever wisdom, have based their decision strictly on the definition?

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at what has taken place over the last number of years, we see a government that has appointed more than 450 judges. I would suggest to members that they were exceptional jurists who represented the diversity and strengths within Canada. I see that as a very strong positive. In fact, since 2019, 58% of judicial appointments were women, 5% were indigenous, 16% were visible minorities and 9% were LGBTQ2. Canada is a diverse country, and when we look at the appointments, I am very proud not only of our government's track record in making outstanding judicial appointments, but also of the open, transparent and independent process we put in place to select them. The member seems to be of the opinion that, if there was a political contribution of some sort, that person should be completely disqualified. I wonder if he would apply that very same principle, if there were appointments that were made of a person who gave a contribution to the Conservative Party. In the Conservative world of Stephen Harper, that might have been one of the criteria, back then, but that is not the criteria that is used by this government and this Prime Minister. Our appointments are always merit-based; they are also based on the needs of various benches, the expertise of various candidates and the recommendations of independent, and I would like to underline the word “independent”, judicial advisory committees. Our government made important reforms to the appointment process, strengthening it to make it more transparent and more accountable. Under this process, qualified candidates for judicial appointment complete a questionnaire that is submitted to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. The appropriate judicial advisory committee is then required to assess all applications on the basis of three categories: highly recommended, recommended or unable to recommend. The results of these assessments are provided to the Minister of Justice. Judicial advisory committees are fully independent. They are broadly representative, including three representatives of the public who are chosen through an open application process. Committees are designed so that the assessment of judicial appointments is made by those closest geographically to the court in question and who therefore possess in-depth knowledge of local circumstances and needs. The point is that there is a change that has taken place between Stephen Harper and the current Prime Minister and government. We finally have a government that is more transparent and more accountable. We have seen over 450 appointments in the last number of years, and these appointments are based on merit. It is the advisory committees that are putting forward these names for recommendation. Is there a chance some of these members might have contributed to a political party, whether it is Liberal, Conservative, NDP or perhaps even the Bloc? That member probably knows better than I, because I have not done that sort of research, because it was not necessary. Our appointments are based—

Madam Speaker, the government has delivered better. If we do a comparison between the era when Stephen Harper was prime minister of the Conservative government and what we have today, the member will see that there is a better, more accountable and more transparent appointment process. Our government has appointed over 450 judges, as I said. They are exceptional jurists who represent a diversity of strengths within Canada. The member might not like to hear what I have to say, but that is the reality. Our appointments are made based on merit, and our advisory committees do a phenomenal job in the canvassing that is necessary to provide recommendations to the government. Since October 2019, 58% of judicial appointments—

Madam Speaker, I will do my best to provide an answer for my friend. There are a couple of things I would call into question, in terms of accuracy. For example, the member said that the U.S.A. is ahead of Canada on the vaccine front. I might question that. In fact, today, if we look at the first dosage, Canada is number one in the G20 countries. The United States is a G20 country. On a per capita, on the first dose, Canada is doing better than any other country in the G20. Anyway, that is not the subject matter. When we think of the cruise industry as a whole, the Government of Canada is very much aware of it. It is sympathetic and wants to do whatever it can to protect the longevity of that industry. It is important for us to realize that the federal minister responsible does listen to public health officials. That goes beyond the public health officials here in Canada. The minister listens to provincial public health officials and territorial health officials. Consultations are done with indigenous and Inuit groups. I would like to remind my colleague that at present our borders remain closed. This also has an impact on those exemptions. In regard to the cruise ships on the west coast, while exemptions to the current interim order prohibiting cruise ships are in fact possible, the granting of any exemptions would be considered only once public health officials have advised us that it is safe to do so. It is not that the minister just wakes up one morning and decides to do something. There is a great deal of background work, keeping in mind the importance of consultations taking place and the feedback that is coming into the department concerning the industry specifically. If we look at the tourism industry and the supports the government has provided, business, tourism, and the arts and culture sectors have received an estimated $15.4 billion in federal emergency liquidity support through such programs as the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the commercial rent subsidy program and the lockdown supports since the beginning of the pandemic. The government has been there in a very real and tangible way, because we understand how important the tourism industry as a whole is to Canada. We want to be there for the people who are dependent on this industry. We want to be there in that tangible way. When the time is right, when the health care experts, and the provinces and territories, and people are on side, saying that it is safe to do so, we will move forward. We will be in a better position to do that. Statistically, our numbers clearly demonstrate that, in terms of the return to work, where it has actually taken place in the past. In comparisons, Canada does a very good job. We will continue—

Madam Speaker, we are thinking in terms of the future. Budget 2021 includes investments that are specifically tailored to the tourism sector. These total $1 billion to restore our supply of tourism products and experiences while also helping to drive the demand for them. I have been to the west coast. I remember walking along the dock in downtown Vancouver where people were getting off a massive ship. I understand and appreciate the true value of this industry, as all members of the Liberal caucus do. We want to see it get back to the new normal as quickly as possible, but we also have to think of the safety of Canadians. A great deal of effort and thought are put into these measures that are put into place to make sure that—

Madam Speaker, I have had my hand up for a while, and I believe I am entitled to ask a question at this point. My question is with respect to the importance of the legislation. Given the limited amount of time and the procedures we have seen, in particular from the official opposition, would the minister not agree that if we do not bring in this form of time allocation, it would be virtually impossible to see the legislation ultimately pass through, because the Conservatives have given no indication that they are prepared to see it move forward?

Madam Speaker, I want to raise what I believe is a point of order. In listening to what has been taking place over the last half hour, it brings me back to a time when there was an issue with decorum in the chamber during a budget debate. It was the behaviour of members of the official opposition, who were banging their desks, ultimately storming out of the chamber. The Speaker at the time made a ruling. Official opposition members did not support it and they ended up walking out of the chamber. You have made a decision, Madam Speaker, and you were prepared to allow the debate to continue. The difference between your position and the other incident that I referenced is that we are in a hybrid system. I counted at least four or five Conservative members speaking when you called for decorum, and rightfully so. However, we need to put in place something that allows individuals to hear the questions and answers when there is inappropriate behaviour virtually. If it were in the chamber, you would have the Sergeant-at-Arms remove the person, but you do not have that tool virtually. I raise that as something that can be taken into consideration, but at some point, the House needs to deal—

Mr. Speaker, with regard to contracts entered into between the Leaders’ Debates Commission, or LDC, and the GreenPAC Future Fund since January 1, 2019, the response from LDC is as follows. The response to (a) is as follows: (i) October 3, 2019; (ii) $26,500; (iii) $26,500; (iv) October 3, 2019 – March 31, 2020; (v) The contractor provided services to contribute to the LDC’s evaluation of the leaders’ debates organized by the commission, and to the commission’s report to Parliament. In particular, the contractor was mandated to design, implement and distribute surveys for local debate organizers and for local debate attendees. These surveys included questions relating to respondents' views on the local debates, as well as the national leaders' debates; (vi) sole-sourced. In response to (b), the commission does not have a policy against entering into contracts with registered third parties. The fact that an organization has a contractual arrangement with the commission for specific deliverables does not impede its ability to register under the Canada Elections Act. The contractor was required to adhere to the Government of Canada’s definition of non-partisan communications in the carrying out of the contract deliverables. The commission’s decision-making is guided by the pursuit of public interest and by the principles of independence, impartiality, transparency, creditability, democratic citizenship, civic education, inclusion and cost-effectiveness.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to many members on all sides of the House talk about this very important issue. In the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is this issue or the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls over the last many years, there are daily reminders. I am thinking of red ribbons, and now the hearts with “215” on windows. This has touched Canadians in a very traumatic way. For me, it is a time when we might want to reflect, and renew our commitment to move as quickly as we can on the issue of reconciliation. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we depoliticize and try to unify and move forward in a constructive, positive fashion of reconciliation?

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the matter at hand, I want to add a few thoughts regarding this special day for you as a Speaker. I have always addressed you as Speaker and it is the way I see you. The NDP House leader referred to you as “unflappable”, and that is what I was thinking. I thought it encapsulated your basic understanding of doing what is right in the chamber. No matter what the temperament of members might have been in the chamber, you always seemed to have things under control. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has been in the House for the last 10 years, I have always, without exception, respected your wise words, even when they went against me at times, and appreciated your many contributions to the House of Commons. I hope there will come a day in your retirement when we will have a chance to talk. I know you are a passionate parliamentarian and have a lot of good ideas to talk about, maybe rule changes or how the House of Commons could be more modernized. I want to thank you for everything you have done in representing your constituents and for being such an outstanding parliamentarian. I have a great deal of respect for everything you have done. Having said that, I would like to add my thoughts on this very important issue. Members may not be aware of this, but the demographics of my riding of Winnipeg North are the answer to why I feel very passionate about what has been taking place over the last couple of weeks and far beyond that. It goes back to the days when I was in opposition many years ago and wanting to see inquiries on this very important issue. For me, reconciliation is not an option. Reconciliation is something we all need to work on, not only the national government, but all levels of government. It supersedes governments and should also be applicable to the private sector, non-profit groups, people as a whole. We should be looking at our educational systems, for example school boards. Reconciliation is absolutely essential. It is not just for those who were directly impacted, but all of society. If we are to hit our potential, we need to resolve and work toward it. A number of parliamentarians talked about taking partisan politics out of this. No party in the chamber can escape the damage that has been caused. Different levels of government and political parties have to take some sense of ownership. I like the idea of exploring where we go from here, as opposed to passing blame. Every week I go over the Salter Bridge and see red ribbons. On Dufferin Avenue, there is a red dress in the window of a home. Earlier today, I saw hearts with the number 215 on them. The discovery in Kamloops is absolutely horrific, and for the very first time, for a vast majority of Canadians, it sunk in that this actually took place. Many in our society were aware of it or had heard about it. A number of MPs spoke about that. We cannot just let this go by. We need to ensure that we continue to move forward. The one question I was afforded to ask, was for me personally to reflect and renew my commitment to do whatever I can to push for reconciliation. A picture is worth a thousand words. I know I am not allowed to display things, but I have a very good friend who often provides me with advice on indigenous matters. She sent me three pictures with news stories. We have all heard the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words”. The first picture she sent me was of an Indian burial ground. The news article is entitled, “City of Brandon should buy back land where residential school children are buried, family member says”. We talked about Brandon, and Brandon is not alone. We found out about Kamloops and saw the public's reaction. It was immediate. Most Canadians were shocked. Kamloops is not the only community or the only residential school, so there is a need that is real and tangible. When we see the plaque embedded and read this, it reinforces that. We need to look at this collectively and provide whatever support we can. This article claims the city should buy back the grounds. That is why I say it is not just one government but all governments, stakeholders and even members of the public. Another story that I was provided is entitled, “Indigenous Manitobans call for empathy about residential schools after remains of 215 children found in B.C.” The picture shows the footwear of children. I thought of candles and those lives that were never fully lived. It is hard to imagine how one could be taken away from their home or family environment as a child. These are the types of imagery portrayed there. The third article that was sent to me is from Smithsonian Magazine. I want to ensure members know what I am referring to, so I will quote from it. Imagine a picture with red dresses hanging outside. It states: On a steel-gray winter day, the red dresses each hung, flapping in the wind along the plaza surrounding the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian—35 of them—in different shapes, sizes and shades. They serve as stand-ins for the potentially thousands of native women who go missing or are murdered each year. That is the imagery portrayed there. I see my time has expired. I will continue on in my first question.

Mr. Speaker, I like paragraphs (c) and (d) in the motion. I think there is a great deal of merit to it. I do not believe the New Democrats are doing a service to the issue by trying to politicize it to the degree they are. I was commenting about the red dress hanging in a window on Dufferin Avenue right by the Salter Street bridge. To me, that is a reminder I see quite often, as are the red ribbons on Salter Street bridge. A community of close to 20,000 indigenous people lives in Winnipeg's north end. This is a community I often go through and it is where I have an office. These are the reminders that are very real and these are why it is so important for me personally to renew my commitment to do whatever I can to deal with these important issues and make sure we continue to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific answer, but I want to emphasize one last point. We hear about the 94 calls to action that came from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We know there are 231 individual calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. If members want to get a sense of obligations and some of the stakeholders, the national inquiry report has highlighted who has the responsibilities. I really like that. It is highlighted in colour so it is very easy to see. They will see that it is not one level of government. To have it resolved is going to take a while, but it is going to take people, agencies and governments working together to get it done right. That is how I would conclude my remarks. We all have to do something to work toward full reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to capture the essence of Bill C-262, this is very difficult. In fact, I would not recommend members support the bill. I am not too sure if the sponsoring member thought of the legislation, as I suspect he did, prior to the reversal of the Conservative Party of Canada's positioning on the need for a price on pollution. The essence of the bill that is being proposed is the idea to provide a tax credit in certain situations with respect to carbon output. There is no doubt that it would put it into potential conflict with the idea of having an equitable, fair price on pollution that we currently have in place. That is why I make the suggestion to my colleague across the way that I suspect there might be some discomfort within his own caucus in regard to this bill, given that the Conservative Party, at least its leadership, has made the decision to support a price on pollution, although its plan does not necessarily achieve what it thinks it will achieve. It is nowhere near the type of plan that we have put into place, which I think is far more equitable and fairer for all Canadians. The government has, in fact, invested significantly in the idea that we have a climate plan that has been strengthened through multiple incentives for large emitters to lower their carbon output. To cite a couple of examples, members will recall the launching of the net-zero challenge for large emitters to support Canadian industries in developing and implementing plans to transition their facilities to net-zero emissions. Members will recall that we have that target date of 2050. We have also been making significant investments to support decarbonization through the strategic innovation funds and the net-zero accelerator fund. In this area, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars over a five-year period. I think we are going to see significant positive results from that program. We take a look at those two programs, but we can also look at the over a billion dollars in the low-carbon and zero-emissions fuels fund. The idea behind that is to increase the production and use of low-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen, biocrude, renewable natural gas, diesel and ethanol. These are the types of programs that are going to help us, but there is no doubt that the price on pollution is one of those things to which all Canadians can relate. More and more every year we seem to see Canadians wanting the government to be more proactive on the climate file. If we review the things that we have been able to put into place over the last number of years, I think we are doing a reasonably good job. Any government in the world should always look for ways to improve, as I am sure we are. I am personally a very big fan of the commitment to plant two billion trees that the Government of Canada has made. This summer I hope to contribute personally to that plan. One of the things that we can do is plant more trees. There are other consumer-related issues, such as the single-use plastic ban and plastic bags; there are all sorts of things that are out there. I look forward to more debate about the environment and things that we can all do in the coming months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg North is the heart of Canada’s Filipino heritage community. Yesterday morning, I was on the corner of Keewatin and Adsum, below the Dr. Jose Rizal statue, and only a couple of blocks from the Dr. Jose Rizal Park. Three blocks south of me, on Keewatin Street, the local MLA, Cindy, who happens to be my daughter, was in a jeepney. We participated in a live social media event as we wanted to encourage people of all backgrounds to take note that June was national Filipino Heritage Month in Canada. Today, Canada has approximately one million people of Filipino heritage. From coast to coast to coast, the community is growing and contributing to Canada in a very real and special way. For over 30 years, I have been attending fiestas, debutants, birthdays, spiritual events, concerts, pavilions, homes, workplace environments and so on, where I have witnessed kindness, hard work, love, fun and so much more. I would encourage all Canadians to recognize the true value of how our Filipino heritage community has made Canada a better country to call home.

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is very much familiar with the fact that we are in the month of June and there is a limited amount of time for the government to deal with legislation. The concurrence report that the member is bringing forward is yet another attempt by the Conservative Party, the official opposition, to cause frustration of legislation or to play that destructive force inside the legislative chamber. My question to the member is: If this issue is so very important to the Conservative Party, why would they not bring it up in the form of a day of a motion coming from the official opposition? Why do they choose to continue to play the games on the floor of the House of Commons to prevent legislation from passing?

Madam Speaker, I do not know how many times I have listened to members of the opposition say they want to have more time to speak to a bill, whatever that bill might be. It happens consistently. At the same time, the at-times-unholy alliance of opposition members will bring forward issues to prevent the government from bringing forward legislation. On one hand, they say they want more time to speak to government legislation and are critical of government for not allowing more time, then on the other they do what they can to prevent government legislation from passing. For example, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-22. Is the Bloc comfortable seeing that bill pass? Do the Bloc members want more time on government legislation? If not, then maybe we should be debating this issue more often than is being suggested.

Mr. Speaker, the member has made reference to the importance of national security. It is interesting that in the first few years of government we put into place, like other Five Eyes countries, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was actually established to review such potential matters, while ensuring appropriate safeguards. I am wondering if the member could provide any information to the House on whether the suggestion that is being suggested in the motion we are debating today has ever been raised with the chair of this particular committee, or to what degree the Conservatives would even support it going to this committee.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper actually negotiated a secret trade arrangement between China and Canada in complete silence. The member tries to give the impression that we lack transparency. My question for the member is the same question I posed for his colleague. We have a standing committee, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, that is supposed to deal with security issues. Does the member not believe that might be an appropriate place to have this discussion, if in fact the Conservatives' approach is genuine in wanting to get to the bottom of the issue?