Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, people cannot trust the Conservative Party. We will spend more time this week on Conservative-chosen debates and their agenda than we actually will on government bills. The Conservatives prevented us from being able to debate Bill C-14 earlier this week. They often play a destructive role inside the House of Commons, choosing to filibuster and prevent legislation from passing. That is something they have consistently done. That is the reality. The member is focusing on trust and confidence. Would the member not agree that the facts are there? Under 10 years of Harper, about a million jobs were created, and under fewer than five years of this administration, we have created over a million jobs. Once again, the reality is that Canadians can have more confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada than in the Conservative Party of Canada. Those are the facts and the reality.

Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Party do not support national standards of any form when it comes to long-term care. That is in contradiction to what many Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see. Through the pandemic, we have recognized there is a need for a national role when it comes to long-term care. I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could at least recognize that even in the province of Quebec there is a desire to see the national government play a stronger role when it comes to standards for long-term care in Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion, which asks us to instruct a committee of the House of Commons to study the possible implementation of consumer-friendly environment grading labelling on all products available to Canadian consumers. I think it is a very positive initiative. There are a number of issues that come to mind when I think of motions of this nature. First and foremost, we underestimate the true value of providing information through labelling. I think anything we can do to enhance that, the better it will be. One only needs look at what is on a can or food product labels. There is a very clear indication of the amounts of trans fats, sodium or calories from consuming that product, and a lot of people like to watch their calories. I believe it meets an interest that Canadian consumers have. To that degree, through this motion, I think the member is providing for a positive educational aspect. The motion recognizes the importance of educating the public on our environment and expanding that sense of consumer awareness. I had a chance to make some comments on it when it first came up. It was not my intention to necessarily prolong that, but to state what I believe is very important. Indeed, when we talk about the issue of consumer labelling in general, it is a very strong positive. Earlier today we had a ministerial statement on the importance of bilingualism. When we think of labelling, that also applies. I believe we need further discussion on this issue, which could generate some positive ideas of how to be consumer friendly in public education. That is a good thing. With those few words, I want to compliment the member for bringing the motion forward. I know that the House will get an opportunity to vote on it shortly.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt a great deal of concern and reflection on Canadian values when we talk about this really important issue. In his comments, the member made reference to the United States being in favour of calling it a genocide. Can he provide the House some thoughts on Canada being in the Five Eyes with Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, and indicate whether or not these countries have already stated it is a genocide?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but it is important to recognize that tangible actions have been taking place as the government recognizes and has a better understanding of what is happening in China. We have been working very closely with our international partners. When we look at the Five Eyes countries, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, there is a great deal of concern as we try to move forward on the issue. Is the member concerned at all that we might be undermining in any fashion the potential? The motion is that Canada, in essence, say that China is committing genocide and that Canada is not going to participate possibly in the Olympics or, at the very least, see the Olympics change its venue? Does the member believe that maybe we could have had this go to a standing committee to have the discussion before we got to this type of a vote?

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced like-minded countries. There has been a great deal of discussions and dialogue among international partners. Issues have been raised with regard to the Five Eyes and Canada is one of four that is still in the same position today. Conservative members and others have made reference to the fact that we have this outstanding foreign affairs subcommittee that is doing fantastic work. My question for the member is the same question I put to the New Democratic member, who, with hindsight, said maybe we should have done it that way. Maybe we should be saying that this is a very important question that all members are asked to vote on. Why would we not allow the foreign affairs subcommittee to review having that vote? Would the member not think this would better inform all members of the House about the fine work it has done to date? Maybe we could bring that work to a conclusion by having a recommendation like this come before the House.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. I will start by acknowledging Irwin Cotler, who I would classify as a good friend of mine. For years we sat on the opposition benches and I truly benefited by listening to his many interjections in the House and the talks we had with each other. I have a deep amount of respect for everything he does on the issue of human rights. It is always encouraging when the House of Commons witnesses the coming together of political parties to recognize and condemn human rights violations. However, there is a sad part to this. It is very shameful that the last two speakers and others have taken this opportunity to take cheap political shots at the Prime Minister of Canada. If they were genuine in wanting to allow for a healthy debate on this issue, they could have forgone the cheap, unfair, untrue shots at the Prime Minister, let alone the Minister of Foreign Affairs at times. I do not say that lightly. Let us think about it. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly back in December of 1948. I understand that resolution took effect in 1952. Over 150 countries signed onto that agreement. Earlier I posed a question for the member of the opposition Conservative Party who brought forward the motion. I asked him how many countries had made the declaration that it was a genocide. The member responded that the U.S.A. was the first and only, and the new administration has reaffirmed Donald Trump's position on it. Are the Conservatives saying that those 150 nations and their leaders should be ashamed of themselves because they are not informed or aware of what is taking place in China? Are they that naive to believe that world leaders around the globe are not aware of what is happening in China? Of course they are. The promotion of protection of human rights is integral to our foreign policy. All Canadians take human rights very seriously. It is part of our values. We do not need to be told by Conservative political spinners that we are doing a poor job when we have in fact done a good job of ensuring that the interests of Canadians and values we hold so close in our hearts are well represented around the world. The Prime Minister of Canada, in whatever part of the world he happens to be in or whatever group he is speaking to, will talk about the important issue of human rights and the values Canadians have for it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, whether the current or previous minister, is doing likewise, ensuring that the values Canadians hold so close are being espoused around the world. Yes, the United States did classify it as a genocide. I hear members around the chamber talk about the subcommittee on foreign affairs and its fine work. Even Liberal members have talked about it being a genocide. I posed a question for my New Democratic colleague about possibly having that committee deal with this motion. I asked if there would be any harm in allowing the foreign affairs committee to take a look at it, given its very nature. China is not a country of five million people. China has over 1.2 billion or 1.3 billion people. The economic and social tentacles in China scour the world. Do we think it is that simple? I do not believe that for a moment. I would have liked to see this motion go to the foreign affairs committee before it came to the House, because we could have benefited from seeing what that committee might come back with. The committee has easily demonstrated it can in fact put party politics to the side and come up with recommendations. It has demonstrated that. When I posed the question for the member for St. John's East, his response to me was “Perhaps we could have done this a week from now or two weeks from now after the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has dealt with the report of the subcommittee, but we are aware of the essence of it.” That is what the New Democratic member had to say when I presented what I thought was a fairly simple suggestion. The Conservatives are more focused on trying to score political points than they are on the human rights issue. I know that might upset some, and my apologies for those who are actually being genuine on this. However, not all Conservatives are genuine in wanting this to happen. They are more interested in trying to bash the Prime Minister and give a false impression that this government is not doing what it should be on this file. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was interesting to hear the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. On February 8, he was on Power Play, CTV. If we declare it a genocide, there is an obligation for us to take some actions. I believe that to be the case. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said on Power Play, “Well, we're not saying that a boycott is necessarily the way to go.” We believe that a genocide is taking place, but our primary responsibility is to protect Canadians and their interests. As a small country relative to a superpower, China, we cannot act alone. That has been made clear to us over the last several years. Whatever we do has to be in concert with our allies, including the United States, Japan, Australia and so many others. Everything should be on the table as we work to defend these interests and values. Let us look at what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said a bit earlier today about working along with international partners. It does not mean we cannot pass this motion. However, some of the commentary that has been put on the record today to try to politicize what is taking place is unfair. The Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about an agreement that was achieved with many countries collectively. This is in regard to the two Michaels who are still in captivity in China. The minister stood with nearly 60 other countries at the launch of the declaration against arbitrary detention in the state-to-state relations. That is a clear demonstration that this government understands and appreciates, as I believe most members do if we take away the political spin, working with international partners to try to resolve the many issues that China brings to our table. This is the direction we need to take. The stories and examples are very heartbreaking and they give a high sense of anger in all who speak on the issue of genocide. I do not understand how a human being, let alone a government, can be so cruel to another human being. I will never accept that, but the Prime Minister—

Madam Speaker, I would cite a specific example. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are two Canadians who are in captivity in China for no just reason. The Government of Canada worked with other nations, and now there is an agreement. It does not specify China, but there is an agreement that these sorts of detentions are wrong. That will go a long way, because the Michaels are not alone. This takes place around the world. This is just one of the things the Government of Canada is doing, along with the day in and day out. We heard the parliamentary secretary on that particular issue. Every day he is on that issue. We are doing what is possible in the area of foreign affairs to protect the interests of Canadians, whether they are here or abroad.

Madam Speaker, all members of the House in all political parties would have been better served had the standing committee been afforded the opportunity to do again what it has done so well previously, in terms of its investigation that came back saying there was genocide. Allow them to let us hear what they have to say on a motion like this so that we would all be in a better position. As opposed to trying to make a political, partisan statement, we should have depoliticized a motion of this nature, given it is at the heart of Canadian values when it comes to international relations. I think we would have been better served.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue. Some issues that I have ongoing discussions about with constituents seem to never end. For example, I could talk about health care and community health, our public education system and crime. No matter what area of the riding I happen to be in, there is a great deal of concern about crime. I am interested in getting a better sense of what the member is proposing. In his comments, he makes reference to us listening to what our constituents want, or at least that is what he seemed to imply, that we should be saying something to our constituents about his bill. I do not know if my constituents would support me voting for his bill. There are a couple of reasons for that. If we were to take a look at the area I represent, a significant percentage of people would love the opportunity to invest in security measures. When I have had meetings with community police officers, they always tell me to ensure we get deadbolts and lighting. Lighting is really important. They want to ensure windows are secure. They often say that if we can get security cameras and things of this nature, it would be helpful. I suspect that a good number of my constituents, who are concerned about community crime activities, would not be able to get the credit to which the member has referenced. It seems that the member is trying to establish a tax credit, but it is targeted to a group of individuals, people who have that disposable income and came make use of that credit. It is not just rural versus urban or anything of that nature. I am not convinced that this is the way to go. When I think of the crime in the communities I represent, there is no doubt in my mind that purchasing and acquiring security systems would provide a higher sense of security and a great deal of comfort to my constituents. I am open to that debate, to talk about what government can actually do and what role it might be able to play. I just do not think a tax credit is the way to go on this. We could have some discussions with municipalities, both rural and urban, and even with our provincial entities and look at areas where there is a greater demand for having these measures and collectively consider what we might be done to support that higher sense of security in our communities. I often talk about a specific file. I was knocking on doors a while ago. While I was walking away from the house of a lady who lived on Pritchard Avenue, I could hear her banging on the window. It was around two o'clock in the afternoon. I turned around and went back to the door. She had moved the couch, which she had up against the door, away from the door. She feels more comfortable sleeping during the day time. She is scared to even walk out of her yard. As I told her, we should all feel comfortable and secure in our communities. Whether people live in the inner city, or in the suburbs or rural communities, we should have that sense of security. I applaud the member for recognizing a very important issue and that it is universally applied. It is not just rural Canada. We have what I would classify as hot zones, and those are not words I made up. I have heard law enforcement officers make reference to hot zones. We need to look at ways to provide more support. Some members have already made reference to policing. I am a big fan of community policing. I was quite upset when we lost our community police office because of cuts by the provincial government a number of years ago. As opposed to having a tax credit, for example, we could look at ways to support municipalities and provinces and, most important, the constituents who we represent. Rather than providing a tax break, I would rather see more community policing. Maybe we can invest some of those scarce tax dollars we get into supporting our law enforcement agencies, whether it is Canada's finest, the Winnipeg police, the RCMP or other entities of law enforcement. My gut feeling is that it would be a wiser use of tax dollars and it would benefit all communities. My friend is correct. There are many rural communities in which a great deal of theft takes place, whether it is on a farm or in a cottage environment. We hear about it every year, especially once things start to warm up. There are ways that governments could work together and prioritize and put in additional resources to support enhancements for our communities, particularly those hot spots. When we talk about the broader issue of taxation and tax credits, we have to be very careful when we start to have special taxes that help some more than others to the degree that it becomes somewhat unfair. I liked it when we got rid of some of those boutique taxes from the past in favour of giving a straight tax cut for Canada's middle class. One of the very first pieces of legislation that the House of Commons voted on was the reduction of taxes for Canada's middle class. When we talk about dollars, there are ways we can invest those monies. If we look what we have done over the last five or six years, we have the balance right where we have recognized ways to increase disposable income in a fair fashion for all. We can ensure we invest in areas that will provide that additional level of comfort. We could see government spend on resources to increase community policing or to increase programming for more young people to put them on a better course where we have less crime in our communities. As much as the bill comes across as being very proactive, it has somewhat missed the mark even though I agree with the member that crime in our communities is a very serious issue. I thank him for taking the time to bring this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of human trafficking, I genuinely believe we need to put more emphasis on education and I recognize the value of getting this designation, from an educational perspective. We all have a role to play, whether we are parliamentarians, teachers in a classroom or people in the private or non-profit sectors. We recognize the importance of human trafficking in other ways, such as through the United Nations on July 30. There are other opportunities for us to raise the profile of the issue. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on how important that is. We have provided historic amounts of money for homelessness and shelters, but there is still more we can do as a government. Can she provide her thoughts on how important it is to raise the sense of public awareness? A lot of people do not recognize this exists today, yet it does in Winnipeg North and communities throughout our country.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate for the last few hours and would point this out. When a lot of people think of human trafficking, they think about people living outside of Canada who come here and are put into the sex trade in one form or another. That is true; it does exist. I will give a real case, without providing any names, of a young girl, probably 12 or 13 years at the time, who was enticed to sneak out of the house. That ultimately led to her being trafficked for prostitution. It is absolutely critical that one of the things we do is to ensure there is a very strong educational component in seeing this day being recognized. Could the member provide her thoughts on just how important it is that we have a strong educational component that reaches into our communities, in particular our school divisions?

Mr. Speaker, I bring a different perspective to the issue we have before us. As coincidence would have it, I was the member speaking when the issue came up of the chair's desire to suspend the committee meeting. Just so that we have a little background, and I think it would be wonderful to see a decision, I will review other aspects of the discussion that have been taking place. I want to plant the seed of motivation in members' minds. What is motivating members to bring this forward at this time? I will not comment extensively on the issue of timing. I was surprised that it came up now: I would have thought it would have come up earlier today, when the member had time to raise the issue and chose not to. That is another issue, even though it is somewhat important, when taking into consideration matters of privilege. I want to spend a bit of time on the issue of motivation. The previous Conservative speaker, for example, said that the Liberals were expecting the chair to do what he did. That is a very serious allegation, if we think about a member of the House accusing members of trying to manipulate the chair to suspend, when I was the one who was speaking at the time. I can assure the House that I was not trying to manipulate the chair to suspend the meeting. I was just getting under way with my comments on the issue when the chairperson raised what I thought was a valid point. If we listen to the sponsor of the motion, the sponsor of the motion talked about the hard workers: those unsung heroes of interpretation services. They do a fabulous job—

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to do that. The point is that I was prepared to continue. I was not trying to intimidate the chair or get him to suspend the meeting. My recollection is that the chair stated a concern regarding the interpreters, those unsung heroes, those hard-working individuals, and whether we would be able to continue. As well, he wanted to be able to adjourn at the time adjournment was supposed to take place. Immediately following that, points of order were raised at the standing committee that stated the chairperson could not do that. I commented at the time that I did not believe we should have a committee proceed if we could not provide bilingual services. I made that very clear. The chair was fairly clear with the concerns he had and, right away, the opposition started to get excited about the fact that the chair could not do that. The chair has a responsibility. I refer the Speaker to some of the committee meetings under the Harper administration where we saw, for example, a chair who would just suspend a meeting. They have that capability. A chair can actually say that they have heard enough. They do not even have to listen, and can just make the decision to suspend a meeting for whatever reason. Members can always raise it. The member who moved the motion said that he hopes to get you to respond, Mr. Speaker, but in the interim he believes there is an opportunity for informal discussions to take place that could resolve the issue. I am suggesting that this probably would have been the most likely happy scenario if members had concerns. In fact, there are House leadership teams and other venues where this could have been talked about. To try to use the floor of the House of Commons to say that the chair or the government is trying to prevent the work of the health committee is a stretch. I believe the standing committee has the ability to resolve it, as other standing committees have done in the past with adjournments and suspensions. I will review everything that has been said and possibly get back to you, depending on what follows my comments. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me.

Madam Speaker, it is important to give a bit of a wider perspective of the situation. The office of the Governor General is considered one of the oldest public offices in Canada and is absolutely fundamental to our democracy, our institution. Her Majesty's representative fulfills essential functions in our system of government and is rightly held to a high standard. All Canadians deserve a safe and healthy workplace. We have recognized that and stated it. I have personally stated that in responses to opposition members in the past. The government takes the issue of a safe and healthy workplace very seriously, and we have demonstrated a commitment to achieving that goal by strengthening legislation and regulations that protect employees. As soon as we were made aware of the allegations in this particular situation in the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, we launched a rigorous and independent process to review the workplace conditions at Rideau Hall. The review provided an opportunity for those who work there or who work closely with Rideau Hall to share their concerns in a confidential manner. Upon the completion of the report, the Governor General informed the Prime Minister of her decision to resign. We appreciate the dedication of the employees of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. We acknowledge the impact the state of workplace health has had on all the employees there. This has been a very difficult time and we are committed to restoring a healthy workplace. In addition to the workplace review, a highly experienced and well-respected senior public servant, Ian McCowan, was appointed Secretary to the Governor General. He has already begun to engage employees to chart a new course toward a better environment at Rideau Hall, foster a culture of respect and ensure a healthy workplace. The chief justice is currently filling in as administrator of the Government of Canada until a new Governor General is appointed. I know I speak for everyone in the House when I say it is comforting to have someone of his wisdom and experience in the role at this time. Many exceptional men and women have occupied this important office. They are Canadians of incredible integrity and talent. Let me assure the House that this tradition will continue. In this context, the Prime Minister has committed to strengthening and improving processes whereby potential candidates are vetted. We will ensure that Rideau Hall is a safe and healthy work environment, as all Canadians deserve, and that those who serve Canadians do so with dignity.

Madam Speaker, I wanted the answer to give the member and those others who may be following the debate a little bit of a background in terms of the role of the Governor General and so forth. With regard to the question that the member asked, the former Governor General's annuity will be dealt with in accordance with the Governor General's Act, which is the legislation or the law that is currently there. The reimbursement of expenditures to the former Governor General is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. There is new leadership at Rideau Hall, and they will be able to address the serious concerns that were raised in respect to that issue. Hopefully that helps my colleague a little more in getting a better understanding of what it is he would actually be required to do to go forward.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I always enjoy having the late shows with my colleague from across the way. It would be nice if one of these days we had unlimited time so that we could do a comparison between today's administration and other administrations, possibly the Harper administration. What a debate that would be. Suffice it to say that the underlying question the member is asking is when we are going to serve Canadians first. I want to make a bit of a contrast. Since 2015, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that, from day one, we have been putting Canadians first. We have put in a phenomenal effort to make Canada's middle class our first priority and we have demonstrated that. Let us do a comparison. When we say we are going to reduce taxes for Canada's middle class, where are the Conservatives? They are looking under rocks for corruption. We have talked about increasing taxes on Canada's wealthiest 1% and where are the Conservatives? They are looking under more rocks for more corruption. When we say we are going to increase the Canada child benefit program, they are still looking for more corruption. Whether it was back in 2015, last year during the pandemic or even today, we continue to work for Canadians every day, seven days a week. We are working with civil servants, other levels of government and other stakeholders to ensure that we get things right and work to put Canadians first. The Conservatives are preoccupied with looking for scandals and corruption. If they get a whiff of anything, they start waving and jumping on the pedestal telling us what they have found. Do members believe that Conservative companies have not received contracts? I do not. Do members believe that Conservatives have not been appointed at all? I do not. The member needs to realize that it is the Conservative Party, the official opposition, that is preoccupied with trying to look for nothing more than corruption and ways to make the Prime Minister look bad. The Conservatives were doing that before he was even the Prime Minister, when we were sitting in the third party inside the House of Commons. If members read their S.O. 31s, they were all personal attacks against the leader, the Prime Minister. Nothing has changed. We have been putting Canadians first from day one. When the pandemic came we made sure Canadians knew that we as a government would have their backs. We developed programs from ground zero to be there in a real and tangible way for the unemployed who did not have income so they would have a disposable income. We were there for small businesses, the backbone of our economy, by providing the wage subsidy, emergency rent subsidy, the credit availability program and so much more, because we understand how important it is to remain focused no matter what the preoccupation of the Conservative opposition happens to be, which is usually scouring for rocks to look under. To a certain degree, if the Conservatives get a whiff of anything, the first thing they do is send it to the Ethics Commissioner and try to make the media and Conservative spin as big as they can. I would love to have a more appropriate debate with my colleague from across the way so we could give some real, solid—

Madam Speaker, the member opposite tries to amplify the fact that we have the Ethics Commissioner, an independent body, in which I have far more confidence than I do the Conservative Party, and for good reason, and I have provided comment on that extensively in the House. However, people need to realize that it was actually Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, who brought in that office, and I suspect that if we were to apply the same rules that we have today to the years of Brian Mulroney or other administrations, we would not have a problem holding up the behaviour of this government, the Prime Minister and ministers, and to a certain extent all members of the House, as I believe that over time we see a higher sense of accountability. When we talk about this particular Prime Minister, the member made reference to the third party; yes, go back to the third party, because when the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party, we brought in proactive disclosure.

Madam Speaker, as we listen to members, whether today or the last time the bill was brought forward, we find them reflecting on the industry and how much has changed over the many years. There is no doubt there is a need for us to update or modernize. The minister and the department have done a fantastic job in presenting the legislation. Would the member not agree that the minister has indicated that he is open to ideas? One of the things we could do is to look at bringing some of these ideas to the committee to see if we could in improve the legislation. Could the member give us her thoughts, recognizing that things do change? As she pointed out, this is an incredibly important industry for many different reasons. The time to do it is now.

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed. I know the minister went to great effort to ensure there was a great deal of consultation. We are in a process of modernizing something, and it really does need to be looked at. Why would he want move an amendment of this nature, given the importance of the industry? He even talked about the importance of the industry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with finishing the debate. Once that debate has come to an end, it goes to committee. Members would be able to present amendments if they felt it was necessary. Even the minister has indicated his willingness to receive amendments. Why would the member not follow that course?

Mr. Speaker, the essence of Bill C-220 is to extend compassionate care leave by up to three weeks after the death of a loved one. That is very admirable. I have had an opportunity to have some discussions on this and to think about the legislation, and there are a couple of things that come to mind right away. One is that over the last number of years in statements by the Prime Minister or other members of the House, there has been a desire to see ways that we can improve our employment insurance program and how we might continue to assist workers. Throughout the whole coronavirus pandemic, we have heard a lot about getting a better understanding of what works well. One of the things that came up is the idea that when we start getting toward the end of the pandemic and can see that light, we should look at ways we can build back better. That is something that Bill C-220 could contribute to. I like the idea. If the bill were allowed to go to committee, I believe that we would see some other ideas generated as a result of Bill C-220. Therefore, I am hoping that colleagues on all sides of the House would see this bill as a way we can improve the system, recognizing that compassionate care and the need to have that leave is absolutely critical. More and more family members provide care at a person's end of life, when people will spend days, weeks, and often months on the additional care necessary for a family member or loved one. That is what I like about the bill: It wants to address the employment issue, which is very difficult. We get different types of relationships. I have always argued that life is about relationships, and some of those relationships are intense, particularly between family members. When a person passes away and their brother, sister, daughter or son goes back to work the following day, it can be fairly traumatic, so providing this sort of compassionate care leave is long overdue. As for looking at ways to extend it, yes, there are things in place today, but we can do better. That is why I started my comments the way I did. We have been making gains over the last number of years in recognizing the need for reforming employment insurance and looking at ways we can support employees. This is one of the ways to do just that, so I look forward to the bill going to committee. As a last thought, the pandemic has had such a profound impact on funerals and the passing of people we know. As parliamentarians we get to know a lot of people in our communities, and it is always sad when they pass. We look forward to a time when we can start to see people participate in funerals, families in particular, in a more wholesome way and not have to rely on the Internet.

Madam Speaker, Canada and the United States enjoy one of the most unique relationships in the world. As has been pointed out, there is $2 billion a day in cross-border trade. Our two countries enjoy the largest trading relationship likely in the world, so I can understand and appreciate the need to monitor it and be careful as we move forward with that very important relationship. On the trade agreement the Conservative Party supported, does he believe there are any shortcomings that he would like to highlight at this time?

Madam Speaker, I hear members of the Bloc consistently talk about supply management. Supply management is something the Liberals introduced many years ago. I am sure the member is aware that trade is a two-way street. The member implied that the Liberals wanted to compromise on supply management. Is it the Bloc's position that we should not have a trade agreement if it impacts supply management in any way?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the chamber today on what is no doubt a very important issue. I was trying to think of what the Conservatives might have for their first opposition day of the new year. This motion would not have been my first choice. It might have been my second choice, but not my first. I still think the biggest concern Canadians have today is the coronavirus pandemic. They want to hear what the government and parliamentarians have to say about it. We have a very solid plan with commitments that will provide assurances and hope for Canadians. There is nothing wrong with having a different type of debate. Today's debate is important, so it is with pleasure that I add a few thoughts on the important bilateral relationship we have with the United States. Let there be no doubt that it is the most important trading relationship. It has been suggested in the past, as it has been today, that one of the most important roles that any prime minister has is to ensure that the relationship between the United States and Canada is healthy and moving forward. It is in our best interest that there is a good relationship. I heard some of the numbers earlier. I believe there is over $2 billion a day in cross-border trade. That is very impressive. No other country comes even close to that. If we look at the last five years, the Prime Minister has seen three presidents. One was former president Barack Obama, and it was quite a treat when he came to visit the House of Commons. He spoke on the floor of the chamber, as members will recall. There was also former president Donald Trump, and now President Biden. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs made reference to in his opening remarks, the first international foreign leader the current President of the United States talked to was our Prime Minister. The very first connection the Vice-President made internationally was in Canada. This underlines the importance of our relationship and that our current Prime Minister and administrations south of the border recognize just how special and unique this bilateral relationship is. I listened to members talk about the issue of trade. Often when I talk about trade, I will talk about Manitoba's pork industry because I am very proud of it. It is very easy to explain so that people will understand the benefits. However, I want to focus on another industry in Manitoba: the bus industry. I wanted to cite New Flyer Industries, and if someone were to look it up, as I just did, they would see Wikipedia summarizes it quite nicely.

Madam Speaker, I thought I had, but in case I did not, I would love to share my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. New Flyer Industries embodies why it is very important that people recognize the value of that relationship. New Flyer Industries, based in Winnipeg, is a manufacturer of transit buses and motor coaches. The company is the largest bus manufacturer in North America, with a 43% market share of all heavy-duty transit buses and a 45% market share of all motor coaches produced in 2018. The company employs 9,300 people across 50 facilities in the United States and Canada. We should remember that its home base is in Winnipeg. Canada manufactures world-class buses, second to no other. I suspect if we looked at every province, whether it is Quebec, Ontario, B.C. or Nova Scotia, and up north in the territories, we would find there are direct links to trade with the United States. As I said, there is $2 billion a day in cross-border trade, and a lot of that trade is not just widgets that go up for sale. Our economies are melded together in many ways, because something that is manufactured in the United States might come to Canada, or vice versa, as a part that ultimately turns into a final product. A good example of that is our automobile industry. Our automotive industry is interconnected with that of the United States. Steel and parts go back and forth and final products come off of different assembly lines. These are absolutes. We need this. The Government of Canada recognized that right from the get-go. When the Prime Minister was elected in 2015, it was not much longer until President Obama spoke to us on the floor of House of Commons. With reference to the current President, we do not need to be lectured in any fashion. I believe and hope we are not being lectured, because all parliamentarians have an understanding of that important relationship. The CUSMA deal is something all of us should take pride in. Canada has an incredible group of individuals who have negotiated very important international agreements. Think of how many countries we have signed trade agreements with in the last five years. We are talking about dozens of countries. Not one prime minister has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister, and that includes agreements with the United States and Mexico, our most important trading allies. We have recognized the importance of trade agreements from the beginning. We understand and appreciate the true value of them and recognize why it is so important that we continue to have professionals negotiating on our behalf and working with the different ministries. It is important that we recognize the efforts they put in for all Canadians, because we all benefit. One of the ways we build Canada's middle class is to get strong jobs, and those jobs, in good part, are being created by international trade agreements. I was very proud of the fact that ministers, the government and other members contributed to ultimately getting the CUSMA deal. We have a parliamentary friendship group that is fairly proactive. I only wish we would be equally proactive with our Philippines friendship group in terms of the number of connections and the amount of travel that occurred between the U.S. and Canada with the Canada-U.S. friendship group. There is such a strong relationship between our two nations, and I believe it is the personal contacts that often assist in negotiations. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that for just over 30 American states, Canada is their number-one trading partner. They are very much in need of Canadian consumers. Equally, we need American consumers to consume our products. It is a mutual benefit. We can show this to the world. We should be very proud of our democracy, proud of the fact that we are in America and proud of the wonderful things that our democracy and sense of capitalism can accomplish.

Madam Speaker, the member is factually incorrect. To try to imply to Canadians that this government is not or has not been supportive of the aerospace industry is just wrong. We have pumped in tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of direct support into the aerospace industry. Whether in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario, this government has been there for our aerospace industry. We recognize the value—

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member went out to visit New Flyer. When the Prime Minister was leader of the third party, he came to Winnipeg and asked about things he could do. I said we could go to New Flyer. He had an opportunity to see it, so our Prime Minister has a good sense of the importance of the industry, in particular in my home city of Winnipeg. Having said that, hopefully we can depoliticize the committee so that it is not partisan. It should not be used as a partisan tool to take nothing but shots at the government. The friendship group demonstrated very clearly how it can reach out and contribute very positively. Obviously there is going to be a certain element of politics in regard to this particular committee, but it would be nice if there were not. I know the member who posed the question understands the importance of working party with party to—

Madam Speaker, I have spoken on numerous occasions about the aerospace industry and the supply management industry, as have many of my colleagues. We understand the importance of supply management and have consistently made sure that we protect it. In fact, it was a Liberal administration that first brought in supply management. We are there to protect our industries. The difference between us and the Bloc is that we recognize that, when sitting down at a trade agreement table, we have to negotiate. We cannot just say no and that everything has to be one way. That is not realistic. I want and will always fight for supply management. I will always fight for Canada's aerospace industry, whether in Quebec or Manitoba. These industries are important to our country and we will fight for them.

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to hear from my colleague from Manitoba. We have served together both in the Manitoba legislature and now in the House of Commons representing some wonderful people. The member made reference to taking a proactive approach when it comes to trade. One of the things we need to recognize is that over the years we have had excellent people negotiating on behalf of governments. They worked to make sure we could get the trade agreements necessary to advance Canada in a very proactive way. One of the examples I would cite is Maple Leaf in the member's own riding. I am not sure of the number of hogs it produces. Perhaps the member would know, but I believe it is 10,000 hogs a day. Could the member provide a tangible example of why trade is so important?

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague's assessment is not right. In fact, it is pretty far off when he talks about helping friends and says we did not do enough with CERB, the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy programs, and that we could have issued more money and support. Nine million is a lot of friends, Canadians, to have received CERB. Millions received the wage subsidy program, and tens of thousands received the rent subsidy program. On one hand he is criticizing the government for not spending enough money on these programs, yet the Conservatives are saying we are spending too much money and they are concerned about the deficit. Can he provide clarification? Are we spending too much money or not enough money?

Madam Speaker, we actually need to recognize and provide substantial support to our culture and arts community. That community plays a very important role in our society, and there is no doubt it has been hit very hard because of the coronavirus. Many cultural shows were cancelled and artists have found it very difficult, and so I am wondering if my colleague could continue to provide his thoughts on how this industry plays a critical role in our communities, whether in terms of jobs or just our Canadian heritage. That is why it was so important that we reached out and supported that community through some of our programs over the last 12 months.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned, which has been reinforced by my constituents and Canadians from all regions of the country, is that there is an expectation that goes far beyond Ottawa just providing cash for health care. We can see that when people raise the issue of standards in long-term care and reinforce the need for pharmacare involvement. There seems to be a real tangible desire that we build back better on the health care file. I wonder if my colleague recognizes that Canadians in all regions of the country expect the federal government to play more of a proactive role in the area of health care, given that it is such an important issue to all of us.

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member talk about the environment, this came to mind. If she were to read the throne speech, she would find many substantial financial measures. That was back in September. In November, we introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. Net-zero is not just a plan for a healthier environment; it is a plan to build a cleaner more competitive economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on those two statements. She tries to give the false impression that the government is not doing anything, but the reality seems quite different.