Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, when we take a look at inflation, something the member talks a great deal about, and compare Canada to the rest of the world, whether it is the United States, the United Kingdom or other G20 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on why she believes Canada is doing far better when it comes to inflation rates compared to the rest of the world. Why is that the case? Are the other countries that bad?

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have been somewhat patient with the member. This was the third time the member has made reference to the term “Justinflation”. He is obviously doing something indirectly, knowing full well that he cannot do it directly. It has been ruled on previously by the Speaker that it is an inappropriate phrase, and this is the third time he has used it. I would suggest it is being done intentionally by the member and that he should try to improve by not using that term, which is unparliamentary, as previously ruled.

Madam Speaker, I like to think of Bill C-31 as progressive legislation that will ultimately meet the very high demand out there. Providing support for children under the age of 12 to get dental care, I think, will bring about profound and positive change for many children who ultimately end up in surgery situations or having to go into hospital because of not getting dental work, as an example. For clarity purposes only, I wonder if the member could just give a clear indication about this. The previous speaker implied that they would be voting in favour. Am I to understand that the Bloc members are going to be voting against the amendment and then in favour of the bill itself?

Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the fact that this is a legislation that the Conservative Party itself is going to be supporting, which is a positive thing. We have heard many different speeches coming from the Conservative Party. Earlier this morning, a member was talking about economic policy in terms of where we should be going as a government. One of the things that were talked about a great deal was when the now leader of the Conservative Party talked about the importance of cryptocurrency. In talking about cryptocurrency, he actually encouraged Canadians to invest in cryptocurrency, believing that this was some way to fight inflation. We all know that this particular recommendation caused many Canadians to lose a great deal of money, no doubt those who would have followed the advice of the leader. Can the member indicate to us what she thinks in terms of Conservative policy? Was this a policy that the Conservative Party supported back then, or was this something that today's leader of the Conservative Party had as his own personal idea?

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later today, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, as we witnessed earlier today during question period, we had members from all sides of the House, whether it was the Prime Minister or other opposition and government members, expressing their thoughts and goodwill with regard to what has taken place. In fact, from coast to coast to coast, because of media, including you yourself, Mr. Speaker, bringing to the House's attention last week that we had a storm that was coming to Atlantic Canada and was also going to affect the province of Quebec, there was a tremendous amount of goodwill. Canadians from coast to coast to coast watched, and now part of the solution is to allow for those Canadians to express that sense that a part of our nation is hurting by making a donation. I am wondering what the member would have to say about how else Canadians might be able to be involved besides giving some money, offering a prayer or, possibly for some of them, even going to the east coast.

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is an emergency debate to deal with what is taking place in Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec today. I am hopeful that throughout the next number of hours, members will provide their thoughts on how the government can enhance support, quite frankly. We heard the Prime Minister and other ministers talk about our military, matching Red Cross donations and the tremendous amount of communication that is going on between ministerial offices and premiers' offices and other stakeholders. The member seemed to focus her attention on the issue of climate change, and yes, we recognize it. We are not Conservatives. We do not deny climate change, but that is for another debate. My question to the member is this: Does she have any thoughts or ideas specifically that she would like to see helping the people of Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec?

Madam Speaker, Canadians have come together. It was encouraging to see the Leader of the Opposition earlier today talking about the importance of members on all sides of the House working in order to support Atlantic Canada during this time. There are a number of initiatives that the government has undertaken. We have talked about the military and matching Red Cross donations. I believe all Canadians could get involved. I wonder what the member would say to Canadians from coast to coast to coast about ways in which they could contribute to what is taking place in Atlantic Canada, using the example of giving a contribution to the Red Cross, or maybe prayers, or maybe going to the east coast, for those who feel they could contribute. Does the member have any thoughts in that regard?

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Conservatives and the Bloc do not recognize that this legislation is going to enable children under the age of 12 to get the dental work that is absolutely necessary. Many children are not getting dental work because of the issue of affordability. Many of those children end up going into hospitals at great cost because they did not get the dental work that is required. Now, we have a government that is recognizing the importance of getting the job done in serving our young children in Canada. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of children who are going to be eligible, in every region of our country, yet the Conservatives feel that the federal government plays no role. Why is the member not standing up for the children whom she represents who do not have dental insurance?

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate many of the comments that the member has made. One of the aspects of the legislation that is, ultimately, the most important from my perspective, which I know the member shares, is the area of dental care for children under the age of 12. This is something that I and many believe is going to be able to assist so many families in all regions of the country, assisting, for the first time, many children who would never have received the type of dental care they require, the lack of which often leads children to be put into hospital situations. I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to children who are not getting the dental work today and who end up in hospitals because of the affordability issue.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has walked in parades of World War II and World War I veterans, and who understands the true commitment of our veterans and the commitment of the minister responsible for veterans to seniors, I can assure the member that this is a file that is in fact being reviewed and looked at. We are not in a position where we will talk about individual cases on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents of Winnipeg North asking for the government to take into consideration the many different programs that our seniors are very much dependent on, whether it is GIS, OAS or many of the different senior support programs that are supported, such as New Horizons and so forth. They are asking the Prime Minister and, in fact, all members of Parliament to be strong advocates for our seniors in all regions.

Madam Speaker, when we look at the legislation, it is important to note that what we are doing is helping society deal with a very serious problem. Teeth decay and surgeries as a direct result of children not having a dental plan are having a profound impact on other aspects of quality of life and health care costs. I wonder if the member could provide her comments in regard to the benefits of helping our children at this time.

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is going to be supporting the bill. It is a good piece of legislation. There are some provinces that actually advance dental care more than other provinces. The legislation we are talking about would assist thousands of children in all regions of the country, including in the province of Quebec, where I would see it more so as complementing the services Quebec currently offers. Why, in any fashion, would the Bloc prevent a federal initiative that would provide badly needed dental care to children of all regions of our country?

Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member has said. For the Prime Minister, the government and the constituents I represent, the Canada Health Act and the health and general well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are things we are greatly concerned about. That is why we have invested historic amounts of money. Never before has a federal government given as much money toward health care as this government has. That is why we have invested in things such as mental health and long-term care. Today's bill is all about providing dental care and making it affordable for children under the age of 12. Is this member, and the member who spoke before her, trying to say that it does not complement the system in the province of Quebec? Not all provinces are equal. Is she saying that not one of her constituents would benefit by this program? If she is, she is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the leader has made. In listening to the debate today, it is disappointing to see that the Conservatives, in contrast to the government and the NDP, seem to not want to support our children. This bill is focused, in terms of children under 12, in providing a benefit that will truly have a positive impact. Then there were the concerns expressed by the Bloc members that the people of Quebec would not necessarily benefit from the program. Does the leader of the New Democratic Party not agree that today it is time for us to have a national footprint on the issue of dental care and that this is a good starting point, dealing with kids under the age of 12?

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting comments, but not so much on the dental benefit, the legislation we are talking about. The member seemed to get carried away in some other areas. Having said that, maybe I will try to get some clarification for Canadians on the issue of our children. We have a substantial piece of legislation that is going to provide dental care for thousands of children under the age of 12. To be very clear, the Conservative Party of Canada opposes this legislation. It does not support the federal government having a role in providing dental care for children under 12. Is this the same sort of contrast we see when the Conservative Party also says it does not support child care? Does the current Conservative Party still believe that it is going to trash the national Canada child care program?

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting. Yesterday, we were debating supports for people with disabilities. It is historic legislation. Today, we are again bringing legislation that would be there to help people. Children under the age of 12 would be able to receive benefits, which would be a significant achievement. Could my colleague provide her thoughts on why it is so important that we have a government that truly cares and delivers for people in real way?

Madam Speaker, if I may, just 15 minutes ago we had a wonderful experience here with the Summit Series hockey legends on the floor of the House of Commons. What a wonderful treat that was. I was in grade 5 at the time, and I can recall the overwhelmingly wonderful and prideful feelings back in 1972. Here we are celebrating it 50 years later. I did get my picture with Paul Henderson, which I thought was quite cool. Having said that, we are debating Bill C-30. This is a piece of legislation that every member of the House of Commons should be voting in favour of. We often hear about inflation. When we think of inflation and the impact it is having on communities, we should recognize the fact that this bill would put more money in the pockets of millions of Canadians in every region of our country. This is really positive and helpful at a time when Canadians are looking for strong leadership from Ottawa. I hope that every member of the House will not only vote in favour of the legislation, but recognize the importance of the quick passage of the legislation. We could make a strong, collective statement to Canadians today by supporting this initiative. We might differ on this. Actually, I should not even say “might”. We differ greatly if we contrast the Conservative Party with the Liberal Party, the party in government. I will spend some time on that contrast. The most significant thing for me going into this session, the point that I really wanted to emphasize, which is something the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal caucus have talked a great deal about, is that we want an economy that works for all Canadians. That is something we are committed to as a government. From the very beginning, we have had a Prime Minister who talked about the importance of Canada's middle class and of forming government policy that helps Canada's middle class and those who are striving to become a part of it. We can look at the initiatives we have taken as a government, not only today with a legislative initiative that will lead to budgetary measures, but from the very beginning. We have brought up issues, and we could ask where the Conservative Party has been. As an example of that, there is the additional tax on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. The Conservative Party voted against that particular tax. The Conservatives might ultimately argue that it is tax and they do not like taxes, and that is why they voted against it, but it was a tax on Canada's wealthiest, asking for that fair share. Shortly after, or virtually at the same time, we brought in percentage tax breaks for Canada's middle class. Despite all of the pomp and ceremony of the Conservative leadership race, today's leader of the Conservative Party voted against that tax break for Canada's middle class. There are different ways that we can support Canadians. Today we have a very targeted approach and a way to ensure we are putting money in pockets, real money, by giving a tax benefit, the goods and services tax benefit. We have done it in other ways too. A good example is the Canada child benefit. Again, when bringing forward this program, there was no sliding scale of any form. It was the individuals who are finding it a little more difficult, as maybe their disposable income is not quite high, versus the multi-millionaires. Why not establish a program that would ensure there is a higher sense of equity and fairness? That is what we did. Take the Canada child benefit, for example, in Winnipeg North. I estimate that close to $10 million a month is going into Winnipeg North alone, and I am one of 338 constituencies. This gives us a sense of the commitment. This morning we were debating legislation in regard to dental care for children under the age of 12. Again, it would appear as if the Conservatives are going to vote against that piece of legislation. Imagine the money this would put into the pockets of families. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of families. As a result, they would not have to pay for their child under 12 who needs to get some dental work done. It is legislation that would help Canadians. We talked about the goods and services tax benefit, which is a positive thing. The doubling of that credit is going to have a very real and tangible impact. Based on what we saw this morning and based on what we have seen before from the Conservatives, they talk a good line or like to think they talk a good line. If they are genuine with many of the things they say, this is the type of legislation they should be voting in favour of. It is interesting when they downplay the importance of government programs. I raised this morning during debate the first universal national child care program and the positive impact it is going to have. Imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be going to families to support child care. We have seen first-hand the impact it had in the province of Quebec. We know the benefits of it. Again, that is money that is going to people, much like the legislation here is giving real money to people. The benefits are overwhelming, yet the Conservatives oppose it and talks about getting rid of that particular program. They talk about the CPP. Remember, in negotiations that had taken place, we got provinces and stakeholders onside to see an increase in CPP. The Conservatives call that a tax. It is not a tax; it is an investment. It is workers today who will be able to retire with more money. That is what this is. The Conservatives try to put a twist on it to try to give the impression that it is an outright tax. I think that does a disservice. I believe we look, in many ways, to leaders of our communities to provide the information and assurances that we have a government that truly cares and wants to advance good, sound government policy. Over the last number of years, including prepandemic, during the pandemic and now today, we have continued to bring forward legislative and budgetary motions and bills and legislation to advance the interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Today's bill would have an impact on close to 11 million people. Hopefully the Conservatives will not only support it but want to see its quick passage.

Madam Speaker, at times it can be a challenge to hold the Conservatives accountable for all the weird things they say, and that often means that I have to bring them into the public discussion. I am pleased to hear that the member is doing word counts of how often I am saying things. I can appreciate that. In regard to members being able to speak, even when I was in opposition, I always believed that there is a need to look at ways in which the Standing Orders can be modified or changed to modernize the House of Commons. I would suggest to the member that we could find different ways to do that, whether it is through a dual chamber or what I call “debate Fridays”. There are opportunities for us to enhance the numbers of hours of debate, which would hopefully encourage more people to engage in the debate.

Madam Speaker, If we take a look at Bill C-31, we see the benefits that the member highlights for people who are renting, but the real nugget in that bill, from my perspective, is the dental program, which is going to assist children in being able to get dental work that might not take place otherwise. At the same time, we can ensure that people who need that dental work are being subsidized as much as possible, although it may not be 100%, as there are some limits to it. That was just this morning. This afternoon we are bring forward another bill, which looks at doubling the tax credit, and that is going to be helping Canadians. I think what we are seeing as we come back into this session is a government agenda that is dealing with a very serious—

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been very open in listening to all members of Parliament on all sides of the House. Over the last three years we have brought in all sorts of programs, whether it is CERB, direct payments for seniors and people with disabilities or support for students. There has been a smorgasbord of all sorts of programs over the last three years and up to today, not to mention the programs prior to the pandemic itself.

Madam Speaker, I look at today's legislation as relief for millions of Canadians. It is going to have a very positive impact on the issue of inflation. I would note, even though we recognize that inflation affects us all, it affects some more than others. One of the things that I think is missing in the debate is the fact that, when we compare Canada to the rest of the world, our inflation rate is doing quite well. That does not mean we should ignore it. It is the reason it is important that we take measures, such as this legislation, to provide direct relief and money to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Would the member not agree that is a good reason for this bill, and that members should all be supporting it?

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, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Thursday, September 22, 2022, the House shall briefly suspend and thereafter resolve itself into a committee of the whole in order to welcome the players of Team Canada 1972, and, during committee of the whole, a member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may make a statement for not more than five minutes to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1972 Summit Series, provided that: (a) the Speaker be permitted to preside over the committee of the whole; (b) at the conclusion of the time provided for the statements or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the Speaker may make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; (c) the names of the players present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day; (d) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during the proceedings of the committee; (e) when the proceedings in the committee of the whole have concluded, the committee shall then rise; and (f) the time taken for the suspension and the proceedings in committee of the whole be added to the time provided for Government Orders on that day.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very significant day coming up next week. It is a statutory holiday. It is part of truth and reconciliation. There is this expectation that maybe there is something that we could do here. I believe there is. When we take a look at the support that seems to be implied in the comments and questions, it would be a wonderful thing to see this legislation pass. Would the member provide his thoughts on the significance of the legislation in terms of its passage before the statutory holiday next week?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the debate, particularly from Conservative members, but my question is for this member. When the Conservatives try to give what I would argue is a false impression and make a simple statement by saying that x number of calls to action have been implemented, it is somewhat deceitful. There are numerous recommendations, a high percentage of those calls to action, that are being acted on. It is not just solely the federal government, and this leads to the question I have for my colleague across the way. Would my colleague not agree that, when dealing with the calls to action and in the spirit of reconciliation, there is a need for governments to be working together to address the injustices from the past and to try to work collaboratively in order to achieve many of those calls to action?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the issue at hand. In listening to members speak on the legislation, there are a couple of thoughts specifically that come to mind. Many years ago, I was a justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I want to highlight the fact that we have discussions in Ottawa and come up with some very good, tangible ideas. As was pointed out, this issue was well debated, discussed and studied in one of our standing committees. Members of the House have already referred to the 2018 standing committee that did a study on this issue. One of the things that Parliament can do and does well is when it identifies an issue on which we can build consensus. Often I will stand and challenge members to support specific pieces of legislation. This is a bill that does deserve and merit the support of all members of the House of Commons, but we need to recognize the idea of jurisdictional responsibility. Yes, it is in the Criminal Code, but as some speakers have alluded, whether it is in the study process or even during the debate on this bill or previous bills, we need to recognize that the provinces also play a critical role in this. In fact, I suspect that even if the standing committee did not look at it, which would surprise me, what we would find in Canada is a patchwork system. Some provinces provide more support than other provinces. In certain areas, and I suggest this is one of those areas, passing this legislation would go a long way in showing national leadership on this important issue and, hopefully, at the end of the day, we would see a more consistent system throughout Canada. I believe we owe that to our jurors. When we think of the foundations of our nation, we can talk about Parliament or the independence of our judicial system, the rule of law and the fundamental pillars that hold that up. When we talk about the jury process, it is not like people go to court saying, “Pick me, pick me, I want to be a juror.” There is a process by which jurors are selected, and there is an obligation on our residents to fulfill that call to be a jurist when they are put in that position. The member before me referred to a particular incident, a horrific incident. Sadly, we see far too many of those types of incidents in all different regions of our country. There was a time when mental health, as the previous speaker referenced, was kind of pushed to the side. It is only in the last decade or so that we have seen mental health put front and centre in terms of the need for government policy. When we put that lens on the issue of justice, there are certainly areas that could be clearly amplified, and this is just one of those areas. For all of the reasons the example was cited, one can only imagine the many different horrific examples that have taken place in the last number of years alone that we have asked our fellow citizens to sit and listen to in great detail. I have never sat as a juror, but I can imagine some of the things that a juror has to go through to ultimately provide that decision, and that decision is absolutely critical in terms of being part of the foundations of our judicial system. I understand and I believe that the vast majority of people would understand and appreciate why it is so critically important that a juror or a jury has to keep what is said within in a very confidential manner. As I know members of the Liberal caucus do, I suspect, based on the discussions that I hear and the type of support received by previous legislation and the unanimous support of that standing committee I made reference to, that all members of the House understand the issue of mental health and what it is that the individual juror has to go through to reach that decision and fulfill that obligation. As a society, we are very dependent on that. Given that, and if we take into consideration the issue today of mental health, one would expect we need to be more open to the post-traumatic experiences that many jurors have to deal with as a direct result of their being a good citizen of Canada and participating in our judicial system. This bill, Bill S-206, is not proposing, as the standing committee is not proposing, that a juror would be able to go out and about and have a press conference and say, “Here is what we dealt with when we went and talked about this case,” prior to conviction or no conviction. What is being suggested here is fair and reasonable. From my perspective and, I believe, the perspective of virtually all members of the House, it is recognizing the needs of that juror, who has had an experience as a direct result of doing the right thing and being there for our nation and supporting our judicial system and who is having a very difficult time coming to grips with what he or she witnessed during the trial. I think there is an obligation on the government, whether it is the federal government or the provincial government, to take the actions necessary to provide that support. In doing so, we should be thinking about how we maximize the effectiveness of our juries. We have to ensure that the proper supports are there. By doing that, we are minimizing the negative consequences of a juror having to participate. We are saying, in essence, this: Let us look at ways in which we can allow for that juror to be able to talk to a professional health care provider to seek the counselling and the services that are necessary to support our system and, in particular, that juror. I think there is an obligation to do that and I believe that is the reason the bill has received the universal support that it has. I suspect that, ultimately, when it does come to a vote, it will be of an unanimous nature.

Madam Speaker, I disagree entirely with the member's comments. With respect to that destructive force, he underestimates the part his own political party has played. When he talks about institutions, one of the greatest institutions we have is Elections Canada, for example, and the way in which, in an apolitical fashion, it has attempted to engage Canadians in the democratic process. The Conservative Party undermined some of the issues dealing with Elections Canada in the sense of a fair election. When the member talks about the institution of Parliament, he claims that the NDP and Liberals working together undermines a sense of accountability. The party inside the House where I see the most resistance to modernizing the House of Commons is the Conservative Party of Canada. There are many things we can do by changing our Standing Orders to enable additional accountability. However, the Conservative Party consistently does nothing to see the modernization of parliamentary rules. During the pandemic, the member was critical because we had an extended period of time. What he does not make reference to is the opportunity we had to sit for the first time in a long time during the summer, in the month of July. During the time we sat, we had the opportunity for additional accountability, where members of the opposition were able to hold ministers to account, not just in one question and answer and then on to the next MP, but in a series of questions based on time, where we could see 10 second or one and a half minute questions. There have been opportunities for us to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability inside the House of Commons, but the real challenge has been to get the Conservative Party to recognize that, to support our institutions and to look at ways in which we can reform the House of Commons and the chamber, whether here or at our standing committees, as opposed to being a destructive force. If they are genuinely concerned about the democratic decline, first and foremost they have to accept some of the responsibility for that. As I was yesterday, I continue to be very much open to ways in which we can make this chamber more functional because, as I have argued in the past and will continue to argue, we should never take our democracy for granted here in Canada. There are things that we collectively, political partisanship aside, can do to ensure a higher sense of accountability. The member has concerns with respect to the media, which is a fundamental pillar of democracy. He takes objection to some of the manner in which subsidies are handed out and has said that we should not subsidize. We are very much concerned about fake news and indirectly, not with a political arm, are ensuring that some of our community and rural newspapers, and even those in urban centres, are able to maintain and support a media, which is so—

Madam Speaker, the member is being very selective in what he is saying. Everything that I indicated in my four-minute response deals exactly with what the member is talking about. In good part, it demonstrates that the Conservatives, the official opposition, also have a role to play but choose to ignore that role. The member referenced that we took a break. Well, when we took the first break of Parliament back in April 2020, every opposition party agreed to it. The member needs to be consistent. If he genuinely has concerns regarding democratic decline, then let us talk about ways we can improve it. Numerous members, including me, are genuinely interested in changing our Standing Orders and making this chamber more functional. By doing that, we will have more accountability.

Madam Speaker, in so many ways, the member is wrong. We have seen a government, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, virtually from the very beginning back in 2015, that has taken a very progressive and aggressive attitude both in legislation and in the form of budgetary measures to support housing, in essence bringing forward a national housing strategy, billions of dollars overall. It is having an impact. I would challenge the member to indicate what government in the last 50 or 60 years has invested more in housing in Canada. I will give some help to the member in terms of the answer: She will not find a government that has invested more than the current government has done over the last six years. We have made significant investments. Let me highlight a few when it comes to the important issue of indigenous people. In collaboration with ISC and the CMHC, as of December 31, 2021, first nations have been able to support the construction, renovation and retrofitting of 25,102 homes on reserves, of which 17,432 have been completed. To support housing in Inuit and Métis communities, $980 million has been announced by our government since 2016. These investments have been provided to partners, and thousands of Inuit and Métis families are now living in new and renovated homes via strategies led by indigenous partners. In the 2022 budget, we announced an additional $4 billion in funding for indigenous housing over seven years to accelerate work in closing indigenous housing gaps, including $2.4 billion over five years to support first nation housing on reserves, $845 million over seven years for housing in Inuit communities, $190 million over seven years for housing in Métis communities and $565 million over five years for housing in self-governing and modern treaty first nation communities. Lastly, through the indigenous homes innovation initiative, we are supporting creative projects led by indigenous people to design and build more effective, sustainable and culturally inspired living spaces, some of which will specifically support indigenous women and girls from other vulnerable populations. This government has committed and followed through on a wide spectrum of dealings in terms of Canada's housing crisis. I could easily spend the next 20 or 30 minutes just talking about some of those initiatives. We would have to go back many years, if in fact one could find a year, to find a government that has invested more in housing. If one does a comparison with the NDP platform back in 2015, we have out-measured and outdone that platform by a country mile. This is a government that understands the value of housing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and continues to work with indigenous leadership to ensure that wherever the federal government can play a role, it is, in fact, playing a role. We understand the importance of reconciliation and the way in which housing plays a critical role in it.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 568, 570, 571, 576 to 578, 580 to 584, 587, 590 to 592, 594, 596, 599, 601, 603, 606, 608, 612, 613, 616, 617, 619, 620, 622, 626, 627, 629, 631, 634, 638, 641, 642, 644, 646, 647, 651, 658, 663, 668, 670, 684 to 687, 690, 695, 701, 704, 708 to 710, 713, 715, 717, 720, 726, 728, 733, 734, 739, 740, 742, 745, 751, 753 to 755 and 759.

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 564, originally tabled on June 22, 2022, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 567, 569, 572 to 575, 579, 585, 586, 588, 589, 593, 595, 597, 598, 600, 602, 604, 605, 607, 609 to 611, 614, 615, 618, 621, 623 to 625, 628, 630, 632, 633, 635 to 637, 639, 640, 643, 645, 648 to 650, 652 to 657, 659 to 662, 664 to 667, 669, 671 to 683, 688, 689, 691 to 694, 696 to 700, 702, 703, 705 to 707, 711, 712, 714, 716, 718, 719, 721 to 725, 727, 729 to 732, 735 to 738, 741, 743, 744, 746 to 750, 752 and 756 to 758 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and Liberal members have been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians, and Bill C-22 speaks to that. It would ensure that we give more disposable income to people with disabilities. The minister talked about how there is a disconnect in the issue of poverty for a person with a disability who is turning 65. The member opposite seems to want to mock the bill by challenging whether it will take effect. The Conservative Party of Canada can recognize what the government has been talking about: enabling Canadians to be actively engaged in the economy as full participants. Let us fight poverty. Will the member be clear in her indication of support for the bill and its quick passage?

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have before us is, in fact, of great benefit for individuals who receive a disability benefit. I am encouraged to hear that the Conservatives, as of late, seem to want to support the legislation. What really intrigued me was when the member made reference to CPP as a tax. CPP is, in many ways, a source of income for Canadians who are going to retire in future. Yes, CPP premiums are going to be going up, which will allow for those workers in the future, when they retire, to retire with more disposable income. Can the member be clear about whether he supports CPP increases, or does he believe that it is purely a tax? It actually is to ensure that seniors, when they retire, will have more disposable income.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation, which the minister brought forward today. I know it will disappoint many members opposite, but I will be sharing my time. Let me get back to the point. Whether it is the Prime Minister or members of the Liberal caucus, we can often be heard talking about an economy that would work for all Canadians. That is a central theme in the Liberal caucus. We understand and appreciate the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Recognizing that the true value of having a strong and healthy middle class would give us a healthier economy and a better society. When we talk about an economy that works for all Canadians, it is important. That is the reason I am so glad that the first piece of legislation on our return is Bill C-22. Bill C-22 would ensure that there is a larger disposable income for those individuals with disabilities. This is something truly unique happening here in Canada. We are recognizing that the national government plays a significant role in ensuring that people with disabilities would receive money coming from the government. I hear many of the comments from opposition members talking about wanting more details. This legislation would establish the framework, and no doubt there would be interesting discussions taking place in the standing committees. However, we need to realize that, when we establish a national program, and we speak from experience because we have developed other national programs, we need to work with different provinces and stakeholders. Not every province is the same. Provinces and territories have different structures in place. As a government, the last thing we want to see is a payment going out, and then a province clawing back that money from a person with a disability. There are agreements that have to be achieved. There are negotiations and discussions that have to take place. In Manitoba, for example, there is an income support program for people with disabilities. We are talking about something that is relatively new that started just in the last year. It has been talked about for a while. I am an optimist. I am hoping that Premier Heather Stefanson will work with our minister, and maybe Manitoba and the Government of Canada could come up with an agreement that could ultimately see people with disabilities in Manitoba further ahead in regard to disposable income. As the minister herself indicated in introducing the legislation, this legislation would potentially lift tens of thousands of people out of poverty. Our track record shows that lifting people out of poverty is something we have experience in as a government. It is one of the things that differentiates us from the Conservative Party. Whether it was the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty, including hundreds in Winnipeg North alone, or the Canada child benefit, which lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty, including again hundreds, if not thousands, in Winnipeg North alone, this particular legislation—

Mr. Speaker, just prior to question period, I talked about what the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus talk a great deal about, and that is moving forward, as we have in the past, and putting an emphasis on Canada's middle class, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that we have an economy that is working for all Canadians. That is something we take very seriously. When we take a look at Bill C-22 and we get an understanding of the real purpose behind it, the principle, as I see it, is to ensure that all Canadians have a better, more equal opportunity to participate. This legislation would enhance the disposable income for literally tens of thousands of people with disabilities from coast to coast to coast. Members should not be surprised at the progressive nature of this legislation. As a government we have demonstrated, virtually from 2015, that we are committed to supporting Canadians who need that additional support. I can recall when we first talked, in 2015, about increasing the GIS for the poorest of all seniors. I made reference before question period to the hundreds of individuals in Winnipeg North who were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the increase to the GIS. Earlier I made reference to the hundreds of kids in Winnipeg North who were lifted out of poverty because of changes and enhancements we made, and because we brought in the Canada child benefit program. Once again, we are seeing another progressive piece of legislation that will lift tens of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty. This is the type of government that has made a difference in a very real and tangible way, ensuring that the disposable income of people in many different areas, in all different regions of our country, would be increased. That makes our economy healthier. It will increase and improve the quality of life for people who need it in a very real and tangible way. The legislation itself will set the framework for a national program. Part of that program means that we have to work with the different provincial entities out there. Depending on the province, we could find a patchwork of sorts. There may be disability credits in some areas, possibly. There may be support programs in other areas. As the minister indicated when introducing the bill, we want to make sure that the money we are giving to people with disabilities today is not going to be clawed back in other types of provincial or territorial supports. This should be top-off money. That is something that would require a great deal of effort, an effort we have demonstrated to Canadians we can be very successful in. One need only take a look at the child care program, the first-ever national child care program, on which we were able to achieve agreements with all of the provinces and territories. It is that same sort of worth ethic, working with Canadians and working with other jurisdictions, that will enable us to create the first-ever national disability program, arguably what could be the first such national program in the world. This is a wonderful opportunity for members to be very clear in supporting the legislation. Let us see this bill go to committee, come back and ultimately become law.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the legislation establishes the framework. There are budgetary measures, no doubt, and discussions that will have taken place between the different departments. However, one of the things that needs to be highlighted is the fact that there are so many variances from coast to coast to coast because of other provincial and territorial programs, and that at the end of the day we are going to have these negotiations to ensure that there is a sense of equity and fairness, no matter where people live in Canada. The ultimate goal is lifting people who have disabilities out of poverty. This legislation is a great step, a historic step forward in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that one can provide the kinds of details that members of the opposition have been requesting in the last number of hours for this legislation. They will come in the form of regulations and in the form of negotiations between the provinces. What is important here is that every member of the House of Commons, whether from the Bloc, Conservative, NDP or Green, should be recognizing the principle of this bill by supporting and voting in favour of the legislation. By doing that, they are sending a very powerful message to all Canadians in all regions of this country that the desire of the House of Commons is to financially support people with disabilities in Canada. That is what this legislation would do, and we can all take great pride in supporting it.

Madam Speaker, I will, in fact, review the member's bill. However, it is important to recognize that in Manitoba we have actually seen some movement from the province toward an income support program for people with disabilities. This is why I say it is so critically important. It is an opportune time to start looking at what other provinces have and to look for willing provinces with whom to sit down and try to negotiate. I would like to say that Manitoba could potentially be the first province to have an agreement dealing with this legislation and some of the measures that the Province of Manitoba is taking. Hopefully all provinces and territories will be able to come on board, and that is why it is so critically important and why this legislation is timely. Let us get the job done by seeing it ultimately pass through the House.