Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in introducing the legislation, made it very clear that amendments are something he is open to, as long as they give more strength to the legislation. In recognition of the fine work that standing committees can do in giving strength to legislation, would it be fair to say that the Bloc's position would be that it is in favour of this legislation, as it currently is, at least at this stage, going to committee? In other words, will the member be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to Bill C-63. We often talk about the communities and neighbourhoods in which we live. We do this not only as parliamentarians but also as politicians in general, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. We talk about how we want people to feel safe. People need to feel safe in their homes, in their communities and in the places where they live. That has always been a priority for the current government and, I would like to think, for all parliamentarians of all political stripes. However, sometimes we need to look at finding a better definition of what we mean when we talk about keeping people safe in our communities. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and it plays a critical and important role in society today. In fact, I would argue that, nowadays, it is an essential service that is virtually required in all communities. We see provincial and national governments investing greatly to ensure that there is more access to the Internet. We have become more and more dependent on it in so many different ways. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the community. I could go back to the days when I was a child, and my parents would tell me to go outside and play. Yes, I would include my children as having been encouraged to go outside and play. Then things such as Nintendo came out, and people started gravitating toward the TV and playing computer games. I have grandchildren now, and I get the opportunity to see my two grandsons quite a bit. I can tell members that, when I do, I am totally amazed at what they are participating in on the Internet and with respect to technology. There are incredible programs associated with it, from gaming to YouTube, that I would suggest are a part of the community. Therefore, when we say that we want to protect our children in our communities when they are outside, we also need to protect them when they are inside. It is easy for mega platforms to say it is not their responsibility but that of the parent or guardian. From my perspective, that is a cop-out. We have a responsibility here, and we need to recognize that responsibility. That is what Bill C-63 is all about. Some people will talk about freedom of speech and so forth. I am all for freedom of speech. In fact, I just got an email from a constituent who is quite upset about how the profanity and flags being displayed by a particular vehicle that is driving around is promoting all sorts of nastiness in the community. I indicated to them that freedom of speech entitles that individual to do that. I care deeply about the fact that we, as a political party, brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. At the end of the day, I will always advocate for freedom of speech, but there are limitations. I believe that, if we look at Bill C-63, we can get a better sense of the types of limitations the government is talking about. Not only that, but I believe they are a reflection of a lot of the work that has been put together in order to bring the legislation before us today. I understand some of the comments that have been brought forward, depending on which political parties addressed the bill so far. However, the minister himself has reinforced that this is not something that was done on a napkin; it is something that has taken a great deal of time, effort and resources to make sure that we got it right. The minister was very clear about the consultations that were done, the research that took a look at what has been done in other countries, and what is being said here in our communities. There are a great number of people who have been engaged in the legislation. I suspect that once it gets to committee we will continue to hear a wide spectrum of opinions and thoughts on it. I do not believe that as legislators we should be put off to such a degree that we do not take action. I am inclined to agree with the minister in saying that this is a holistic approach to dealing with an important issue. We should not be looking at ways to divide the legislation. Rather, we should be looking at ways it can be improved. The minister himself, earlier today, said that if members have ideas or amendments they believe will give more strength to the legislation, then let us hear them. Bring them forward. Often there is a great deal of debate on something at second reading and not as much at third reading. I suggest that the legislation before us might be the type of legislation that it would be beneficial to pass relatively quickly out of second reading, after some members have had the opportunity to provide some thoughts, in favour of having more reading or debate time at third reading but more specifically to allow for time at the committee stage. That would allow, for example, members the opportunity to have discussions with constituents over the summer, knowing full well that the bill is at committee. I think there is a great deal of merit to that. There was something that spoke volumes, in terms of keeping the community safe and the impact that the Internet has today on our children in particular. Platforms have a responsibility, and we have to ensure that they are living up to that responsibility. I want to speak about Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, to whom reference has been made already. Ultimately, I believe, she is one of the primary reasons why the legislation is so critically important. Amanda Michelle Todd was born November 27, 1996, and passed away October 10, 2012. Colleagues can do the math. She was a 15-year-old Canadian student and a victim of cyber-bullying who hanged herself at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. There is a great deal of information on the Internet about to Amanda. I thank her mother, Carol, for having the courage to share the story of her daughter, because it is quite tragic. I think there is a lot of blame that can be passed around, whether it is to the government, the private sector or society, including individuals. Carol Todd made reference to the thought that her daughter Amanda might still actually be alive if, in fact, Bill C-63 had been law at the time. She said, “As a mom, and having gone through the story that I've gone through with Amanda, this needs to be bipartisan. All parties in the House of Commons need to look in their hearts and look at young Canadians. Our job is to protect them. And parents, we can't do it alone. The government has to step in and that's what we are calling for.” That is a personal appeal, and it is not that often I will bring up a personal appeal of this nature. I thought it was warranted because I believe it really amplifies and humanizes why this legislation is so important. Some members, as we have seen in the debate already, have indicated that they disagree with certain aspects of the legislation, and that is fine. I can appreciate that there will be diverse opinions on this legislation. However, let us not use that as a way to ultimately prevent the legislation from moving forward. Years of consultation and work have been put into the legislation to get it to where it is today. I would suggest, given that we all have had discussions related to these types of issues, during private members' bills or with constituents, that we understand the importance of freedom of speech. We know why we have the Charter of Rights. We understand the basics of hate crime and we all, I believe, acknowledge that freedom of speech does have some limitations to it. I would like to talk about some of the things we should think about, in terms of responsibilities, when we think about platforms. I want to focus on platforms in my last three minutes. Platforms have a responsibility to be responsible. It is not all about profit. There is a societal responsibility that platforms have, and if they are not prepared to take it upon themselves to be responsible, then the government does need to take more actions. Platforms need to understand and appreciate that there are certain aspects of society, and here we are talking about children, that need to be protected. Platforms cannot pass the buck on to parents and guardians. Yes, parents and guardians have the primary responsibility, but the Internet never shuts down. Even parents and guardians have limitations. Platforms need to recognize that they also have a responsibility to protect children. Sexually victimized children and intimate content that is shared without consent are the types of things platforms have to do due diligence on. When the issue is raised to platforms, there is a moral and, with the passage of this legislation, a legal obligation for them to take action. I am surprised it has taken this type of legislation to hit that point home. At the end of the day, whether a life is lost, people are being bullied, or depression and mental issues are caused because of things of that nature, platforms have to take responsibility. There are other aspects that we need to be very much aware of. Inciting violent extremism or terrorism needs to be flagged. Content that induces a child to harm themselves also needs to be flagged. As it has been pointed out, this legislation would have a real, positive, profound impact, and it would not have to take away one's freedom of speech. It does not apply to private conversations or communications. I will leave it at that and continue at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this bill in a couple of ways. First, I want to deal specifically with Bill C-323 and the issue of mental health, and to pick up on the point I put forward to the member in the form of a question. Over the years, we have seen a substantial change in attitude towards the issue of mental health. Back in late 1980s, I can recall a wonderful doctor. He was my favourite doctor. Every so often I talk to him, and I still call him my favourite doctor. Dr. Gulzar Cheema was a health care critic back in the day, in the late 1980s. I would like to think that he was one of the pioneers in trying to raise the importance of mental health. He worked very closely with Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, where there was a great deal of emphasis on this. One thing that he had advocated for was the need to recognize mental health to the degree that the province should actually establish a mental health department. That was to amplify just how important mental health is to our health care system. He went on to run as an MLA in British Columbia and was elected. That is where the first mental health department was actually established, from what I understand. I could be corrected on that, but I believe it was one of them, if not the first one at the provincial level. Fast-forward to today, and we have a government that has recognized the importance of mental health, from a department perspective. The member made reference to a substantial commitment of literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that, as a government, we have not only talked about but also put into place. We are talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 billion over a set period of time to encourage provinces to look at ways in which we could ultimately see better mental health care services. In fact, the creation of the youth mental health fund can be found in the most recent federal budget. It is substantial fund of money, somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately $500 million. Again, it is there to support young people and organizations and to assist in dealing with the important issue of mental health. The budgetary measure, a way in which we can contribute to mental health, is something we have been very aggressive on. I have often made reference to the $200-billion investment in health care that we have announced for the next 10 years. When we break down the investment, a considerable percentage of that is going to go towards the issue of mental health, either directly or indirectly. I believe that speaks volumes in terms of the way the national government can ensure that we have some form of standards and can encourage all the different provinces and territories, in our own way, to see more delivery of mental health care services. It is one thing that I think distinguishes us from the Bloc and the Conservative Party. They do not see the benefits of the national party playing a stronger role in health care, in terms of the Canada Health Act and the type of programming we can put in place. It would ensure that, no matter where Canadians live, whether it is in British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or anywhere in between, or up north in the Yukon, there would be programs throughout our different communities. That is really important. It is one of the differences between the political parties here today. When we think of Bill C-323, we think of psychotherapy and mental health counselling, and the fine work these people perform day in and day out in addressing such an important issue. We need to provide direct support to them, and one of the ways we can do that is by exempting them from having to pay GST and HST. I am grateful that the member recognized that and brought it forward in the form of a private member's bill, even though, as the member made reference to, it was incorporated into the fall economic statement. I am not going to get into what came first, the chicken or the egg, in regard to this issue. However, I can say both sides agree that it is the right thing to do. To that end, I am grateful because we do know that one of two things will happen. Either Bill C-59 will pass, and the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption for the GST and HST will take place, or the member across the way and I will be knocking on doors, because Bill C-59 is a confidence vote. That means it will be passing. In that sense, it is a good thing. It is only a question of time. We might differ a bit in terms of the timing because there are a number of initiatives within Bill C-59, and if we dig a bit deeper than just the number of the bill, it is the fall economic statement. That is a piece of legislation that we were hoping to pass long ago. One of the problems with having a substantive legislative agenda, as we do as a government in trying to support Canadians, is that time is a scarce commodity on the floor of the House. As a result, we are not necessarily able to pass as much legislation as we would like in the limited amount of time we have. It does not take too much to throw things off, unfortunately. Hopefully, Bill C-59 will pass relatively shortly through the Senate. When that happens, the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption will take effect. I think members on all sides of the House would recognize that as a good thing. No one owns a good idea. Let us just appreciate it for what it is worth. There was another area I wanted to make reference to, and I wanted to talk about it in the spirit of what has been proposed. The government, along with the opposition, has been also talking about the 988 suicide crisis line. It has been an initiative that both the official opposition and the government have been very supportive of. As a result, we now have that suicide crisis line in place. I think that having that 988 number today does make a very positive impact, both directly and indirectly. The primary purpose for having the line is for those who will be using it, and that is stating the obvious. There is also a great deal of benefit because it raises the importance of mental health issues. That is where I will do the full circle in terms of my comments today on the legislation that we are talking about. Mental health is a part of good health. It is not just being in a hospital with a broken arm. Mental and physical health are equally important.

Madam Speaker, 60% of the member's comments were with regard to the economy. It is interesting when he does that. When the world was seeing record-high increases in interest rates and inflation, Canada's performance was far superior than the vast majority of other countries, especially if we compare ourselves to the G20 and the G7. There is even some good news. For the last four months, inflation has been kept under control. In fact, yesterday it was announced that Canada was the first G7 country to see a decrease in the interest rate. This is all good news. I am glad the Conservatives now want to start talking about the economy today and the day after, but I wonder if he could provide his thoughts with respect to the good news that Canada is the first of the G7 countries to decrease interest rates.

Madam Speaker, to the member's point, the government has consistently acknowledged the work that our independent officers do for the House of Commons on behalf of Canadians. Where there is a need, the government has taken to action address the concerns. We continue to wait, and we will ultimately see what takes place. Having said that, I would contrast some of the actions of the current government with those of previous administrations. There was the ETS scandal, which was in excess of $400 million, under the Harper regime, which completely ignored the issue and denied any sort of accountability and transparency. The member can feel free to provide comment on that if he would like.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the idea of sustainable development and funding green projects is something that is worthwhile. I would like to think that all political parties in the House support it, with the possible exception of the Conservative-Reform party. Looking at it, yes, obviously everyone in the chamber recognizes that something is wrong here. The minister took immediate action, and the National Research Council is going to, in essence, ensure that we can continue to have funding ongoing while we address the concerns that have come out. Would the member not agree that to have a government agency, such as NRC, take responsibility for this important file is a positive step forward?

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that SDTC was an arm's-length organization from the government. When it was brought to the attention of the government, immediate actions were in fact taken. Ultimately, today, it has now been given over to NRC to ensure that we can continue to deal with things that are affecting our water, energy and agricultural communities, and to make sure that the good work being done is allowed to continue while we continue to address what the auditor referenced this week. Would the member not agree that having NRC take over is the responsible thing to do? Through NRC, it would be more direct, in terms of the government because it is a Crown corporation.

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to recognize that this is an arm's-length foundation that has been up and running for the last 20 years. To try to give a false impression that the government has been standing by idly doing nothing, that the federal Auditor General's report comes out and then we take action, is just simply not true. The government has been aware of it. It is the one that initiated the review, which got the third party engaged, which ultimately led to the federal Auditor General also then becoming engaged, all of which the federal government, and the minister in particular, has supported. We have acknowledged that. I was intrigued by the questions that were just posed. After stating the facts, does the member then support the motion being proposed by the Conservatives if it is unamended?

Madam Speaker, putting the SDTC issue aside, over the last 20 years, it has provided all sorts of opportunities for companies across the country. It has provided opportunities for start-ups wanting to expand, created green jobs and allowed Canadian companies to be leaders in the world in technology. We recognized it was important to dissolve the board and transfer it to the NRC. Does the member have any thoughts with regard to NRC taking over the responsibilities to ensure that we can continue to provide the funds that are necessary for our environment?

Madam Speaker, there is no other member in the Conservative-Reform party who continuously harps on this one issue more than the member. Whatever the issue is, he will just add the word “scandal” to it. Whether it is real or not, that is his job. Members can take a look at this and try to look at what actually transpired, contrary to what the member tries to give a false impression of. When it was discovered, the government did take actions. Those actions ultimately led to the national Auditor General taking a look at it and issuing a report. When the report came out, there was a consequence. That board no longer exists, and now it is going through the NRC. I wonder if the member would like to reflect, as maybe he overuses the word “corruption”, because he uses it all the time. I would not mind doing a contrast between Stephen Harper and corruption versus our—

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that the SDTC has been around for over 20 years, and it is an arm's-length foundation. When the issue became live, we had a government that proactively took actions that ultimately, I would suggest, even led to the Auditor General's report. We have taken tangible actions, such as the freezing of new funding and now replacing the board. I would like to think that the Conservative Party would in fact recognize, at the very least, that as an arm's-length foundation, we have even taken tangible actions to date so we can ensure that sustainable development and technology in Canada continues to grow and continue to receive funds. Could the hon. member indicate whether he supports the change in governance to the NRC?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as the Conservatives try to portray a false image that the government has not been acting. Nothing could be further from the truth, when one takes a look at SDTC and the fact that it is an arm's-length foundation that has been there for over 20 years now. When the government did discover what had taken place, a number of initiatives to rectify the problem were also initiated by the government, which ultimately led to the Auditor General doing the report that we have today. The board is no longer in existence, as it is in a transition to the NRC. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on what he believes the NRC is going to be able to do in order to keep the program moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I actually do not mind addressing the House on this particular issue, but I thought I would start off in the same manner in which the former leader of the Conservative Party, today's opposition House leader, did. I can understand why he wanted to talk about the economy, interest rates, inflation rates and concerns that he had with the government on those issues. Before he actually got to the motion itself, he spent probably about 50% of his time talking about that issue. I like to think that the member has some valid points in some of the things that he was saying in terms of concerns that Canadians have in regard to some of those key indicators, and that is why I thought that maybe, given that the former leader of the Conservative Party started the debate talking about the economy, I would participate by sharing some thoughts, some actual facts, on that issue. Yesterday was actually a very good day in Canada. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada actually reduced interest rates. We are the first country in the G7 to actually see a reduction in the interest rate. That is good news, and I want to reinforce that to members opposite. This will be the first reduction in four years, and we have to put it into the context of what is happening around the world. When we take a look at interest rates and inflation rates around the world, Canada is doing relatively well, especially if we compare our economy, interest rates and inflation rates to other G7 and G20 countries. Canada is doing quite well, and yesterday, with the announcement from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we actually saw a decrease. Canada is the first country in the G7 to do so. I address that point to my friend, the Conservative House leader, who started off by talking about concerns regarding interest rates. I thought that was some good news, and I wanted to share that with the member opposite. Now let us talk about the motion that we have today. If we take a look at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada, better known as SDTC, which has been referred to throughout the day, I believe it is important that we highlight the fact that SDTC has been around for over 20 years. That is a very important fact. Next to that, we need to recognize that it is actually an arm's-length foundation, meaning that it has a very independent nature. When we think of the board that members continuously make reference to, the Government of Canada does not appoint all the board members. We are not solely appointing the entirety of the board members to SDTC, and I think that is another very important thing to realize. When we think in terms of what SDTC has done over the last 20 years, it is important that we reflect on the hundreds of projects that have been initiated, and as a direct result of that initiation, Canada has done relatively well on a number of fronts. When I think of Sustainable Development Technology Canada over the years, I think of quality air, clean water, enriched soil and the type of technology that needs to be developed in order to provide that quality, as well as to look at environmental initiatives that will have an impact not only here in Canada, but around the world. As an arm's-length foundation, many of the investments have allowed Canadian companies not only to create jobs in Canada, not only to ensure that we have a healthier environment, but also to lead the world in many areas, and so we are contributing to technological advancements around the world through SDTC. When we think of how the government provides funds to support Canadian companies that have the potential to be world leaders in technology, as a political entity, the Liberal Party has valued and recognized the importance of the government being involved indirectly, which is why it is in support of the foundation. The foundation, as I pointed out, was created 20 years ago. Obviously, it has survived a good number of years, even under Stephen Harper. We recognize the fact that the foundation continued to receive support. I suspect, with the millions of dollars that it has received over the years, that many of those Canadian-based companies, and the fine work they have done in terms of the advancement of technology, have contributed in many different ways, not only here, but abroad. If we look at some of the companies that have benefited by it, three things come to my mind. I think of water, whether it is water treatment or whatever it might be. I think of energy with Manitoba and Quebec, two provinces that have so much development in hydro. There is so much potential in that industry and Canada, on many fronts, leads the way, because, in good part, of agencies such as SDTC, along with other levels of government and their investments or the national government's investments. When I think of water, energy and agriculture, all one really needs to do is take a look at the last few years to see how those three items come to the top of mind for me personally and why I believe it was important that the government take action on the issue. Let us put it in perspective in terms of what has actually taken place. There were concerns raised a couple years back in regards to how SDTC was being governed, and employees and others had legitimate concerns. That was brought to the attention of the government. The government intentionally chose to look into the matter with not one, but two internal-type reviews, one being an external third party from within the department. An assessment was done and that report came out last fall. The government was concerned about the report and ultimately froze the new funding going to SDTC. The report, at least in part, caused the Auditor General of Canada to take note and to look into the matter. As a direct result of that, what we saw was the report that was just released earlier this week. When the report was released, the government, as it has in the past, consistently acknowledged that we have independent offices of the House of Commons to support members and to ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and accountability. Through that report, we get a much clearer sense of the serious issues that had to be addressed. We are taking actions based on many of the report's recommendations. The government respects the recommendations and continues to follow them and the thoughts flowing out of that report. Some tangible actions have already been taken. There is no longer a board and we have put into place a transitionary board with retired deputy ministers; I believe there are three retired deputy ministers. We are looking at how ensure that there is ongoing governance that will reinstate public confidence in a program that, generally speaking, has delivered for Canadians. We recognize that there have been some issues. We are not denying that. That is why we are dealing with the governance issue today and it is now being transferred over into the jurisdiction of the NRC. We are taking it away from a foundation-type of board model, which is arm's-length from the government, and we are putting it into a Crown corporation, where there is the opportunity to ensure more direct accountability. I see that as a very strong, tangible action. When we first heard about the issue, the minister took action to ensure that we could find out more information as to what was taking place. For the Conservatives opposite to try to give an impression that the government has not been taking action, I think, is somewhat misleading. At the end of the day, when a government spends a great deal of money, sometimes money is spent in an inappropriate fashion. When that takes place, I would suggest that it is important to watch the actions of the government to ensure public confidence, transparency and integrity of the system, a higher sense of oversight and a better sense of accountability. Changing that governance, ultimately, is going to ensure all of that. The NRC has done some wonderful things in Canada. It has an infrastructure that is already in place. I suspect that many individuals from SDTC will have the opportunity to continue, to ensure that those jobs are in fact being taken into consideration. Think about the programs that are out there. I do not know all of the Canadian-based companies that have received support, but there are quite a few of them and many of them are ongoing. We are talking about hundreds over the years, so it is important that we continue with the program itself. This is where it will be interesting to hear from members of the Conservative Party in terms of where they see the program or the initiative. Stephen Harper supported it, but we know that there has been a hard right turn within the Conservative Party. Just like Erin O'Toole supported a price on pollution, today's Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. Do they support having greener grants and support programs? Is that part of the motivation? They have not been clear on that issue. Instead of having a substantive debate in regard to the benefits that have been realized, whether it is the jobs, the economics or the environment and the world-leading technology that is being developed, the Conservatives' sole focus is to try to shift the blame and say that the government has not been responding to the issues as they have been coming up, and then they try to label our government as corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth on this issue. It is interesting, when we do a comparison. When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we had the ETS scandal, and I made reference to it earlier. A number of people across the way had that shell shock-type of look, or one of a deer caught in the headlights. Maybe they should look it up. That was a technology service contract and, indirectly, the Conservative leader himself would have been somewhat associated with it, at least for a portion of his time with the Stephen Harper government. That was a $400-million contract. If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, they should take a look at the allegations that were being made back then. Now contrast how the Conservative Party approached that mega-scandal with what they are saying today. We can see that it is quite different. Today's Conservative Party looks at things in a very different light. What we see is a Conservative Party that really has one or two issues that they want to focus on, and if we try to change that focus, the Conservatives get upset. Conservatives want to focus on personalizing politics. They want to divide Canadians. They want to try to give the impression that Canada is broken, and that the institution of Parliament is not working. On the one hand, that is the type of messaging that we see time and time again. Character assassination is on the top of that list. The Conservatives are trying to feed the far right, and get them upset, angry and motivated to do the things that we are seeing today, which is somewhat disappointing in many ways. On the other hand, the Conservatives go around spreading misinformation on issues, such as the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. I would suggest that the issue we have before us today is an issue the Liberal government is taking seriously. It has demonstrated that by the actions that we have taken to date. We are going to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency on the issue. We are going to ensure that, at the end of the day, Canadian taxpayers are protected, so the program will lead to ongoing clean energy and worldwide recognition of the advancements that Canada is making on technology.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to think that all appointees under this administration, whether Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, independents or possibly the odd separatist, though hopefully not too many, would be responsible in that position and take actions that are in the best interests of Canada as a nation. That is my expectation. If they do not meet the expectations, then there is a need to take action. That is, in fact, what we have seen the government do. Tangible actions have been taken on this particular issue, and we will continue to move forward in making sure that Canadian taxpayers are in fact—

Madam Speaker, we have a system in Parliament that enables standing committees to be very productive. It is the will of standing committees to meet and build up relationships that ensure a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Nothing prevents standing committees from calling before them the ministers responsible and others to take a deep dive into what has taken place. That is all good. I would encourage and support standing committees doing that. At the same time, from my perspective, it is also important for departments and ministers to do what they can. I am satisfied that we have a minister and a government that continue to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability, having found the degree to which there were problems. We saw that more specifically this week, as the board no longer exists.

Madam Speaker, I would not want to attempt to marginalize the serious issues that the Auditor General has brought forward, and this is why I provided comments regarding the appointment of board members. There are many boards that are appointed. Whether the government appoints Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or people who are really and truly independent to boards, I expect, as I like to think every member should, that they would behave in an appropriate fashion and respect conflict of interest and so forth. When that does not happen, I expect the government to take action, and the current government has done so. It demonstrated that as far back as two years ago in freezing new funding.

Madam Speaker, I was with the Prime Minister when we were in third party, where he talked about things such as proactive disclosure. We, in fact, put in proactive disclosure even before we were elected into government. I know the member will recall that. As a government, we have consistently been very transparent and accountable for the many different programs we brought in, even when it came to the pandemic. Then, governments around the world had to develop and promote programs and spend a great deal of money. Whenever there has been opportunity to ensure we can have the documents required, at one point or another, the government has been bringing forward the information in a reasonable way.

Madam Speaker, I have more confidence in our standing committees than some members maybe do. In fact, one may have a standing committee that is effective in building relationships and trying to get to the bottom of everything that has happened. I would encourage members to work with those who are on the most appropriate standing committees in order to take that deeper dive into the situation. I am not trying to undermine the seriousness of the Auditor General's report. I recognize it, as the government has. The government has taken direct actions, as would have been expected. Just because the official opposition feels it has to attach the words “scandal” and “government” to anything and everything that moves in Ottawa or across the country, it does not necessarily justify every demand the Conservative Party has. It would likely cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars to provide all the documents the Conservatives would want to see, especially if we factor in—

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-61 today. The types of responses we have been getting from virtually all sides of the House and the general goodwill toward the legislation are really quite encouraging. It is important to highlight that there was a very tangible commitment made back in 2015 to deal with this important issue. It goes well beyond reserves. It is about, in essence, the fact that everyone deserves to have access to clean and safe drinking water. This is something the Prime Minister has been talking a great deal about, and I believe that as a government, we are on the right track to achieve just that. In the discussions that have been taking place, I was quite encouraged. I will start off by quoting one of my colleagues, who I know is very proud of the legislation before us today. He has often talked with our caucus colleagues about the issue. Just a couple of days ago, this is what the member for Sydney—Victoria said in the chamber when he raised the issue of Bill C-61: Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month in Canada. It is a month to celebrate indigenous culture and indigenous contributions to our country. As we celebrate National Indigenous History Month, all parliamentarians could indeed make history by sending the first nations clean water act to committee for study. Bill C-61 would recognize first nations' inherent right to water, ensure that there are minimum standards for first nations' clean water and protect first nations' water sources from pollution and contamination now and into the future. This historic and crucial legislation would ensure that first nations have the funding and self-determination to lay the groundwork for a water institution led by first nations. All Canadians would expect access to clean water. Surely on this, the first sitting week of National Indigenous History Month, parties from all sides of the House can agree to support first nations' need for clean water. Let us turn the page on this shameful legacy in Canadian history and give unanimous consent to get the important legislation to committee. It was very encouraging and, a bit later that day, we were able to do just that. An official opposition member rose in his place on a point of order and said, “There have been discussions among the parties, as you suggested earlier, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion”, and the member then read the motion. That brings us to today. That motion is allowing us to not only debate the legislation but do what the member for Sydney—Victoria was suggesting: recognize National Indigenous Heritage Month and get Bill C-61 to committee. The Conservative member then proposed the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be called for debate at second reading on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, and at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, Bill C-61 be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. That is what I mean by the goodwill that has been demonstrated by all political parties in the chamber on what is such a very important issue. It reminds me of a couple of things. One is more of a personal story that many Winnipeggers often talk about, and that is Shoal Lake. Shoal Lake has been supplying the city of Winnipeg for over 100 years through an aqueduct, using the basic law of gravity, and we have benefited from that water. A first nation was very strongly and negatively impacted by that many years ago. It was literally cut off. For over two decades, Shoal Lake 40 has been under a boil water advisory. Thinking about it, just outside their windows, the first nations members could look out and see this beautiful, pristine lake, Shoal Lake. That lake was providing the city of Winnipeg its drinking water, yet the reserve itself was on a boil water advisory. I think that highlighted the issue for many Manitobans and, I would suggest, for all Canadians. Liberals made a commitment back in 2015 to rectify it. Some of our critics will say it was supposed to be done a whole lot quicker. At the end of the day, we put the issue of boil water advisories on the front burner. For generations, nothing was done until the Prime Minister and this government made the financial commitments. I would suggest it was even more than that and indicate that there is a moral responsibility. As a result, we did see a tangible commitment, not only for the water treatment facility, but also on Freedom Road. I can say that if we take a look at Shoal Lake, in particular individuals like Chief Erwin Redsky and other band members, we will be impressed with how the community drove the issue. Ultimately, as a government, we responded to it. As I say, for over two decades it was a problem. Today, anyone who goes there will see a pristine, well-constructed water treatment facility. When I say that, I do not say that lightly, because that particular facility has been recognized for its architecture and the manner in which it was constructed. It was built on time and on budget. What I would like to highlight, when we think about that, is that it was the indigenous leadership that ultimately pushed to make the project take place in the first place. If we take a look at the labourers, the contractors and the individuals who were directly involved in the building of the facility itself, it was all indigenous-led. A couple of weeks back, I was on Parliament Hill and I met with Sharon Redsky, someone I classify as a dear friend. She was talking to me about Shoal Lake and some of the things that have taken place. There is a sense of pride there as a direct result of this. For the first time in generations, Shoal Lake has water it can drink. The same water that has been providing for the city of Winnipeg is there now for Shoal Lake. Opportunities have been created as a direct result of the construction of the water treatment facility and, in fact, the construction of Freedom Road. This has had a profoundly positive impact on the lives of many, so it even goes beyond the important issue of water. This is one of the reasons it is so critically important that, as a government that is committed to getting rid of the long-term boil water advisories, it is not just the federal government moving in and saying that this is the way it has to be, this and that, and then a few years later say “Oh, look, we did the job”, but that we recognize the important role of indigenous leadership driving these programs and supporting them wherever we can. I would suggest, when we take a look at some of the numbers, that what has been accomplished is very impressive. In partnership with communities, the government has lifted over 73% of long-term boil water advisories since 2015, which works out to approximately just over 140 facilities. There is now clean water in more than 96% of first nations. To conclude, suffice it to say that we have gone a long way, and we will continue to move forward on this very important legislation and issue.

Madam Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I get a very good sense of the legislative agenda. If we take a look at the legislative agenda and factor in things such as budget debates, we will find that there is a very limited number of days and a substantial legislative agenda. I would welcome the opportunity for more time, and it is one of the reasons I constantly advocate for changing the Standing Orders. For example, Friday could virtually start at eight in the morning and end at midnight, as far as I am concerned. Members would be able to speak endlessly on important pieces of legislation, which I think would help facilitate more debate. I think that the issue of getting more debate on legislation so that we could actually see more legislation being passed needs to rest, in good part, on reforming our Standing Orders, and if we are successful—

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the legislation is a significant step forward. The member talks about consultation; I can assure him that it has been a number of years, I believe it is close to five years now, that this legislation has been worked on. The consultations have been taking place for about five years, and without that consultation, we would not have the legislation that we have before us today. As the previous questioner said, it is not like the bill is unanimously supported; not all stakeholders and parliamentarians are behind the legislation. I think that a vast majority see the true value of the legislation, which is at a state that is good to go to committee. Hopefully, the committee is able to deal with it in a timely fashion so that we can get it back to the House.

Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I do not believe the government has been negligent at all on the issue. It has demonstrated its intentions virtually from the get-go, with the Prime Minister talking about establishing a new relationship with indigenous people and the Government of Canada, one of mutual respect, and that takes time. It has to be done properly. We were very ambitious, in 2015, in making these commitments and they are materializing, maybe not in the exact time frame we had said back then, but I truly believe we have made significant progress. There is still more to come, but it is tangible, it is there and it is happening. Ultimately, I think that is where we are having an impact in a very positive way.

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize the fact that indigenous leadership has been stepping up in a very significant way, and where it can, the government is enabling and empowering that leadership with positive results. For example, I just received a text with respect to Shoal Lake 40. I am very proud of the fact that Ontario Public Works has awarded the Shoal Lake 40's water treatment facility, and the opportunities it provides for local procurement and employment, the 2022 project of the year for small municipalities and first nations award. I am suggesting we have to make sure it is done right, with a lot of consultation. Working with and supporting indigenous communities and leadership is really important on this issue and we will continue to do so in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight what the member for Sydney—Victoria did. This is National Indigenous History Month, which affords members, and all people of Canada, a better understanding and appreciation of history and the important role we all have to play when it comes to issues such as truth and reconciliation and clean drinking water. Although there are still drinking water advisories out there, we have advisory committees working to get rid of them. The government, over the last number of years, has put Canada on the right track by supporting and enabling indigenous leadership to deal with this very serious problem, and we are getting closer to the finish line.

Madam Speaker, the member referred to the consultation process and had questions about it. I just want to amplify that, over the last five years, there has been a great deal of consultation that has taken place. One of the questions he had was in relation to treaties 6, 7 and 8 first nations. Earlier this year, I know the minister had the opportunity to tune into what it was those first nations were saying about the legislation and the issue of getting rid of the boil water advisories. We all understand and appreciate, as well as respect, the important leadership role that first nations are playing on this file, and we are working to enable and support that leadership. I believe that the minister has clearly demonstrated just how important that fact is. It might have potentially slowed down some projects more than others, but I think that is by far the best way to go. Would the member not agree that working in consultation is so critically important?

Madam Speaker, the member concludes with a remark about all of us coming together at committee, and I really and truly hope that does take place. His critique of the current government is interesting. In 2015, there were 105 boil water advisories, and as a government, we have actually ended 144 long-term boil water advisories. Think about that, and then think about the legislation the Conservatives under Stephen Harper brought in. I was provided an interesting quote about Stephen Harper's legislation: “This legislation does not propose any solutions. Rather, the legislation puts first nations in the direct path of an oncoming freight train.” This is from Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Confederacy of Treaty 6. It was recorded in Hansard in 2013. Yes, there is room for improvement, but trying to give a false impression does a disservice when there is a government that is actually taking action that is moving us forward on this very important file.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts about the relationship that has been established and the general commitment the government has made, with regard to boil water advisories. At one point, when we first took office, there were 105 boil water advisories. We have actually gotten rid of over 140. What are the member's thoughts about the general movement, in terms of the government recognizing the issue, and about actually putting financial resources and things like today's legislation in place to protect the water?

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize the month of June as National Indigenous History Month, and recognize the significant movement forward on such an important piece of legislation. I think all members would reflect positively on those two things. In regard to the issue of consultation, I do not know how many times the Prime Minister has been to Winnipeg. More often than not, meeting with and talking to indigenous leaders is a priority. Ministers who have come through the city of Winnipeg, and outside Winnipeg, are doing consultations. I mentioned Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. The current Minister of Immigration was at the announcement of the water treatment plant. Shoal Lake 40 First Nation is the type of example we could lift up. Hopefully its members will get invited to the committee to have further discussions on the important piece of legislation before us.

Madam Speaker, I respect the articulation that the member across the way has put on what I see as a fairly positive piece of legislation. Given her background as a former labour minister at the Province of Quebec, I would be interested in getting her perspective. I would ask for her best guesstimate. Harassment takes many different forms in the workplace, and I suspect that, even in the province of Quebec, it gets under-reported. If she were to guess, in terms of the Quebec legislation, what percentage of those who are actually being harassed does she believe actually present themselves? It does take a great deal of courage for someone to come forward and say, “I was offended, and this is the reason, and this is how it happened, in the form of harassment.” Does she have any sense of what kind of reporting back there is, based on the legislation, or is there a need for additional public information or advertising on the issue?

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation before us and its principles, I see it as a positive thing. When we take a look in terms of the government's actions, virtually from 2015, what we have witnessed is a government that understands the needs of workers in all regions of our country and has brought forward several substantial pieces of legislation in support of workers. When the member brought forward Bill C-378, I had the opportunity to quickly go through it. I like what it is suggesting, and I suspect it would be very good to see it get to the committee stage. However, there are a number of questions that I have. Even though I might not necessarily be at the committee, and likely will not be at the committee, I appreciate the fact that the member is going to provide me with answers to some of the details that I posed in my question to her here. I say this because I believe that the bill is in the best interests of the workers. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to sit at a local restaurant that I go to on a weekly basis. Perhaps half a dozen to a dozen times, I have had individuals come to me, some of them actually in tears, talking about their work environment. More often than not, but not exclusively, it has been minority women who were subjected to a significant intimidation factor. It comes in different forms. I can speculate on some of it, and I can also report on some real-life situations, as I have had the opportunity to listen to victims and do what I could to support them. That is something that I think is important for all of us. This is the reason I posed the question to the introducer of the legislation that we have before us. It takes a great deal of courage, and I encourage individuals who have been a victim of some form of harassment in the workplace environment to share their experience, whether it is with a family member or with members of a community in which they live or actively participate. I find that talking about it is very helpful, and I would encourage people to share those experiences. I believe, at the end of the day, that the more people share those experiences and the more we see individuals taking action, it ultimately enables more people to do likewise, and we will have better working environments throughout the nation. We could see the legislation go to committee and, ultimately, it would come back, much like when we passed the anti-scab legislation. I will draw a comparison here and say that in Canada we have two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, that have anti-scab legislation. The national government has now passed legislation to bring into Canada, at the federal level, anti-scab legislation. I believe that, by the federal government taking such an action, we help encourage and set a standard that will hopefully see other provincial jurisdictions do likewise. For example, the Province of Manitoba is now looking at anti-scab legislation. The fact is that when we brought in the legislation, it received all-party support, which I believe speaks volumes. With Bill C-378, I think there is the potential to get all-party support for it as well. As the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have talked about in the past and continue to hold today, if there are ideas to the benefit of Canadians, we are prepared to entertain and look at ways in which we can support them, even if it means attempting to move amendments. This is something we have consistently done since 2015, even on the issues we are talking about today. I think of Bill C-3, for example, which came out of the pandemic and the pressures that were being put on health care providers in particular. Many people were protesting and, in essence, in a different way, instilling in health care providers a fear of doing their job of supporting our health care system when there was a great deal of concern during the pandemic and in the days that followed. Bill C-3 dealt with that by making protests that instilled fear in individuals like health care workers illegal. I think of Bill C-65, which mandated training about harassment and violence in the workplace. As the member before me made reference to, the government has brought in a relatively modest change, which the member is now trying to have increased from three months to up to two years. These are the types of changes that would protect the interests of the worker. We need to take a bigger look at it and take a holistic approach to the working environment. I am not sure whether Hansard will get the tail end of my question to the member, because it was getting a little lengthy, but what I was trying to amplify is that it is important workers know their rights, and that there are many different agencies and support networks to reinforce and support them. What I was referencing in the tail end of my question was to what degree there is a sense of public awareness and to what degree we might be doing something collectively, or the government or governments should be doing, to promote, whether through advertising or other means, the rights of workers. This is something important that needs to be taken into consideration. With respect to the rights of workers, everyone in the workplace should have the right to be free of harassment and any sort of violence. That is really important. There is a responsibility on employers, whether it is directly through the employer or it is through the manager, to ensure that there are opportunities that are not intimidating for workers to bring things forward. When that takes place, I believe it is healthy for the entire workforce in a particular environment, especially if workers can see there is a genuine attempt to deal with an issue such that the individual who has been slighted is being listened to and the concern is being addressed. I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation. I suspect it will go to committee; we will ultimately see what takes place at committee stage.

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the opposition member just said, the State of California does have a price on pollution. However, that is not the question I have for the member. At the end of the day, we take a look at the cost factors, inflation rates and the impact that these things have on society. We want to see food prices stabilized. Ultimately, people need to have comfort in knowing that the government is acting on their behalf. We brought in the Competition Act, which the member made reference to; this is one way in which we can ensure that we are having more stabilization of food prices. Could he just expand on why it was important to make changes to the Competition Act?

Madam Speaker, one of the initiatives that I think we have not talked much about is the food price data hub. I find it quite interesting that we can actually educate consumers through a data bank that ultimately shows the average price of food. It is personalized to an individual's province, and it is interesting to go through it. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts in regards to having such data banks and how they could be of benefit, especially when competition is not where it should be.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the issue of caps has a lot to do with the supply end and with the end result. My question for the member is in regard to the idea of enhanced competition. We did have six large grocery companies. Shoppers was the last one that folded into Loblaw. In part, that sent a very strong message in itself, and it was one reason we had to change and to modernize the Competition Act. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the important role that the Competition Act and the commission play in ensuring that there is stability in prices.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues is that the NDP tends to talk about corporate handouts. The only corporate handout I am aware of was a few years ago, where we provided an incentive, and I believe there were about 45 or 50 applicants, regarding refrigeration. Loblaw was one of the applicants, so we paid up to 25% for it to invest in technological advancements that would reduce emissions. My question for the member is this: Is the NDP suggesting that when a government comes up with a policy to reduce emissions, the private sector should not be allowed to participate in that type of grant?

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by indicating that I do not want to come across as someone who is going to defend the big five grocers, whether it is Loblaw, Metro, Sobeys, Costco or Walmart. I do not think that they need any advocates on their behalf on the floor of the House of Commons. I am genuinely concerned about the cost of groceries, and that is nothing new. It is something I have been concerned about for many months, or in fact, for the last number of years. It is a genuine concern. It is something the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister, has been raising a great deal of concern about. It is not like it is something that has just happened over the last few months. We can talk about there being issues related to groceries, even prepandemic, and the lack of competition. It is very real, and unfortunately, Canadians have had to pay a price for that. It is one of the reasons we have given it a considerable amount of attention. Members will recall when the issue started to really heat up. The Prime Minister and the minister responsible were saying that we wanted to call on those big five grocers that, in essence, have about 80%, or maybe a little higher than that, of the market. It is an area we should all be concerned about. That is the reason they have been called before the government. That is the reason they have been called before a standing committee. To try to give an impression, in any way, whether it is coming from the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc or anyone else, that the government is not concerned about the issue is just false. Over the last number of years, we have come up with thoughts, ideas and actions, whether they were budgetary measures or legislative measures, to try to hold them to account or ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and more accountability in that area. It is really quite encouraging to see that we have a House that is very much aware of the concerns Canadians have. One thing that gets very little attention, which I want to highlight, is the food price data hub. It is something that has now been reinforced by the government. We want to make sure that Canadians are better informed about prices. Prior to the speeches today and the debate getting under way, I did a quick search on the food price data hub. I took a look at the province of Manitoba. The food price data hub is complemented by Stats Canada. These numbers are fairly accurate. It provides an average price. Consumers can go there to get a sense of many different products and what they can expect for a cost. What I thought was interesting, because we are talking about the issue of inflation, was looking at some of the more common things. For example, when we think of ground beef, and I am talking about in Manitoba, in November 2023, it was $11.22. It went up in December to $11.75, and dropped down to $11.10 in January and to $10.77 in February. Today it is at $11.37. Pork lion cuts were $9.70 per kilogram back in November, and I will just go right to March, when it was up by four cents. A whole chicken was $8.89 per kilogram back in November, and it is actually down to $6.89. Chicken drumsticks, one of my favourites, I must say, were at $8.43 in November, and they went down to $7.96. When we talk about milk, a four-litre jug of milk was $5.72 in November and $5.72 in March. Butter was $6.29 in November and $5.99 in March. A 500-gram block of cheese was $6.65 in November and $6.59 in March. The bottom line is that some of the prices have gone up and some of the prices have gone down. I like the general trend that we have been seeing in groceries, and I hope to be able to continue to see that trend. One of the commitments that the government made a while back was to try to ensure that there is more price stability within the industry. That is something we want to see. It is one of the reasons we made significant changes to the Competition Act. We often hear about the bread scandal. Many people following this debate today will have already heard it mentioned a couple of times. Members can imagine an industry that ultimately worked together to prop up the cost of bread. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in additional profit were made at the cost of higher prices for consumers. That took place virtually throughout the whole time period Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Ultimately, it ended up in the courts, and it was found that there was a price-fixing scandal within that industry. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. We have to realize that, if the industry were left on its own, we would see a lot more price-fixing. One of the roles that government has is to ensure that there is competition. I look at it from a past perspective. We did, at one point, have six major grocery outlets. We had Loblaw, Metro, Sobeys, Costco, Walmart, and Shoppers Drug Mart. A number of years ago, when Stephen Harper was the then prime minister, Loblaw acquired Shoppers. There were no questions asked, and it was acquired. Many people, including me, would argue that this diminishes competition, and by diminishing competition, ultimately, in situations like this, we are going to see prices potentially go up. There were no Conservatives who talked about that. Today, the Conservatives talk about competition in the grocery market, but back in the day, when they were in government, they did absolutely nothing at all regarding this. In fact, the Conservatives saw one of the grocery giants fall to be taken in by Loblaw. We can look at the Competition Act and the way the Conservatives filibustered that legislation, trying to prevent the government from passing legislation. That legislation enhanced competition. It provided more resources for the Competition Bureau. By doing that, the Competition Bureau is able to conduct market studies. It is better able to do enforcement. It is better able to look at monetary penalties, and many of the maximum amounts were raised as a direct result. Most important, from my perspective, is that the Competition Bureau put into place a merger review process that was not of the same nature. For example, it was the whole efficiency argument, where a store would be able to come before the Competition Bureau and say that, by doing this, it would become more efficient and therefore able to provide better prices and more options for Canadians. That argument was thrown out through the amendments that we made to the Competition Act. These are the types of legislative actions that the government has taken to ensure that there is a better sense of predictability and stability in rates for groceries. That is a positive thing. I will contrast that with the previous administration, and it is a significant change. When Canadians were going through the pandemic, we started to really see it on the inflation graphs. When the rates were coming to the peak, the government responded by taking budgetary action. The government came up with the grocery rebate for Canadians. The rebate assisted millions of Canadians by giving them extra disposable income because of the increase in grocery prices at the time. Whether it is through legislative actions or budgetary measures, members will find that the government, as a whole, has been very supportive of Canadians. I do think that is worthy of noting. If we look at other aspects of the NDP motion today, it mentions that the Liberals, as a government, are giving these corporate bailouts, or giving hundreds of millions of dollars to companies such as Loblaw and Metro. It makes reference to Loblaws specifically. What the NDP members are referring to, to the best of my knowledge, are the two ways in which the government, under the Prime Minister, have subsidized groceries. One of them is through the subsidies for the north, and the other one was more of an indirect one. The government came up with a series of policies dealing with emissions and the environment. One of those policies concerned the way products are refrigerated and the technology advancements in that area. We said that, if a company were to modernize, then the federal government would step up and assist with, I believe, about 25% of whatever the total cost of the project would be. There were 50 or so applicants under that particular program, and one of them happened to be Loblaw. Loblaw took advantage of a government program to reduce emissions. The total amount spent was about $48 million, and $12 million came from the government, under that particular program to reduce emissions. That one project, from what I understand, was to reduce emissions. I will ask members not to quote me on this, but I believe it was the equivalent of taking thousands of vehicles off the road. It enhanced the opportunity for Canada to continue its leading role in the manufacturing of refrigerators. It created jobs, was better for the environment, and yes, Loblaw was one of many applicants. That is the program they are accusing the government of squandering tax dollars for. I beg to differ on that. The other program I am aware of is support for northern Canada. Those northern supports are very real. When we take a look at the nutrition north program back in 2011, the budget was just over $50 million. Today, that budget is worth just under $150 million. That does not incorporate the community food programs. On the one hand, in the very same resolution that is being proposed, the NDP is being critical of the Liberals for not supporting northern food prices, stabilization and reduction. They are also saying that we are supporting corporate greed. I mentioned the two programs I am aware of, and I am open to anything else that I might have missed. That is a question I would love to have answered. When we think of the nutrition north program, it is a program that the Liberals greatly enhanced from a financial point of view with contributions. We have also looked at ways we can ensure that there are technological advancements, so we can see more community food programs put into place. By doing that, we are providing opportunities for northerners to potentially produce more food and become more diversified, if I can put it that way. At the same time, we are looking at ways we can continue to support lower-priced food in the north through that specific program. We have also invested, with this budget, in local food infrastructure programs, again, to enhance the ability of non-profits, in particular, to generate that local food. There are many initiatives that the government has taken to support the stabilization of prices, and we see the impact of that when we look at the numbers. The numbers clearly show that we are having a relatively positive impact. However, contrast that to what the Conservative Party is saying. With the first two Conservative members who stood up to speak about this important issue, I do not think they even talked about the issue of food security. All they wanted to talk about was what they were hearing from Jenni Byrne, who is a lobbyist, by the way, for the big grocery chains. The Conservative spin, no matter what is being debated, is that they have to talk about the axe the tax bumper sticker. The Conservatives are not contributing to the debate or adding any sort of value to it. All they want to talk about is calling an election and axing the tax. I find it unfortunate because there is a whole lot more that we could be doing here in the House of Commons. As much as the Conservative Party wants to focus its attention on one issue, we will continue to look at ways we can enhance opportunities in many different sectors so that Canadians will ultimately see things such as stabilized food prices. We are already starting to witness that, not to mention the many different programs the government has been bringing forward, one of which I hope to talk about very soon, once we get into members' statements. Suffice it to say that I appreciate the thought of talking about the price of food, but I think that the motion itself is somewhat misguided. I realize that I will get a little bit more time after question period, and I will provide some more thoughts on that issue when we resume debate.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians love our health care system. From coast to coast to coast, we understand and we believe in the Canada Health Act and in the importance of health care to all Canadians. I was disappointed yesterday when members of the Conservative Party and the Bloc, the unholy alliance, came together and voted against a national pharmacare plan that would support millions of Canadians. Whether with respect to contraceptives or diabetes, these types of programs, I believe, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. Once again, we see the difference between the Conservative Reform Party and a caring Liberal government. Conservatives are more concerned about cutting back on things, compared to the Liberal government, which recognizes the true value of a national health care system that incorporates some components of pharmacare.