Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about such an important piece of legislation. It is not the first time I have had the opportunity to debate the legislation. We have seen a great deal of effort by the current ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and those who held these positions previously. I believe they have followed the lead of the Prime Minister of Canada. Even before he was Prime Minister and we sat on the opposition benches, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report was presented with all 94 calls to action, he made it very clear, before any other political party or leader, that we recognized the injustices that have been done and that it was important that we get behind and support all 94 calls to action. From day one, that has been the approach by the leader of the Liberal Party. Back then, we felt it was very important. I stood in my place while I was in the third party to talk about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and said that we needed a public inquiry. In late 2015, we saw a change in government and there was an affirmation of a commitment that the Prime Minister talked about while he was the leader of the Liberal Party, as the third party. The Prime Minister and the government, with its different ministries, have worked diligently and followed indigenous leadership on a wide spectrum of issues. As a direct result of that, we have seen many calls to action implemented. This is not the first time I have stood in my place to talk about legislation that is rooted in the calls to action that the government has brought forward. The member for Winnipeg Centre referred to children. I take a lot of pride, in the area I represent, in being a strong advocate. I work with people like Cindy Woodhouse and Sharon Redsky, and many others to deal with an issue that is so very important. I can understand and appreciate its importance to indigenous leaders, and that is one of the reasons we brought in the legislation regarding children. The member for Winnipeg Centre has to be careful when she makes accusations about me carrying out my responsibilities as a parliamentary secretary with regard to legislative suggestions that are outside of the scope. That is what the member was referring to when she referred to my comments to another member. It is somewhat unfortunate because I have been very diligent on this issue as it is an important issue to my constituents also. When I think of reconciliation, this is a significant step forward, but it is not the first step, nor will it be the last. When we look at the holistic approach of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many of us follow, in a very real and tangible way, what indigenous leaders are telling us, and we are acting where we can. We have seen things, such as the statutory holiday, brought in under this government. We have seen the opportunity enhanced significantly due to the leadership of indigenous people in regard to children, in the form of legislation. We have seen the reinforcement of things such as language, as part of heritage, brought in. In fact, if we look at the 94 calls to action, when we look at the total number, we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of just above 80%, where the federal government has the entire scope or shares responsibility. On a vast majority of those, either significant progress has been made or they are done. Some might try to paint a dark cloud over the calls to action. I would suggest that those members who paint that dark cloud need to take a look at what other previous governments have done, to show some contrast—

Madam Speaker, one of the powers within the council would be to get a proper recording from departments and to provide reports. There would be, I believe, indigenous-led accountability to the different levels of government. As I indicated, this would not just be Ottawa. There are things that happen within our provinces, our municipalities, and communities of all sizes and aspects. We all need to play a role in this, and I believe the council would be in a wonderful position to ensure there would be accountability at all levels. I honestly believe, at the end of the day, that is going to be the greatest value in this particular call for action.

Madam Speaker, in many different ways over the last while now, a considerable amount of work and consultation has been done, and not only by the Government of Canada. Indigenous communities that, in good part, led the way also did a considerable amount of consultation, from what I understand. If the member has something very specific, as he just said, I would suggest that he bring it up with the current minister, to see if anything can be done on it.

Madam Speaker, I left the Manitoba legislature in 2010. A child advocate at that time said that Manitoba was in a child care crisis. Well over 10,000 children were in foster homes or being taken away from biological parents. I will remind the member that that was an NDP government. At the end of the day, not much has changed in the province of Manitoba. It is one of the reasons we needed the legislation as a part of the call to action. That is why we brought forward the legislation, to better enable the communities, the indigenous leaders, to be able to take more control. It is because provinces and some governments, such as the provincial government when I was in opposition, did not do anything to address the issue. They had the opportunity—

Madam Speaker, we have to bring it back to the focus of the national council, and its primary responsibility, in good part, would be dealing with the calls to action. The reason I raise the calls to action is that there are 94 of them, and out of those 94, a majority of them are the sole or joint responsibility for the federal government. It is not only the federal government, but also other levels of government and other stakeholders, if I can put it that way, that need to be held to account. The federal government continues to work. We can still do more. I am not saying that as government we have done everything we can. We continue to work and will continue to work on this critical file. The national council would ultimately complement and ensure a high sense of accountability and transparency well into the future because, in good part, its job would be to ensure that the calls to action are not only reported on but ultimately implemented. That is a good thing, and we need to remain focused on that.

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of time in her comments dealing with the makeup of the national council itself. It is important to recognize that the minister did work in collaboration with the transitional committee, a committee whose membership she made reference to. The very impressive group of people in the membership of that committee came up with the terms of the future board, including the four identified groups that would ultimately get appointments. I wonder whether the member could add her further thoughts on what specific groups she would suggest should be incorporated into the legislation, or whether she is okay with the four that are listed.

Mr. Speaker, I thought maybe what I would do is reflect on the word “real” that my friend amplified during her four minutes. I give her credit, she knows the four priorities of the Conservative Party. She probably even has the bumper stickers already produced, ready for circulation. In fairness to the member, I suspect that if she does not have them, she will likely be the first Conservative to have the actual bumper stickers. She sticks to the points. I know she puts a great deal of effort into her every word. Sometimes we hear that we should not let the facts deny a potentially good speech. I suspect that my friend across the way adhered to that. She made reference to the 80%, so let us take a look at the 80%. It is the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, not the Liberals or the NDP or anyone else, who has said that 80% of people will receive more back through the carbon rebate than they will pay in the carbon tax. She would say that if we do this or that, then maybe people might pay more. All of “this or that” does not take into consideration things such as weather patterns or the impact that climate change is having on farms, and that also needs to be taken into consideration. For now, what we should do is acknowledge that the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer is correct when he says that 80% of Canadians will actually receive more money back than they are paying in through the carbon tax. The rebate is bigger than the tax for 80%-plus. In Winnipeg North, I suspect the percentage is even higher. I do not know that for a fact, so I cannot say that as fact. What I can say is that the Conservatives do not talk about cancelling or getting rid of the rebate portion. All they talk about is getting rid of the tax. In reality, it would do two things. One, it would reinforce that the Conservative Party is loaded with climate deniers. Two, it would take net disposable money out of 80%-plus of the residents I represent. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. If we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that it is for everyone in Canada, yet provinces like British Columbia and Quebec do not have the carbon tax. However, that does not stop the Conservative leader from going around saying, what I would suggest is misleading information, through social media and other forms, to Canadians that they are going to be better off because if they axe the carbon tax, they would have more money. However, that is factually incorrect on a number of fronts. The bottom line is that I think it is good to have a sound, solid environmental policy. It would be nice to see the Conservative Party share what their new environment policy is. We know that back in 2021, their environmental policy also had a price on pollution or, dare I say, a carbon tax. In fact, the first administration, virtually in North America, to have a carbon tax was the Conservatives in the province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing in terms of the places around the world where we see a price on pollution actually being implemented, or a carbon tax. We could talk about Ukraine, which has a price on pollution, a carbon tax, as do countries like Poland, many European countries and, in fact, Mexico. People often say the United States does not have it. It does not have a national carbon tax, but many states have a carbon tax. The reason I say that is, at the end of the day, having a price on pollution, making the polluters pay, is sound public policy. Unfortunately, it is being distorted to the nth degree by the Conservative Party, all in an attempt to have a shiny bumper sticker of deceit for Canadians. I think that is sad. We are supposed to be here to develop and to encourage sound public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree entirely with the impression that the member is trying to give, which is just not even remotely close to the reality of the situation. For example, I would challenge the member to cite a prime minister in the last 50 or 60 years who has done more in terms of investing in housing in all sorts of ways. That is not only in terms of financial commitments; we have seen other budgetary measures whereby we have attempted to deal with issues such as fraud and foreign ownership. We understand and very much appreciate the value and the importance of being able to own a home. That is why this government, like no other government in the last number of decades, made a decision years ago, not just in the last 24 hours. Shortly after being elected to government in 2015-16, we consciously said that as a national government we wanted to be proactive in dealing with housing going forward, and we brought forward the first-ever national housing strategy. It is important that we recognize that it is not just the national government's responsibility. We can lead, which we have done, both financially and legislatively, and we have reached out to the many different stakeholders. We need the stakeholders also to come to the table, and we are seeing that. We are seeing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in working with mayors and other jurisdictions to ensure that we can increase the housing supply. I am a bit concerned that the member talked about the issue of immigration. I do not believe we should even attempt to blame the issue on immigrants. At the end of the day, whether it is provincial governments or the national government, we have recognized and believe in the power of immigrants and how they have lifted all of us higher. It is in good part something that we will continue to work on with other jurisdictions. I do not like the tie-in to immigrants on the issue of fraud. This is a government that has recognized the issue; we are working with others to resolve it. Most importantly, we are recognizing the national government's lead in ensuring that we have more housing and more affordable housing, because we understand the importance of it. Unlike the Conservatives, we will work with other jurisdictions. We are not going to go around saying that this or that person is a bad mayor. I have not heard the Conservatives say anything good about mayors. It is important that we recognize that we need to work with other jurisdictions, because often it is the councils and in some areas the provinces that actually have more tools than we would have, outside of financial supports.

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much concerned about the cost and affordability of housing. That is one of the reasons it is imperative that the Government of Canada continue to work with municipalities and provinces in particular, but also the non-profit organizations that are out there. I am a big fan, for example, of Habitat for Humanity. Without that organization, there are literally hundreds of people in the city of Winnipeg alone who would never have had the opportunity to own a home. The organization does a lot of good work. There are a number of advocates and organizations out there to give that helping hand. We need to work collectively to try to make things more affordable. All I can tell the member is that the Government of Canada is at the table, and we are going to do what we can.

Mr. Speaker, I will withhold my comments on the poem itself. I wish I had been given it in advance because I would have taken it line by line and provided a few thoughts. The poem might not have rhymed as well, but it definitely could have been a little more factual. When we are in the House, facts are really important. For example, the member is concerned about inflation, as well member should be, and ties it to axing the tax, along with axing the rebate. I have to make sure we include both of them, which is only fair, because that is telling Canadians what Conservatives would really do, but it would only be for the provinces that both pay the tax and receive the rebate. I would add that qualifier, too. Therefore, B.C. and Quebec would not be included, which is a fairly high percentage of Canada in terms of population. We could ask farmers about inflation and how it is impacting food production into the future, but I believe the greater threat to food production in the future is climate, things like floods. Earlier today, in the first hour of debate, members on all sides of the House talked about floods and the impacts they are having. Floods, droughts, fires and other natural disasters, which are all on the increase, are all based on climate change, something the Conservative Party refuses to recognize. I can tell the member opposite that there is a very good chance they will have a much larger, more significant impact on inflation. When the Conservatives talk about axing the tax, it might sound nice, it might even look nice on a bumper sticker, as I referred to earlier, but, at the end of the day, it is not sound government policy, even if we try to tie it into inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada indicated that the percentage of the carbon tax increasing inflation was 0.15%, just a fraction. Let us compare Canada's inflation to countries that do not have a national price on pollution, like the United States. I pointed out some of the states do, but we would find that in many areas, their inflation rate is higher than Canada's inflation rate. This whole idea of cutting the carbon tax and the rebate would somehow drive the price of food down is quite misleading. In the poem, the member said the Conservatives are going to build homes. The leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for housing when he was minister. I need to remind my colleague across the way that he bombed on the issue. He did not even come close to dealing with the housing issue. I want to be nice, so I had best leave that one. On car theft, let us look at Manitoba. It was at its very worst when Stephen Harper was prime minister.

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way gets the gold star for the day for the number of times he said, “axe the tax”. He does deserve a pat on the back for that. However, let us take a look at the reality of the situation. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc all support a price on pollution. Countries around the world support it; they actually have a price on pollution, or a carbon tax. The Conservatives are the only group that does not, even though in 2021 each member, including the member who just spoke, actually campaigned on a carbon tax. However, they flip-flopped on that; they made a change just because they got a leader with a nice idea for a bumper sticker. That does not make good public policy. I look to the Conservatives to ask them to tell us what their plan is for the environment. What would they do—

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, we had a number of calls for action that were being placed on the Government of Canada. Stephen Harper was the prime minister at the time. We were sitting in the position of third party. We had made a commitment to work on and fulfill those calls for action. The Conservatives had consistently been dragging their feet on it. I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts on recognizing the importance of the calls for action and why we support this particular piece of legislation. Can he be clear in terms of how he is going to be voting with respect to the amendments?

Mr. Speaker, earlier I referred to the 94 recommendations, the calls to action, and Bill C-29 addresses a very important call to action. We recognize that the federal government plays a very important lead role, but there are other jurisdictions, provinces and others, that also play a role. We have seen a significant percentage, I believe it is well over 80%, that have been acted upon or are in process, from a federal government perspective. I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on overall reconciliation and the calls to action.

Mr. Speaker, reducing and stabilizing grocery prices has been a priority for this Prime Minister and this government. The same cannot be said about the Conservative Party. Let me explain why. A Globe and Mail report says, “Harper’s enforcer: Meet Jenni Byrne, the most powerful woman in Ottawa”. Jenni Byrne was also the campaign manager for not one but two national elections. How about the current leadership? She is one of the reasons why the current leader is the leader of the Conservative Party. She sits on the current leader's inner circle. She attends the Conservative caucus meetings. Why is that a problem? She makes money from Loblaws. She is an advocate for Loblaws. How is it that the Conservative Party cannot understand what a conflict is? When will it stand up with Canadians and demonstrate some genuine concern about the price of groceries?

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the committee consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. Now that the bill has been reported from committee and is now in the possession of the House, I would like to draw the attention of the Speaker to amendments made at committee that should be ruled inadmissible. During the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of the bill, amendments were made to clauses 1, 8, 14 and 17 that exceed the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. Moreover, the amendments infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Without commenting on the merits of the amendments, I will say that each of the four amendments seeks to add a new concept to the bill and therefore exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. I would also add that, in addition to exceeding the scope of the bill, the amendments would seek to authorize new and distinct spending for purposes not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation. During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the chair ruled as follows in relation to the amendment to clause 1. He stated: The current amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a claimant different from the child's parents, following different processes from the provincial adoption process as stated in the bill, and the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772: “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, one that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and as such it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible. The member for Winnipeg Centre moved a motion to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair, and the clause was adopted as amended. Since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments and the—

Madam Speaker, since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the Chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments, and the chair's ruling was overturned. The committee then proceeded to adopt the amendment in question to clauses 8, 14 and 17. Since the amendments were deemed inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill and give rise to the need for a royal recommendation, I therefore submit that the amendments be struck from the bill and a new version of the bill, without the offending amendments, be reprinted for consideration at report stage of the said bill.

Madam Speaker, I am and always will be a very strong advocate for sound immigration policy. I recognize the benefits of immigration in all the forms it takes. At the end of the day, the uniqueness of the province of Quebec and the role that it plays cannot be underestimated. I have a very strong passion for the French language. It is one of the reasons I take a great sense of pride when I see someone of Filipino heritage in the area I represent able to dialogue in English and French. We promote French whenever we get the opportunity. However, consultation is very important. I acknowledge that. I wonder if the leader of the Bloc can express to the chamber to what degree he has done his consultation, particularly with the Government of Quebec, before bringing in this resolution. What did it have to say to him about it?

Madam Speaker, I was the critic for immigration back when the common-sense Conservative government was in place and denied Canadians the opportunity to sponsor parents and grandparents to come to Canada for permanent residency. It literally killed the program. When we had the common-sense immigration issues, it took years to try to get a loved one, a wife, a husband or a significant other, to immigrate to Canada under permanent residency. Is this the type of common-sense, or should I say nonsense, Conservative policy we are going to see brought back under that type of administration?

Madam Speaker, I want to focus on the time I was in opposition when we had a Conservative government and on another program where the member says that Conservatives did not have backlogs. I recall the backlog for experienced workers that got so long that Minister Kenney, as opposed to dealing with it, literally hit the delete button, and hundreds of thousands of people who were in the stream were deleted out of the system. I think Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative common-sense approach is to the detriment of the long-term healthy immigration policy. We have seen a number of areas where processing times are far better than what they were in the Conservative era.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the exchange that just took place. When we talk about cutting the number of international students, my biggest concern, quite frankly, is the exploitation of international students. That particular program has led to exploitation because provinces and post-secondary education facilities have not stepped up to the plate when they should have. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of international students every year. The federal government needs to step in more because we have seen neglect at other levels. As a result of the current minister getting more directly involved and putting in a cap, we are going to prevent the exploitation of potential international students. We need to continue with that. Would my colleague across the way not agree that the federal government needs to continue to work with other jurisdictions and be sensitive to the issue of international students? It is not as simple as saying that we need to cut the numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to the member opposite over the last half hour or so. On the issue of immigration, I am very much interested in knowing the NDP's position on overall numbers that they would like to see come to Canada. She indicated, very clearly, that temporary foreign workers who come to Canada should be granted permanent resident status. She also indicated that an unlimited number of international students should be allowed to come to Canada. I am wondering if she could share with us two things. Should international students also be provided with assurances that they could become permanent residents. If so, when she factors that into the number of permanent residents through the temporary foreign workers program, what is the target goal, the overall number of immigrants in any given year? Does the NDP have one?

Mr. Speaker, to get a specific answer, is the member clearly saying that if one comes to Canada to study and one comes to Canada as a foreign worker, one should be granted permanent resident status? If she is saying that, and that is what I am hearing, then does the NDP have any sort of limits they would put on the numbers that they would allow in every year? A clear answer, I believe, is owed to Canadians on that question.

Mr. Speaker, I think that through the expansion, in particular with Jean Chrétien back in 1998 and the provincial nominee program, it sent a very clear message that we do need, from an Ottawa perspective, to continue to work with the provincial jurisdictions. I think Quebec was the model province at the time, and it continues to be in many ways in regard to immigration, but there is a need for people to be working together. Does the member agree with the NDP position that temporary workers should be given permanent residence status? If not, why not?

Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the larger picture of immigration, what we have seen over the last 15 or 20 years is a movement towards more provincial participation. To amplify that fact, one only needs to take a look at the provincial nominee program. Over 100,000 people will be coming, targeted, over the next year under that program alone. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the fact that when we talk about the supports that need to be put into place, provincial jurisdictions also have a role to play, given that they also have an interest in the immigrants who are coming to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you were very generous in listening to what the member across the way was saying. I had the opportunity to witness the exchange. From my perspective, it is very much a dispute over the facts at best. I would suggest that what was being suggested as a point of order or a matter of privilege is just a matter of debate that should have, in all likelihood, stayed inside the committee. I realize that the member might have been embarrassed, but it does not justify bringing it into the chamber.

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked one of the member's colleagues. Bloc members talk about the importance of consultation in regard to the immigration file, and they have done so a lot in the last couple of months. When we factor in things like the provincial nominee program, international students, temporary workers in agricultural communities, and so forth, there is no doubt there is a need to have ongoing conversations, which have taken place in a wide spectrum of ways. Has the Bloc had any official discussion with the Government of Quebec with respect to the motion it is proposing today?

Madam Speaker, I have been following the issue of immigration since the early 1990s. I have been very passionate about and have understood many different aspects of immigration over the years, whether at the provincial level or the national level, both when I was in opposition and now while we are in government. I am very passionate about it because I understand and appreciate the true value of immigration and how Canada is what it is today because of sound immigration policy. It would take quite a bit to fool me on some of the things I have been hearing on the immigration file, and I want to quickly make reference to that. One of the concerns I had was about a comment made by the member for Calgary Shepard. He was talking about immigration, and I actually wrote down the quote. Before I continue, I will say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre. We were debating immigration target numbers and so forth, and the member for Calgary Shepard said, “They bear responsibility for the chaos on our streets today with crime that is out of control.” I do not like whatsoever that the member opposite was trying to imply in any way that immigrants are a problem when it comes to crime and chaos on our streets. That is surely what could be interpreted, based on the manner in which he presented himself. I then take a look at my New Democratic friends. I want to be kind, but it is hard when one gets statements saying something like if someone is an international student, they should become a permanent resident, and, at the same time, saying we should have no cap on international students. To me, that is irresponsible public policy. Just so the member is aware, I can guarantee that, virtually overnight with that sort of policy, we would exceed, and I will be conservative with my number, well over a million international students applying every year. Further, the member from the New Democratic Party said that she would like to see temporary residents in the form of workers also automatically becoming permanent residents. That is the reason I posed the question to the NDP. Does it have any cap whatsoever? If one follows the advice or the comments that were provided, we would probably be taking in at least 1.5 million to 2.5 million residents a year. I do not think that would be a practical number. It is important that we be serious. I will now move to the Bloc. The Bloc brought forward a motion. I will talk about immigration any day of the week, and I asked whether they have done consultation. I know the importance of consultation on this file; as I said, I have been working on the file since the early 1990s. I understand the role and the impact on the Manitoba economy. That is one of the reasons I was a very strong advocate for Jean Chrétien and the provincial nominee program. History will show us that no province in Canada did better than the province of Manitoba in taking advantage of the provincial nominee program. Our immigration numbers grew rapidly as a direct result of a progressive program, at that point instituted by and signed off on by Jean Chrétien and, in my home province, Gary Filmon. Manitoba has benefited; the program has been gold to the province of Manitoba. When one thinks of the provincial nominee program, when one takes a look at the unique nature of immigration into the province of Quebec and when one factors in temporary visas, obviously there is a great deal of discussion that takes place at many different levels, whether it is with ministers, deputy ministers, civil servants and so forth. It takes place all of the time and in different ways. I posed the question to members of the Bloc, and I am of the opinion that they did not do any consultation with the Province of Quebec, in terms of the resolution they are proposing today. Many would ultimately argue that there is a bit of a hidden agenda with the Bloc whenever immigration matters are raised, but that is for another day. When we talk about immigration as a whole, let us take a look at the targets and understand and appreciate the actual numbers. When we think about provinces, they are involved in a direct way. I mentioned the provincial nominee program. Let us take a look at the targets that were provided to the House. In 2024, the targeted number is 110,000; in 2025 it is 120,000, and it is followed again, in 2026, by 120,000. That is a very high percentage that is going toward supporting provinces, and that does not take into consideration the number, which I believe is around 35,000 a year, going into Quebec under the skilled worker type of programming. Let us look at the numbers and at the freedoms the provinces have in terms of recruitment. There is a wonderful opportunity to deal with things such as health care workers and the trades, whether it is the plumbers, electricians or so forth. That program is designed to support them. Members opposite point the finger and say that Ottawa is to blame for this or that. They talk about the issue of housing, but do they not believe that provincial jurisdictions have the capability to understand what is happening in their local economies? If they really want to get more electricians, plumbers and so forth approved, they have an excellent window through the provincial nominee program, because they are the ones that issue the certificates. They should not just try to say that it is immigrants who are to blame, because that is not true. What we find is that through the skilled worker program and the nominee program, it is provinces and territories that are identifying what they believe are the priorities in terms of their economic development. We can look at other numbers. The federal government actually gets fewer than the combined provinces do in terms of skilled workers, but we do process just over 100,000 a year. Then we also have the spouses. There is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75,000 to 85,000 spouses and partners on an annual basis. Are we going to start saying no? That is a really important aspect of our immigration policy, which the federal government has complete jurisdiction over. We can look at how we have actually managed that file. When I was critic, people were waiting for years and years. We are talking three, four or five years to get a spouse to come over. I used to apply under dual intent, to try to get someone a temporary visa while they were waiting. Do members know how many times I applied and the number that were actually approved when Stephen Harper was the prime minister? It was a big goose egg. Nothing. Since we have been in government, I have been successful. I have talked with immigration officials; I have talked with ministers of immigration; I have explained the situation to caucus, and we have seen significant movement, not only in terms of processing times but also in terms of providing temporary visas for those who are trying to get a spouse here from abroad. I could talk about parents and grandparents. When I was critic, Jason Kenney cancelled the program. He said people could not sponsor their mom and dad. The response I get when I pose that question to the Conservative critic is that they came up with the super visa. Yes, the super visa is a good thing, but they also cancelled the program. They also say, “Well, we wanted to deal with processing times, and we improved processing times.” Sure, they did, because it was so bad under Stephen Harper in terms of sponsoring parents and grandparents that people were dying or actually dead by the time they finally got to them. We do not need a lecture from the Conservative Party on immigration policy. All we have to do is reflect on just how bad the Conservatives were, and that does not include the many different programs in terms of refugees, whether they were from Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine, or from what is taking place today in the Middle East. We understand, appreciate and value the role that immigration plays in public policy, and we will continue to work every day on that particular file.

Madam Speaker, absolutely. It almost goes without saying that all one needs to do is take a look at the provincial nominee program. At one time the program was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000, and now it is well over 100,000. The demand is there. We know that because there are provinces that want to receive more provincial nominees. The provincial nominees have contributed immensely. That is only one aspect. In the provincial nominee program, for example, if a single person later gets married to someone from their home country, their spouse would be able to come in through the spousal program. Of course there has to be coordination taking place. That coordination has been taking place for decades, in some jurisdictions more than others, depending on the province or territory, what its agenda is in regard to immigration and how it ultimately complements the national targets and agenda. All in all, immigration has been a gold mine for Canada and will continue to be well into the future, as Canada needs immigrants more than immigrants need Canada, quite frankly.

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong on several points. I only wish you would grant me the amount of time that would enable me to provide a complete answer. I would be happy to do that if I had unanimous consent. In terms of international students, there has been great demand. That demand, in good part, has been fuelled by individuals out there courting and getting students to come into Canada, in a very real and tangible way. The Conservative Party of Canada, along with others, needs to recognize that provinces also have to play a role. At the end of the day, how many international students does the Conservative Party believe we should have? We know what the NDP believe. They believe there should be no limit. We believe there has to be a sense of responsibility. We are working with provinces. That is the reason there is a cap. They can distribute the students among the post-secondary facilities and others, so that we can have a reasonable and responsible policy to help the provinces, the territories and, in fact, the international students themselves.

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat concerning, when listening to the member. I do not believe we should, in any way, try to blame immigration as being an issue, as the Conservatives attempted to with regard to crime or housing. There is a great deal of co-operation between the provinces and Ottawa. I will use the example I used earlier: the provincial nominee program, which is driven by provinces. It continues to increase in numbers as there is demand from provinces and territories that indicates they would like to receive more. Is the member suggesting we reduce the provincial nominee category? Are there specific categories that the Bloc would advocate to be reduced?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe, or at least I hope, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, for today's sitting, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and when no member wishes to speak on the motion for the second reading stage of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, No. 2, or at midnight, whichever is earlier, the debate on the said motion shall be deemed adjourned, the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day, and the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 38, shall not take place.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canadians are very passionate and care deeply about health care. However, the backbone of that system, of course, is our health care workers, and this petition is dealing particularly with our nurses at the many different levels. The petitioners are asking, in essence, to have their valuable contributions recognized, whether it is through enhancement of salary, credentials being recognized, incentives or the type of workload they have to experience. In general, they are looking for governments at all levels, whether it is provincial or federal, to be more proactive in supporting our nurses.

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member is fully online on this. There is a Quebec court decision. That decision does put in a deadline that the government does need to respect and respond to. At the beginning of his arguments, the member was trying to pass the blame. Let me remind the member that it was Stephen Harper's government, the same government which he worked for, back in 2015, that chose to do nothing, ignoring the issue. That was based on a Supreme Court decision. Would the member not recognize that the issue cannot just be ignored? That is the track record of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, today I table a petition in regards to health care. Health care professionals, in particular, our nurses, are often undervalued, whether it is by the provinces or other stakeholders not recognizing the potential and the harm we do by not properly supporting them. That would include everything from not recognizing credentials to retention-related issues, as well as the anxiety and stress put into the profession. The petitioners are calling on all members of Parliament to ultimately recognize the reality of our health care professionals and to do what we can to support and to work with the other jurisdictions to make life better for our health care workers.

Madam Speaker, I will quote a Manitoba statistic from 2007 since the member referred to that year: “the province's 2007 rate remained the highest in the country...for the 11th straight year and was 24% higher than a decade ago”. I remember talking about the issue when I was an MLA. I will remind the member that Stephen Harper was prime minister then. Unfortunately for the people of Winnipeg, there are far too many victims. The member needs to recognize that in order to deal with an issue such as this, as we did then, there is an obligation to work with other jurisdictions such as provinces, and with law enforcement agencies, and to provide support where we can. Can the member indicate why Stephen Harper was such a disaster during 2007-08 on the issue of automobile thefts in the province of Manitoba?

Madam Speaker, could my colleague explain why, when I was in the Manitoba legislature and Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the province of Manitoba hit record highs in terms of automobile theft? We are talking significant numbers. In fact, they were the highest in Canada for something like 10 consecutive years. They continued to be high well after 2007. It was not until the province actually started to take tangible actions in working with Ottawa that we saw the numbers go down. Would the member not agree that, like for Stephen Harper, there is an obligation to work with provincial jurisdictions and other stakeholders to ensure that we minimize the number of victims and deal with the issue? Would he not acknowledge that?

Madam Speaker, I thought it was somewhat interesting. To the best of my knowledge, it was not until the minister actually announced that we were going to be having this automobile theft summit that the leader of the Conservative Party started to ask questions about the issue of auto theft in Canada. I know it has been a concern for the government for a while now and we are addressing it through the summit. There is a lot of emphasis on border controls and theft that leads to the export of vehicles, but there is also a lot of local joyriding around automobile theft. Can he provide the House a better sense of what they will be looking at during the summit?