Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate that the Conservative Party is a little sensitive right now, because at the end of the day, more and more Canadians are going to come to the realization that the Conservative Party of today is far to the right. It is a pattern we have seen now for months, where the Conservative Party is becoming, as much as possible, the extreme right. I think it is appropriate to point—

Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarity on the issue, because I think this is really important. At the end of the day, I cannot imagine how a member of Parliament or any parliamentarian would not be able to challenge a member for the manner in which their caucus is voting. I cannot imagine a world where it would be unparliamentary to do that. Every political party that I am aware of has done that throughout my 30 years in Parliament, whether it is here or at the Manitoba legislature. I would ask, with all due respect, that we reflect on the traditions of the House. Just because one opposition party is sensitive to the truth, I should not be censored from being able to express the reality on the floor of the House of Commons in Canada today.

Madam Speaker, I talk about traditions, and all one needs to do is take a look at question periods. In the debates I have witnessed, the way in which members have voted is constantly being reflected on. All I am asking is for some clarity, and I do not think clarity can be decided instantaneously. It is something that should be brought back and thought through, because it is a very important ruling you need to make, Madam Speaker, given the very nature of what I am asking for.

Madam Speaker, if at any point it was interpreted that I was challenging the ruling of the Chair, I apologize for that. I am glad the Speaker has recognized the very serious nature of what the Conservatives are suggesting by implementing that standing order because it will have a very profound effect on many speeches, not only today but well into the future. I suspect it will be referred to well into the future until the rule is changed. I suggest it is a dated rule and one taken out of context only because members opposite are against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which is not a reflection on the vote. It is very clear that the Conservatives do not support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We remember the voting marathon and voting line by line. We also remember the leader of the Conservative Party saying last week that Conservatives were going to keep the government working until Christmas, that they were going to fight the government over the price on pollution and keep Liberals voting endlessly. There were 30-plus hours of voting. That was the energy of the leader of the Conservative Party. What ended up happening? When midnight approached, a good portion of Conservatives decided to have a nap and did not necessarily participate in the proceedings. Some caused a great deal of concern. When we voted line by line, we saw the true colours of the Conservative Party on a couple of motions. One was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, better known as Operation Unifier. Canadians would have been shocked to see the manner in which the Conservatives dealt with that particular issue. People would be shocked—

Madam Speaker, I apologize for having an effect on the sensitivities of the Conservatives on this issue. As I said, Canadians would be very surprised and disappointed because of what we have witnessed, not only today but also the other day during the voting marathon, of the Conservative Party being influenced by MAGA from the deep south in the United States, where there is a movement that is very real and tangible and is being ushered into Canada through the leader of the Conservative Party. We see that the positions Conservatives are taking are now starting to impact Canadian public policy, to the degree that they are detrimental to our communities.

Madam Speaker, they are a little sensitive on the other side. At the end of the day, they should take responsibility for their behaviour. The Conservatives, on one hand, want to take certain actions, but when they get called out on it, they get a little sensitive. They say they do not want the member from Winnipeg North to be talking about this, and they do not want the member from Winnipeg North to be talking about that. They are trying to censor what I say. This is the first time in 30 years I have heard people say we cannot tell people how we voted. I have news for them, despite their trying to prevent me from talking about how they voted inside in the chamber. They may have limited success inside the chamber, but I am going to let people know about the behaviour of members of the Conservative Party of Canada and how they are being influenced by the MAGA movement from the United States coming into Canada. It is very serious stuff. They are not going to stop me from talking about that issue. It is shameful the way members of the Conservative Party today are playing a destructive force, not only on the floor of the House of Commons in preventing legislation from passing, but also in their behaviour, which other people as well as myself have witnessed, in limiting the types of things that can actually be said. Members can think about it. They do not want me, from the floor of the House of Commons, telling Canadians how they voted on legislation because they are embarrassed. I am not talking about any specific piece of legislation. I am talking about the principle of my being able to tell Canadians through this platform how they behave inside this chamber. They will not allow me to say that the Conservative Party voted x on any piece of legislation or any motion. That is what they do not want me to say—

Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, cry me a river. At the end of the day, he can cry all he wants, but Canadians are going to know how the Conservative Party is behaving within the House of Commons. They are going to know how its members are trying to limit debate and the freedom of individuals like me to tell Canadians specifically how the Conservative Party is voting within the House of Commons. Conservatives find a standing order. For the first time in 30 years, I see an opposition party that is so scared to be pointed out and told how its members are behaving. It is because they do not like what they are hearing. I believe there is a number of members in the Conservative caucus who feel very uncomfortable with the manner in which they have been forced to vote. Let me talk about some of the issues. The Conservative Party of Canada demonstrates very clearly the degree to which the MAGA movement in the United States has influenced its members. On the Ukraine trade agreement, there is no other trade agreement I can recall that the Conservatives were in opposition to. This is the only trade agreement they seem to be in opposition to. I am being very generous when I say “seem to be in opposition” because their actions over the last number of weeks, and in fact months, clearly show they have taken that far right stand in support of Russia and against Ukraine. All one needs to do is take a look at the voting marathon, when the Conservative caucus said it was going to challenge the government of the day. We went line by line, and discussions and votes occurred, as we went line by line. I will not say how the Conservatives voted because, after all, they do not want Canadians to know how they voted, but Canadians would be very disappointed. It is consistent with what we saw today on this particular legislation. On the issue of funding to reinforce Canada's support of Ukraine, which is better known as Operation Unifier, Canadians would be very disappointed to see how the Conservatives voted. I cannot tell the House because apparently the Conservatives are super sensitive. They do not want Canadians to know.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the report back from the Chair. On that particular point, and I am rising on a point of order, I would like to use the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent as an example, when he stood up and indicated: The Liberals voted against that request and even the Bloc Québécois voted against. It is outrageous. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C‑234, but it voted against asking the Senate to adopt it. We find endless examples like this one, and that is the reason it is important that we—

Madam Speaker, I was going through what had taken place during the voting marathon in which the Conservative Party continued to demonstrate its lack of support for Ukraine. When one thinks of Operation Unifier, that is something that literally trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and contributed positively to the war. The way in which Canada contributes can be found in many different ways. One of those was on that particular vote and that was actually Motion No. 54. I would encourage Canadians who want to find out exactly how the Conservatives voted to look it up. Another vote was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, which, again, complemented Unifier. That was on Motion No. 55. Again, I will not say how parties voted, but I would indicate that Canadians might want to take a look at the votes and proceedings, to see how the Conservative Party voted. Motion No. 56 was on funding for military aid. Think about that: military aid for Ukraine. This item received funding from the Treasury Board vote 5, which is government contingency funding, for the expanded contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is budget 2023, funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine. If those who are following the debate want to understand why I have said what I have said and have expressed my disappointment in today's Conservative Party, all they need to do is look at the voting record on those motions and, I would suggest, the report stage of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement bill. A lot of Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition. I would suggest that the reason we have seen that voting pattern by the Conservative Party is the MAGA right movement in the United States of America and how that movement is coming north. It is being jumped on by the leader of the official opposition. In fact, as I have suggested in the past, we need to be concerned about patterns. One of the patterns that I have witnessed coming from the leader of the official opposition's office is the misinformation and how the official opposition is using that style of politics of MAGA right in order to generate the type of attention that the Conservatives want. They will do it at all costs. Ukraine is but one—

Madam Speaker, guilt is a wonderful thing at times. When I look across the way, I see a lot of heads that are down and those members look somewhat depressed. I suspect it might have to do with something that has taken place in terms of their behaviour with respect to Ukraine. Canadians have unified and understood the importance of what is taking place in Ukraine today, but they are disappointed in what they have witnessed coming from the Conservative Party. The President of Ukraine, at a time of war, came to Canada. While in Canada, he signed a trade agreement that is very meaningful not only for economic purposes, but also for morale and making a strong political statement to countries like Russia. It shows that Ukraine is building relationships with the European Union and North America, because Ukraine wants to be able to expand its economy and its relationships through trade agreements. The president, during a time of war, took the time to come here. Let us go back to when we first introduced the bill. In September, he was here. A couple of months later, we are actually dealing with the legislation. If we look at the comments that I put on the record back then, I said I suspect that all members of the House would be glad to see the legislation pass and how wonderful it would be to pass the legislation before Christmas. When I said “pass”, I meant that it had to go through the entire process, including in the Senate. The House will rise in a couple of days, and we have not even got out of third reading. The solidarity for Ukraine is not there because the Conservative Party of today has made the decision to do what it can to deny the unanimous support that is required to get this legislation through. What we have seen today is the Conservative Party does not want us to tell anyone how it is actually voting because the Conservatives feel ashamed about it. That is why. Never before have I been limited in any way, which is why I am very anxious to hear the ruling on being able to tell Canadians how another entity or individual in the House voted. However, I will respect what you have said, Madam Speaker, in the hope that we will get clarity on the issue. I suspect there are many people in this chamber who want to be able to ask the Conservative Party why and challenge it on its actions. The best excuse the Conservatives have come up with is the issue of the price on pollution. That is a red herring. That is all that is. The Conservatives say the reason they are uncomfortable with the legislation is that it has a price on pollution. What they do not recognize is that Ukraine already has a price on pollution. It has had one for over a decade. The whole European Union is moving toward a price on pollution. Only the leader of the Conservative Party here in Canada believes that there is no need for a price on pollution and that there is no need to have a plan for Canada's environment. I heard one of my colleagues say that it is going back to the Stone Age. I can appreciate why she would say that. They have climate deniers. They do not recognize it. They feel that all they have to do is one thing, but I am scared that if I say the word “mislead”, they will jump up like beans saying that I cannot say that. Let us think about it. Here is what the Conservatives actually say, coast to coast to coast. Conservatives with their shiny-new leader say they are going to cut the tax, that they are going to garbage the price on pollution, and that they are going to make life more affordable. That is what we see today from the Conservative right. I could provide a 20-minute comment in regard to their lack of respect for the whole issue of the environment, but rather, what I would like to point to is just the degree to which they are misleading Canadians. In essence, they are saying that they are going to get rid of the price on pollution for the residents of Winnipeg North, and that means they are going to axe the tax. That is what, in essence, the Conservatives are saying. They are saying that they would be making life more affordable. I say balderdash. At the end of the day, the Conservatives would actually take money out of the pockets of my constituents because 80-plus per cent get more money back in the rebates than they pay into the price on pollution. That tells me that the Conservatives would take money away from Canadians, but they do not tell Canadians that, because that is not part of the MAGA movement. The MAGA movement says to mislead, and that is what the Conservatives are doing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are deceiving real people. They are hurting Canadians. They are not helping on the affordability file—

Madam Speaker, I see some individuals on the other side, just as they should well be, are very ashamed of the way they have conducted themselves when it comes to issues with respect to Ukraine. Where there should have been unanimous support for Ukraine at a very difficult time in its history, we see the Conservative Party under its current leadership looking south to be inspired by MAGA politics. That is to the detriment of Ukraine. The Conservatives have to take responsibility for their actions, and by that I mean their votes, and not try to hide behind the Speaker's back.

Madam Speaker, as the member is likely aware, there are very serious limitations as to what we can do with respect to making changes. The simple reason for this is that we have an agreement that is signed off on, and it is more of a ratification process. I do not know the details of what kind of modifications would, in fact, be acceptable without having to sign a different agreement. Having said that, the real benefits of the agreement for both Canada and Ukraine deal with everything from infrastructure to high-tech companies, as well as many agricultural benefits. In essence, it enhances opportunities for both countries to be able to develop stronger and healthier trade links.

Madam Speaker, I am confident in knowing that, when we talk about trade agreements, economic development and the social impacts of these agreements, a wide spectrum of things are considered. These include the absolutely critical role, as the Prime Minister himself has indicated, of ensuring that we operate as two governments, making sure that indigenous and Canadian interests are being served well.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and that is the reason I would reference a pattern. What we have actually seen is that the Conservative Party of today is not the same Conservative Party even of Stephen Harper. Under the current leadership, it continues to move farther to the right. The MAGA right is very real. It is a movement that is in the United States, and it is coming north. The one who is selling it the most today is the leader of the Conservative Party, and the price on pollution is an excellent example of that. A bunch of Conservatives travel the country saying that they are going to get rid of the price on pollution and make things more affordable; in fact, it is just not true. A vast majority of Canadians would actually have less disposable income as a direct result of the Conservatives' policy, yet they would not know that from what they are being told by the Conservative movement today. Canadians need to be made aware of it. American-style politics is coming north through the leader of the official opposition.

Madam Speaker, I am not going to accept the changing of the channel. At the end of the day, whether it is the President of Ukraine, the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or the Canadian Ukrainian Congress, not to mention millions of Canadians, they can see the behaviour of the Conservative Party today when it comes to the Canada-Ukraine agreement and the line-by-line allotments of support to Ukraine. The Conservative Party has been nothing but a disappointment; the far right has taken over the party on certain policies, and this is one of them. I say shame on the Conservative Party for not getting behind this and continuing to have that unanimous support. Rather, it caters to the far right. I think that does a disservice to all of Canada.

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, a great deal of interest goes well beyond this chamber, whether it is from the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or President Zelenskyy. A letter that I received from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. The letter says, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill”. I think that would be in our best interests. At one point, it seemed that everyone inside this chamber was behind Ukraine and showed Ukrainian solidarity given what is taking place in Europe. The trade agreement is sound and solid. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Conservative Party rethinking its position so we can get unanimous support for this trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Marie-Chantal Girard as President of the Public Service Commission, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, be deemed adopted.

Madam Speaker, I suspect that it has a lot to do with common sense. The Conservatives like to talk about common sense, and I suspect that the NDP, upon reflection and applying common sense, came to the conclusion that what the Conservative and Bloc coalition was proposing was maybe not in the best interests of workers. I think that is a possible scenario. When the member talks about releasing contracts or the details, I think of the Volkswagen contract. As a government, we recognize the green transition. We recognize things like climate change. We recognize that in order to provide good-quality middle-class jobs, we have to be prepared to invest in certain industries in a very real and tangible way. Ironically, we are not the only government that has made this decision, because we also see Progressive Conservative Doug Ford entering into agreements and using taxpayer dollars, as we have, to support and enhance an industry that is going to provide good middle-class careers and jobs well into the future for future generations of Canadians, something the Conservative Party opposes. I wonder if the member opposite has asked his good friend Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative, for a copy of the agreement. If not, why not? I wonder if Doug Ford has provided that information to the member opposite. I know the Conservatives are trying to find some way to be critical of everything and anything the Government of Canada does at no expense, even if it means doing the opposite of what the member just finished talking about. When he talks about workers and the best interests of workers, seriously, at the end of the day, whether it is Stellantis or Volkswagen, we are talking about thousands of jobs. How can he possibly imagine that this is not in the best interests not only of those direct jobs but of the tens of thousands of other indirect jobs? He is concerned that the Progressive Conservative Province of Ontario and the Liberals at the national level have worked together with private industry in order to secure good, solid middle-class jobs for future generations of Canadians. The federal Conservative Party says “whoa”. That is true to form in the sense that the national Conservative Party today, as I said, is the MAGA right. We see an extreme right that believes government does not have a role to play in things of this nature. The party does not believe that government should be assisting or subsidizing, or whatever MAGA terms it wants to come up with. We on this side of the House recognize that the climate changes, that climate change is real today and that there is a responsibility of government to think ahead. That is why we have good, sound policies to support a transition that is going to see more green types of jobs, which will attract, I would suggest, even more jobs in the future. This makes Canada well placed in the future on this issue.

Madam Speaker, the member wants to know what is in the contract. What is in the contract is the opportunity for an industry to excel, to allow Canada to have a major footprint in the production of batteries for electric vehicles. Those on the other side need to wake up and, as many would say, smell the coffee, though I am not a coffee drinker myself. I can tell members that a lot of good things are going to come out of this agreement between the provincial Conservative government of Ontario and the federal government in Ottawa. By having the agreement with companies such as Stellantis and Volkswagen, we are creating tens of thousands of direct jobs. There will be even more indirect jobs. The footprint we are putting in place is going to speak volumes in the potential growth of the industry.

Madam Speaker, I would tell the member that the Government of Canada has supported and continues to support our farmers in many, many different ways. The member started off his comments by saying that the Liberal Party is out of touch. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If the member and the Conservative Party would only take a look in the mirror, we could talk about being out of touch. Listen to what Canadians have to say about things like the climate and our environment. Listen to what it is they have to say about the type of behaviour they are seeing more and more of every day. What we are witnessing inside the chamber, which I talked about earlier this morning, is a pattern coming out of the Conservative Party. The member himself spoke about it, the issue of deception. For example, the leader of the Conservative Party has been travelling the country, telling Canadians that he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, thereby making life more affordable. That is just not true. It would not make life more affordable. In fact, it would put less disposable income into the pockets of a vast majority of Canadians. On the one hand, he is saying that it would make life more affordable, but on the other hand, in reality, it would not. What does that remind people of? It reminds me of Donald Trump and MAGA politics that are creeping in from the south, using the leader of the official opposition's office in order to be able to bring in that style of politics. The member opposite just stood up and is saying that regular gas and diesel were impacted by the carbon tax for farmers. Is it applied?

Madam Speaker, they do not qualify that, because that does not fit their agenda. That is what I mean in terms of misleading. What we have witnessed is a Conservative Party today that is more concerned about bumper-sticker politics than it is about good, solid, public policy. Just over two years ago, every member, including the one who just spoke, actually had an election platform that said that, if they were elected, they would have a price on pollution. They said it in each of the 338 constituencies from coast to coast to coast. A new leader came in, and they did a flip-flop and started spreading misinformation. That is the type of leadership we have seen within the Conservative Party today. We got a little hint of that when the person who just finished speaking tried to give the impression that we, as a government, are not there to support farmers. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper gave it to farmers by getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. Members are applauding now, but he denied them the legislative right to have a referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board. He did not think twice about getting rid of it. What about the piles of wet grain that sat on the Prairies as boats could not get into Vancouver? Where were the prairie members of Parliament then? Were they standing up for the farmers there and for the Harper government to actually stand by the laws of Canada and allow a referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board? Instead, they ditched it on their own personal political agenda. They do not stand up—

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, farmers recognize that climate change is real. In the rest of the world, contrary to the Conservative Party, there is a movement to have a price on pollution, whether it is Ukraine, the European Union, many American states and so forth. It is only the Conservative Party that wants to bring us back to the Stone Age. Members would think that Fred Flintstone is the leader of the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, this is good, sound policy. The Conservatives talk about taxation, but they just do not understand it; they try to simplify it. However, at the end of the day, there is a good incentive. People will get more money net from the rebate than they will pay on the lesser amount of fossil fuels that they use, but the member does not understand that. Well, that is not my problem, it is his problem. The Conservatives can take another flip-flop—

Madam Speaker, I would not agree with the member's conclusions; again, he tries to imply misinformation. It is just not true that the Government of Canada does not support farmers. We can go back to the days when I was an opposition member; I just made reference to the Canadian Wheat Board, and I was on Main Street, by Portage Avenue. I can tell the member that there were hundreds of farmers out there, furious with the Stephen Harper government. They believed the government was destroying the industry and, at least in part, many of those farming industries. We are always going to find that the Liberal government as a whole has been and continues to be exceptionally supportive of farming and rural communities. This can be found through a wide variety of measures, whether it is budgetary motions or the expansion of international trade. No government has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government has; this has enhanced all sorts of opportunities for farmers. We will find that, on agricultural products, a good percentage is actually exported outside Canada. A good example of that is the hog industry; in the province of Manitoba, that industry is doing exceptionally well. There are certain industries within our rural communities that we could give more attention to, and the government will continue to do so. What I find somewhat sad is that the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to utilize the farming community, as they are doing with indigenous communities now, to try to win the battle of getting rid of the price on pollution. The Conservative Party needs to wake up and realize that it is only the Conservative Party of Canada that seems to want to deny that sensible approach for dealing with climate change. The world is moving towards recognizing climate change and bringing in progressive policies, such as the price on pollution. We have to take into consideration individuals such as Dawn. When she talks about interest rates and the impact of carbon pricing, we need to listen. Where the government is in a position to take action, I believe it is doing just that. However, to use farmers such as Dawn as a political tool to get rid of the price on pollution generally is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to consider coming out to Winnipeg North to explain why the Conservative Party is trying to say that, by getting rid of the price on pollution, life would become more affordable. In reality, that that is misinformation; it is not true. Eighty per cent of the constituents that I represent, or more, would actually have less disposable income if the leader of the Conservative Party prevails, ignores the environment and gets rid of the price on pollution. The hon. member talked about one or two cases, and I am sympathetic to them, but I am talking about tens of thousands of residents whom I represent. With the Conservative policy that the member is advocating, those residents would ultimately see their net disposable income go down.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the many different types of issues on the floor of the House, and today we do that through Bill S-210. The title of the legislation, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, sends a fairly powerful message. There is absolutely no doubt about that. When I think about the community I represent and the experiences I have had as a parliamentarian over the years with regard to this very sensitive issue, I suggest that it goes beyond pornography. What we are really talking about is the safety of our children. We all have serious concerns with how the Internet has evolved, with access to the Internet and with what our young people are seeing on the Internet. I believe there is an onus and responsibility on all of us in that respect, not only at the national level but also at the provincial level. Even in our school system, we all have a sense of responsibility, not to mention the parents and guardians of children. We all have a very important role in recognizing that which quite often causes harm to the minds of our children, either directly or indirectly, and the impact it has, putting a child on a specific course in life. I do not say that lightly. When I look at the legislation and think of the intimate images on the Internet, all I need to do is look at some of the streaming services, whether it is Netflix, Crave or the many others out there. I suspect that if we were to apply what is being suggested in this legislation, it could prove to be somewhat problematic. I do not know to what degree the sponsor of the bill has thought through the legislation itself. The title is great. The concern is serious. We are all concerned about it. However, when I think of the impact that this has on our children, I believe it is not just through pornography. Cyber-bullying is very real. We often hear of very tragic stories where a young person is bullied through the Internet. We need a holistic approach to what we can do as legislators to protect the best interests of children. In looking at the legislation, there seems to be a mix of criminal and administrative law. On the one hand we are saying it is illegal, giving the impression that criminal law needs to deal with it, yet there is an administrative penalty being applied if someone has fallen offside. I see that as a bit of an issue that needs to be resolved. However, the biggest issue we need to look at is why the bill is fairly narrow in its application with respect to harms to children. I used the example of cyber-bullying. It seems to me that the department has been very proactive and busy on a number of fronts, whether it is with the online news legislation or other legislation. I know departments are currently in the process of looking at legislation to bring forward in the new year that would have a more holistic approach to dealing with things that impact or harm young people. I suspect that through the departments, with the amount of consultation that has been done and continues to be done on the issue, we will see more solid legislation being provided. In the legislation being proposed, issues arise, such as concerns dealing with the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy for us to say we want to ensure that young people watching these programs are at the age of majority. It is a difficult thing to ultimately administer. I am not aware of a country that has been successful at doing so. I am not convinced that the legislation being proposed would be successful at doing that. In terms of the age of majority, I was citing earlier today how things can be very easily manipulated, such as by using VPN technology, which I must say I am not familiar with. Someone could be at their house and could somehow change their location to give the perception that instead of being in one community or neighbourhood, they are someplace thousands of miles away. There is also the whole idea of using identification that is not necessarily theirs. I will cite the example of teenagers being among friends when it comes time to get alcohol. False identification is often used or encouraged in certain areas by teenagers to acquire alcohol. To believe that there would not be any manipulation of the system would be wrong. Imagine a person getting information that then gets submitted as data points for a company and how harmful misinformation would be to the individual who has that identification. To what degree has this legislation been worked on with the Privacy Commissioner? I suspect that the Privacy Commissioner might have something to say about the legislation. The difficulty that I have is in the name, Bill S-210, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. I believe that each and every one of us here today would understand that pornography for minors is not a good thing. It does have an impact. I remember taking a course in sociology many years ago at university, and a test group was put to the side. One part of the test group had to watch hours and hours of pornography, and in the other group it did not occur. The groups were then brought together and the consequence was striking. The group that watched pornography was more open, to the degree that they did not think certain offences and the inappropriate treatment between sexual partners were all that bad. This has an impact in a very real way. I understand the concern, but we should be broadening the concern to include things like cyber-bullying. We need to leave it to the department to bring forward more comprehensive and substantive legislation that would take out some of the conflicts and deal with issues from the Privacy Commissioner. It would ultimately be better for all of us.

Madam Speaker, my question to the member concerns both legislative and budgetary measures. On the issue of the affordability of groceries, the government, in the last budget, came forward with a grocery rebate, which literally put cash in the pockets of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians. I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts as to why that was an important thing to do for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, part of the legislation deals with the purpose-built rentals in an attempt to see more rentals being constructed emphasize a good strong public policy. Now we are witnessing other provinces adopting the same approach where PST is also being exempted. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the federal government working along with the provincial government, with the federal government playing a leadership role, and on how it really makes a difference because we are going to see thousands of new units come on stream in the coming years. Could the member provide his thoughts on that aspect of the legislation and the impact it would have?

Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here. The member talked about, at the beginning of his speech, the idea of competition and said that the Conservatives want competition. Then he talked about the big five. The last time there was actually an amalgamation of grocery stores, when a grocery store was bought up, was with Shoppers under Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper and the member's current leader allowed Shoppers, through billions of dollars, to be consumed by Loblaws. Then the member stands up and says that they want more competition. Where was the member when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, let alone today's leader of the Conservative Party? They were nowhere when it came to competition. Why should Canadians believe that anything has changed with the Conservative Party, when its members consistently vote against good, solid policy initiatives?

Madam Speaker, as an FYI to the member, this bill is not about what he talked about. What he needs to recognize is that one of the big initiatives in this legislation would exempt purpose-built rentals from GST, a good, sound policy. I suspect that the Conservatives might vote in favour of that. After all, we have now seen provinces get on board. A number of provinces are doing likewise for the PST. The federal government is leading on the housing issue, and I am wondering if my Conservative friend can explain why we as a national government today lead on housing-related issues, whereas the Conservatives in the past, under their current leader, did absolutely nothing when it came to housing in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments about the bureau and how when we think of competition and enhancing competition, making changes to the act would, in fact, take away the efficiency argument. Therefore, I believe, at the end of the day, it would be healthier for Canadians because it would ensure there is more competition. The member made reference to cellphones. Whether it is cellphones or groceries, taking away the efficiency argument within this legislation, I believe, would help address that going forward. Can he expand on why it was good to see changes to the legislation affecting the bureau?

Madam Speaker, as I have pointed out previously, another aspect of the legislation is to increase the number of purpose-built rentals to increase housing supply. What we have witnessed, and I mentioned earlier, is provinces adopting the same policies where they are incorporating sales tax relief to encourage more construction. I am not too sure what the Province of Quebec has done. Does the member know what the Province of Quebec has done with respect to the GST being forgiven for purpose-built rentals?