Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I have listened quite extensively today to the Conservatives and their reactions to the blockades and the protesters, and I note the amount of support they continue to provide that group. There is a conflicting message. On one hand, they say that they are against the blockades and want people to go home, and on the other hand, they are worshipping their actions. We have been consistent. The blockades have cost our communities a great deal. They shut down downtown Ottawa. Some blockades were for economic purposes and caused job losses at our borders in Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario. The need is there, and a good example with this enactment is the issue of children. Children were actually used as part of the blockade. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts about using children in illegal blockades. Does he support that too?

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. I move: That, in relation to the motion for confirmation of the declaration of emergency, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister moving the motion and the member speaking immediately afterwards shall be allowed to speak for no more than 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and comments and that they be allowed to split their time with another member, and that the Prime Minister be allowed to speak before the Minister moving the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the leader of the NDP's comments about the real story. Over the last couple of years, there have been so many heroic moments that we have witnessed where people from all regions of the country have stepped up. That really needs to be acknowledged right up front. It is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in. Not that long ago, a week ago, we had literally half a billion dollars' worth of trade between Canada and the U.S. being held hostage by convoy blockades. This had a very negative impact on issues such as jobs. We had some opposition parties being inconsistent with their messaging, which also caused some issues. Could my friend provide his thoughts on how important it is? Yes, we recognize how Canadians have contributed, but at this point in time we have to do things to protect our families, businesses and economic trade lines.

Madam Speaker, from the beginning, I would like to reflect on the comments the Prime Minister made earlier. He talked about families and the importance of their freedoms and their rights. He also talked about our small businesses, the economy and the impact of what we have been witnessing over the last few weeks, and how critically important it is, when we have this dialogue over the next number of days, that we do not lose focus of those particular points. The impact on Canadian society is, in fact, quite significant and severe. Here we are, after a couple of years of going through the pandemic, approaching the third-year mark. What we should have been talking about, and what I would have liked to be talking about, are the heroes of the pandemic. I think of the community I represent, Winnipeg North, and the people who have responded so well and encouraged others. We stepped up together. When we were hit with the pandemic, we saw people of all political stripes, volunteer organizations, individuals, private businesses and governments of different levels all coming together and recognizing that the battle that had to be overcome was the pandemic. We are starting to see more light at the end of the tunnel. It is, in good part, because of the residents of Winnipeg North and residents across this country who said they wanted to listen to the science, follow health experts and get vaccinated. The vaccination rate we have in Canada is virtually second to no other place in the world. As a result, we have been able to see some provinces, even the federal government, look at loosening some of the mandates. What we are seeing today is not what I would have liked to be talking about. It is not a true reflection of Canadians, our values and the hard work we collectively put in together to get us to this point in battling the coronavirus. I could have spent a great deal of time talking about the individual effort or, from my perspective, what the government in Ottawa has been able to come up with to support Canadians. These are very tangible things. That is what I would have preferred to talk about. When we look at the need for the Emergencies Act, let me reflect on the walk I have made every day since the convoy has been here, as many of us have, and the types of things I see. Downtown Ottawa should be full of activity, much like downtowns in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver, big cities and small cities alike. We all value our downtowns. They contribute so much to who we are in many different ways. They are a hub of economic activity and are opportunities for people to connect, even nowadays when we are starting to see more of the mandates being lifted. I walk down, and no matter the time of day, I can look down Queen Street and see that in all the skyscrapers there are no people. It is because of the convoy. If we go one block over onto Wellington Street, we see protesters who are not protesting in the traditional way. They are individuals who have put up blockades. They are individuals who are shutting down downtown Ottawa. It is not just happening along Wellington. As I said, I walk down Wellington and up Metcalfe to get to my apartment. Metcalfe has been the same way. If this were happening in Winnipeg, I would not tolerate it, and I suspect that many residents in Winnipeg would be quite upset about it because it is not a legal, law-abiding protest. It is hurting the people of Ottawa, in particular the downtown area. There are other things I have observed. I do not know how many red and yellow gas cans I have seen underneath large semis and on the roofs of vehicles. There are cars and trucks that are constantly running. At past one o'clock in the morning last Saturday I could hear the horns blaring, and I am quite a ways out from downtown area, on Lisgar. I can only imagine what it is like for those who are even closer. Imagine bringing children into an environment where they are constantly inhaling gas fumes. We see different tents being put up right on Wellington and hay being brought in. I take it that is to provide some sort of comfort on the ground. I have no idea, but it surrounds the tents that are being permanently put up on Wellington. I have seen several tents. I have seen them on Metcalfe too. Those are just in the areas I walk every day. I see an incredible truck right below the flame. It is a crane of sorts and has a big iron ball on it. Members in the chamber would be aware of it. That is a destruction ball. It is the type that swings in the air to bring down buildings. I do not know what is inside those trucks. I suspect no one in this chamber knows what is inside those trucks. I truly believe the need to act is there and it is very real. I am disappointed in the Conservative Party in its approach to dealing with this issue. If we put all the facts on the table, I think a vast majority of Canadians would understand the need for us to invoke the Emergencies Act. I will go into that. I find it interesting that the Conservatives are once again working with the Bloc. It is almost like a given with the Conservatives and the Bloc. They talk about other coalitions, but there is no coalition stronger in the House of Commons today than the unholy alliance between the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois. That is the strongest alliance I see. At the end of the day, those members are being critical because NDP members are at least giving this serious thought. They are listening to their constituents, as I am listening to mine, and they realize that these blockades have to come down. They are hurting people. They are hurting our economy. They are hurting our society in many different ways. The official opposition is all over the place. I was recently shown a picture of the interim leader of the Conservative Party dining out with some of the organizers of the event. I would be very interested in having the Leader of the Opposition tell us what she talked about when she was having dinner with them. Let me talk about inconsistency. On the one hand, we have the newly elected interim Conservative Party leader advising senior Conservatives on this in a leaked email. As CTV News notes: Newly elected interim Conservative Party Leader...advised senior Conservative MPs not to tell members of the trucker convoy to leave Ottawa and instead make the protests the prime minister’s problem, according to an internal email obtained by CTV News. In an email sent on Monday, the then deputy leader told her colleagues “I don’t think we should be asking them to go home.” How does that fit the interests of Canadians? I suggest that is very much a slant of politics. It is pure politics coming from the official opposition. To go to another point, Politico notes, “[The] Opposition leader...wants [the Prime Minister] to step up to solve the ‘crisis,’ just a week after meeting with protesters and telling them, ‘Don’t stop, it’s working.’” She is out there dining with them and telling them, “Don't stop, it's working.” The other day when I was speaking inside the chamber I said they have to be consistent. Inside the House, the Conservative leader says the blockade is bad and it is time for people to go home. Anyone who is following the debate tonight can get that quote and much more. It did not really have an impact outside, though. The comment I had for the member then is that it is one thing to say something in here, but what is she saying outside? Take a look at the social media feeds from Conservative Party members. Listen to some of the words they are espousing even today inside the chamber. They are giving a mixed message at best, and I would suggest they are causing more harm than good. However, they have their friends in the Bloc who are more than happy to assist them in the best way they can. I tell my Conservative friends that the Bloc has a different agenda. The Bloc's agenda is a lot different, I would like to think, from the Conservative agenda. Before members start criticizing other political parties, they might want to start re-evaluating the associations they have inside the chamber on this issue and, at the same time, the associations they have and role they play with the convoy outside and the protest. The irony of the protest does not escape me. Toward the end of January, it started off with truckers who were concerned about mandates for truckers going into the United States. Before anyone arrived in Ottawa, the United States made it very clear that unless they are vaccinated, they cannot go into the United States.

Madam Speaker, no, the President of the United States did that. I do not have a phone line, so I did not tell the President to say that. Then what ends up happening? If we fast-forward to today, we have these semis and trucks that have started to shut down downtown Ottawa. This is not to mention the other blockades. I want to quickly go over that. I think of the weeks of illegal blockades and the occupations, and how important it is that our borders remain open. In Coutts, Alberta, I think of $48 million a day in trade. In Windsor, it is roughly $390 million. In Emerson in my home province, it is $73 million a day. Members ask why we took this action. I can make reference to the mayor of Ottawa's declaration of a state of emergency here in Ottawa. I can talk about the Premier of Ontario's declaration of an emergency in the province of Ontario. Let me talk about my home province of Manitoba. I read yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press. I have been able to get a copy of the February 11 letter through the media, and the article states: “In a February 11 letter obtained by the Free Press, Stefanson asked [the Prime Minister] to take “immediate and effective” action as she pleaded for “national leadership that only [the Prime Minister] and the federal government can provide.” That was just a couple of days before the act was brought in on Monday. The article goes on: Her February 11 letter said the situation was urgent and blockades that disrupt “this critical corridor—even temporarily—create potential dangers, impose severe hardships on all Manitobans and cause severe economic loss and damage to Manitoba and Canadian businesses.” Her letter warned of urgency and dangers. Again, I look at the impact at just the Emerson border. Here is another story that appeared in the Free Press: The trucker blockade of the Emerson border crossing not only added additional time and costs to shipments but will also damage the reputation of the province, manufacturers and stakeholders say. Although the RCMP announced on Tuesday afternoon that demonstrators are leaving and should be gone by Wednesday, Ron Koslowsky, the vice-president and head of Manitoba operations for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters—95 per cent of whose Manitoba members rely on regular cross-border shipments at Emerson—said, of the Emerson blockade, “ The impact has been massive.” Winpak Limited, the large packing material manufacturer that is headquartered in Winnipeg and has manufacturing plants throughout the U.S., had to shut down one of its production lines because it couldn't get the raw material it needed. Olivier Muggli, Winpak's CEO, said, “Overall the whole blockade damages the Canadian reputation at large and specifically Winpak. The Emerson thing hurt us significantly.” The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Monday. The measures are geographically specific and targeted only to where they are needed. They will also be time-limited. We are not limiting people's freedom of expression in any way when it comes to peaceful demonstrations. Since Monday, we have seen the Coutts blockade dismantled; on Wednesday, it was the blockade in Emerson. We have provided more tools for law enforcement, which in part are already being utilized. At the end of the day, on this side of the House, we recognize that the harm to our society in many different ways is a direct result of these illegal blockades and protests, and we would suggest that the Conservative Party revisit its positioning. It is not as if you have not flip-flopped before. Take another flop and get on the right side. Support what Canadians expect the loyal opposition to be doing and ensure that there is accountability on the measures that are needed at this time in order to bring back order and secure the type of trade and support that Canadians deserve and the opposition should be providing.

Mr. Speaker, the member kind of makes my point. The Conservative Party says, “What's wrong? There's nothing wrong with what is happening in downtown Ottawa today.” However, the activities by this blockade have shut down downtown Ottawa. There are no cars and there is no foot traffic and businesses are closing down. I do not know what the member might be engaged in as he tries to give the impression to the residents he represents that everything is okay in Ottawa, but it is definitely not reality. Okay, maybe it is not a wrecking ball, but it is a 200-pound iron ball that is positioned right above the Prime Minister's office, which Stephen Harper used to be in. Is there any way in which that member can foresee problems with thousands of gallons of gas along Wellington Street on trucks and cars, on roofs and under vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the case with some members of the Bloc, within the Liberal caucus all urban centres matter. No matter what size an urban centre is, whether it is in Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Brandon, Vancouver, Victoria, or any municipality, we are concerned when there are issues in that municipality that we should be concerned about. We have an obligation to be there, and that is what is good about what is happening through the Emergencies Act. It is very much focused on ensuring that people can feel comfortable and safe and that our economy can be protected. Also, those borders are critically important to our country, no matter where we live.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Many years ago I used to be the critic for diversity. I often talked about the issue of racism. The best way to fight racism is through education. I was so impressed when the member for Hull—Aylmer, in an S.O. 31, presented a statement on racism. If I were a school trustee in Winnipeg North, I would be inclined to encourage every young person in school to listen to that S.O. 31. It put a very strong personal touch on how racism hurts us all.

Mr. Speaker, I will give a good example. Yesterday, or maybe it was Tuesday, when I was walking down to Parliament Hill, a police officer was meeting with some of the individual protesters and handing out a piece of paper. As I was walking by, he was referencing the Emergencies Act. This is another tool for law enforcement agencies to be able to ensure that the illegal blockades and protests come to an end. That is why we have it before us today. There are measures within it, such as a standing committee to review it on an ongoing basis. We will also have an inquiry, once all is said and done. There are all sorts of transparency and accountability mechanisms to make sure that it is not abused. It is a wonderful tool and it can be effective.

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that anyone who was listening to the member's question should take a look at what was in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday in regard to the province. There was a letter written by Premier Stefanson, virtually begging Ottawa to get more involved, saying it was urgent, there was a crisis. There is a serious problem in the province of Manitoba at the Emerson border crossing. It was devastating to their industries, and they need that border open. This type of legislation we are passing today is not only good for Manitoba; it is good for Ontario, it is good for Alberta, and it is good for all of Canada—

Madam Speaker, the answer to the member's question is very simple. Yes, it does. Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that go through our border every day from the U.S.A. to Canada. Think of Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. Those are three specifics. Think about the ports, whether they are in B.C., Quebec or any other jurisdiction in Canada. The difference between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party is that Liberals truly care about the jobs and the impact this is having on Canadians. Look at Ottawa today. The downtown is shut down. Why will the Conservative Party not recognize the reality that this is necessary? The Conservatives should be doing the responsible thing, and stop flirting with protesters, get onside and support what the government is trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Ukraine has declared February 16 as a day of national unity. Canada has over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage and millions more who are watching closely and care deeply about what is happening in Ukraine today. The Canadian government continues to work with its allies to support Ukraine in whatever way we can, which includes supplying defensive weapons. On this day of Ukrainian solidarity, let us all, in our own way, recognize the importance of Ukraine and support the very principle enshrined in article 2(4) of the UN Charter: the respect of sovereignty and independence. To the people of Ukraine on this day of solidarity, know that they have a friend in Canada, unwavering in our support for Ukraine. Along with our physical support comes with it millions of prayers. I stand today to support the call for Ukrainians and friends of Ukraine worldwide to stand united as part of a global solidarity campaign. Long live Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc will be supporting this very important piece of legislation to get it to committee, and I appreciate that. I recognize how important our culture and heritage are, as well as the ways we can support this industry. Would the member not agree that this industry is very much alive today and that we need this modernization in order to ensure its longevity into the future? The potential for the industry to grow is very real and tangible. We see that in the number of artists of many forms. I would ask the member to provide his thoughts regarding the potential growth of the industry as a direct result of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the member piqued my interest when he referenced hockey as one of Canada's great passions of culture. I think of the Montreal Habs and the Winnipeg Jets. How we love our hockey. Culture is very much the Céline Dions and many other celebrities in the performing arts, and the many contributions to writing, poetry or books in general. It is a very strong and healthy industry. When we think of streaming on the Internet, this legislation would provide additional strength going forward to build on specific industries, arts and culture in particular. Would the member provide his thoughts on just how important it is that this legislation pass so that we can further support, and continue to support, our culture and heritage across Canada?

Madam Speaker, it has been somewhat encouraging to hear the opposition members address the legislation. The minister responsible was very passionate in his explanation of, and love for, Canadian culture and heritage and all our different regions. The legislation we have before us is needed. Technology has advanced greatly and the need for the legislation is very real. One of the reasons why it is before us today is to recognize that streaming has become a major aspect of society and ensure that our arts community is not left behind with regard to it. This is one of the reasons why I see the bill as very strong legislation. The hon. member mentions a number of areas he would like to see changed. Does the NDP actually have some amendments the member would be able to share with the House, prior to the bill going to committee?

Madam Speaker, listening to the member opposite, I am getting the opinion that he is actually in favour of the legislation and I do appreciate that. What I am a bit concerned about he made reference to indirectly when he talked about the Emergencies Act. Yesterday, we had another very important piece of legislation on rapid tests that was being debated. It is a very short week before the break week. I am wondering if the member believes that, if we did not attempt to rush through these things, we would not be able to get it done before the break week. Is that a concern on his or the Conservative Party's part?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years. First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation. The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic. Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition. I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together. We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary. It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible. The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation. We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through. We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week. Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long. On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits. What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important. The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way. The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful. After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require. That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it. I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement. For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country. We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors. In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support. During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars. The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in our civil servants who are providing the direction and have the desire to get the money as quickly as possible to the seniors who need it. The minister responsible for seniors has even developed a program that will hopefully get seniors in certain situations the money even more quickly. I am very optimistic that we will be resolving this issue. This legislation will prevent it, hopefully, from reoccurring. At the end of the day, we have a civil service that is doing an outstanding job of being able to meet the needs of our seniors in the short term and the long term.

Mr. Speaker, we have increased the GIS. We have increased OAS. We have record transfers for health care. Historic amounts of real dollars are going toward health care. When we factor in issues such as long-term care, additional hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested. When we talk about the issue of pharmaceuticals, again substantial tax dollars are being invested. I would challenge the member to reflect on the 10 years before we came into government, and I would contrast our record and our investments any day. The member says I tend to talk a lot about how good things are. Much as the opposition will be very critical of the government, I am very proud of the manner in which we provided supports for our seniors. We will continue to do so, because they are important to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, one of the greatest challenges for seniors is housing. That is why the federal government works with provincial governments. It is the provinces that take the lead on social housing. We invest, on an annual basis, in operating costs in the Province of Manitoba. We are talking about tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in rent subsidies and non-profit housing. We are talking about thousands of non-profit housing units in the province of Manitoba alone, and it is often the federal government that gives the largest percentage. That deals with trying to make housing more affordable.

Mr. Speaker, in my years serving in the Manitoba legislature, I believe that every year, for almost 20 years, if a province were asked if it wanted more money for this or that, it was always going to say yes. Provinces always want more money for health care. That is a given. Am I surprised that it is unanimous among the provinces that they want more money for health care? It does not surprise me at all. What is important is that, since we have been in government, we have negotiated accords with all of the provinces and territories, which are indexed. We are giving record amounts in annual allotments of equalization and health transfers to provinces. It is a historical amount of money. Along with that, we continue to support other aspects of health care, which Canadians want us to do, such as additional money for things like mental health and long-term care.

Mr. Speaker, I see a consensus forming. The member talks about our seniors in a manner in which I often talk about our seniors. We value their contributions from the past and the many contributions yet to come. One of the issues is ensuring they have disposable income. That is why we created many of the programs we put in place, many of which were supported by the Conservatives. Yes, at times, there are mistakes that do need to be corrected and that is what this legislation does. It is an important piece of legislation. To be clear, the member supports the legislation, but she would also like to see it pass this week too, I would think.

Madam Speaker, if the Bloc members are nothing else, they are consistent in regard to the health care issue. The Government of Canada is not an ATM that just distributes money. We have the Canada Health Act, and Canadians from all regions of the country recognize that the national government has an important role to play in health care. Whether the Bloc members agree or disagree, quite frankly, is irrelevant. We are here to support a healthy health care system where we can, looking, for example, at long-term care and at issues around mental health. These are important issues to people, no matter where they are in Canada. Why is my friend teaming up, once again, in that coalition with the Conservatives and the Bloc to try to get things done here in the House? I am glad she is supporting the bill, but why does she not support the actual motion to see it come to a conclusion today?

Madam Speaker, I find the member is somewhat cherry-picking the way he wants to apply rules and tradition. He made reference to former prime minister Stephen Harper. In four years, he brought in different forms of time allocation and closure over 100 times. All one needs to do is take a look. We can even consider the Conservatives when they are in opposition. To their credit, in December, they requested unanimous consent for the conversion therapy legislation. There was no debate whatsoever, and we are very grateful for it. Today we have a programming motion that is supported by one of the opposition parties. We have a programming motion dealing with putting money in the pockets of seniors, and it is as simple as that. Does the member not see the difference, and maybe even realize there might be a bit of hypocrisy in his comments?

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the fact that in order to be able to pass this legislation through as quickly as we want to get it through we are very much dependent on getting support from an opposition party. I want to commend the New Democrats for recognizing its importance. Even though they may still have some difficulty with the government on a wide variety of issues, I want to recognize that very important fact. In the future, to what degree does she feel, as we continue to try to support seniors in whatever way we can, that legislation of this nature would prevent the types of stories we have heard so much about?

Mr. Speaker, the word that comes to my mind is “wow”. It is truly incredible. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister. He increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67 and introduced closure over 100 times in four years in a majority government. On this legislation, it is not only the government but also an opposition party saying that the bill is really good, and that it is important and we should pass it. The Conservatives, in its coalition with the Bloc, say we should hold back and wait until next week. Who knows how long they want to wait? Does the member not recognize that this bill would ensure that seniors get money in their pockets? Why is she trying to deny seniors hard cash in their pockets and purses?

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my colleague, I do value those 20 seconds. When it comes to legislation, when we listen to members of the opposition and different political parties, they will often talk about the time allocation that allows for debate, and understandably so. I did that when I was on the opposition side as I now today do it from the government side. There are certain legislative initiatives that are actually processed via time where, for example, the opposition will move a motion on the floor of the House and at the end of the day a vote is requested on it, or they can go into private members' hour where they get a very limited amount of time on private members' business. However, it also happens at times for government business through unanimous consent. Just recently, back in December, we can recall when conversion therapy legislation came before the House. It was so encouraging when members on all sides of the House said this was an important issue that was important to Canadians. The House, without any debate whatsoever, agreed to pass it through second reading and committee, the whole nine yards, and it was done unanimously when all it took was one member to say no to it. In respect of other types of priorities in the past number of years, and particularly as a minority government, Canadians want us to and we want to work with opposition parties. Sometimes it has been the Conservatives, sometimes the Bloc, sometimes the New Democrats and at times it is even getting support from the Green Party representatives. It varies, depending on the legislation. Like the conversation therapy legislation, the issue we are debating today is of the utmost importance. If we reflect on what this bill would enable, every member of the House will vote in favour of the legislation. The issue is when they want to have that vote. We have critical supports for the coronavirus pandemic that still need to get through the House. This is yet another piece of legislation. Timing does matter. This is going to be a very busy week. We are looking to see if there are other partners with whom we can get the support to recognize the importance of the issue and, ultimately, to get the legislation passed. Those people who are following the debate might ask why we do not allow for additional debate. Much like in the past, when other parties have recognized the importance of an issue, they will ask for unanimous consent to get that legislation through. Here we have an important piece of legislation that the Government of Canada wants to get through and has recognized as being important. If there were discussions in good faith that said we could get this thing through today because there is no other mechanism to guarantee its passage, I suspect we would have been open to that. However, we have to move this as well as other pieces of legislation. I am talking about the GIS legislation that is quickly coming before the House. We have to get this stuff through. We have identified it as a priority. I am grateful that the New Democratic Party has also recognized the value of getting this thing passed quickly. At least the Bloc members are kind of halfway. They recognize the importance of rapid testing, but they do not necessarily want to support its going through as quickly as we would like to see it go through. As I said just before question period, I hope that members of the Bloc will rethink that. Just because the Conservatives banter and cheer and do all sorts of weird things at times does not mean we have to follow their lead. There is an opportunity here to show what many members of the opposition were calling for not that long ago during question period, which is to show some leadership in recognizing just how critically important this legislation is to all Canadians. From the very beginning of the pandemic, we have asked Canadians to step up. We all have a role to play. We worked with different levels of government to ensure that support programs were in place so that businesses would be in a better position to continue on and the number of job losses would be minimized. We brought in programs to support incomes for those Canadians who were unable to be in the workforce for a wide variety of reasons, as well as a multitude of direct supports to seniors, people with disabilities and non-profit organizations. We all came together to get us through the pandemic. Securing vaccines and vaccinating people has enabled us to be in the position we are today, with a great deal of hope and light. The rapid tests are a critical part of our recovery, of getting out and beyond. We know that for a fact, because that is what the science and health care professionals are telling us, not only with respect to the federal government and the people we rely on, but also the provinces. If we flash back to November of last year, there were tens of millions of surplus rapid tests in storage waiting to be used. There was no pent-up demand; there was a pent-up supply ready to be used. Once we experienced the omicron variant of the coronavirus, the numbers started to shoot up rapidly, and those rapid tests became absolutely essential. We stepped up, as we have done for Canadians since the very beginning. Tens of millions of tests that Ottawa was able to acquire were distributed. For the month of January alone, we had well over 100 million additional rapid tests. I would challenge any member of the opposition to tell me of a country in the world that has acquired more in one month, on a per capita basis, than Canada for distribution to its population. I do not believe we would be able to find such a member or country. It is possible I could be wrong, but I say that because I know how much this issue has been on the minds of the Minister of Procurement, cabinet as a whole and many other members inside this House. We saw the benefits. We realized how important these rapid tests are. This legislation is absolutely critical to moving forward. If we did not bring the closure motion and do not pass this legislation, it would bring into jeopardy all sorts of things, either directly or indirectly, such as the legislation dealing with the GIS, not to mention anything else that might be coming up, including being able to support opposition days, such as I believe the Bloc has coming up on Thursday, or dealing with the short days on Wednesdays and Fridays. Today is the day for us to have this debate, because this is legislation that is necessary in order for us to continue the fight against the coronavirus. I would like to see the Conservative Party be consistent, recognize the science, support the health care professionals, get behind the legislation, get behind the motion and recognize the importance of passing it here today.

Madam Speaker, when the will and support are there from the chamber, we can very easily get things passed such as important legislation. I think of legislation that we passed late last year, and here we have before us legislation that would enact literally hundreds of millions of dollars toward rapid testing. There is absolutely no doubt that this is important legislation, given the very nature of the debates we have been witnessing, especially last week's concurrence report that was brought up to prevent some debate from taking place. Does the minister not agree, given the very nature of the importance of rapid testing and that provinces, territories and stakeholders are calling for more rapid tests, that Ottawa has to step up to the plate and provide these badly needed tests, especially when we think of our small businesses, individuals and people who are in such high need today? We have witnessed that in particular over the last two and a half months.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Health could provide those following the debate with an explanation of what the federal government's role is, with respect to rapid tests. I think it is an excellent example of a team Canada approach where provinces, territories and communities are working with Ottawa to ensure that rapid testing is done. Could the minister just go over the process of why the federal government is the governing body that is actually buying and procuring these rapid tests?

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise the Bloc raises the issue of health care transfers. However, there is a fundamental disagreement I have with my friends in the Bloc, which is that the constituents I represent, and I would argue they are very much reflective of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, feel that the national government does have a very important role to play in health care. It would be highly irresponsible, I would argue, to do nothing but just hand money over. There are things that we can learn through this pandemic, such as with the long-term care facilities and the need for national standards. There are other issues of mental health and so many other aspects. Would the member not recognize that there are many people across Canada, including in the province of Quebec, who do want to see the national government play more of a role than just giving cash?

Madam Speaker, I truly recognize and appreciate the role the New Democrats are playing on this very important initiative. In fact, they have been very creative in ensuring there is that much more accountability. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts. Being from the same province, we understand how important the demand is, particularly in late December and early January, because of the variation in the coronavirus and the impact it was having in the province of Manitoba. How important is it that we pass the legislation to ensure we have the funding for rapid tests?

Madam Speaker, we are entering into a process today that will ultimately see a very important piece of the government's legislative agenda pass. To start off, I just want to acknowledge that the opposition parties have a choice. To some degree, I am very pleased with my New Democratic friends. People who have listened to me articulate in the past will know I am often offside with my New Democratic friends. Having said that, I appreciate the approach the NDP is taking on the process we are entering into today, which would ensure that Canadians feel comfortable in knowing that the federal government would be passing legislation that would assist in ensuring there would be rapid tests from coast to coast to coast. It is something that is absolutely urgent. We have at least one opposition party that has recognized that. On the other hand, even though the Bloc party is somewhat sympathetic to the need for rapid testing, and I guess that is something to appreciate, it wants to tie it into health care transfers. I would suggest that is for another day's debate. I would suggest that the Bloc is not too late to look at the urgency that is required. I will expand on why it is so important that we see that sense of co-operation shortly. Before I do that, I want to reflect on the Conservative approach to this particular piece of legislation. The Conservatives have demonstrated one thing very clearly over the last number of months, and that is that they are all over the map. We have no idea where they might be on any given issue, at any given point in time. In fact, if we were listening to one of the Conservative members who spoke today, we would think that the Conservative Party does not believe that rapid testing is an effective tool. I, and many members present inside the chamber, really question how the Conservative Party would not understand and appreciate the science, and listen—

Madam Speaker, I would even extend that 10 minutes with leave, if they want. At the end of the day, the science and health care experts in all regions of our country have recognized the value of rapid tests. There was a day when the Conservatives actually did support rapid tests. They talked about how important it was for Ottawa to get rapid tests, and Ottawa acquired, through procurement, tens of millions of rapid tests. In fact, at the end of or mid-December of last year, six, seven or eight weeks ago, there was a surplus of rapid tests in Canada. Millions and millions of rapid tests were not being utilized. We have often talked about COVID-19 being something we cannot just mandate away. When a new variant of the coronavirus comes, hospitals are once again inundated. Provinces, territories and others recognized that we needed to implement rapid tests in a more effective way, so the demand for rapid tests exploded in the month of December. We provided the storage of rapid tests in good part to meet the immediate demand that occurred in December. Then, through our procurements, in January we brought forward an incredible effort that saw over 140 million additional rapid tests. We can take that in the perspective of Canada's population of thirty-seven and a half million people. The Government of Canada understands the science behind rapid tests, and I think rapid testing is a good tool. It is not quite equal to the vaccinations, but I would like to emphasize just how important it has been from the beginning of the pandemic that we have seen provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and stakeholders working in a team Canada approach to deal with the pandemic. We saw that in the distribution of vaccinations. Canada today is leading the world in vaccination and getting its population vaccinated, and that is no accident. That is because we have had effective leadership, whether it is from Ottawa, the provinces and territories, indigenous leaders or others. We are also seeing today, again, an excellent example through rapid testing. At least the government and two opposition parties recognize not only that rapid testing is important, but that the federal government has a role to play in it. The NDP members want to see the legislation passed because they know, as we know, how critically important it is to get over $2 billion to finalize purchasing and ensure that Canadians have these rapid tests. This is while the Conservatives dither. The official opposition does not really know what to think about rapid tests. I would encourage people to read some of the comments on the record by the first speaker from the Conservative Party, who I understand sits on the standing health committee representing the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, I would just suggest that I should get a bonus two minutes because the member interrupted my speech. At the end of the day I really believe that if members look at the legislative agenda that the Government of Canada has put on the table over the last couple of months, they will see that there is a very strong focus on the issue of the coronavirus and bringing in legislation to support Canadians in every way. The very first piece of legislation we brought forward was Bill C-2, which dealt with issues such as the lockdown benefits, wage subsidy benefits, rent supplements and other supports for Canadians. Members will recall that the Conservatives back then attempted to divide the bill. They were already trying to slow down the legislation. Without the support that was provided from that legislation, there would have been a great deal more hardship over Christmas and going into the new year, as a direct result of Conservative negligence and not understanding what was important. With respect to the motion we are debating today to put into process an amount of time to ensure that this bill passes, one only needs to look at the behaviour of the official opposition members to understand why it is so important that we put in a closure motion on the legislation. If we are not prepared to do that, we will see an ongoing display of the games, whether it is what was demonstrated with Bill C-2 or, as members will recall, last week's concurrence motion. There is a finite amount of time in the House of Commons. That is one of the reasons that, in order to be able to provide the support that Canadians need, we have to bring in this motion. We want to continue to have the backs of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is on the support for rapid tests from science and health care experts. The member should read what his colleague said earlier today, when he put into question whether we should even be listening to science and health care experts. He should review the comments from the Conservative member. They surprised a lot of us. I have a deep amount of respect for the colleague who posed the question. He knows and is fully aware that in any given week, it could be a very tight agenda. For example, today is all about the rapid tests. We also have to deal with legislation in regard to the GIS. We also have an opposition day motion. Those are the three big days. Then Wednesday and Friday are short days. If we were to take the approach the Conservatives want us to take, we would be putting into jeopardy the passage of legislation that is needed today. I would encourage my friend to revisit the sense of urgency if in fact they support the need for rapid tests.

Mr. Speaker, the vote that we just had prior to getting under way with this particular motion is something I am more than happy to discuss offline with the member. What we are talking about today, the motion that I am debating, is a motion that would see closure put in for Bill C-10, which deals with the rapid tests, in the hope that the Bloc party would not only support the need for rapid tests but would support the urgency in getting the legislation passed. That is going to be the vote that we are going to have later today. Does the Bloc actually support the sense of urgency in getting Bill C-10 passed? I think the people of Quebec and the people of Canada are watching and want to see how the Bloc is going to respond. I will answer the second part of his question in a follow-up.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak in the House a number of times and often referred to the fact that in the last couple of years during the pandemic, we saw the creation of a multitude of programs and supports. To say they were absolutely perfect would be misleading on my part, so I will not mislead. Yes, we brought forward a suite of programs, and there has been the need at times to modify them. They were modified because we understood, after listening to Canadians, that we needed to make some adjustments. The Minister of Seniors just referred to one during question period in wanting to co-operate and provide additional funds for issues such as mental health and long-term care facilities. The list goes on in terms of the types of supports and investments we have made in health care over the last couple of years.