Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the Conservative spin we just listened to is a lot to take. Is the member serious? We had a national vaccine committee with health experts who relied on research. They did a fantastic job at protecting Canadians' interests. The reality is that we will have over six million doses by the end of March. Where was this Conservative concern back in August and July when the Conservatives had thousands of questions regarding vaccines and other issues such as rapid tests? Hindsight is 20/20, and the Conservatives have dropped the ball when it comes to holding the government accountable. Our focus has been the coronavirus and minimizing the damage, and that is exactly what we continue to do by working with Canadians. Would my friend provide his thoughts on the national vaccine council?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber on the important issue of our environment. When I looked at Bill C-215, the first thing that came across my mind was that in November of last year, the government introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. If we were to look at these two pieces of legislation side by side, we would easily understand why we should be supporting Bill C-12. I look forward to debating Bill C-12 to hear the ongoing discussions, because it covers so much more than Bill C-215. Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. That is the essence of what Bill C-215 does. Having said that, there are some significant differences between the bills. There are certain things that Bill C-215 does not have. Before I comment on some of those differences, I want to emphasize that we must take advantage of the economic opportunity that climate action presents in order to provide the world with the cleanest and most cutting-edge innovation. I think, for example, of hydroelectricity in my home province of Manitoba. When we talk about the development of clean energy and being innovative, there is so much potential in my home province. Equally, I suspect that if we were to go to all regions of our beautiful country, we would find opportunities. That is why it is critically important that we take to heart the idea of net-zero emissions and the goal of 2050 and take actions today that will really make a difference going forward. I made reference to some key differences between Bill C-215 and Bill C-12, and I will now give a couple of specific examples. In Bill C-12, the government's bill, there is a requirement for consultations with the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, experts and Canadians as a whole. This is absent in Bill C-215. Bill C-215 would only require the publication of a single action plan. Contrast this with Bill C-12, the government's legislation. It would require the publication of an emissions reduction plan for every milestone year. That is a significant difference. Bill C-12 would also require the government to set each target at least five years before the beginning of the related milestone. Bill C-215 would require the government to set all of its targets up front. Those are the types of differences that I believe clearly demonstrate that we should be looking at ways to get Bill C-12 through the House of Commons and encourage some form of consultation about it at committee, and encourage the Senate to recognize the true value of the bill. I suggest that my friend from the Bloc, who introduced Bill C-215, review the bill to see if maybe there are aspects of the legislation that could in fact be incorporated at the committee stage. Bill C-12 requires the Minister of Finance to publish an annual report describing how departments and Crown corporations are considering the financial risks and opportunities of climate change in their decision-making, whereas Bill C-215 does not include any such provision. That is why I would encourage members of the Conservative Party who are supporting Bill C-215 to seriously look at ways in which we could see Bill C-12 pass. I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, and members can look at some of the content that I put on the record at that time. One of the things that I want to put in perspective is the issue of other initiatives. In the throne speech introduced in September, we not only talked about green policy but we committed hundreds of millions of dollars to ensuring that we were on the right track. I look forward to when a budget is presented to Canadians, and to the many initiatives and specifics that will give Canadians reason to be optimistic that we finally have a government that is taking the environment seriously. As a government, we have recognized from the beginning that, to have a healthy economy, we also need to strive for a healthy environment, and that we can develop policies that complement both the environment and the economy. We have recognized the value of major projects going through the department of environment or through independent provincial or national commissions, and that it is important to do research and consultations because those will give projects a better chance of success. I want to very quickly say that I am excited about the pledge to plant two billion trees. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we, as a government, are committed to planting two billion trees. That will be a great filter for our water. It will ensure that the air we breathe is healthier. These are the types of initiatives that people can understand and relate to, and they are going to make a difference and get Canadians that much more excited about working to improve our environment. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few words on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, to be very clear, the Government of Canada has put Canadians in all regions of our great nation first right from the very beginning, and that has been the focus of this government, diligently, every day of the week, and I would like to start by paying a tribute to the many people who have worked alongside the Government of Canada in so many ways to ensure that we could minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what has actually transpired over the last 12 months than what the member opposite just finished saying on the record. A wide variety of programs were brought forward to assist small businesses, including the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account, the credit availability program and the regional relief and recovery funds. For individuals, we had the CERB, which helped just under nine million Canadians. The government has been there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians. We have also been listening to the advice of experts, which is why we have a national vaccine committee to ensure that Canada got it right. There were hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to make sure that we would be positioned as well as we are today with the vaccines and the vaccine rollout, ensuring that we will have those six million doses by the end of March and that Canadians who want to be vaccinated will be vaccinated before the end of September. We have a plan. We have been working with partners to make sure that Canadians' backs have been covered. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has been focused more on personal attacks and more on what sort of destructive role they can play. Conservatives like to say that they have been co-operative, and to be fair, to a certain degree, in certain areas, they have been. However, when I hear the Conservatives talk about hindsight issues, whether it is the vaccines or the rapid tests, I would suggest that they would have a lot more credibility if in fact they had focused on issues of that nature back in the summertime as opposed to trying to look for conspiracies, corruption and so forth. Yes, when we spend billions and billions of dollars covering the backs of Canadians, there are going to be some mistakes, and yes, there were some mistakes, and we have learned from them. However, to say that it was corrupt is a stretch. To try to give an impression that Canadians have not been the first priority of this government over the last 12 months is a real stretch, because nothing could be further from the truth. Whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or members of the Liberal caucus, we have been working seven days a week and 24 hours a day to ensure that Canadians would be protected and that we would be able to continue to move forward on this very important issue that we all have to face, which is to overcome this pandemic.

Madam Speaker, the government listened to Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, many other stakeholders and members on all sides of the House when we introduced new programs because of the pandemic. The programs required some changes, and we did the responsible thing by having ongoing dialogue and making sure we could retool to produce protective gear and have vaccines for Canadians. That has been a priority for the government because we understand and appreciate the difficulties we all have to go through. I would hope members of the opposition would not exaggerate things, such as Liberal contracts. I can assure members that Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives all received contracts in one form or another. I suspect even some Bloc members received contracts—

Madam Speaker, I suspect we would have to go back 50 years or more to see a government, particularly a prime minister and a number of cabinet ministers, that has committed so much in financial resources and striven to get strategic plans before Canadians to deal with the housing issue. Our government is focused on making changes that help as many Canadians as possible, including their ability to afford safe and adequate places to call home. This challenge is particularly true in Canada's largest cities, where a limited supply of affordable housing is making it harder for many Canadians to afford homes of their own. COVID-19 has exacerbated the existing housing affordability and the homelessness issue and called attention to the public health risks of substandard and crowded living quarters. Affordable housing is also essential for economic fairness and growth. The hon. member has noted that speculative demand from foreign non-resident investors is contributing to the unaffordable housing prices for many Canadians in some of the biggest cities. To help make the housing market more secure and affordable for Canadians, the government has committed to ensuring that foreign non-resident owners who simply use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing pay their fair share. That is why, in the fall economic statement, the government indicated it would take steps over the coming year to implement a national tax-based measure targeting the unproductive use of domestic housing owned by non-residents and non-Canadians. Such a measure would ensure that foreign non-resident owners of Canadian residential real estate are contributing to Canada's tax base, either by paying income tax or rental income or through a tax on unproductive use of residential real estate. The fall economic statement also proposed to expand the existing rental construction financing initiative by $12 billion over the next seven years. This initiative provides low-cost loans for the construction of new purpose-built rental housing. The expansion will enable the program to support the construction of 28,500 additional rental units and employment in residential construction and other skilled trades. This government is committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that homes are affordable for Canadians, and we are looking at ways to make a difference for as many Canadians as possible. I often talk about Habitat for Humanity, a non-profit organization that really makes a difference in Winnipeg North. Through that program, people are getting new homes in communities where they would never have had the opportunity before. It is not just about the federal government working with other levels of government; it is about engaging and supporting non-profit organizations wherever we can. I cite Habitat for Humanity for the fine work it has done in Winnipeg North, in particular, but obviously also in all regions of the province and in most regions, from what I understand, in Canada.

Madam Speaker, every Canadian should have the ability to afford a safe and adequate place to call home. The government is committed to ensuring that Canada's residential housing stock is not used unproductively by foreign or non-resident investors. More generally, the government is committed to a fair tax system so that it has the resources to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and to fund the programs and services on which Canadians rely. The government is providing $1 billion in funding through the rapid housing initiative. The funding in this initiative is available to municipalities, provinces and territories, indigenous governing bodies and organizations, and non-profit organizations. The funding is to be used for the construction of modular housing, as well as the acquisition of land and the conversion of existing buildings into affordable housing units. Our plan is to continue to invest in Canadians and their families, so that the growth of Canada—

Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this debate by clearly indicating that these are my personal opinions as a parliamentarian, someone who has sat for many hours in the chamber, both on opposition and government benches. I would like to share three points in particular. First, we should never ever take our democracy for granted and that our Standing Orders, albeit boring to most, are our pillar to our democratic system. I truly believe this. However, the rules that we have today need to be modernized. For political entities, far too often rule changes are more about strategy. I want to bring forward some thoughts as a parliamentarian and highlight three changes I would like to see take place. The first issue is on votes. Our current system of voting is insane and needs to be modernized. Rule changes should not be used to take away from what is perceived as or are real tools that opposition parties use in order to hold government accountable. However, nor should they be abused. My suggestions on this issue would for PROC to come up with a path that would see the issue dealt with respectfully, but should incorporate a few points. Examples of that would be to include no votes on Fridays or Monday mornings; consecutive voting without breaks is not healthy; electronic voting should be allowed; and there should be a provision that allows for stand-up votes. These are the issues on which PROC needs to come back to the House with some tangible recommendations. My second issue is one that I really do take personally. I love debate in the chamber. It is important that as parliamentarians we feel comfortable in expressing what we would like to say on everything that comes to a vote in the House of Commons. It is one of the reasons I believe in a dual debating chamber. I am not 100% convinced that we need to have a dual chamber; I want to propose something that would not require a dual chamber, and it is very different. I would call them MP debate days. This would eliminate the need for a dual debating chamber. The purpose of these days would be to ensure that members of Parliament would have the ability to voice their opinions on all legislative matters, including private member legislation, where a vote is expected on the said bill. It would ensure that the right of a member of Parliament to be heard in the chamber is there and is very real. These days should be considered as MP days for debate on any bill before the House that has been given second or third reading and not voted on yet. There would be no quorum or votes as it would be treated in the same fashion as adjournment debates. Members would decide what legislation they would like to debate, but they would need to inform the Speaker in advance. For example, members would be able to speak on only one piece of legislation on any given MP debate day, unless no other MPs requested to speak and there still would be 10-minute speech slots available. These debates would take place twice a week. We need to understand they would be meant to ensure that members would be afforded the opportunity to address the legislation they want to address. Even though I suspect both days not to be fully utilized every week, the fact that they would be there would support the importance of the right of members to speak in the House of Commons on issues important to them and they believe are important for their constituents. The two days would be slots. On Wednesdays, there is debate from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. I realize that is the day caucuses meet, but if members really feel passionate about speaking to specific legislation, they can excuse themselves from caucus or have independent members speak. It does not have to be on the Wednesday. This is the way it would work on a Wednesday. Members would notify the Speaker's office on Monday prior to speaking. There would be 10-minute speeches, with a five-minute question and answer period, as long as there are no more than 19 speakers. If 20 or more register to speak, then the speeches would be five minutes in duration, with no questions or comments. The Speaker can recognize up to 110 members. Rotations of speakers would be at the call of the Speaker, with an expectation that government caucus members would be recognized at a minimum of one per hour. That gives us a sense of how many members would be able to speak on any legislation, private members' bills or government bills, it does not matter, on a Wednesday. As has been pointed out, caucuses meet on Wednesdays. As for Fridays, many of my colleagues would argue that we should take Fridays off. When I say “colleagues”, I am talking about members on both sides of the House. I would like the House to sit from nine o'clock in the morning until 6 p.m. every Friday. I do not have any problem with that. Again, members would have to notify the Speaker's office on the Wednesday prior to speaking that they have 10-minute speeches, with five minutes of questions and comments, as long as there were no more than 35 speakers. If 36 or more members register to speak, then the speeches would automatically be five minutes in duration, with no question or comment session. The Speaker could then recognize up to 175 members. That is a majority of the House. Rotations of speakers would be at the call of the Speaker, again, with an expectation that a member of the government caucus would be recognized at a minimum of one per hour. All the legislation and budget documents must be afforded the opportunity to be before an MP on the day of debate, unless, of course, unanimous consent is given for it to pass through the House. If we believe in the importance of debate and enabling members of Parliament to exercise their thoughts and opinions on anything before the House at second or third reading, this is the optimum way to do just that. As I said, on a Friday, 170-plus members could speak. Those in opposition or in favour of legislation could get their messages across in five minutes. Given how frequently I speak in the House, every speech I have given, some more challenging than others, could be said in five minutes by focusing on the important points in bills. I am hopeful that members will see the true value in ensuring that this is about members. The third issue I want to highlight is legislative programming. The legislative program is already in place, and we need to recognize that, for such things as Private Members' Business. When a member puts forward a private member's bill, we know that after two hours of debate there will be a vote. What about opposition days? We know after one day of debate, there will be a vote. With respect to emergency and take-note debates, the legislative programming is already there, but we have not modernized it to incorporate government legislation also. I am sure if all of us were honest with each other, we would recognize that at times private members' bills are more substantive than government bills from the past. Programming of legislation really needs to take place. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should look at ways to enable government legislation to be programmed, rules that would automatically apply to legislation in order for it to be qualified and placed in a program of eventual passage. Opposition parties could be given the ability to take a limited number of those out of the program for a period of time. I know it works because this is something we put in place in the Manitoba legislature many years ago when I was in the House leadership in the Province of Manitoba. It can work, but we need to modernize. I see my time has expired, so I leave my two pet peeves regarding unanimous consent and points of order for another day.

Mr. Speaker, one has to understand why we want to see those votes occur, and that is what the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, really needs to assess. For example, there is a lot of validity for someone to say they want a recorded vote on X, such as wanting to see the MP or party members literally stand in their place and vote. There is a lot of merit in retaining that, because it does have a great deal of value. What does not have a lot of value is having 500 votes on the same bill and all the vote results are identical. Why do both occur? One is easily justified and another one might be a bit more challenged, but if we put the politics to the side and give a different lever, we might be able to overcome it. That is something PROC needs to figure out.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of electronic voting, it is not necessarily what we have today. It is more that we would have technology such that if a vote were called, a button right in front of members at their seats could be pushed. Then numbers would be instantly portrayed on a screen, or whatever it might be. Other jurisdictions have it. It is something we can do. I also believe there is merit in looking at possible applications. I am thinking about MPs who come from areas of the country that make it very difficult to be in Ottawa. This type of voting might assist them. I would not rule that out. It is really important, in terms of my thoughts on voting, that we not vote on Fridays, nor on Monday mornings. That will help individual MPs from all political parties.

Mr. Speaker, working together and seeing government leadership at all levels matters, and it saves lives. Usually known for its challenging winters, last November, Manitoba led the country as the COVID hot spot of Canada. Our test positivity rate was higher than any other place per capita. The number of people catching the virus was at a high. In the face of that reality, Manitobans banded together to find solutions. Together, we focused on the fundamentals. We wore masks, we listened to our health experts and community leaders, and we supported our vulnerable community members through one of the toughest times they have faced. Now we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Our case numbers have dropped and our major cities are coming back to life. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Canada has secured solid commitments to vaccines, and every Canadian will have access to the vaccine, safely and for free, before the end of September.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments with respect to question period. Manitoba once had a system where the questions and answers were long. I was relieved when we adopted what Ottawa had and limited them to less than a minute. It made a huge difference in the number of questions being asked. When I was in opposition, I would often say that the government never answered my question. When I am on the government side, I say that maybe we should be reflecting on questions. However, when it comes time for PROC to deal with this issue, I believe that people need to stop thinking in terms of an opposition and a government perspective. There is a reason certain questions are asked. There is a reason certain answers are provided. We need to look at ways to depoliticize this, take the party out of it and ask one question: What is better for our democracy inside the chamber, and how can the rules affect that? I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of depoliticizing, taking the parties—

Madam Speaker, my question is with regard to Fridays. Every 10 years or so, the number of MPs in the House of Commons increases, yet the amount of time available for debate continues, in my opinion, to diminish. When the member talks about Fridays and alternative uses, to what degree would he support ensuring that members of Parliament have more opportunity to debate legislative measures, whether they are with respect to the government or to private members' hour? Would he support enhancing Fridays to ensure that this takes place?

Mr. Speaker, this symbol is, in fact, very important. It is part of our Canadian heritage. As I indicated earlier, the former Governor General's annuity will be dealt with in accordance with the Governor General's Act. The reimbursement of expenditures to the former Governor General is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. The new leadership at Rideau Hall will be able to address the serious concerns that are being raised.

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party needs to acknowledge that Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. It is critical to our economy and supporting our middle class. The number of trade agreements we have achieved in the last five years is significant. At the same time, our employment prior to the pandemic grew by well over one million people, most of whom are full time. The Green Party is always in opposition to all trade agreements. Can the member indicate any trade agreement that the Green Party has ever supported? Why does the Green Party not recognize the true value of trade and how Canada has benefited by it over the years? That is a reality.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian, as I indicated yesterday, deserves to go to work each day in a safe workplace environment, free from harassment. That includes the hard-working and dedicated employees who work at Rideau Hall. We took this matter very seriously from the beginning and put in place an independent review process. Following that process, the Prime Minister accepted Madame Payette's resignation, and we are in the process of reviewing the next steps.

Mr. Speaker, the former Governor General's annual annuity will be dealt with in accordance with the Governor General's Act, something that has been in place for many years. The reimbursement of expenditures of the former Governor General is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. The new leadership at Rideau Hall will be able to address the serious concerns that are raised in good part, if—

Mr. Speaker, the petition I am tabling deals with the farmers from India. I represent hundreds of families that have both direct and indirect family connections to India's farmers, most of whom are located in the Punjab. We respect the legislative independence of sovereign nations, but Canada must always stand for the protection of fundamental freedoms both at home and around the world. As peacefully protesting is a fundamental right in a democracy and India is the world's largest democracy, the petitioners are calling upon Canadian parliamentarians to stand in support of Indian farmers who choose to have peaceful protests.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of Bill C-229, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Conservative Party is not necessarily in tune with the expectations Canadians have with respect to the responsibilities and the need to commit to protecting our environment, whether it is the land or water. It will be interesting to see if the entire Conservative caucus supports Bill C-229. Bill C-229 would repeal Bill C-48. Members might recall that Bill C-48 was the oil tanker moratorium act, which passed back in June 2019. If members were to review the Debates, they would find that it was fairly well discussed, whether in committee or on the floor of the House. However, at the time, the only party that took Bill C-48 to task was the Conservative Party. The New Democrats, members of the Green Party and the Bloc supported it. I like to think that the Government of Canada has done a good job in balancing the important issue of our environment and economic development. It has been demonstrated by policy decisions. Examples of that include Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, which received support from the above-noted parties. Many provincial jurisdictions were very supportive of the need for the moratorium. We can look at other issues. For example, the government worked very closely with the provincial NDP premier and were able to achieve the LNG, which is good for the Province of British Columbia and therefore good for Canada. It was the single largest private-government investment in infrastructure and ensured that LNG would in fact get off the ground. However, it would not have been possible had it not been for the support of the NDP in the Province of British Columbia. We can look at Trans Mountain, which, ultimately, will be successful. The project is under construction and will ensure we are able to move a natural resource to the coast. The former government under Stephen Harper was never able to do that. I like to think the reason we have been successful in recognizing these valuable projects is because, as a government, we are also very much aware of and sensitive to our environment, indigenous concerns and to what Canadians expect us to respond to. At the end of the day, Bill C-229 would move us backward. The first thing I think of when I see legislation of this nature is what else we can anticipate from the Conservative Party that will move us backward. I suspect that if we were to canvass Canadians, we would find that there is fairly good support on environmental initiatives and when we get the type of general acceptance those initiatives, the Conservative Party needs to wake up and sense that reality. This whole Conservative spin seems to be more focused on trying to give a false impression that we cannot handle the environment and the economy in such a way that development of natural resources can continue. It can, and we have demonstrated that. Canadians expect the Government of Canada to balance economic needs with environmental goals. The tanker moratorium that was passed in 2019 is an excellent example of how we can balance and achieve just that. The moratorium provides the highest level of environmental protection for British Columbia's northern coastline. It is integral to the livelihoods and cultures of indigenous and coastal communities that are located there and ensures the protection and preservation of that. This is another example of the Government of Canada delivering on commitments to Canadians. After all, no one should be surprised. We made this commitment. It was in the mandate letter given to the minister at the time. The federal government met with many different indigenous groups, communities and a wide spectrum of stakeholders. We listened and gathered input on the moratorium. Our engagement was extensive. It was passed back in 2019 because of the amount of that engagement. We wanted to ensure we got it right. Whenever bold initiatives are taken to try to move forward on important files, we will always get some criticism. There is no doubt about that. However, what surprises me is the level of criticism and amount of spin coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. One has to wonder what the motivation is for that. Is it purely the political optics of espousing false information about how the government does not care about western Canada, in particular the province of Alberta? That might have a lot more to do with the political motivation of the official opposition. If those members were to put their motivation to the side and start to focus their attention on the environment, on protecting our waterways, they could maybe see the true intrinsic value to the legislation. I call upon members of the Conservative Party to think again about this legislation and understand that the consensus out there in favour of the current law. Are we to assume that if the leader of the official opposition were to become prime minister some day, heaven forbid, that he would get rid of the moratorium? That is the impression they will give when it comes time to vote on this. Will the leader of the Conservative Party support this private member's bill? I think a lot of Canadians would be gravely concerned to see that. If that is the case, I for one will be one of those individuals who will be talking about that in the next federal election. I believe that the people who I represent, and Canadians as a whole, understand and appreciate the moratorium that was put in place through Bill C-48. Hopefully, we will see the Conservatives come on side and recognize what Bill C-229 would do and vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, right from the get-go, let me make it very clear that the Government of Canada, and particularly the Prime Minister, have been transparent since the very beginning. We have been accountable, and we have been delivering for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We have had their backs, and we will continue to do just that. In the spring of 2020, ministers and officials appeared numerous times at committees to give details and updates to members on the programs that were launched and the status of the effectiveness of those programs. As well, for the first time in I believe over 30 years, the House of Commons and chamber got together this past July and August for accountability. The House of Commons met. Now, the opposition will say that it was a committee, but for all intents and purposes, it was on the floor of the House of Commons in the chamber, and opposition members were provided with the opportunity to ask not only hundreds but thousands of questions with regard to the coronavirus: questions we were happy to provide answers for. That is accountability. That is not trying to hide. Yes, committees also met, and the member talked about a filibuster. When opposition members do not like something that is happening in a committee, they talk endlessly. However, when the opposition in a minority situation brings something forward and we are not necessarily happy with it, then it is not an appropriate filibuster. They want to have it both ways. At the end of the day, it is about accountability and transparency, and that is what we have seen from the Prime Minister of Canada. We have to put into perspective what has taken place in the past 12 months. The member made reference to a former Liberal MP getting a contract. Need I remind the House how much PPE was actually being produced in Canada at the time of the pandemic? It was a very small percentage, if any. Through supports from the government and private industry, we had a phenomenal transition, and today all sorts of things are being produced in Canada. Thousands of companies have come to the table. Some have been Liberal, some Conservative and I suspect there might even be some Bloc and New Democrat companies there. That is the reality of the situation. Canadians have come together from coast to coast to coast and recognized that we needed a team Canada approach to deal with this pandemic, and that has not stopped the Government of Canada ensuring that there is a high sense of transparency and accountability. That is why, for the first time in 30 years, we actually had sitting days in July and August. We continue to see the Prime Minister take Wednesdays as a full day in questions. There are all forms of other opposition days and so forth that have been brought forward to deal with the pandemic and other issues. As opposition parties collectively and individually have focused on smear tactics, we, as a government, have focused on being there for Canadians in fighting the pandemic, and working with others to make sure that we have Canadians' backs seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

Madam Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. We need international trade. We cannot underestimate the importance of that global trading market. I am not surprised, but a little disappointed, that the NDP consistently votes against trade agreements. The party seems to be of the opinion that the way we get a trade agreement is to say what we want and then wait for the other country to agree to it, or we do not have an agreement. My question for my friend and colleague from Winnipeg is this. Would he not recognize the actual value of international trade for Canadian society as a whole, and indicate to those who may be following the debate what trade agreements, historically, the NDP actually stood in this place and voted for?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House of Commons either on the floor or virtually. I want to pick up on something the member said in one of his answers. He said that free trade was not a strong suit of this party or this government. The member needs a strong reality check. I would challenge that member to indicate another prime minister who has signed off on more trade agreements with countries than the current Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the government have signed off on more agreements than Stephen Harper did, and any other prime minister, from what I can recall. Members of the Conservative Party talk about the importance of trade and try to give that false impression that theirs is the party that negotiates and is capable of getting trade agreements when history does not necessarily reflect that. The Liberal Party has always recognized the importance of international trade. Trade does matter. It means good, solid middle-class jobs for Canadians. We will continue to look at ways to build that relationship between Canada and other countries around the world in order to continue to strengthen Canada's economy and our middle class. It has been about that virtually since day one. When we took government in 2015, initiatives that might have been started by the Conservative government were picked up and carried over the goal line. It is all about trying to recognize how important and valuable it is to have policies directed at Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, whether it is budget actions, legislative actions or agreements such as the debate we are having today on Bill C-18. When we talk about trade, I like to try to put it in a way that most people can relate to. I am very proud of one of the industries in the province of Manitoba, the pork industry. It is symbolic and embodies so many reasons why it is important the government pursue international trade. Manitoba's pork industry would not be what it is today, by a long shot, without trade. If I were to guess, 90% of it would disappear if we did not have trade, whether within Canada or internationally. Manitoba has a population of 1.3 million people. At any point in time, we have double that number of hogs in our province. We are not consuming them. Those hogs are up for trade. We sell them. The community of Neepawa in rural Manitoba is thriving today, in good part, because of the hog industry. HyLife is a healthy, growing company today because of international exports. Over 90% of what is being processed there is being exported. Let us think of the ramifications of that. Each one of those hundreds of employees working out of Neepawa now require a place to live, a place to do their grocery shopping. They have vehicles. There are indirect spinoff jobs, not to mention the hundreds of jobs that are there today because of that. That is just one aspect of the pork industry in the province of Manitoba. We could go to Burns Meats in Brandon. My colleague from Brandon would be able to tell us how that plant adds so much value to Brandon's economy and society as a whole. That industry processes over 10,000 hogs every day, which is one number I heard, and this is somewhat dated. There are well over 1,000 jobs, good rural Manitoba jobs. We could go to the city of Winnipeg and see the same industry. I think Burns there employs over 1,500 people. The best pork in the world comes from the province of Manitoba. Let us think about the farming communities and the impact that has for our farmers, not to mention the others who feed into our farms, to have those hogs produced. When we think of trade, we can quickly understand the value of that trade when we look at an example of an industry. I just finished talking glowingly about the hog industry. I could go on forever talking about Manitoba's bus manufacturing industry or other manufacturing industries, in the City of Winnipeg in particular. We might have one of the largest bus manufacturers located in the city of Winnipeg, which exports all over the place. Again, it is providing those valuable jobs. The government and the Prime Minister understand the value of those jobs. That is why a mandate has come from the Prime Minister to pursue these agreements. Even though the Conservatives did not sign off on CETA, they like to take credit for it. The Conservatives might have started it, but they did not sign off on it. I remember Deputy Prime Minister travelling to Europe. People were saying that the deal was on the rocks, that it looked like it was falling off the tracks. It was not because of Canada. All sorts of things were happening in Europe. It took a concentrated effort by this government in particular and today's Deputy Prime Minister, the minister of trade back then, to put it back on track. On behalf of Canadians, they were able to get it across the goal line so we would have that CETA agreement. Hundreds of millions of additional dollars have been realized through trade, generated in part because of that agreement. That is not the only agreement we have had to deal with in a very short period of time. We could talk about Asia or our neighbours to the south, whether it is Mexico or the United States. The United States is our biggest trading partner. We need to trade. I would remind my neighbours in the south that many of their states' exports come to Canada. Both countries benefit. It is absolutely critical that Canada has trading relations with countries around the world. In fact, Canada is probably further ahead on trade agreements than any other G20 country. In good part it is because of the mandate Canadians gave the Liberal government five years ago. The driving force has been that we want to build Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of the middle class. One of the ways we do that is by looking beyond our borders. Let us think about the last year and the economic cost and impact the coronavirus has had on our country. It has been devastating. As a government, we have done whatever we can to support businesses, whether with the wage subsidy program or the rent assistance program or helping Canadians directly through the CERB program. Why are we doing this? In part, because we recognize how important it is for small and medium-sized businesses so that once we have fully dealt with this, we will be up and running. It is a lot easier for us to recover in a better way if we have fewer bankruptcies and have more companies that did not have to lay off employees because of the pandemic. We want the population, as a whole, to have a larger disposable income as a direct result of not being able to work in order to protect and keep our society safer or because of demands for their services or products. As much as the government was there for Canadians and continues to be there for them during this pandemic to ensure we minimize the negative damages of the coronavirus, we are also there to ensure we continue to grow. This means Bill C-18, the agreement with the U.K. When the U.K. decided to leave the European Union, we had a responsibility and we took that responsibility very seriously. That is the reason we have this legislation right now. We want to ensure that a trading partner we have valued for over a century will always have a strong, healthy relationship with Canada. In good part, this legislation is all about that. At the end of the day, Canadian companies, businesses and Canadians as a whole, in all regions of our country, will be better served by the passage of the legislation. I want to remind my Conservative friends of something. Other countries have acknowledged that we have some incredible civil servants on the trade file. One of the reasons for that is we have been so successful at negotiating agreements and working on these types of deals for a long time now. The bureaucrats and civil servants are diligently putting in the effort to ensure our ministers and government as a whole, parliamentarians and politicians, have details we can go into the deals with, negotiate and try to bargain back and forth. We listen to New Democrats and to the Bloc also. When I listen to the Bloc members speak, everything is what about this or that, or we did not get this or that. What do people think a negotiation is all about? For the NDP and the Bloc, they need a better appreciation for the fact that when we hit an agreement, it means there have been give and take. The NDP traditionally does not support trade agreements. When I posed a question, a member mentioned “goldfish” memory and said that the NDP had supported CUSMA. However, the New Democrats did not support previous trade agreements with the U.S. and Mexico, but they were shamed into supporting this one. Let us look at the number of trade agreements with the dozens of countries on which the New Democrats voted. They will say that it is because we did not get this or that, and they will have their list of things we did not get. When we sit down and negotiate, we cannot expect to have everything. It is not like we ask for everything we want, put it on the table and then walk away and ask to be told when it is agreed to. It does not work that way. When my New Democrat friends told me, as they did earlier today, that they are not supporting this legislation, I was not surprised. I was a little disappointed, but not surprised. I want to challenge the New Democrat members of the House of Commons to really think through the issue of trade. Earlier, I commented on why trade is so critically important to us as a nation. If members agree in principle with trade, I would suggest that the NDP members need to be more open-minded, and if they are not prepared to be more open-minded on it, then we could question how consistent they are with regard to the ethics of it. They say that because of human rights not being protected in a trade agreement, we should not sign off on that trade agreement. We have had this discussion in the past. There are human rights issues in other nations with whom we have a considerable amount of trade. I do not see the NDP saying that we should stop all trade with China, though we have issues with China. I think that the NDP members do need to look at ways they can support progressive agreements. That is what this is, a progressive agreement, and they will have other opportunities to do so. Members say that in this debate today, we do not have enough time or that there was not enough consultation. They should remember what the bill itself says. It is Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is actually what the bill says. It is not a permanent agreement. In fact, within a year after royal assent, from what i understand, we will be meeting our partners across the ocean, having ongoing dialogue and looking at ways we could even improve upon this agreement. There is the opportunity for members to make speeches, now or into the future, or to write letters when they have opposition days. There are many opposition days coming up. They should have one of their opposition days about the content of trade agreements. They can say that they would like to see X, Y or Z as a part of a trade agreement and discuss that as part of an opposition day motion. There are all sorts of ways that members on all sides of the House, even members of the government, can do that. Many of my Liberal colleagues have continuing discussions with ministers or within caucus about issues that are important, including the issue of trade. I must say that the issue of the coronavirus is dominating these discussions, as it should, but there are many different avenues for people to have direct input on trade agreements. I want to focus some thoughts on my friends in the Bloc. I have said in the past that I, for one, am a very proud Canadian. I think that we live in the best country in the world. All of our regions that make up our great nation are so critically important to how we evolve as a nation. For instance, I care about the aerospace industry in Quebec and the forestry industry. There are some things that we have in common, such as hydro as green energy—

Madam Speaker, truth be known, the member is wrong, and it is as clear as that. The member is inaccurate. The facts cannot change. If we listen to what the facts are, when the member said that Harper had signed off on 51 trade agreements, it is not true. It is not a fact. It is misleading. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than Stephen Harper signed off on, and that is a fact. If the member wants to say that there is only one free-trade type of party, I would disagree and say that there are at least two. However, if we had to say that there was one, it would have to be the Liberal Party of Canada, because it has achieved more agreements than the Conservative Party. I would say that there are two parties that understand the value of international trade: the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, the member said that, “If Quebec is part of Canada”, but it is a part of Canada, and a beautiful part of Canada. When we talk about international trade, I can assure the member that the representations by Quebec to Ottawa are very much listened to, just as those of other regions are listened to. Everything is taken together collectively, and we advocate for what is in the best interest of our nation. All regions of our country are fairly represented in the trade agreements. I can tell the member that I would not support any sort of an agreement that would single out a particular province in any sort of a negative way. I believe in our confederation, and I will do what I can to build upon the strengths of our confederation. I have no reservations in saying that, because I care for the province of Quebec as I care for the province of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. I see the value of a strong, healthy nation, and a nation—

Madam Speaker, I do not think the NDP can have it both ways. I can appreciate that New Democrats seem to recognize the reality that international trade is important, but they do not seem to support Canadian businesses and society as a whole by entering into trade agreements that benefit Canadians in international trade. I'm not 100% sure of the numbers, but I suspect there may be 60-plus countries that we have formal trade agreements with, and the NDP has supported only two, or maybe three, of them. I do not think New Democrats can have it both ways. We try to reach the best deals we can, which is why I emphasized earlier that we have an elite negotiating team when it comes to trade. We should be very proud of them and send them out more often, as often as we can in the world and—

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have been very clear. We will have six million vaccine doses, as a minimum, by the end of the first quarter. Nothing has changed and we will ensure that it does happen. With regard to trade, the Green Party is definitely more consistent than the New Democrats. In our first four years in government, by working with Canadians, we generated over one million-plus jobs, the vast majority of which were full-time jobs. That was at a time when we had the greatest expansion in signed-off free trade agreements.

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely critical. I think we are on the right track; it is about building better. We have hope, with vaccination doses around the corner. We are going to maintain that commitment and then we are going to work diligently on building our economy and supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. All Canadians need a proactive government, and they have that in this government.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that every Canadian deserves to go to work each day in a safe workplace free from harassment. That includes the hard-working and dedicated employees who work at Rideau Hall. We took this matter very seriously right from the beginning and put in place an independent review process. Following that process, the Prime Minister accepted Madame Payette's resignation.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be providing comments on the specifics of the report out of respect for the privacy and confidentiality of former and current staff and others who participated. To maintain impartiality in this process, the report has been released following the appropriate redactions, in accordance with the law. Everyone deserves, as I said, to work in a safe workplace, including the staff who work for the Governor General.

Madam Speaker, where I agree with the member is that this is happening at a time when government needs to be very much focused on the coronavirus. Among other things, part of that is obviously the vaccine. In that respect, it is great that we will be able to hit that target of six million by the end of the first quarter, as we have been talking about for many weeks now. However, when it comes to the issue of trade, I am sure that the member opposite appreciates the fact that by working with Canadians and negotiating teams we have been very successful at accomplishing a significant number of signed-off trade agreements between Canada and numerous countries around the world in the first five years, which absolutely coincides with the generation of over a million good, full-time jobs. Therefore, there is a direct correlation between trade and jobs and growing Canada's middle class. Would the member not agree that this particular agreement is a continuation and that we will still have the opportunity to look at better ways and to give it more attention in the months ahead?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I add to some of my earlier comments. I will do a very quick review. Bill C-204 was introduced by the member for York—Simcoe. Given the summary of the bill, one could be somewhat skeptical of it, especially since it is coming from a member of the Conservative caucus. I do not know if the Conservatives had a discussion about this issue, especially the members who were sitting in government in 2010 to 2014, because the bill attempts to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prohibit the export of certain types of plastic to foreign countries for final disposal. The reason I started off this way is that a few years ago there was a huge issue in the Philippines. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there was a company that shipped all sorts of plastics, which it claimed to be garbage, to the Philippines. When the containers were opened, the waste did not have much to do with the recycling of plastics; there was just a lot of garbage. That is what it was. There were used diapers, and it was an actual mess when they unsealed the containers, with odours coming out. It became a diplomatic issue for us. We can learn something from this: We need to recognize that it is not appropriate for Canada to be shipping garbage around the world to different places without proper checks in place. In certain situations, it should not happen at all, period. In 2016, I believe, reflecting on the garbage or recycled plastics that were shipped under the Harper regime, we strengthened some of the guidelines to prevent those sorts of things from happening in the future. Diplomatically, it was raised at a fairly high level, and President Duterte indicated that he had serious concerns about the waste and wanted it out of the Philippines. Fortunately, we were able to find a place for the garbage and got rid of it here in Canada at a facility, where it was burned. The point is that we recognize the need to look at environmental issues. When we look at specifics, the government already has a fairly comprehensive agenda to tackle the issue of plastic waste. This includes strengthening controls on plastic waste exports under the Basel Convention, for the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and recyclable materials. This is the type of agreement that governments around the world need to look at, support and then follow, because it is a great way to ensure that controls are not just between one, two or three countries, but widely accepted around the world. Canada does play and has played a leadership role in recent negotiations for amendments. These amendments would reduce exports of non-recyclable, hazardous plastic waste to countries unable to manage them in an environmentally sound way. What I really like is the fact that as we continue to go forward and talk about this, especially but not exclusively with young people, we find that the environment is a huge issue. People have many different ideas. As a government, we have been moving forward on this file in significant ways. I could talk about the emissions legislation to get to net zero by 2050. I could talk about the two billion trees we are committing to plant. Also, back in October, we indicated we would be banning plastics, in particular six items: plastic bags, straws, stir sticks, six-pack rings, cutlery and hard-to-recycle takeout containers. I think the government has demonstrated its interest in moving aggressively and progressively on issues facing the environment, and we have to take into consideration plastics if we are going to deal with them. We are committed to doing this and have been working on it now for a number of years. At the end of the day, as we continue this debate, members should feel comfortable in knowing they have a government that is progressive on the issue of plastics and our environment. We will continue to move Canada forward on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to be talking about Canada Post. The member wants to talk about gun control and things of that nature. I guess he does not understand why Canadians do not support the need to have military assault-type weapons in our communities, but that is for another debate. I want to thank the member for at least suggesting we would be talking about Canada Post. Our government understands that the services that Canada Post provides to Canadians and businesses are essential for our country and we are committed to safeguarding this iconic institution. Canada Post has been connecting Canadians for more than 250 years. Its network of thousands of post offices across Canada serves as a vital link for many rural, remote and isolated communities, especially in our northern regions. We know that the services of Canada Post in those communities across the country are of vital importance to the well-being of Canadians and the Canadian economy. Even though more and more people communicate via email and social media, Canadians across the country continue to have a strong connection to letters and parcels from loved ones now more than ever. Every day, Canadians receive letter mail and parcels from across the globe. As the country responds to COVID-19, Canadians turn to Canada Post to provide an important service. With people at home and businesses closed, the corporation saw a dramatic shift in what it was asked to deliver. Online shopping drove unprecedented growth in volumes of parcels. Through the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada Post employees have been providing services to businesses that have helped keep our country going during these difficult and trying times. As Canadians across our country have stayed at home to help suppress the spread of COVID-19, they have become more reliant on the online shopping. Every day since the start of the pandemic, Canada Post has stepped up and continues to deliver all sorts of items purchased online over these past few months. Since its very earliest days, our country's postal service has invested and evolved in order to meet the changing needs and expectations of Canadians. This government is committed to a renewed vision for Canada Post so Canadians can continue to benefit from high-quality services at a reasonable price no matter where they live in our vast country. One could easily question the Conservatives on what they believe Canada Post's future would look like. In opposition, I saw Stephen Harper, as prime minister, plant the seeds of doubt for the future of Canada Post. With this government, we have reaffirmed a commitment in the need for Canada Post. This pandemic over the last number of months has clearly demonstrated the critical role Canada Post plays for Canadians, not only pre-pandemic but especially during this pandemic. I want to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to our Canada Post workers who have done an absolutely fabulous job.

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about the province of Alberta, I am up to talking about it any day. In fact, when he talks about the whole issue of separation, the Conservative Party of Canada has to take its responsibility more seriously in its role with respect to a federation as opposed to the divisiveness it causes by giving so much misinformation to Albertans. This government has committed all sorts of resources to support Alberta at this time of need. It continues to work with different levels of government to ensure that not only Alberta can be in a better position, but to ensure individuals who need the help receive the help. We have invested more in infrastructure and financial support. We have had more commitment to build a pipeline to the Pacific than Stephen Harper did in his full 10 years. The Conservatives continue to spread misinformation about what the government has done in working with others for the province of Alberta. I am proud of that work.

Mr. Speaker, the only ones who talk about an election on the floor of the House of Commons are members from the opposition. The Conservatives and the members of the Bloc constantly want to talk about an election. They can continue to do that all they want. At the end of the day, this government, headed by this Prime Minister, will continue to focus on the pandemic and on taking the measures that are necessary in order to ensure that we have the vaccines. We have talked for weeks about that first quarter of six million vaccines, and we are on target. We will get those six million doses of vaccines. If the opposition members want to continue talking about elections, that is their choice. We, on the other hand, will continue to focus our attention on what is important to Canadians, and I can tell the members opposite that it is the coronavirus and it is concerns about the vaccinations. We want to be there in a very real and tangible way and we are committed to building back better. That is what we have continued to say for many months now as a government, and we are committed to doing just that.

Madam Speaker, to pick up on the arts and culture aspect, I was really encouraged late last year when I had the opportunity to meet with the Folk Arts Council, which is involved with Folklorama, a spectacular two-week summer event. There are literally thousands of volunteers and paid artists, and hundreds of thousands of people from across the country, most from Manitoba, participate in it. It was really encouraging that the Prime Minister took the time to meet with the board, albeit virtually, to hear its concerns. We got that first-hand experience. I know he is doing things of a similar nature throughout different regions of our country. It is one thing to talk; it is another to get things to materialize. When we look at culture and arts, the wage subsidy was one of the critical programs. In fact, the Folk Arts Council complimented the degree to which it helped keep the doors open. I agree with the member that we can always look to our arts and cultural industries to give us the taste of life that is absolutely essential going forward. Does the member have any other advice about something specific we could be adding to complement our arts and cultural communities in Canada?

Madam Speaker, the member has a very different outlook of what the reality is. The only ones who talk about the election are the Conservatives and the Bloc. It is the opposition party members who tend to always want to talk about an election. Our focus from day one has been the pandemic and ensuring that Canadians in all regions of our country are in fact being served by this government. That includes the creation of programs like the wage subsidy program and the CERB program. Today, we are ensuring we have the vaccines that are safe, free and effective for Canadians. We will have those six million vaccines before the end of March, the first quarter, something we have talked about for a long time. Why are the Conservatives giving misinformation on a whole litany of things regarding COVID-19?

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the point is that member made reference to the United States' 1.1 million people a day, and kind of hit home that particular point. That means that the Americans would have their population vaccinated sometime toward the end of the year. Through our plan, we have made a commitment that every Canadian will have a safe, free vaccine made available to him and to her before the end of September. We have made the commitment that there will be six million vaccines by the end of March. Would the member not agree that the way we present things can be somewhat deceiving and that the reality is that tangible numbers are being shared with Canadians and the provinces by this government.

Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend makes reference extensively to the issue of the deficit and the amount of money the government has borrowed. The Government of Canada has recognized the importance of that by investing in Canadians through programs such as the wage loss subsidy for small businesses and, for eight million to nine million Canadians, the CERB program. All are meant to be there to support Canadians through this pandemic. Is my friend and colleague trying to suggest that the federal government should not have been supporting Canadians through this pandemic? Following that, would he recognize that the Conservative Party did not do a good job of managing debt while it was in government? Why should we take advice from the Conservatives on deficits?

Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to health care. He is not accurate when he indicates that the federal government has not provided ongoing and continual support for health care in all regions of the country. There has been additional spending on issues such as mental health and more support for long-term care, which is a huge issue across the country. Could the hon. member reflect on the hundreds of millions of additional dollars that have been invested in the provincial restart programs for health care? I am wondering if he just forget about that money. Could he provide some additional comments on the allocations that have been provided to provinces?

Mr. Speaker, I want to address something a little different on this issue, which is to recognize the impact that many of our social enterprises have on communities throughout the country and how important it is to continue to show not only financial support, but also promotion. I look at an organization like Habitat for Humanity, which in Winnipeg North has assisted in the construction of newer homes in areas that would likely be very challenged. I wonder if the member would provide further comment on the important role that social enterprises have played during the pandemic. Many of them clearly have demonstrated that it goes beyond just making a profit, but it also includes getting people engaged in a very real and tangible way and providing services.

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the member, I heard a bit of what one would classify as hypocrisy. On the one hand, the Conservatives try to give the impression that the government is borrowing too much money, yet on the other hand, they tend to support the initiatives we are taking to support Canadians and small businesses, such as the billions of dollars going toward the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the Canada emergency business account and regional relief and recovery funds. We hear Conservative MPs saying that in some sense we are not doing enough yet and we should still be spending more on small businesses. Then they want to criticize the borrowing of money. Could the member clearly indicate to Canadians where she wants to see cuts to some of the programs we have brought forward, or does she support the entirety—

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member when we talk about small businesses and how important it is for government to come to the table. That is something that I believe we have done. We can talk about the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account, making sure there is better business credit availability and regional relief in recovery funds. There are a number of things out there that the government has done to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses and others, the backbone of the Canadian economy, are able to better manage as a direct result of the negativity from the pandemic. Would the member not agree that as an opposition member, or any member of Parliament, one of the most creative things to do is to come up with specific suggestions and ideas for a plan, something that we can do as government? Being very specific would be helpful at this time.