Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-63. It is interesting that, once again, after four days and four different pieces of legislation being introduced, the “hungry and thirsty for power” Conservatives have brought in a concurrence motion to try to change the channel. This is the fourth time. Why does the Conservative Party have such a lack of respect for Canadians that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to play a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons in not allowing legislation to even be debated?

Madam Speaker, here we are again, just the second week into the fall session, and this is the fourth concurrence report brought in by the official opposition. This once again reinforces, for anyone who follows the debate via CPAC and wants an understanding of what is taking place in Ottawa, that the Conservatives are going out of their way to quench their thirst for power, as opposed to trying to deliver in a very real and tangible way for Canadians. Today, the Conservatives brought forward this motion for concurrence to talk about farmers, the carbon rebate and interest in regard to the price on food. I find it interesting that they have chosen to debate that today. If my memory serves me correctly, I cannot recall once when the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right, thought this issue was important enough to bring forward to the House for debate on an opposition day. We have had dozens of opposition days, and not once have the Conservatives raised the issue that is the focus of the concurrence report. The Conservatives like to say that this is about farmers and Canadians. Well, I do not believe it. If any of the Conservatives have the courage to debate me in any university or other post-secondary facility, I would welcome it, just to show how abusive the Conservatives are when we are trying to be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians. In fact, the Conservatives have had two members speak about the report. They are the ones who thought it was so important to debate this report. However, did either member who spoke even make reference to the response to the report that was provided by the department and the minister? No. We are already half an hour into discussion, and while the Conservatives had a detailed response to the report, no reference has been made to it whatsoever. It does not surprise me, because as every member of the House of Commons knows, this is not about the issue the Conservatives have raised today. They are using an issue that Canadians are genuinely concerned about, which I agree is a concern, to sidestep legislation and prevent the government from being able to pass it. My colleague and friend from Waterloo referenced that she was hoping to debate Bill C-63, which we started this morning. The Conservatives have said that if this bill passes and we get a Conservative government, they will repeal the law. We understand that they do not support the legislation, even though the interests of Canadians are represented in it, but this is what we were supposed to be debating today.

Madam Speaker, in the last federal election, a mandate was given to each political party in this chamber, not just the governing party. Members of the official opposition have a responsibility to Canadians too, not only to their leader and the far right of this country, and they are not living up to that responsibility. Why? Because of their thirst for power and nothing else. I say shame on them for that attitude. There has been other legislation, even legislation they support. I am thinking of Bill C-66 last week, when the Conservatives brought in a concurrence motion to prevent debate on that legislation. That is not to say the food issue is not important. We know it is. That is why we have taken legislative and budgetary action to support Canadians, all of which the Conservative Party has voted against and filibustered. Imagine the hypocrisy from the other side when they try to say they have the interests of farmers in mind. Any objective person can see through the misinformation that is constantly spewed from the Conservative Party, the Conservative-Reform party. It is never-ending. We can take a look at it. Conservatives talk about grocery prices and lobbyists. Need I remind them of Jenni Byrne's name? Of course not, because the Conservatives know her well. She sits in a part of their caucus. She is someone who had a very close relationship with their current leader when he was in a former government. She was a lobbyist and an adviser to Harper. Why is that important? Because she is a lobbyist to her firm for the grocery—

Madam Speaker, I will go right to the debate. The Conservative Party tries to give the impression that it actually cares and wants to see action taken on the issue of food pricing. Let us do a comparison between Stephen Harper or the current leader of the Conservative Party, and the government of today. We have five major grocery chains in Canada. We used to have six. The reason we went from six to five is that the Stephen Harper government allowed Shoppers to be joined with one of the big five. Now we have a government that changed the Competition Act, in part to ensure more accountability with those types of company takeovers, protecting the interests of Canadians. The Conservatives might have good talking points. They might have some great slogans and bumper stickers, but the reality is, and history clearly shows it, that they are quite incompetent. In fact, when we take a look at their policy, we find that it is wanting. They talk about the carbon rebate and the carbon tax, and they are saying—

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the carbon rebate and the carbon tax, and they are talking about relevance. They should listen to what their speakers had to say. That was 50% of what they spoke on. Really, they should get a life and try to understand what is happening on the floor today. I say to my colleagues across the way that they have to understand and appreciate that the Government of Canada has taken a number of initiatives. Let me give a few examples, some very tangible specifics. The national school food program, which the Conservatives opposed, is there to help potentially 400,000 children. It is an investment in children so that they would be able to have food while they learn. Where are the Conservatives on the issue? Again, we find they are offside. During the peak of food inflation, the government brought in a grocery rebate to put money in the pockets of Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada voted against that. I made reference to the Competition Act, which ensures a higher sense of fairness in the pricing of food, and how competition is so important to that industry, and again, we saw Conservatives filibuster even legislation of that nature. We could talk about the food price data hub, which is a tool Canadians can use to look at what is actually happening with the price of a number of food commodities. Because education is a budget line type of issue, we find that the Conservative Party also voted against that. We talk a lot about farmers. I have had the opportunity over the last number of years, from visiting farms, to get a better understanding of Manitoba's agricultural community. In particular, I am talking about our pork industry, about piglets from birth to putting down, and providing the food that is necessary. That industry has grown significantly over the last number of years—

Madam Speaker, I think of the chicken industry in Manitoba. In fact, if we take a look at the chicken industry over the last decade, we will see there are close to 200 new chicken producers. People would not think this was true if they listened to Conservatives. They would think they would be seeing a shrinking of the pork industry, a shrinking of the chicken-processing industry, which is just not true. I have visited not only those industries but also our cattle industry and agriculture communities. I was flying into Winnipeg from B.C. recently. When people fly in and get under the clouds, they see golden fields with multiple colours, where all forms of crops are coming up. There is a lot to be said about the beauty of the Prairies when one sees the potential harvest there, and how that is dealing with food security not only here in Canada but abroad. I do not need to be told to appreciate farmers and the fine work they do. I do that naturally and I have done it for many years, both as a parliamentarian and as a young person jumping on a John Deere tractor as it was cultivating. This is something I believe in and I know the government believes in it too. Earlier this year, we were in the Philippines. The Minister of Agriculture was making an announcement for the opening of an agri-food trade office where we are going to have 30-plus other countries looking for trade. We will be using the Manila office as a place to enhance Canadian trade for agri-food products. We will all benefit by that, in particular our farmers. With the potential markets in that area of the world, there is phenomenal potential for growth. As a government, we are looking to secure that growth for our country, at the same time as feeding the world. Many initiatives taken by the government deal with the issue the report talks about. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have used this as a way to cause division and to filibuster government legislation. It is not about the issue for them, as I said at the beginning. It is all about how they can cause a disturbance in the chamber, and we saw some of that by the reaction. When Liberals met as a caucus, we talked about many different issues and concerns in Canada. There are reasons for us to be very optimistic, whether it is the 2% inflation, the downward direction of interest rates or the record foreign investment, especially in comparison with other countries. Last year, on a per capita basis, we were number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming into Canada; in the world, we were number three. That is all good news. It shows we are moving forward in the right direction, but we do need to continue to work at improving conditions for all Canadians. That is the type of thing we discussed when we went to caucus. We talked about agriculture. We can contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party's opening comments at its convention. The headline was, “Carbon pricing to cause economic ‘nuclear winter,’ [the leader of the Conservative Party] tells his MPs”. Let me tell members what he had to say. In his speech to his caucus, he said that the Liberal government's plan to increase the price would cause a “nuclear winter” for the economy. “There would be a mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter,” the leader added. “Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” This is the type of whatever we want to call it. That is how he addressed his caucus. I can tell the House that we have seen that shift to the far right. A lot of the negative things that Canadians do not like about politics coming up from the United States are being ushered in through the Conservative leader's office. I received an email. I do not know how I got it, but it is addressed to me. I will leave out what I know I have to leave out, the names. It says, “He's a liar. He's a fake, a phony, a fraud. He told Canadians he was tearing up his costly coalition with [blank], but he is continuing to prop up the Liberal government. Worst of all, he sold out Canadians to get his $2.3-million pension. Canadians can't trust anything he says. It's time for a carbon tax election, full stop. Chip in today to support [I cannot say the name] and the common-sense”, I call it nonsense, “Conservatives as we take on a [I cannot say costly] coalition and win the carbon tax election. [I cannot say the name] has made everything worse. Taxes up. Costs up.” We know the slogan, Madam Speaker. “[Blank] will keep lying to Canadians to keep his pension, but they won't win because we have a secret weapon.” It says me; I am a secret weapon. “We're counting on a strong and patriotic Canadian”—

Madam Speaker, I too have met with Cam and many representatives of the pork industry. the industry is alive and well, doing exceptionally well in the province of Manitoba. Over the last number of years, we have seen substantial growth. I think it is somewhere between six million to eight million pigs annually, which is up quite significantly. Are there concerns? Absolutely. It is one of the reasons why, even when we went to Manila, we had representatives from the Canada Pork association. It is one of the reasons why, when we look at trade with the Philippines and other countries, I have actually made the suggestion that Manitoba Pork should have representation there. It is important to me. It is important to Manitoba. It is important to Canada. With regard to the whole country-of-origin labelling, of course, we are aware of it. It is something we will stay on top of.

Madam Speaker, I give credit to the member because obviously I think it is a great question being posed. I said in my remarks that the minister actually provided a detailed response to the different recommendations. In fact what we will find if we pick up the letter, and it is on page three, is that we start to get a response. Just as an example, the letter says that “The Government acknowledges this recommendation. The Recognized Employer Pilot (REP) program, launched in Summer 2023, is a three-year pilot program designed to be more responsive to established labour market”. It goes on to say, “when Canadian and permanent residents are not available. Program policies are continuously reviewed to ensure that they reflect the latest economic conditions.” Again, in the report itself there are responses to all of the different recommendations. The official opposition would have known that, but obviously they did not think it was that important to reference that at all in the beginning of their comments.

Madam Speaker, I will first address the beginning of the question. With respect to supply management, not only was it the Liberal Party of Canada that ultimately brought in supply management, but anyone who has ever talked to the Minister of Agriculture would find out that, as a government, we continue to support supply management to the degree we did when we brought it in in the first place. It is absolutely critical for a wide spectrum of reasons that I will not be given the time to expand upon. With respect to the environmental policies of good stewardship, a lot of them are driven by the farmers themselves. The government recognizes that and supports it in different ways with things such as research dollars.

Madam Speaker, it is critical. If members do not believe me, they should ask the farmers. The farmers will tell us that. My colleague made reference to the issue of the carbon rebate and the carbon tax. What I would highlight are two quick points. Every member of the Conservative Party across the way who campaigned in the last election voted in favour of and campaigned on a price on pollution. A price on pollution is a carbon tax. In fairness, they have flip-flopped a few times on it, but in the last federal election that was their official position. It is somewhat interesting now that they are starting to criticize others who have changed their opinions. All they need to do is reflect on their own position over the years. I would suggest that Conservatives have an obligation to Canadians to tell them what they would do to deal with the climate situation, because obviously the far right does not take that into consideration. It is unfortunate, because many farmers are also concerned.

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to talk about statistics, let me leave him with one. In the nine years in which Stephen Harper was the prime minister, he generated somewhere in the neighbourhood of one million jobs. In the same time frame, by working with Canadians, we have generated over two million jobs. That is double. Yes, there are issues that are very serious that we do need to deal with. However, at least on this side of the House, we are prepared to work hard and deal with the issues. The Conservatives, however, are more interested in slogans and bumper stickers, and they do not want to give any attention to the real concerns and issues that Canadians want dealt with by the House of Commons, because of their behaviour with respect to the constant filibustering that takes place.

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding the pork industry and temporary workers because one thing Manitoba and Quebec have in common is very healthy pork industries, which the member opposite and I are very much concerned with in regard to maintaining stability of employment. One of the things that Manitoba has been very successful at, in working with the federal government, is using the local nominee program to ensure that there is stability in that workforce. It has been very successful at ensuring that the employees required to support the communities of Winnipeg, Brandon and Neepawa, in particular, are there in a very real and tangible way. What does the member think about the Province of Quebec doing likewise, if it is not already, and working with the federal government in the agricultural sector to maybe look at permanent residents filling some of these positions?

Madam Speaker, through the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, we were able to deliver a good number of things to provide relief, whether it was the grocery rebate or the carbon rebates that go out on a quarterly basis. We can talk about the national school food program. All of that was done with a sense of co-operation. Changes to the Competitions Act are dealing with issues the member opposite has raised. A number of initiatives have made a difference to the degree that we now have a 2% inflation rate. My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that by working together, we were able to accomplish a lot of the things that are so important to Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague across the way can explain why the Conservatives say the issue of farming and agriculture is so important to them when they have had dozens of opposition days and not once have they ever listed it as a priority issue. I find that unfortunate. Instead, they want to use it as a tool to filibuster, and that is somewhat disappointing. Does the member believe enough in what he has said and in other aspects of agriculture that he would recommend that his caucus start bringing forward opposition day motions to deal with important issues about our farmers?

Madam Speaker, at the very least, to say there is a 34% increase in grocery prices because of the carbon tax is absolutely ridiculous. I would love to see a substantiation of that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are saying something dramatically different than what the member just finished saying. Having said that, can the member explain to those following the debate why Erin O'Toole and his Conservative candidates, including the member opposite, had an election platform that said they supported the price on pollution, the carbon tax that they are now opposing? Why was the Conservative Party so poorly misled? Who misled them? What caused the Conservatives to change their minds? Was it the extreme right?

Madam Speaker, while the Conservative Party is so focused on slogans and bumper stickers, we in government will continue to be focused on the real concerns that Canadians have, like dealing with issues of inflation, which, by the way, is at 2% today; supporting our seniors; supporting our children; looking at how we can build a stronger and healthier middle class; and building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy. That is what we are focused on, while the Conservatives are focused on idiotic ideas.

Madam Speaker, again, what we see is that the Conservative Party, the far-right MAGA party, is being led by a leader who does nothing but spread negative news. He goes around every region of the country saying that Canada is broken. Well, I have news for him: Canada is the best country in the world to live in and call home. We will continue to be focused on making conditions better for all Canadians. That is something we are prepared to do, whether it is through a budgetary measure or a legislative measure, because we care about Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to hide from the reality that homelessness exists. We know it exists, which is why we are committed to working with many different stakeholders to improve that issue. The question I have for the member opposite is on this so-called interest that the Conservatives have taken on an issue that they did not have even just a few years ago. In fact, the current leader of the Conservative Party today was the minister of housing, and homelessness existed back then too. Can the member is cite one tangible example of a proactive measure that his leader took on the issue of homelessness when he was the minister of housing?

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take this opportunity to highlight a few points that are absolutely relevant to the type of debate we are having here today and why we are having a debate on an issue that the Conservatives actually selected. First and foremost, the issue of homelessness is one with which the government of the day has been seized for a good period of time now. As strong as the will is from the Prime Minister, cabinet and my colleagues as a collective to push this file forward, one of the things that we need to recognize is that the federal government cannot do it alone. It requires a high sense of co-operation from a wide spectrum of stakeholders. This is not a new issue to us, but apparently it is a relatively new issue to the Conservative Party of Canada. The question I asked the member for Perth—Wellington was, in all sincerity, about why the Conservatives have chosen to raise this issue today, given that they have not demonstrated any interest in the subject matter itself. I asked the member to give one example of something that the leader of the Conservative Party had done when he was minister of housing. When we talk about the housing issues, Canadians and individuals following this debate, whether today, yesterday or going into the next election, need to know that the individual who was an absolute disaster on the housing file is today's leader of the Conservative Party. I posed a question to the member for Perth—Wellington, who, no doubt, would have done his homework in presenting the motion that he presented today, asking him to give me one example of what the leader of the Conservative Party did when he was the minister of housing to deal with the issue of homelessness. What did he say? He said that taxes were low. That was the response about the minister of housing responsible for the development of any form of national housing, including dealing with the issue of homelessness. The member could have given another example because, in fairness, the former minister did actually build six houses when he was the minister of housing. I know it is not an impressive number. There might have been some that was left over from a previous minister. I do not know for sure. However, I do know that, on the issue of housing and homelessness, the leader of the Conservative Party was found wanting, and that is to put it nicely and in parliamentary language. Today, the member for Perth—Wellington has been instructed by the leader's office to continue to filibuster. The member for Perth—Wellington has been the one chosen to bring forward this report, for which there was a 20-page response from the minister dealing with the report that provides all sorts of details. However, the Conservative Party, in its hunger for power, in its thirst to do nothing but focus on trying to gain power and ignore the needs of Canadians, has decided once again to use a particular issue to justify filibustering to prevent legislation from passing in the House of Commons. This is our first week back. We just had summer. We all met with constituents. What do our constituents want? They want members of Parliament to be working together to receive good, tangible results for Canadians. They know it is a minority government, but there is an expectation that the official opposition will at least have some interest in taking actions that would also support Canadians. On Monday, we talked about the Citizenship Act. There are people in Canada who should be Canadian citizens. We thought this was non-controversial legislation until the Conservatives started debate on it. They made it clear they are not going to support it, and then they brought in a concurrence motion to prevent that debate from taking place. What happened the following day, on Tuesday? The Conservative Party brought forward motions to prevent debate, just like they did again yesterday. The example from yesterday is really good. The Conservative Party supports Bill C-66 for military court reform. In essence, it is for women who have been harassed or raped within the military. As opposed to going through a military court, they would go through a civilian court. That is the essence of it. Everyone in the House supports it. We all do, but the Conservatives brought in yet another motion of concurrence. That one, by the way, deals with housing. We have actually had that debate. We will see a lot of repetition of that today, but that is the concurrence report that they brought forward, even on a day when we were debating legislation that every member of the House of Commons supports. In fact, late yesterday, when we were able to get onto the legislation, the Minister of National Defence, who was present and listening to the debate, at the conclusion of it, asked if there would be unanimous consent to let the legislation go to committee, but no. The Conservatives said no to that. That is what today's debate is about—

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely will. I know the truth hurts. What I am saying is no doubt upsetting a lot of Conservatives, not only those inside the chamber, and especially Progressive Conservatives. I can appreciate that because they have to follow the direction coming from their leader. The MAGA right has more control over the Conservative Party today than the Progressives do by far, and that is why we often hear from the Conservative right and the Conservative reformers. I started off by talking about the issue of homelessness and why the Conservative Party, in particular its leader, does not necessarily believe in the issue. He is using it as a mechanism to filibuster government legislation, and I am expanding on what I mean by making that statement, which is totally relevant as to why we are debating what we are debating today. That is why we have this concurrence report. It is not because the Conservative Party is really interested in the issue. Let me give the Conservatives a bit of a saving grace. Let us say that they were interested in debating this issue. People who are following the debate would know the Conservatives are the official opposition, and every session, they get a number of opposition days. In fact, next week they have an opposition day. They can take the entire day, as opposed to three hours, because this debate will ultimately be adjourned, and have a motion to deal with the issue and then get a much stronger, more focused debate. The Conservatives have had dozens of opposition days in the last number of years. Have they raised this issue once? I have been here for every opposition day motion, from what I can recall, and I cannot remember the Conservatives ever bringing up the issue of homelessness. I can remember them talking about the price on pollution. I know they do not support the carbon rebate because that is something they amplify every time they get an opposition day motion. What are the Conservatives talking about next week? It is not homelessness, yet they believe they can come in here and bring in a motion using a concurrence report to talk about an issue they like to tell Canadians they genuinely believe in. Maybe some of the more progressive members of Parliament on that side might genuinely believe in it. I suspect there are members who honestly want to improve the conditions of people who are homeless. However, that is not what is driving the Conservative Party today within the House of Commons. I believe I can clearly demonstrate that to be factual and true. All one needs to do is look at some of the things I have said that show the Conservative Party of today is more interested in bumper stickers and slogans, as well as trying to deceive Canadians through social media and beyond. That includes on the issue of homelessness, as they try to say homelessness is up, and that is sad to see. Governments of all levels are working together to deal with that in a tangible way. If members want a good sense of what the government has been up to on the file, there was a report tabled and there was a response to that report. Every member has access to that response. Did any of the previous speakers make reference to the 20-page response? There would have been great detail, and I will go into some of those details if time permits. However, I cannot recall any comments coming from members opposite that responded to the minister's response to the report we are talking about today. Members want to talk about housing. No government in the last 50, 60 or 70 years has invested more in housing than this Prime Minister and this government. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, that is a fact. We continue to work with provinces, territories, indigenous people and other stakeholders to improve housing conditions in every region of this country, because we understand the importance of housing. It is one of the reasons we doubled our efforts, with finances and resources, to support initiatives that will make a difference on the issue of homelessness, especially when it is a chronic situation. As a parliamentarian for over 30 years, I have witnessed this in every year of being a parliamentarian. I understand the role that provinces and municipalities play, that the federal government plays and that the many different stakeholders play. For those following the debate, we are talking about other stakeholders, and there are some fantastic organizations out there. I have talked in the past about Habitat for Humanity. I could easily talk about the many housing co-op organizations too. Many faith groups have been a driving force in building low-income, non-profit housing. However, let there be no doubt that it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to come together and work on the issues that Canadians have to face today, and that includes Ottawa. We have been at the table and we have demonstrated leadership. Those are not empty words. There is no one inside the House of Commons who could indicate a government that has spent more money on housing than this government has over the last eight to nine years. As a government, we are committed to housing Canadians. Interestingly enough, periodically members will talk about housing co-ops. Earlier this week, because we had a concurrence report dealing with housing and homelessness, I indicated that I am a very big fan of housing co-ops. I understand the benefits of housing co-ops. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government that initiated, for the first time, federal government investments in housing co-ops. The Willow Park Housing Co-op happens to be in Winnipeg North. I believe it is the oldest housing co-op in Canada, possibly even in North America. It came into being in the late 1960s. This government has advanced and promoted the issue of housing co-ops because it is a wonderful alternative that needs to be invested in. All one needs to do is take a look at the demographics and benefits. In a housing co-op, one is not a tenant but a resident, and there is a big difference between the two. Someone asked me once, “What do you mean, resident or tenant?” The easiest way to explain it is that someone is a part owner. If a person is in a co-op and wants to paint the walls blue in their unit, they can do that, but they cannot necessarily do that as a tenant. There is no profit being driven through a co-op to the degree that we see in the private sector. We find that the costs and rents are substantially lower, especially if someone has been in a co-op for an extended period of time. Many co-op units are actually subsidized through government. This leads me to non-profit housing units. Traditional non-profit housing units are seen in all federal governments. Even in Stephen Harper's government, there was financial assistance going directly from Ottawa to provinces to ensure that we could maintain and support people in non-profit housing units. A certain percentage of their income would go toward rent payments, based on income. If we want to resolve the issues of homelessness and housing today, we need a strong national government that recognizes its important role, and we have that. We also need to recognize that it takes more than just the national government. That is why the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg with the mayor, premier and other politicians talking about the accelerator fund; it was a fund that was making a difference. With the Liberal agenda and the co-operation and assistance of provinces, territories, indigenous people, different communities and the many non-profits that are out there, we have an ambitious plan to see literally several million homes built over the coming years. We have a tangible plan that includes working with different levels of government and that will make a difference and deliver for Canadians. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party of Canada, the far-right reformers, the MAGA Conservatives, do not have a plan. All they talk about is slogans, bumper stickers and, wherever they can, character assassination. They bring out the negative side of politics. From both my perspective and, I believe, a vast majority of perspectives, Canada is not broken, unlike what the Conservative leader tells Canadians. Canada is the best place in the world to live in and to call home.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is very important that we work with all levels of government. I will give a specific example relative to the question being posed. The minister's office gave a written response to the report; it is about 20 pages. Due to the nature of action research, the report reads, “preliminary findings will be shared broadly to support ongoing efforts in communities [and governments]”. It mentions, in regard to Brandon, Manitoba, “exploring service navigation and connection hubs in rural areas and investigating the root causes of rural to urban migration in order to better support surrounding communities”. There is a series of discussions taking place about both urban, high-density and rural, low-density communities, and there are many people living in rural Manitoba who want to retire in Manitoba. We are working with the different levels of government to make housing possible for all.

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, housing is an issue in virtually in every region of the country. I should not even say “virtually”; every region of the country has housing-related issues. Therefore I believe that the federal government does have a very important role to play on the housing file, and it has to be consistent as much as possible in regard to how the funds are being circulated and administered. Yes, there are some requirements, but I do not think that should be a reason for any province, municipality or community-based group to reject federal funding and criteria that might be put into place. We should all be striving to deliver the optimum results, and the best way to do that is to have different levels of government working together, recognizing that we all have a responsibility to the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that when the federal government came out with a program to try to increase the number of purpose-built rentals through forgiving the GST on new construction, some provinces actually took up the same initiative. I say that because at times during economic situations, there is no doubt that some governments are in a better position to take actions. The accelerator fund was a huge success. It is being drawn upon. I have seen some of the tangible results of that. I participated with Mayor Scott Gillingham, the Premier of Manitoba and the Prime Minister in a press conference talking about the accelerator. It is a huge, wonderful program, and the take-up was great on it. We will have to wait and see what takes place in the coming federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member was not able to speak to what he came in to speak to earlier this morning. I know he was very much following the debate and looking forward to being able to contribute to it. It is because the Conservatives want to continue to filibuster legislation, which is somewhat sad to see. When we think of the sense of co-operation in dealing with homelessness, let us remember that there are a lot of factors that impact the issue. A good example would be issues surrounding addictions and mental illness. That is why we need a more holistic approach to dealing with the issue of homelessness, and that means working with other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point. The member says, “call an election”. This is what the Liberals are talking about when we talk about slogans and bumper stickers. The Conservatives' interest is not in homelessness. All they want is that thirst for power to be answered and they will do whatever it takes. I can say to the member in the Conservative right Reform Party opposite that at the end of the day, they can be focused on that. We are going to continue to focus our attention on delivering for Canadians and understanding the issues Canadians are facing day in and day out. That is where our focus is going to be. When the election happens, it happens. Let us remain focused on real people.

Madam Speaker, in a number of ways I agree with the principles the member highlighted regarding the abundance of food that is wasted. Communities can make a difference and so can governments. Where I tend to disagree is on the importance of the motion that the member for Willowdale has introduced. I believe the member has understood a very important issue that Canadians can really relate to and has put it in the form of a motion that I would like to think will pass. I applaud him and whoever assisted him in making this motion possible today for their efforts. I would like to think that all members would vote in favour of it. I understand the Bloc has concerns with it. I tend to disagree. I am a nationalist; I believe in Quebec, Canada and all of the provinces. The need is in every region where there is waste and hunger. We need to bridge that together. I want to emphasize the importance of non-profit organizations, along with the generosity we often see from producers, and I thank those individuals specifically. They have understood the issue for a number of years now and that is why we have food banks, groups like the Winnipeg Bear Clan Patrol and many other organizations, both small and large, that have contributed to closing this huge gap. I look at the motion as a very strong positive because there are some powerful words in it that would commit the House of Commons to, hopefully, following through. I look to certain organizations and policies. For example, in reading the motion, one of the first things that came to my mind was the national school food program the government just put in place and how, in implementing that program and by working with other jurisdictions, we can incorporate something with regard to food waste. Because it is a nationally led program, there might be some opportunities. As has been pointed out, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of children who will directly benefit from that program, and there might be other, more indirect benefits. I think of the changes made to the Competition Act to try to drive down prices on food. I am looking at what we can do to stabilize the cost of food. Along with those policies, we need to recognize the massive amount of waste taking place. If I were to contribute to the debate what I think would make a stronger difference, I have found that the most effective way to minimize that waste would be empowering local organizations to participate in a larger way. They have connections to local businesses and can tap into that. On the Prairies in particular, there is the huge, lovable farming community, our agricultural sector. The other day I had the chance to talk about taking my most recent flight into Winnipeg. We looked down and saw the ground because there were no clouds, and we saw vast acreages of product, of commodities, including wheat and canola. There is something to say about the beauty of the Prairies when we see the abundance of food there. When I think in terms of the production of food, I also think of companies like Maple Leaf Foods, processing millions of pigs in the province of Manitoba, or HyLife from Neepawa. I think of the chicken producers. There is so much more in terms of vegetables, such as Peak of the Market and the fine work the growers do. One of the things they all have in common, whether the farmer, the processor or the distributor, is the interest to address the issue of food waste. They will often, by the crateload, contribute to some of the non-profit organizations that are circulating food. I think of Purolator and the CFL and the amount of food they donate. There are so many examples out there. Where there is a lot of room for us to make improvement is likely with restaurants and other businesses within the hospitality industry, yet there are so many connections that can be made. That is why I am suggesting as a contribution to the debate that governments at the national, provincial and municipal levels look at ways in which we can provide, as is being suggested within the motion, incentives for food contributions of different forms. It is something that would go a long way in dealing with the amount of waste we see today in our landfills, as a direct result. If we were to be aggressive on that particular file, it would make a world of difference. Getting the motion that the member for Willowdale has introduced today as an opportunity to highlight and to build a consensus around, sends a very strong and powerful message to the wide spectrum of stakeholders out there that the leaders of our country recognize just how important an issue this is. It is not just one level of government; it is all of us who actually can contribute in a positive way. That means looking at the food we have in our home, and if we are not going to be consuming it, often instead of throwing it out, even stuff that has not expired, contributing it to an organization, maybe taking it to a game and giving it as a donation. We all witness, first-hand, people with exceptional generosity, something Canadians are known for around the world. That is a good approach. I thank the member for identifying the issue and bringing it to the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect there are many communities, like Granby, that have all sorts of ideas to deal with these issues. It is not just high-density urban centres that are having issues with homelessness and housing for seniors. Many seniors want to live in the communities where they grew up. The demand for non-profit, low-income and fixed-income housing for seniors is there and it is very real. There are critical things we can do by working with provinces. They play a critical role in non-profit housing, especially the expansion of housing for seniors. There are also some things we can do, including housing co-ops. There is so much more we can do with housing co-ops. We should be looking at policy initiatives to support and encourage them, and provide a certain level of education because a lot of people do not truly understand the benefits of housing co-ops. I do think that is a strong and viable option, in particular for seniors and low-income people on fixed income.

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting day. Again, we have the Conservatives continuing a tradition that they started virtually since they have been in opposition, and that is to prevent legislation of all forms from passing. We have seen that day in and day out. Today, they are really eager about things of this nature, because they have such a thirst or a hunger for power that they put that over the interests of Canadians. Our government has been there consistently to deal with the issues that Canadians face on a daily basis. We understand and appreciate the concerns, tensions and anxieties in our communities. We are developing public policies, whether they be budgetary or legislative measures, to deal with those real issues. All I have witnessed, sitting across from the Conservative opposition for many years now, is a party that thinks of nothing else but the political far-right Reform-Conservative party. That is its preoccupation, a hunger for power, nothing more. Today really amplifies that fact. It wants to talk about housing as if it cares about housing for Canadians. Let us look at the leader of the Conservative Party. What actions did he take when he was the minister responsible for housing. We only need to use two hands to count how many houses the Harper government built while he was the minister of housing. We barely need the second hand. The former minister of housing, today's leader of the Conservative Party, managed to build six homes. What a powerful record. I suspect even those six would have been by accident. When we think of national housing and addressing the housing needs of Canadians, the leader of the Conservative Party was an absolute disaster. Now he tries to come across as if he is a know-it-all and wants to deal with the housing crisis. Is a part of dealing with the housing crisis to slap the provinces and the municipalities around, as opposed to working with them? Why would the government, or any member of Parliament, give any credibility to the Conservative Party today, when its leader was an absolute failure in delivering housing policy? In fact, had we had a more competent minister of housing back then, the issues that we face today would not be as great. Virtually no programming was put in place for non-profit housing under the Harper government and the then minister. Does the leader talk about the homeless? If members search Hansard, they will see how often he talked about homelessness as minister of housing. I have a newsflash: There were homeless Canadians back then. Where was the leader of the Conservative Party when he had the chance to make a difference on this file? Today is not about Canadians. It is not about addressing the concerns of Canadians. It is more about the Conservatives' hunger for power. They are preventing legislation from passing. On Monday, we had the Citizenship Act. Instead of debating that legislation, the Conservatives brought in a concurrence motion, even though a majority of the members of the House wanted that legislation to pass. We even had one opposition member try to move for unanimous consent to have it pass through to committee. We are talking about citizenship for individuals who should have their citizenship. It is something that should be non-controversial, but the Conservative Party, during that debate, showed its hand, saying that it opposes the legislation. I have been very clear that the only way that legislation would pass would be if we were to bring in time allocation to get it into second reading. However, with today's motion, now that the Conservatives want to talk about housing, what are they interrupting? What legislation are they filibustering today? It is Bill C-66. It is about the Canadian forces. The critic for the Conservative Party yesterday was criticizing the government for not passing the legislation fast enough, and today the Conservative Party is filibustering the legislation. The first word that comes to my mind is “hypocrisy”. How can the Conservative Party, with any credibility whatsoever, try to say that they are concerned about Canadians, when they filibuster important, non-controversial legislation, even the legislation that they support? They do this in order to talk about other issues that Canadians are concerned about, such as housing. We know Canadians are concerned about housing. We do not know need to be told that by the Conservative Party of Canada. We are aware of it because we are on the ground; we are listening to what Canadians have to say about housing. That is why we have developed a number of housing initiatives. I can tell the members opposite that housing is not just the federal government's responsibility. The federal government has stepped up to the plate in dealing with housing, unlike any other federal government for generations, the last 50-plus or 60 years. We have a government that is investing in housing and that has had a housing strategy. If we want to talk about dollars, we are talking about something like $51 billion. The impact of those expenditures and that money that is committed has had a very real and tangible impact on Canadians' lives. An estimated 1.8 million Canadians have directly benefited from this government's commitment to housing. Had the previous government had the type of commitment that we have had to housing, I would argue that the housing issues today would be nowhere near to what they are now if we had had a prior Conservative government actually doing its job on the issue of housing. I do not say that lightly. I was first elected in 1988, and my first parliamentary responsibilities were being the party whip and housing. I have been following the housing file for over 30 years. I understand the importance of housing. All of us should strive to ensure that everyone has access to housing. Municipalities, provinces in particular, and the federal government all have a role to play, not to mention the non-profit sector. When I had left the Canadian Forces, one of the first things I did was participate in the West End residents association. They had a very proactive approach to dealing with housing. We established the West End housing co-op. We lobbied the provincial government to build houses in vacant lots and to take down derelict homes and replace them with infill housing. As a community, we were very successful. At the provincial level, there is a number of things that were actually done to try to enhance things. We should recognize that, back then, there was a population of about 1.15 million people, yet we still had over 20,000 non-profit housing units, all of which were subsidized in good part by the federal government. These are the types of issues that provinces have to deal with. When we think of municipalities building newer homes, yes, there is a bureaucracy there. There is a process that needs to be followed so municipal planning can be conducted in a way that is good for the economy and the environment. As a federal government, we have recognized all of those aspects of housing, the non-profits, the city, the province and, of course, the federal government. Late last spring, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg. I was at that particular announcement, which was out in the Transcona area, and so was the mayor of Winnipeg, as well as the premier of the province. I say that because it amplifies the fact that it is more than one government that has to deal with the housing issue we have today. As a national government, I would challenge any member, whether they are Conservative, Bloc or New Democrat, to show me a government, a national government, in the last 60 years, that has invested more in housing than the Prime Minister and the government. That does not mean that our work is done. We understand that the need is high. That is why, as recently as Monday, we had the Minister of Finance taking a look at ways in which we can continue to support first-time homebuyers, how we can use the rules to ensure that they have more opportunities to purchase a home. There are some releases and information on that. If people are curious, they can look into it and get the details. In virtually every budget, we see the federal government providing programs and incentives. A couple of years ago, we had the one dealing with trying to get more purpose-built apartments being constructed in the country. We have had a huge take-up on that. Thousands of units are going to be built as a direct result of that one federal program. Members can contrast that to anything that Stephen Harper did. It does beg the question. People say that was eight years ago or nine years ago. We do not build a building overnight. Had the Conservatives done their homework, had they worked with the provinces, the municipalities and some of these non-profit organizations, I believe it would have made a difference. Because we have had some of these programs in place now for a number of years, it has had a positive impact. Recognizing that the need is so great, we continue to invest more. As Liberals, we understand the importance of homes. I ask members to think of those non-profits. I have had the opportunity to go to a number of key ceremonies, as I suspect many of my colleagues on all political stripes have done. I am a big fan of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat has done so much in providing individuals that never would have gotten, or in all likelihood would have been very challenged in getting, the key to a new home. It has done so much, not only for the family unit but also for the communities in which they are built. I suspect that, when it comes to Habitat, Winnipeg North is probably in the top 10% of communities that have benefited the most because of it. Habitat for Humanity Manitoba has built homes right from the Point Douglas area, going through the traditional North End into the Shaughnessy Park area, going up into The Maples. From the suburbs to the inner city, it is providing homes for people who otherwise would have been very challenged to be able to acquire one. There are ways in which we can expand housing opportunities. We have a government that says it wants to see more housing co-ops. Housing co-ops matter. They make a difference. People who live there are not tenants. They are residents. For me, that is something we can and should be encouraging more of. That is why I was pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has provided more supports to ensure that we will see more housing co-op developments. We have continued to look at ways we can support different organizations and levels of government to address the issue of housing, which is so very important to Canadians. What I do not support is the manner through which we are having this debate today. I believe that the Conservatives are preventing important legislation from passing. I am talking about the Canadian Forces bill, Bill C-66, which deals with civilian courts for victims within military ranks. I was a little optimistic yesterday when the Conservative critic stood up and said that the Conservative Party supports the legislation. If it supports the legislation, if it wants to see the legislation pass, it needs to allow the debate to occur. Instead of doing so, Conservative members brought in a motion of this nature to filibuster legislation, even though they agree with it. Canadians do have an expectation of a minority government. There is an expectation that opposition parties would also contribute in a positive way in dealing with private members' bills and government bills. As an opposition party, it should not have to be shamed into doing the right thing. As I have said before, the Conservative Party's focus is more on character assassinations. Wherever Conservatives can slap on the word “scandal”, or whatever other negative word, so they can post all sorts of false information on social media, that is what they will do. That is why I say the hunger for power is what is driving the Conservative Party today, and it is a destructive force. It has nothing to do with the concerns of Canadians and their needs, which are what we need to be able to talk about. We need to be looking at and figuring out how we can pass legislation so that the lives of Canadians in all regions of our country will be that much better. As much as the opposition party wants to focus its attention on the negative side of things, the Liberals will continue, as a government, to be focused on Canadians. As the Prime Minister has clearly indicated time and time again, we will continue to be focused on Canadians and improving their quality of life so that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We will continue to focus attention on our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, to build a stronger and healthier economy and continue to work on the issues of inflation, which is now at 2%. That is equal to inflation prepandemic. We will continue to build that stronger and healthier economy, which we are going to see in the months ahead. Contrary to what the Conservatives continue to say, coast to coast to coast, Canada is not broken. Canada is the best country in the world to live in and call home. As a government, we are going to strive to make that the case, not only for today, but also for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not fair to say homelessness did not exist nine years ago. Homelessness has been around ever since I was first elected back in 1988. The severity and the complexities, dealing with homelessness as the country has grown, have become fairly extensive. It is one of the reasons, in the number of years we have been in government, that we have more than doubled the supports to deal with homelessness. We continue to recognize that the best way to deal with it is with a united front, by working with municipalities, provinces and non-profit groups in order to minimize homelessness; that is absolutely critically important. We deal with it on a daily basis when working with others, in order to deal with it appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, first off, we have a beautiful country in Canada. I appreciate the member's comments about his own riding, but there is something to be said when flying into Winnipeg and seeing these vast prairies full of food, the grain fields and canola fields, and there is a great deal of beauty. Canada is so rich in its diversity. There is a lot of non-profit housing out there, from different agencies. I was over at 800 Burrows at St. Mary The Protectress Villa, a seniors' complex, non-profit organization, which was celebrating 35 years with a mortgage burning. It was a wonderful event. I raise this only to underline that this building existed because governments, plural, got behind it and supported it. I think that the potential is real, it is tangible, but we have to have partners. The federal government has made it very clear that it is looking to expand in whatever way it can, and it is looking for partners. I think our actions speak louder than words. We have provided significant finances, and we have provided opportunities for those partners to be engaged. We will continue to do so. We want to ensure that we have a housing program that all of us can take pride in.

Mr. Speaker, I will just focus on the leader of the official opposition who was in the previous Conservative government and, in fact, was minister of housing. While he was minister of housing, he was very successful in building six houses in a country of 30-plus million people. To contrast that to what we have done, we are talking six-digit figures of renovating and building homes, and the numbers continue. We have a very ambitious plan. In fact, if the Conservative Harper regime had had a plan half the size of our plan, the issues we are having today would be nowhere near as severe.

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about fully subsidized social housing, which is, in essence, supported by the federal and provincial governments. Usually, it is the provincial government that plays the lead role. Does the member have any indication from the Province of Quebec of its intent, in the short term or even the long term, with respect to the development of social housing, and if it has approached the federal government to contribute more directly to a social housing project where, let us say, a tenant would only have to pay 30% of their income?

Mr. Speaker, a big part of it is attitude. I have had a couple of discussions about the transitional fund and the accelerator fund. I met with the mayor of Winnipeg, and I do not see it as a territorial issue. What I see is governments working together for the betterment of the communities, which is something we should be promoting. This way there is more success, and the biggest beneficiaries are the people we collectively represent. Would the member not agree that it is much more preferable to have governments working together? That does not mean the federal government just giving cash blindly; it means governments working together.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on housing co-ops. I think the oldest co-op happens to be in Winnipeg North, the Willow Park Housing Co-op. Since I left the Canadian Forces back in 1985 or 1986, I have always been a big advocate for housing co-ops. In fact, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's administration that brought in the first federal housing co-op program. Interestingly enough, it is his son who is reinstating and building up that program once again. I wonder if the member can highlight his understanding of the benefits of a housing co-op versus a rental unit. I have always said that people in a housing co-op are residents, not tenants, and that means a great deal. I wonder if he could add some thoughts on that.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments the member has put on the record this afternoon. We are now into day two of the fall session. On the first day we were debating the citizenship bill, which I understand a majority of members of Parliament want to see go to committee. In fact, the member's own party had a member stand up for unanimous consent to get it to committee, but it was frustrated in part because of a concurrence motion. Today, we are interrupting Bill C-66, which deals with sexual assaults and violence in the Canadian military, and with an option. All political parties support that legislation, and yet instead of having that debate, we are now debating another motion for concurrence. I am wondering if my colleague across the way can provide his thoughts. It is not to take away from the importance of the issues, but, relatively speaking, what about important legislation that does need to proceed at some point?

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. The member even admitted that he was a part of the Harper government when the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today was then the minister of housing. The minister of housing at that time, today's current leader of the Conservative Party, was an absolute and total disaster. He did absolutely nothing about housing. In fact, because of his incompetence back then, he has added to the problem we have today with respect to housing. To try to champion him as some sort of a leader on this file is absolutely ridiculous. My question for the member, who was there supporting the minister of housing at the time, is this. Why does he believe his current leader has any credibility at all when it comes to housing?

Madam Speaker, over the years, the Government of Canada has provided literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in support for dealing with housing and the homeless. We have been working very closely with provincial governments, non-profit organizations and municipalities and we are making a difference. We can contrast the Liberal plan, or the Government of Canada's plan, with the leader of the Conservative Party, who, while he was the minister of housing, did absolutely nothing. There is no doubt about that. No minister has been more of a disaster on the housing file than the current leader of the Conservative Party when he was the minister of housing. That is a plain fact. Why should Canadians believe that the Conservative Party will be able to deal with the issue of housing and will work with the different levels of government and non-profits to—

Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition about international flights signed by a number of my constituents. They are looking to encourage airlines or different levels of government, those who have an impact on flights, to ensure that we see more direct international flights, ideally between Canada and India and particularly from my home city of Winnipeg. There is a growing population and a growing demand to go to India. Failing that, petitioners would like see more direct flights to Europe, just more international flights, particularly out of Winnipeg.