Nick Whalen

[Business of Supply, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to lend my voice to this important discussion on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's main estimates for 2018-19. I am especially pleased to be doing so on this side of the House, since I normally sit on the other side.

As we know, generations of newcomers have come from other places in the world and helped to shape and strengthen our prosperity and our nation's social and cultural fabric. Immigrants support the growth of Canada’s labour force, contributing new skills. They bring to Canada an entrepreneurial spirit, creating jobs and boosting innovation through new perspectives and diverse insights. They also open new trade markets and investment networks to Canadians.

It goes without saying that immigration benefits our economic and demographic growth, innovation, prosperity, and our efforts at nation building. Throughout our history, immigrants have made significant contributions to our economy, creating new businesses and jobs and helping to enhance Canada's competitiveness globally. With their strong work ethic and drive to succeed, immigrants have started many of our country’s successful small and medium-sized businesses. Immigrants also represent the founders of some of Canada's most successful enterprises. In fact, recent immigrants now surpass Canadians in self-employment and private business ownership.

Also, businesses owned by recent immigrants are more likely to sell their products to other countries, helping Canada to open up markets beyond the United States. While many Canadians often think about immigration as a way to fill jobs that already exist, there is no doubt that some of our most creative and successful innovators and entrepreneurs are immigrants. Quite simply, our economy needs immigrants.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, without immigration, Canada's potential economic growth would slow from 1.9% annually to an average of 1.3% annually.

In their report, “Canada 2040: No Immigration Versus More Immigration”, the Conference Board of Canada shows that Canada's population would age much more rapidly without immigration. This would mean that our labour force would be drastically reduced, making it even more difficult for us to pay for social services such as health care.

Canada would need to increase taxes to compensate for fewer workers, meaning many businesses would likely forgo operations in Canada. This would ultimately result in lower levels of business investment.

In recognition of the important role that immigration plays in shaping our economy and contributing to our country's future prosperity, budget 2018 will provide ongoing funding to support our government's increased immigration levels.

As members know, under this plan we will increase our immigration levels to nearly 1% of the population. This increase is necessary in order to sustain a healthy level of economic growth across the country. Beginning with an increase of 310,000 permanent residents per year in 2018, annual admissions will reach 340,000 in 2020.

Increased immigration will not only ensure that we are able to continue increasing the size of our labour force and grow our economy. It will also help to support our health care system, public pensions, and other social programs in the decades to come. That is why 60% of the growth in immigration levels over the next three years will come through our economic programs.

Prominent among these, of course, is our provincial nominee program, which helps meet regional labour needs and distributes the benefits of immigration across the country. Immigration plays a key role in driving Canada's economic success and will continue to fuel our economic growth for many years to come. That is why the government is focused on tailoring our immigration programs to better address our labour market skills shortages and to help drive our economy forward. We are introducing new programs, testing new ideas, and instituting faster processing that will help Canada to attract the talent we need to ensure our economic prosperity.

Another element is the start-up visa program. Under Canada's start-up visa program, we are strengthening the Canadian economy through innovation. The program makes it easier for foreign entrepreneurs actively pursuing new business ventures in Canada to become permanent residents. The start-up visa program was initially launched as a pilot project. When it first started, the start-up visa was a small, low-volume program, but in recent years it has seen increased interest from global entrepreneurs eager to come to Canada and grow their businesses. Unlike similar programs in other countries, by granting permanent residence status up front, the start-up visa allows immigrant entrepreneurs to take bigger risks to build successful companies right here in Canada.

Eligible entrepreneurs with viable business proposals can become Canadian permanent residents once they have secured the support of a Canadian venture capital fund, angel investor group, or business incubator, and once their immigration application has been approved.

After much success, I am pleased that this program has become a permanent feature of our immigration system, as announced in budget 2018. Under the start-up visa program, Canada will be able to continue attracting more talented innovators who have the ability to drive economic growth and help create more jobs for Canadians.

The global skills strategy is also designed to help attract the best minds from other countries.

As members know, the global skills strategy is meant to help employers in Canada bring in the high-skilled talent that they need, when they need it.

We know that Canada is an attractive place for companies to set up or scale up operations, but ensuring they can access the talented workers they need quickly can be a concern.

By facilitating the faster entry of top talent with unique skill sets and global experience, we will help innovative companies in Canada grow, flourish, and create more jobs for Canadians.

To that end, the global skills strategy has set an ambitious two-week standard for processing visas and work permits for low-risk, high-skill talent for companies doing business in Canada.

In a nutshell, the global skills strategy can help companies to bring in senior management, trainers from other locations, and the highly skilled talent they will need to get off the ground in Canada or expand their operations and grow their companies. In the longer term, many highly skilled workers who come to Canada temporarily as a result of the global skills strategy may also seek to immigrate to Canada on a permanent basis.

Something that is close to my heart is a third project, the Atlantic immigration pilot. While our entire country is faced with looming demographic challenges, we know that these challenges have already presented themselves and are more pronounced in the Atlantic Canada region. Immigration is vital to sustaining Atlantic Canada's workforce and economy, and its future success will largely depend on our ability to attract and retain more newcomers to our region.

As part of our government's Atlantic growth strategy, the Atlantic immigration pilot program has tremendous potential to not only help employers meet their labour market needs but to also fuel economic growth in all of Atlantic Canada. This is an employer-driven program, which means that businesses can find skilled immigrants with the specific skills they need. It also allows those employers to bring the families of the workers.

Another key element of the Atlantic immigration pilot is the targeting of international students as excellent candidates to become skilled permanent immigrants. Under the AlP, employers in the Atlantic provinces can hire international students and endorse them for permanent residence. The Atlantic immigration pilot is also a great example of how we are working with the broader community, employers in particular, to ensure newcomers stay in Atlantic Canada once they are settled.

An innovative part of this program is that with the help of settlement service providers, all immigrants who arrive under the Atlantic immigration pilot will have a settlement plan in place. In order to ensure that newcomers can integrate and succeed, we absolutely must ensure that they feel supported in their new communities so that they will stay in Atlantic Canada and help it grow.

As Canadians, we believe that welcoming immigrants to Canada and helping them settle and integrate into our society provides our country with great opportunities and a competitive advantage.

In fact, we do not simply believe these things, we have witnessed the benefits of welcoming newcomers over and over again throughout Canadian history.

Through our government’s multi-year immigration levels plan and our innovative economic immigration programs, I think we are well placed to ensure that Canada can attract high-skilled workers who can support our economic growth for many years to come.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a few questions. Can I do that now?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Firstly, we have a plan. We negotiated with the provinces, territories, and indigenous governments to develop a climate change action plan. I encourage my colleague to read it.

As I explained in my speech, the actual price is not high enough to allow us to take on the entire task at hand. We need other options, other criteria, and other investments for meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. Our plan to raise the carbon price goes only until 2022. At that time we could adjust the price to ensure that we are able to achieve our objectives. It is a good plan.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the member actually highlights the very issue here. We are using carrots. We are taking a multi-faceted approach, and one of those facets must be a price on carbon. Most Canadians understand the tragedy of the commons. They have seen The Lorax movie. They understand that if there is a common resource without a price or cost, it will be exploited to no end by the population without fear of the consequences.

However, when we put a price on pollution, the very thing we are trying to reduce, the law of demand dictates that as the price of that entity goes up, the demand for it will go down. In people's daily lives, in their shopping choices, in their decisions on where and how to drive, in the types of technology they use, in the amount of insulation they use in their homes, whether they use a heat pump or an oil furnace, and whether they encourage their government to adopt clean energy initiatives or coal-fired power plants, adopting the price will drive societal change toward a reduction in carbon. It cannot happen without a price. That is the tragedy of the commons. I am sure the hon. member knows that. He also knows that there are many carrots, because we have put billions of dollars into innovation.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I thank the hon. member for Carleton for bringing forward his motion. I welcome this opportunity to speak to an issue that is a key part of our government's plan to make Canada a leader in the clean growth economy.

Listening to the Conservatives talk about pricing carbon reminds me of those old Maytag commercials where some poor Maytag repairman would be sitting, looking bored, and waiting for the phone to ring. He was lonely; nobody was calling him. The world was marching on without him, and he could not seem to figure out what to do.

The world is moving on, and it is time for the Conservatives to catch up, take their heads out of the sand, and recognize that acting as they did for 10 years under the previous government is simply not good enough. It is time to realize that, one, scare tactics are wrong; two, climate change is real; three, the science is settled; and, four, around the globe countries are taking important steps to address it.

An appeal to fear is a fallacy that underpins the entire motion before us today. In fact, the Conservatives find themselves on an increasingly shrinking island of denial. While they spend their days yelling “The sky is falling” over carbon pricing, the world is moving decisively and optimistically toward action. Indeed, in 2017, there were 42 countries and 25 subnational jurisdictions pricing carbon. In fact, the number of carbon pricing initiatives implemented or scheduled has almost doubled over just the past five years.

Among those pricing or planning on pricing carbon are the European Union, China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Colombia, and California. Of course Canada's four largest provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, representing more than 80% of our country's population, have all adopted carbon pricing.

I mentioned that China is one of the countries pricing carbon. It has already tested a cap and trade system in nine of its provinces, seven since 2014 and two more added in the past two years. The plan will soon go national there, effectively doubling the world's priced carbon. When that happens, fully one-quarter of the world's carbon pollution will be priced at one level or another, one quarter.

Why is that? The leaders of those jurisdictions care about jobs. They read the debates on both sides. They know how devastating business as usual would be. They are taking market-based approaches to effect meaningful change. Governments around the world understand something that the Conservative do not seem to grasp: basic economics.

Let me explain for the benefit of my friends in Her Majesty's loyal opposition. In economics, the law of supply and demand dictates the relationship between supply, price, and demand. To encourage a certain type of activity, a financial incentive could be provided for doing so. To discourage a certain type of activity, such as polluting, a financial disincentive could be created. It is really not that hard.

That is how free markets work. It is good public policy and it takes economics into account. By sending clear market signals, the genius of the private sector is unleashed to find creative and innovative ways to meet market needs for things like home heating and groceries at the lowest price, while at the same time pricing pollution. Unless we price pollution, the laws of demand cannot be unleashed to reduce it.

That is exactly what our government is doing with carbon pricing. We are harnessing the power of market forces to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. This will spur innovation and improve our competitiveness. It encourages companies to look for better ways of doing things, including using different sources of energy, using less energy overall, or converting the pollution into useful or sequestered forms.

Using less energy overall is critical. According to the International Energy Agency, we could get halfway to our Paris commitment just by using energy more efficiently. That is why, together with most provinces and territories, as well as indigenous groups, we adopted the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which includes carbon pricing.

Those in the private sector understand the benefits of pricing carbon. In fact, they have been asking governments to put a price on carbon for years because they want certainty about the ground rules. They want to know what will be expected of them. They want a level playing field during the transition to a low-carbon economy.

We also know that carbon pricing is the best, most efficient way of achieving the desired public policy objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving our planet. That is why companies themselves are adopting carbon pricing. In fact, as of November 2017, 1,389 companies had disclosed that they were planning to implement internal carbon pricing to the Climate Disclosure Project. This 1,389 is up from just 150 four years ago. Therefore, the Conservatives had better add multinational corporations to the list of folks who just will not get behind their politics of fear.

Quite simply, global momentum for carbon pricing is building in national governments, states and provinces, and the private sector, and Canada will move with them. We are also seeing it in international organizations, such as the United Nations. The UN Global Compact calls on companies to set internal pricing, a minimum of $100 per metric tonne over time, and invites companies to become carbon-pricing champions by aligning with the business leadership criteria on carbon pricing. That criteria is designed to “inspire companies to reach the next level of climate performance and to advocate for a price on carbon as a necessary and effective measure to tackle the climate change challenge.” Under this initiative, companies set an internal carbon price, advocate for responsible policy, and report on their progress.

There is yet another group calling for carbon pricing, the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, which has joined with the World Bank to bring together leaders from across government, the private sector, and civil society to share experiences working with carbon pricing and to expand the evidence base.

We can see that the opposition finds itself increasingly out of step, increasingly out of touch, and increasingly alone. The fact is that when Canadians give climate change serious thought, it is obvious to them that pricing carbon has to be part of the solution. That consensus has been in place for quite a while. Our government is part of that consensus. We know that pricing carbon sends the right signals to the markets. Companies respond by becoming more innovative and energy efficient, and by doing both, they become more competitive.

It was the French novelist Victor Hugo who wrote, “You can resist an invading army; you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.” The time for carbon pricing has come. It is time for the Conservatives to help Canadians join the international effort to fight climate change.

Her Majesty’s loyal opposition undoubtedly has constructive suggestions. I wait for those members to pull their heads out of the sand and share them with us. On this point I will say that carbon pricing is only one part of the solution. The government has to take a varied approach and come at this problem from different angles.

We are not proposing that the entire reduction in CO₂ emissions will come from a carbon price and the market effect of that price. We are proposing things like a greening government solution and efforts to reduce methane gas emissions from the oil sands. We are working with the provinces to improve infrastructure that will drive the green economy. We are investing in innovation across the country in different superclusters and whatnot to ensure that there is an opportunity for Canadian companies to generate the technology, the patents, and the know-how to engage in the clean climate future.

It is not merely about defending the status quo. It is about moving forward and being part of a global solution to tackle a global problem. Canada has the intelligence, the ability, and the infrastructure. There are smart, young, driven people who want to be part of positive change and part of the solution.

I appreciate members opposite, in previous remarks, who said that we cannot move without the United States. In fact, the United States is moving. The 1,389 companies I mentioned include American companies, and Americans are taking steps to reduce their overall carbon demand, with companies such as Tesla, SolarCity, and others making their patents freely available to the world so that the world can reduce its carbon footprint.

This does not happen alone, and the Government of Canada is not suggesting that it does. We are suggesting that if we are going to make change, we should do it right. We should do it in a way that includes market forces. We should not just leave it to the 50% of top emitters, as the previous member mentioned, but include all Canadians by adopting a price on carbon.

[Page Program, May 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, former Speaker James Jerome, launched a new program to attract smart, socially minded, young Canadians from all parts of our country to the House of Commons where they had a unique opportunity to learn the inner workings of Parliament.

The pages are a credit to their roles, demonstrating dignity, professionalism, and such great potential, in all kinds of ways. Since October 1978, fully 1,603 pages have participated in the program. Former pages include the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Other former pages like Marc Bosc, Katie Telford, Rheal Lewis, and Nathaniel Mullin have also used their experience in their work on Parliament Hill.

I ask all members to rise with me to thank and congratulate the House of Commons page program on 40 years of exemplary service.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would note is that in addition to the recession, initiatives were also taken by individual provinces, such as Ontario with the reduction of coal.

With respect to the issue at hand regarding setting the targets in order to meet our goals, most Canadians would agree that we need to commit to what we agreed to in the Paris climate agreement, and that the current initiative we are proposing on pricing carbon does not, as designed, go the entire way. It needs to be buttressed with other available efforts we are making to reduce emissions through innovation, greening of government, and the other laundry list of initiatives that I mentioned during my comments.

If the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands feels that is not enough and we need to do more, the science over time, between now and 2030, will bear that out.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my comments I mentioned that it is really up to the provinces and their home jurisdictions to determine what they are going to do with the revenue they generate from their price on carbon. When the federal government implements the plan, it is going to return the money to the provinces. The provinces may very well determine that they are going to pay that money back to their constituents. They may determine that they are going to use that money for other initiatives, or they may determine that they are going to invest it in other clean energy jobs that grow the economy.

From the perspective of the federal framework at this stage, it is impossible to know precisely what the net end-to-end economic cost or benefit is going to be. We do not know precisely what the provinces are going to do with that money, and we need to take the benefits into account.

As I mentioned at the end of my remarks, over time, through an iterative approach, we will get an opportunity to see how this is playing out. We will see the quantum of reduction in emissions we get per dollar of tax, or per dollar of price on carbon, and then how consumers are behaving. Best practices will develop from that.

Logically, I would expect that provinces that determine to pay back that money will see a double benefit. Not only will people be paying the tax if they use too much carbon and create too much pollution; they will, on the back end, actually receive money back and realize a better net benefit. There is a double whammy there. They will get a double benefit if the money is returned to their pockets through some other type of tax reduction initiative.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

Hopefully, the information that I am going to lay out in my remarks will address many of the issues and questions which the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised. There might be some that I will not get to, but maybe in questions and comments I will have a chance.

Canadians know that pollution is not free. We see the cost in droughts, floods, and extreme weather, but also in the effects on our health. Canadians expect action on climate change because it is the right thing to do for our kids, our grandkids, and as global citizens. Taking strong action to address climate change is critical and urgent. We are keeping our promise to Canadians. We are putting in place better rules to protect our environment and build a stronger economy.

Pricing pollution is widely held as an efficient way to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to businesses and consumers and to support innovation and clean growth. Carbon pricing sends an important signal to markets and provides incentives to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures. That is why carbon pricing is being adopted by countries around the world and is a central pillar of our national plan on clean growth and climate change.

Over 80% of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction that has a price on carbon pollution: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Last year, those four provinces led the country in economic growth.

In October 2016, the Prime Minister announced a pan-Canadian carbon pricing standard that gives the provinces the flexibility to implement the type of system that makes sense for their circumstances. We have been clear and unequivocal that we will return all direct revenue from the federal carbon price to the jurisdiction from whence it came. That revenue can be used in different ways including, for example, to provide assistance to households and businesses, and to invest in programs and technology that reduce emissions.

New analysis from Environment and Climate Change Canada confirms that a price on pollution across Canada would significantly reduce carbon pollution while maintaining a strong and growing economy. The study found that carbon pricing could reduce carbon pollution by up to 90 million tonnes across Canada by 2022. That is the same as taking 26 million cars off the road a year or shutting down more than 20 coal plants.

Carbon pricing will make a substantial contribution to Canada's 2030 target, but it is not the only thing we are doing to cut emissions. Canada's climate plan includes many other measures that work together with carbon pricing to reduce emissions. Pricing carbon pollution is one of the key actions being taken to put Canada on a course to meet its 2030 targets in combination with a complementary clean growth measure under Canada's clean growth climate action plan.

In addition to pricing carbon, the federal government is making other significant investments to help Canadian businesses and workers participate in the $1 trillion in opportunities offered by the world's transition to a clean growth economy. In June 2017, we launched a low-carbon economic leadership fund to leverage investments in provinces and territories in projects that will support clean growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, industries, forestry, and agriculture. We launched a low-carbon economy challenge in March that will provide more than $500 million for projects that will generate clean growth and reduce carbon pollution. Provinces, territories, businesses, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations, and indigenous communities can apply. I cannot wait to see the types of brilliant ideas that Canadians will bring forward, including those from the Happy City St. John's project which received over 1,000 recommendations in the first 10 days of its #SmartCityYYT initiative.

The Government of Canada is also investing billions in green infrastructure and public transit and, through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, in green bonds from Export Development Canada which are using innovative financing mechanisms to support climate investments and help new technologies become mainstream. Business owners already know that pricing carbon makes sense. According to a report from the carbon disclosure project, the number of companies with internal plans to price their own carbon pollution shot up between 2014 and 2017 from 150 to almost 1,400. The list includes more than 100 of the world's largest companies with total annual revenues of $7 trillion. It just makes sense.

Canada's five major banks, along with many companies in the consumer goods, energy, and resource development sectors, also support putting a price on pollution as members of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, which includes 32 national and subnational governments, 150 businesses, and 67 strategic partners globally working to support and accelerate carbon pricing around the world.

A recent study ranked Canada first in the G20 and fourth in the world as a clean technology innovator, up from seventh place in 2014. Last year, 11 of Canada's clean-tech companies ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Companies such as Winnipeg's Farmers Edge are developing cutting-edge technologies that help farmers waste less energy and increase their profits. St. John's start-up, Mysa, makes a sleek, smart thermostat that links up smart phones to help Canadians save money and make their homes more comfortable. Power HV, a new company incubated at the Genesis Centre, supported by ACOA and Memorial University in my hometown, has created a more efficient, smart bushing that could save 20 tonnes of carbon equivalency per year, if used in electrical transmission. Other innovators are working nationwide to seize this opportunity to protect our environment, create new businesses, create new middle-class jobs, and help our industries compete globally.

According to the World Bank, jurisdictions representing about half the global economy are putting a price on carbon. That does not include China's national system, announced late last year, and which I mentioned earlier in the debate. Our approach is going to ensure that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition that is currently under way.

Carbon pricing is the most effective way to reduce emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate and pollute less. Carbon pricing brings down emissions while driving investment in energy efficiency and in cleaner, less polluting energy sources up.

Our approach is that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. That is what we are doing every day to help protect our kids, our grandkids, and to help Canadians prosper. The party opposite does not share that vision. That party spent a decade ragging the puck on climate action, and notwithstanding what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said, taking credit for a recession or for Ontario's coal reduction is not really emblematic of what that party did on climate change. Canadians deserve better. Our government is using the best tools in our tool box, and that includes a carbon price. Canadians deserve a serious, smart and thoughtful plan to protect the economy and protect the environment, and that is exactly what we are doing.

If I have a couple more moments, I would like to reflect on some of the other issues that were raised.

The previous speaker mentioned not being precisely sure about exactly what the results of a price on carbon are going to be. It is an iterative approach. People understand, and I am sure the member opposite agrees, that the supply and demand law of economics is a law. It is not deviated from and it has an effect.

When we set out the initial price on carbon, it had a tracking toward 2022. We are unsure exactly what the price on carbon would be for future years, but by examining what happens in the marketplace, by measuring the effects on business, on consumers, on changes in attitudes, and on seeing the additional economic growth that comes from investing in new technologies that reduce our emissions, we can see exactly what the appropriate price trajectory should be to ensure that we make our 2030 commitments.

Just because we do not know ab initio exactly what the right path will be, it is through investing and taking the time to measure the outcomes in an evidenced-based way that we can see precisely how, where, and when the prices should go to get our reductions down to our 2030 targets. I believe the members opposite understand that, but I do appreciate the comments they raise. They are interesting and they are thought provoking. It points to the fact that we need to do more.

We need to be open and transparent with Canadians throughout the process of carbon pricing, throughout the process of measuring the outcomes of businesses, the conduct of consumers, and seeing which provinces perform better based on the nuanced approach that they take in their own individual circumstance to price carbon. We are likely to see that some provinces fare better and others worse, and that best practices can form. We can see whether or not industries need a bit more support to remain internationally competitive and maybe consumers need to do more or vice versa.

However, this is what an iterative approach means. This is what an evidence-based approach means. I believe the members opposite understand that.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the previous speech opened with a discussion about China not having a price on carbon, but of course, at the end of 2017, it announced one. It has a cap and trade system that has already been piloted in seven jurisdictions in China, which represent 25% of China's GDP, and it has been shown to work now. The initial price was lower, but as it figures out what it needs to do to meet its targets, I am sure it will see the light and have to raise the price.

In any event, with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke having started off her speech with an incorrect statement, I am wondering whether the rest of her speech should be fact checked and whether it changes her view knowing that China has a price on carbon.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, today's debate is bringing up a lot of deep emotions for a lot of people.

In my riding of St. John's East, when I was a boy, there was a notorious scandal involving an orphanage and the rape and molestation of boys at the Mount Cashel Orphanage. It had gone on for decades and was covered up. Subsequently it was brought before a police commission. The Christian Brothers apologized and paid recompense and compensation to the victims. However, the Roman Catholic Church continues to fight it. It still, even to this day, is in appeals before the courts for its role in covering up the molestation and rape of boys at the church.

One of my constituents wrote today “This issue hits close to home in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was an organization founded called Pathways to offer specific supports and services to religious institutional abuse survivors and their families.” The constituent continues, “An apology from the Pope would mean a great deal to survivors and move us further down the path towards reconciliation and healing.”

I wonder if my hon. colleague's own constituents have shared the same feeling, that an apology is required.