Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, 20 years after the need to see changes was shown, Bill C-27 is here. The last time we saw changes, Facebook and iPhones did not exist. This is important legislation. Within it, to use a couple of examples, there are frameworks that allow for substantial fines and protection of Canadian privacy. What we are hearing from the Conservative Party is that Conservatives do not want any of it. They are going to vote against the bill. The Conservatives are ultimately arguing that the bill is not amendable. Does the member not see any value in the substance that is actually there to protect Canadians and empower things such as substantial fines?

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the deeper we get into the debate, the deeper the Conservative Party gets into disliking the legislation. I look at the legislation as something that will have a very strong positive impact in protecting the privacy of Canadians. Penalties are going to be put in, substantial financial penalties, even though the member opposite mocks them. There are other issues as well, such as the privacy management programs that businesses would have to put forward. There is so much good stuff in this legislation, yet the Conservatives are prepared to say they do not care; they have other things on their agenda, and they are going to prevent this legislation from passing. Does the member not feel that Canadians deserve this kind of legislation, at least as a starting point, and that the Conservatives could do whatever they like afterwards?

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing listening to Conservative after Conservative stand and say they do not like this. Now that member referred to some sort of concern of policy platform. We do not know, really, because we often question the lack of any sort of plan coming from the Conservative Party. What we know is that we have substantial legislation that would set the framework, protect the privacy of Canadians and enable penalties and fines to ensure there is a consequence when a company breaks its trust with Canadians. What do the Conservatives say? They say they do not care about this type of legislation because they have their own ideas. Will the member and the Conservative Party acknowledge that it is okay to allow the legislation to go to committee where the member can continue to rant on the different ideas and maybe even do something positive, like suggest an amendment he feels would make the legislation better?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, (a) on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day; (b) the address by the President of the European Commission to be delivered in the Chamber of the House of Commons on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that day and form part of the records of this House; and (c) the media recording and transmission of such address, introductory and related remarks be authorized pursuant to established guidelines for such occasions; and (d) if a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion after 2 p.m. on Monday, March 6, 2023, and before 2 p.m. Tuesday, March 7, 2023, it shall stand deferred to Wednesday, March 8, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Madam Speaker, on the one hand, the member says that he is really concerned about cybersecurity, and then on the other hand, the member is saying that the government is doing too much and that he is concerned about overreach and is very skeptical. Then he uses examples of health care and talks about waiting lists and so forth. I am a bit confused about exactly where the Conservative Party is with respect to the legislation. Would the member not agree that, at the very least, many of the issues or concerns he raised might be somewhat irrelevant to the debate and that parts of his comments would probably be better served if the bill went to committee? He seems to give me the impression in his comments that the Conservative Party supports the principles of the legislation. Does the member believe that he will be voting in favour of the bill so that it can go to committee?

Madam Speaker, we have seen an explosion in the impact of the digital world around the globe. Here in Canada, our systems are very complex, and we have some that are absolutely critical, which need to have the proposed protection. We have a progressive government that is looking at this in a very serious manner. This is why we are bringing forward this legislation and recognizing the impact of cybersecurity threats. The opposition seems to support the principle of the legislation. The member has recognized a number of areas in which he would like to see better definition and more details. I would suggest to the member that much of what he is looking for could best be had at the committee stage. If we get the bill to committee, could we look at what he is talking about in more detail? What are his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, Bill C-26 would assist in empowering our laws and legislators to ensure there is a higher sense of Canadian confidence in the digital world, given the importance of the critical systems that are at work. Whether they are in health care services or consumer purchases, we have witnessed a great deal of advancement over the last number of years in cyberspace. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why it is so important that legislation is brought forward to support Canadian confidence and protect privacy at the same time, and deal with the issue of the security of our Internet.

Madam Speaker, when look at Bill C-26, I want to assure the member that the government has made very clear the importance of privacy rights. In fact, it was a Liberal administration that brought in the Charter of Rights, understanding and appreciating just how important privacy rights were. The legislation, which the Conservative Party is voting in favour of, and I grateful for that, is there to protect the integrity of the system. As we move more and more into that digital world, cyber-threats are very real and can have a profoundly negative impact. That is why we have to bring forward the legislation. Given the potential threats to things such as the delivery of health care services to interactions on the net by Canadians, would the member not agree that it is important that legislation of this nature continue not only to deal with the threats but to build confidence in the system with Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I understand that the Conservative Party is going to actually be voting in favour of the legislation. I am glad to hear that because we recognize that it does not matter which political party one is of, the issue of cybersecurity is something that we all need to take seriously. Listening to the debate today, Conservatives come up and say, yes, they support the bill and it is a bill that they want to see go to committee. Given the member's comments, does the Conservative Party actually have any amendments that it is prepared to share, through the House of Commons, with Canadians? What tangible amendments would they like to see made to the legislation that he could share with us prior to it going to committee?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has made. However, when we go to these conferences, one thing that is important to recognize is that even with the legislation, compared to other countries, this is an ongoing issue and cybersecurity is dealt with in a wide variety of ways. What we are talking about today is a very important tool. We have been talking about it and have the legislation before us. We now have an opportunity. In listening to members on all sides of the House, we see that there is a will to support the legislation going to committee. My concern is that if we do not allow that opportunity, there is a finite amount of time. We would like to see the legislation go to committee so that opposition members could propose ideas, suggestions and possible amendments. Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of trying to get the legislation to the next stage, given that everyone seems to be supporting the legislation?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the motion brought forward by the New Democrats. I have always felt that a good, healthy debate and discussion about Canada's health care is long overdue. I welcome the idea of bringing the Canada Health Act into the debate. My question to the member is specific. When I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba, I used to argue that one of the greatest threats to Canada's health care system was not only the issue of financial resources, albeit that is critically important, but also the way we manage changes. We could probably have a healthier health care system if we saw more provincial comparisons, learned the best practices and looked at ways to improve or manage the changes necessary to meet future demand in our health care system. Can he provide his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, the Bloc seems to be of the impression, and I really disagree with this, that the only role the federal government plays is to provide provinces money, nothing more, to be that ATM machine. It is like having a system in Canada where data and information is irrelevant to health care, data such as having a three-month waiting list for a hip replacement in one province and a 14-month waiting list in another. We have the Canada Health Act, which is there to ensure there is a national health care system that provides basic fundamentals in health care, the expectations that Canadians have. Some provinces might be more progressive than other provinces, but would he not agree we should be able to look at the different provinces and see those basic fundamentals that are prescribed in the Canada Health Act?

Madam Speaker, I think it is worth reinforcing that Canada does have a strong and powerful role to play when it comes to our national health care system. We can do it through legislation that is there, by using it and enforcing it, which we have done as a government. The other thing that we can do at the national level is to increase that leverage by providing more financial support. Not only do we have a historic amount of money today invested in health care, but we will also be investing more than $198 billion over the next 10 years in the national health care system. I am wondering if the member could provide her comments on the importance of using leverage to ensure that the Canada Health Act is respected.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Health care, for me personally, over the last number of years, and I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years now, has been the number one issue. I would ultimately suggest that for the constituents I represent, whether it was in the Manitoba legislature or here in the House of Commons, there has never been an issue more important than the issue of health care. It is a core part of what it actually means to be a Canadian. At the end of the day, I believe that people need to have a better understanding of the reality of health care. The Conservatives talk as if there is no hidden agenda, as if they believe in a national health care program. The NDP members are trying to give a false impression, as if they are the ones who are going to protect the national health care system. The Bloc wants to see Canada taken apart. It does not want to have a national health care system and its focus is simply on separation. The Liberal Party has consistently been there over the years to protect Canada's national health care system. One of the first things the Prime Minister and the Liberal government did was go to the different provinces to come up with health care agreements to ensure that there would be ongoing funding, because Stephen Harper did not do that. He was unable to meet with the premiers and get an accord. It was the previous Liberal administration that got the 10-year accord back through Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. It was a Liberal government that enacted the Canada Health Act. It is the Liberal Party of Canada that instituted cash transfers to the provinces and using those cash transfers. It is this government, the current government, that has invested more in health care than anyone in the history of our nation. When we take a look at the $198 billion-plus, a 10-year agreement in order to ensure that future generations of Canadians are going to have a national health care program, it will be Liberals and like-minded individuals who are going to be there to ensure that it is going to be there for future generations. As has been pointed out from the Prime Minister down to all members, we do not believe that Canadians should have to pay for health care services. One of the lines is that a health care card is all that one requires in Canada, not a credit card. When we think of the five fundamental principles of health, one is universality. One hundred per cent of the costs must be covered if one is going into a hospital, for example, or visiting a physician. When we think in terms of public administration, the act is very clear that it is the provinces that are ultimately responsible for the administration, but that does not mean that they play the role of ensuring that there is a national health care system. They are a part of that national program and play a critical role because of the administration side of it. It needs to be comprehensive for medically necessary procedures and services. That is an area that needs to grow. We have talked a great deal in the last number of years, virtually since we were elected as a majority government back in 2015, about the need to see more emphasis on mental health. During the pandemic, we saw another emphasis put on long-term care. In the most recent budget, we saw an emphasis on dental care, starting with children under the age of 12. I have been talking about and introducing petitions dealing with prescribed medications. We have a committee, and we are looking at the possibility of having willing provincial partners to talk about the costs of medications. There are other issues that are not necessarily included. Cosmetic surgery would be a good example, and ambulance services. Those are not part of it, but we do need to revisit, I would argue, some of those, and I highlighted the one in terms of dental and the second one, pharmacare. There are many within the Liberal caucus who want to see us continue to expand in that area. Let there be no doubt that the medically necessary services have to be there, and they have to be universal and comprehensive. When we think of portability, this is really where the Bloc is way out. It should not matter where one lives in the country of Canada. People should have a basic national system that is there for them. If people live in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Halifax or anywhere in between, or going up north, they should know that the national health care system is going to be there. It is not any one province that can provide that assurance; it has to be a national government, and a national government using the portability clause of the five fundamental principles can ensure that it happens. We can talk about accessibility. When we think of health care, what do we think of, in terms of the different types of services being accessible? We expect that we would have hospitals that are in the communities and that are open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. We expect there will be community hospitals and there will be tertiary hospitals for trauma. We expect we would have community-based health facilities. I could list some off. For example, the Health Sciences Centre, in Winnipeg, is a world-class facility that includes the general hospital for children. It is a tertiary hospital for trauma. It even has the helicopter pad. We have the Seven Oaks General Hospital serving the residents of Winnipeg North, a community-based hospital, one that I argue should be delivering services like obstetrics and improving upon its emergency services, and I will continue to advocate that for the Seven Oaks General Hospital. We have a community health clinic, the Norwest clinic, that is there. We understand how important home care services are. We understand the importance of personal care homes. In fact, we had the Minister of Health in Winnipeg North just last summer at the Fred Douglas Lodge, where we talked about the importance of having national standards, the importance of personal care homes, the importance of home care services and, most importantly, the importance of the backbone of our health care services, which is the people who provide those services. Whether they are a doctor, a nurse, a nurse practitioner, a lab technician, those who conduct X-rays or those who clean the floors, they all play an absolutely critical role in providing the type of health care system we all want and deserve to see. That is part of who we are, when I say that health care is part of the core of the Canadian identity. Liberals do not need to be lectured by the opposition. Earlier, the Conservative Party tried to say that we are letting down Canadians on health care. Give me another 20 minutes and I will point out the hypocrisy there. The Conservatives do not believe in a national health care system, because they would just give everything to the provinces. They are not going to enforce. They do not talk about national programs. Every time someone brings it up, they say that it is a provincial jurisdiction. We believe in a truly national program that is enforced through the Canada Health Act, and this government and this Prime Minister will be there to support Canadians in having that national health care system. It is with great pride that I say so.

Madam Speaker, well, we have to be somewhat careful. Again, I used to be the health critic in the Province of Manitoba. Even the NDP supported, indirectly, the privatization of health care. I can sit with the member and expand upon that. At the end of the day, the most important thing we have to recognize is how to prevent a two-tier system. That is the greatest fear. We need to ensure that the managing of health care, which is absolutely critical to its survival, is conducted. From my perspective, the real issue is that we never, ever support, publicly, a two-tier system. I think that is what we should be striving for, more than anything else: keep it free and accessible, keep the portability, and maintain those five fundamental principles. That is absolutely critical. We need to make it very clear that we would not tolerate a two-tier system.

Madam Speaker, I defended the Province of Quebec. Every year, for the 19 years that I sat in the Manitoba legislature, Ottawa is always asked for more money for health care. We did not hear the provinces complain when there was a tax point shift, when Ottawa said there would be a reduction in cash transfers in favour of a tax point shift. The provinces did not complain then. At the end of the day, provinces and municipalities always want to have more money. We need to ensure that there is adequate federal funding, and the $198-billion, 10-year commitment is just that. We are there at the table. That is why the provinces have signed on, because they have recognized that this is the type of money that is going to make the difference in providing the quality care that Canadians have from coast to coast.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, along with many of her colleagues, needs to read other things outside of just the Conservative notes that are being provided. If the member genuinely believes that we have not been investing in mental health, she can go onto the portal and she will find that we have spent $180 million on a portal that is providing mental health services directly from Ottawa. That program has reached over two million Canadians. The Conservatives do not even know what they are talking about when it comes to health care because, at the end of the day, they do not see and believe that the federal government plays a role in health care.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member's last comment regarding the Liberals not defending health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Liberal Party that brought in health care, whether the member wants to recognize it or not. The Liberal Party achieved the historic amount of funding that we see today. The Liberal government, working with the provinces and stakeholders, has now signed off on $198-billion-plus for the next 10 years to ensure that we have a national health care system, not only for today but for future generations. Specifically outside of the Canada Health Act and the financial resources that we are giving to provinces, what more does the member believe a national government could do, not in the NDP dream world but realistically, in order to ensure that we have a true national health care program?

Madam Speaker, I will go back to the days when I was the health critic in the province of Manitoba and the NDP was in government. We had a situation where privately owned clinics were provided business through public doctors, as all doctors are publicly compensated. I wonder if the member and the NDP would see that as a negative thing. Was the provincial NDP wrong to be dependent on private clinics, which would provide all sorts of blood testing, for example? Is that the type of privatization the national NDP opposes? Could the member expand on that? Is there any role at all for private clinics or non-profits?

Mr. Speaker, when members had the special joint committee, they had a great deal of consultation with many different stakeholders. A lot of evidence was provided. Earlier today, the Chair presented the report. It is worth recognizing that a majority of the political parties inside this House seem to support Bill C-39. Can the member comment on whether the extensive discussions and dialogue that have occurred have in fact improved our system? Could she add value to anything I have said?

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the last speaker said, I believe, whether it is today or the other evening, that the Conservative Party has been politicizing what is very much a personal issue. Are they bringing in vets? I had the privilege and honour of serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. I marched with World War I and World War II veterans in a parade. After the parade of remembrance, we went to a legion where there were all sorts of discussions. One got an appreciation of the sacrifices that were made and the types of horrors they had to endure. To use veterans in a manipulative way to try to give the impression that the Liberal government, let alone any member of this House, would support that any civil servant recommend to a veteran that they apply for MAID is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. It is a politicization that cannot be justified. If there is a civil servant working for Veterans Affairs, any civil servant, it is something we take very seriously. They should not be communicating with the public, especially not with veterans, knowing what veterans, not exclusively, often have to go through. The member referenced the idea that the Prime Minister is not listening. I reflect on debates on Bill C-14, which was brought in back in 2016. The member for Charlottetown referenced the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It obligates the House of Commons and all members of Parliament to deal with medical assistance in dying. There is no choice. We are a nation that operates with respect to the Supreme of Court of Canada, the rule of law, and that obligation for us to deal with it. Let us look at the debates we had then, in contrast to what we heard the other day in the speech before mine. In 2016, members debated the then-Bill C-14 with a great deal of passion, and people expressed personal opinions in a very real way. I cannot recall the same sort of partisanship. In the debate the other night, the member said the Prime Minister was not listening to what groups were doing and he was forcing this bill through. We have a minority government. The government and the Prime Minister cannot force anything through, unless there is at least a buy-in by a majority of the members who sit in the House. How can the Prime Minister force something through? What I hear from the other side is that mental health and depression will somehow qualify someone to be able to apply for MAID. That is not the case. Do the members know the difference between a medical illness, where someone works for years with a psychiatrist and is diagnosed as mentally ill, versus someone with a mental health issue? Just because someone is depressed one day, or individuals might have some mental health issues, does not mean they are mentally ill as prescribed by a psychiatrist who individuals work with over months, if not years. If someone wakes up today and they are not feeling good, and maybe there has been some depression over the last number of weeks and months, that does not mean they go to the hospital or somewhere and then they are told they can apply for MAID. That is not the way it works. If one listened to the Conservatives, one would think it is like MAID on-demand, and it is not. Trying to give that false impression is doing a disservice to the debate, because they are not understanding the issue of what is being advocated for. If someone has a serious depression issue because of a layoff, a marital breakdown or a death in the family, it does not mean they can apply for MAID. If their depression is that severe in a relatively short period of time and they apply for MAID, then they will find other supports they can get in touch with. I would argue that there is another side of this debate we are not looking at. There are individuals who are wondering about MAID and are thinking about making contact as a direct result of knowing it is there, even though they would not be eligible to apply. We are talking about not months, but years, of working with a psychiatrist, where there is no remedy. After that, it still has to go through another process. We are talking about a very small percentage. If the Conservatives want to talk about mental health in general, I am game for that. Regarding mental health, let us take a look at the agreement we just signed. It is over $196 billion. That will be millions of dollars going toward issues like mental health. For the first time, there was a program, the Wellness Together Canada portal, which led to a direct service to Canadians dealing with mental health. It was put in by the Liberal government. Over two million people have been served through that portal. All of them have dealt with some form of mental health issue. Out of those people, there might be zero who would qualify to apply for MAID. It may be a very minuscule percentage, if any, of those who went through that portal. However, we would not think about that if we listened to the Conservative Party. The Liberal government has raised the issue of mental health virtually from day one. During the pandemic, we put a program in place and we invested millions of dollars to provide support for people who are enduring mental health-related issues. There is a difference between what we are talking about with MAID and the bigger picture of mental health in Canada. We know that. We have invested in it. We are talking about billions of dollars. If we reflect on their debates, the Conservatives were even taking extra caution by having the extension. That is why all members in the House are standing up and saying they will vote in favour of it, because it is an extension. The government is working with stakeholders and other members of the House, not just Liberal MPs, to ensure that we get it right. We have not drawn the same conclusion that the Conservative Party of Canada has. We recognize the issue of mental illness and what is coming from our courts.

Mr. Speaker, if I were to review the other night's, and today's, Hansard, I could very easily identify a half-dozen or more Conservative MPs who stood in their places trying to give the false impression that if someone is depressed, they can actually apply for MAID. How irresponsible is that? There are many issues the member has raised. In terms of the half-dozen safeguards, we just had a joint committee report tabled today that will provide the answers the member has requested and many more. I warn that it might go against what the Conservative spin notes say in the back room of the Conservative Party, because it has been very well thought out. It has been supported by a majority of people in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, by having this legislation pass, we would be putting in place an opportunity to be 100% confident in the law. There is no hesitation on my part. To add to that, I think it is critical that we understand and appreciate that what we are talking about are people who have been working with psychiatrists for years and for whom there is no remedy to their mental illnesses. It is a small fraction of people who would even qualify to put in applications. Then that process gets under way. I think it is really important that people understand that. It is not as wide open as many are trying to give the impression of.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada just signed off on an agreement of over $196 billion over the next 10 years. That is there to support the Canada Health Act. Mental health is a part of the Canada Health Act, from my perspective and in the minds of many, because mental health is, in fact, health, just like breaking a leg is a health issue. I suspect we will have to make sure there is a high sense of accountability to ensure that the provinces treat it accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants. It is a nice, sunny day outside, I think, although I am not really 100% sure. However, I can say that on days like this, when the Conservative Party brings forward its best efforts to try to sway public opinion, it is like an ominous black cloud covers the House of Commons and the chamber. One can get fairly depressed just listening to the bafflegab that comes from the other side. This is a kind of warning for people who are following the debate not to believe everything the Conservatives say, because, quite frankly, they are very good at stretching the truth, if I can put it that way and still be parliamentary. I find it truly amazing just how deep in darkness the Conservative Party can really be. I would like to show some contrast between the dark side and a party that, through the years, has been there in a very tangible, real way for Canadians for the last seven years. Maybe that is a good place to start. It is kind of ridiculous that we hear the Conservatives stand up time after time and say, “eight years of Liberal government”. They should do their math. Even if we round it off, it is not quite eight years yet; it is actually closer to seven, so they will be able to regurgitate these exact same speeches a year from now. We will be getting to eight years eventually. Hopefully, with the blessing of Canadians, we will be able to double down on that in the time to come, but we need to be able to show that, at the end of the day, we are prepared to respect what we have been given. We were given a mandate to manage the economy in a minority situation, meaning that we have to work with all political entities here in order to get things passed through the House of Commons. From my perspective, the essence of the motion before us today can be broken down into two things, the amount of spending and the inflation issue. First and foremost, we have to understand and appreciate that the everyday lives that Canadians are going through can be very challenging. Costs have gone up and we have recognized that. That is why we have brought forward programs, whether through legislation or budgetary measures, to support Canadians in every region of our country in a very real and tangible way by putting money in their pockets. Let there be no doubt about that. We are concerned about the issues of being able to have groceries and pay those bills. That is one of the reasons why we are developing the programs and putting them out, even though the Conservatives vote against those programs. What is truly amazing is how the Conservatives try to misrepresent the reality in the world today. If we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that the inflation rate today is unique to Canada and is all because of this particular government. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Surely to goodness, the Conservatives do not believe that Canadians are so dumb as to believe that. Canada is, among many other nations, doing reasonably well in terms of the inflation rate. We are doing better than the United States, England and the European Union, where the inflation rates are higher than Canada's. As much as the Conservatives try to give the impression, the Prime Minister of Canada is not causing worldwide inflation. The Prime Minister and the government are providing supports for Canadians in a very real and tangible way, so that we can assist them in dealing with the inflation rate here in Canada, because we understand and recognize the hardship. What happens when we do that, when we recognize that, first and foremost, yes, we have to take action, even though we have a lower inflation rate than countries around the world? We have to do things such as doubling the GST rebate on a short-term basis. Originally, the Conservatives came out against that particular policy stand. They had to be shamed into ultimately coming onside and supporting that particular initiative. What about others, such as the rental support program? They voted against that. On the one hand, they are criticizing the cost of rent. On the other hand, when we provide a support for a good number of Canadians on that front, what do they do? They vote against it. What about the benefits being provided to children under the age of 12 for dental care? Tens of thousands throughout the country, thousands in Manitoba, have already taken advantage of that program. We are talking about hundreds of dollars in the pockets of families for dental work for kids under 12. What did the Conservative Party do? It voted against that too. We bring in programs that are having a real, tangible impact, such as the Canada workers benefit. For workers out there having a difficult time and working hard, we are topping off their salaries, making life more affordable for them. Do members know that over four million Canadians will benefit from that program? We get criticized by the Conservatives regarding how much money we are spending. They say that we are spending so much more than just what has to do with the pandemic. Yes, we are spending money. We are investing in children. By having a national child care program, we will have more people engaged in the workforce. We will improve the quality of care for children. We will improve the quality of life for Canadians in general, as more people will enter the workforce as a direct result. We have seen first-hand in the province of Quebec, when it instituted that very same policy, how that had such a positive impact. In fact, there is a cost to the program, but because of it, revenues will actually increase. We know that. We just signed off on a $198-billion health care agreement to enforce a national health care system. I wish I could have half an hour to expand on why that is so important not only to the people of Canada today, but also to future generations. Those who want to talk about mental health, palliative and long-term care, waiting lists and doctor shortages, the need for the managing of health care, accountability and transparency should be supporting this initiative for the $198-billion, 10-year proposal. I am so glad to see that the provinces are now onside with it. Our health care system is a part of who we are as Canadians. People have an expectation of the government, that we will be there to protect them and to have their backs when the economy is having some difficulties, whether during a pandemic, a slowdown, inflation, or whatever it might be. This government from day one has been investing in Canadians and in our infrastructure, and has been building a stronger, healthier economy even during the turmoil of a pandemic. By providing those types of supports, and, yes, the billions of dollars, the government has put Canada in a better position to build back better. We believe in Canada's middle class. We want to see an economy that works for all Canadians. There are a lot of good things taking place in Canada today, contrary to what the Conservative Party might try to get Canadians to believe. There is reason to be very optimistic, because as we deal with those economic measures, we are not forgetting about the environmental measures. We are not forgetting about those important social programs that Canadians are so dependent on and very fond of. This is a government that will continue to bring in progressive legislation and make budgets that will be there every day for Canadians no matter where they live.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to table today a petition signed by the residents of Winnipeg North with respect to the Canada Health Act. They make reference to the fact that the Canada Health Act sets out a framework to ensure that we have a true national health care system from coast to coast to coast. The petitioners are asking governments of different levels to work together to ensure that issues are dealt with, to broaden health care responsibilities, to take into consideration mental health and long-term care and to continue on the path set out for dental care, pharmacare and issues of that nature. I am sure the petitioners were quite happy to see that we just recently made a $198-billion commitment over the next 10 years to build upon the national health care system.

Mr. Speaker, the member went on an attack and wanted to point out hypocrisy from the Conservatives and the Liberals in terms of corporate taxes. She pointed out that we have not increased or reduced corporate taxes, and in particular, we have not increased them. I want to remind the member that the only government that I have witnessed offhand decreasing corporate taxes was the NDP provincial government in Manitoba. Not once but several times, the NDP, who have never been in office here in Ottawa but have been in my province, decreased corporate taxes. Does the member feel that there might be a bit of hypocrisy if we put this into the context of what she was saying?

Mr. Speaker, in a humorous way, the member tries to make the difference between seven and eight versus the word “broken”. I understand that Conservative members who stand up and use the word “broken” probably get little gold stars put beside their names in the Conservative room. That is all part of the Conservative spin. The Canadian economy and society are not broken. We continue to move forward. We continue to build. I would gladly debate that particular member any time and anywhere, as long as it is somewhat reasonable, in terms of the planning of the things we have been able to accomplish compared to 10 years of Stephen Harper. With regard to the issue of mental health, I would remind the member that part of our health care system is recognizing that the administrative responsibilities lie with the provinces. From an Ottawa perspective, we are investing historic amounts of money in health care. We continue to raise the profile of mental health, unlike the previous Harper regime.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Bloc would have had an opposition day motion based on health care transfers. I think this is the first time in a generation when we have had such a long-term commitment toward a truly national health care system. It has just been signed off on, with the provinces now agreeing to the principles of the $198-plus billion over the next 10 years. There is a history of fiscal transfers. We have the highest number of federal dollars going toward health care in the history of Canada. The tax point shift was made back in, I believe, the late 1970s, toward tax points versus actual health dollars. I am very happy to say that, because of this particular agreement, we are going to see a permanent, solid presence of health care throughout the country. There will be more transparency and accountability and a higher sense of a national program, which I think all Canadians will be very proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I know that, whether it has been the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, they have been very clear in terms of the issue of tax fairness. We have brought in some measures to ensure there is more accountability. Taxes coming in from banks is an example from the financial industry. I am sure that all things are on the table as the government tries to ensure a higher sense of fair taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it amazing when one does a contrast between the government and the Conservative Party. The member says, as the Conservatives have, that we are spending too much money, and yet when we take a look at the money we are spending, in good part, we think of the billions on child care. Conservatives say they do not want that child care, and yet when we brought in the legislation to support it, they actually voted in favour of the legislation. We just made a commitment of $198 billion toward health care, and now the Conservatives are saying they would not cut that money back if they were to get elected. The Conservatives seem to be of the impression that they can just criticize and provide no actual plan. Does the hon. member not feel, whether it is on the environment, health care or child care, that it is an obligation of the official opposition to provide its plan on some of these important social issues?

Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to ask a quick question regarding what the member thinks about the NDP-Liberal B.C. agreement on LNG. I could possibly ask him what he believes Rachel Notley has to say about the purchase of the pipeline. However, I would rather pick up on what he said in his speech about how government can actually spend where there is a very high return. Could I get his thoughts on the national child care program and its net benefits, which were clearly demonstrated in the province of Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party says that if we are going to spend the money, we have to find the money in order to do so. Now, we just made a major announcement for the future of the national health care system, $190 billion over 10 years, and there are hundreds of millions flowing this year. The Conservative leader has now endorsed it. He has said that Conservatives will not cut back on that commitment. Can the member now share their plan? When they talk about money being spent only if money is coming in, in terms of programs, what programs would the Conservatives be cutting as a result of the commitment that the Conservative Party leader has made?

Mr. Speaker, we have had Bloc and Conservative members and next we would get an NDP member. If I were in opposition, the kind of motion I would like to see is one on health care. I think all of us here and Canadians have a big interest in health care. It is more than just the cost factor in terms of how much money is going to Ottawa or how much money is raised at the provincial level. It is about managing change. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the issue of health care management of change and the importance of transparency and accountability.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate it. I know the member for Abbotsford, who has been looking forward to my speech on this issue today, really appreciates it too, because he wants to digest, no doubt, every word that I am sharing with him. After all, if we take a look at the environment of Abbotsford, I suspect we will find that the wood and timber industry is of critical importance. I know the member for Abbotsford knows full well the significance of the wood industry to the province of British Columbia. In fact, as a former minister of Stephen Harper, he can relate, I am sure, to the many different types of trade issues related to our softwood industry.