Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I want to be kind. After all, the member for Cumberland—Colchester is a medical doctor, and we love our health care professionals for the fabulous work they have done throughout the pandemic. That said, members on the government side or any Canadian cannot blame the Conservatives for giving different positions on the same issue at times. They have not been consistent. The quote that my colleague and friend just referred to highlights one inconsistency on a very important issue. Science and health care experts are what we have been following and listening to since the beginning. The same cannot be said about the Conservative opposition party. Today some were questioning it. As the member pointed out, one was not only a medical doctor but also someone who sits on the health committee representing the Conservative Party. I do not get that.

Mr. Speaker, the first Conservative speaker today talked about the science of rapid tests, and in his comments he implied that we need to have a study on the effectiveness of rapid tests. Given that the member who just spoke is the opposition House leader, I am wondering if he can expand on what the Conservative Party truly believes with respect to the effectiveness of rapid tests. Does the Conservative Party believe that they are, as science and health care experts say, the type of tool we must have? If so, would he indicate that there is no need to call into question the effectiveness of this particular tool?

Madam Speaker, we will have to agree to disagree with the Bloc on the whole issue of health payments. I believe the federal government contributes its fair share, and we continue to contribute in different ways. Having said that, I am glad Bloc members seem to want to support the bill, but along with their friends in the Conservative Party, they are not recognizing the sense of urgency for the legislation. In the past, the Bloc would have recognized the urgency given the very nature of rapid tests. Why would the Bloc not support the importance of getting this bill through in a timely fashion by supporting the closure aspect of the motion today?

Mr. Speaker, I must say that was entertaining. When we follow the debate of the Conservatives today, we have to wonder where they are on the issue of tests. We have some members who stand up to ridicule it. It is almost as if they do not believe rapid tests play a valuable role at all in society. They are asking why we are spending this money. Then there are other members who stand up to say they are going to vote in favour of the legislation. I guess the question to ask the member is whether he will be voting in favour of the legislation. Is he against the legislation? Where is the Conservative Party today, Mr. Trump? Oh, I meant that for the member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by acknowledging our fine work. We often make reference to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Procurement and the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister. However, it goes without saying and is important to state that the civil servants working for those respective ministers have done an outstanding job of ensuring that Canada stays on top of what has been an incredibly important file. There are two aspects of it I want to highlight, one of which I am going to focus my attention on. One is the vaccines and the manner in which Canada was able to get them. They are the most important tool in combatting the pandemic, and we are arguably second to no other country in the world in terms of performance. I want to thank those individuals who ultimately made that happen, whether within departments or in the distribution once the vaccines arrived in Canada. They were getting them out to our provinces, territories, indigenous communities and so forth. The second aspect is what this bill is all about. This bill, Bill C-10, as the minister has so well explained to members, is about the importance of this particular tool, rapid testing. I thought what I would do is provide some thoughts in regard to the comments I heard earlier today in debate, in particular coming from the Conservative opposition party. One of the concerns the Conservatives constantly raised was the issue of why it took the government so long. They said they have been hammering for the government to have these rapid tests for years now, so I think we should recognize the uptake and usage of the rapid tests. If we take a look back to November of last year, for example, through the Government of Canada, we were able to build up stockpiles of rapid tests that were distributed in our provinces and territories. In some provinces very few were actually used. From a federal government's perspective, we were able to meet the demand. We did not have the provinces and territories saying they wanted to get more to add to their stockpiles. Then something unique happened. One of my colleagues talked about it earlier, and I know this sentiment is shared among my caucus colleagues: We became tired of the pandemic. Unfortunately, we are not the ones who determine when the pandemic goes away. We need to continue to have faith in science and faith in our health care experts. As much as I want to see it go away, I cannot wish it away. What we saw was the omicron variant come in like a storm. When it came in, the uptake of and demand for rapid tests quadrupled and, in some cases, went up tenfold. However, through the efforts of civil servants and others, we were able to acquire, as the Minister of Health has said, close to 140 million additional rapid tests for the month of January alone. Taking into consideration the population of our country, I believe as a government we were prepared for a variation of the coronavirus. If we think about what Bill C-10 is all about, it is about rapid tests. That is why this is so urgent. However, it is only the New Democrats who have recognized the importance of the timing. Opposition members, whether from the Bloc or the Conservatives, have said the Senate does not meet until next week. They do not necessarily realize that there are a lot of things on the agenda that are of absolute critical importance to Canadians from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, I will name more than one for the members opposite. Today is an excellent example. Our provinces, territories, small businesses and big businesses alike are dependent on the federal government getting these rapid tests. We are supporting the people of Canada and our business community in Canada, and we are showing how we can work with provinces to make a difference. The Conservatives and the Bloc seem to be fixated on not wanting to support the bill's speedy passage. In terms of the GIS, we can talk about the importance to seniors across this land in getting payments and the legislation coming up this week. It needs to pass too. Remember, there is a break week the following week. We have an emergency in our nation. Hundreds of millions of dollars in trade is being threatened at our international border. That is another issue that needs to be brought to the floor of the House of Commons. We have a Bloc opposition day coming up this week. We have two short days also. The urgency is there. It is very real and it is important. It is time that we pass the legislation. In listening to the debate today, I am a bit confused as I am sure anyone listening to the debate would be. The member for Cumberland—Colchester is a medical doctor and sits on the health committee. He talks about questioning the science and whether it is even necessary at this stage, suggesting that it is a waste. He is not alone. The member for Peterborough—Kawartha is also implying that it is a waste, calling into question the need for the rapid tests. In fairness, they did have a member who was very clear. The opposition House leader said he recognizes the importance and he is going to be voting in favour of the legislation. I suspect the Conservatives will rethink their position and their speeches today. I would hope it would be unanimous in this House. Even the Bloc recognizes the importance of this legislation being passed. I would like to think that the Conservatives would also be supporting it. People need to read some of the speeches and listen to what members of the Conservative Party are saying about rapid testing. We wonder why there is confusion and misinformation out there in our communities. It is there because of the mixed messaging coming from the official opposition here in Canada. We have consistently, in the last couple of months, brought forward legislation to deal with rapid tests. First, it was Bill C-8 with $1.7 billion and today with Bill C-10 it is $2.5 billion. If we do not spend that money or if we do not make the commitment to get those rapid tests, we are telling provinces and territories they are going to have to do it. They will not be able to get the same bulk-buying power we can get as a national government. We already have the contacts and the network. Then we will work with provinces and territories to ensure we are able to meet those demands. That is why this legislation is important. That is why I would recommend that all Conservative members join the rest of the House in supporting Bill C-10.

Mr. Speaker, those are misleading facts that the member has just put on the record. I would suggest it is Conservative spin in order to confuse and mislead Canadians. The reality is, from what I understand, there was not one province or territory back in November of last year, just a few months ago, that was saying it was running out of rapid tests and needed more. In fact, our own home province was not even utilizing them. It was a small percentage. It was only because of omicron that the demand quadrupled and in some cases increased tenfold. The demand was created. The federal government was there at the table when the demand was there. We had stockpiles of them and we ensured that provinces had stockpiles of them to distribute. Those are the real facts. That is the bottom line. For those who say we could have had more, we are being criticized by the Conservatives because we are allocating too much money for any more of them. They cannot say on the one hand that we should have more and then on the other hand say we cannot buy any more because they do not want the government to spend so much money.

Mr. Speaker, during the pandemic there were many different elections across Canada, and in fact in North America with even the U.S. election. I believe that through our election there was a very clear mandate given to not only the government, but all members of this House, saying that the coronavirus was still there and we needed to continue to invest resources in the issue, which is what we are seeing today, substantial financial resources, that we needed to look at and implement mandates, and to continue to follow and listen to science and health experts. Ultimately, I believe we are on the right course. What I am most proud of is the greatest tool: the vaccines. It is the positioning of Canadians and the uptake that has allowed us to see Canada do exceptionally well in comparison to other countries around the world. Canadians understood the importance of being double vaccinated. In regard to the issue of financing of health care, whether it is mental health, long-term care, vaccines or the rapid tests we are debating today, the federal government has been there in a very tangible way with the expenditure of additional billions of dollars during the pandemic over and above historic amounts through equalization payments and direct payments in regard to the health care program. I think that, as a government, over the last six years we have done exceptionally well in supporting health care. We know that health care is important to each and every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw that the member has in his argument. It is quite simple. The member says that we were too late with the rapid tests, yet when the federal government provided the provinces and the territories with the rapid tests, they sat on shelves for months. They only started to be utilized in any serious number in November and December of last year. There was a huge surplus nationwide of stock. It was the variant that ultimately caused the demand. Is the member saying that the provinces messed up, and that they should have been using the rapid tests? Is he pointing a finger at the provinces for not doing their job in using the rapid tests months and months ago?

Mr. Speaker, whether one lives in St-Pierre-Jolys in rural Manitoba or St. Boniface in the city of Winnipeg or in rural communities in Quebec or the city of Montreal, I think there is a general feeling among people in all communities that they want to see co-operation among different levels of government on the important issue of health care. Through the Canada Health Act, there is a significant flow of federal tax dollars to support health care so that there is a sense of fairness whether people require health care service in Montreal or in Winnipeg. I am wondering if the member could indicate why he does not believe there needs to be a sense of equality and fairness in the distribution of health care services, no matter where people live in in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the fact that the NDP is supporting the legislation, but where I sometimes fall offside with my New Democratic friends, is when they try to take the ground that they can do no wrong. I have been a parliamentarian for over three decades. I would challenge the member to show to me a government in the last 40 years that has done more to support seniors than this government. I am not just talking about the federal government. As the member knows, provincial governments play a huge role also in housing and health care, which are two major issues for our seniors. I would take our record in the last six years and contrast that to any other government. In Winnipeg North, hundreds have been lifted out of poverty. We have been there during the pandemic, and prepandemic, and we will continue to be there in the future. Could she tell me a government that has done more?

Madam Speaker, the legislation we are talking about really highlights the important role that both Ottawa and our province play, where Ottawa is acquiring literally tens of millions of rapid tests and the provinces are distributing them to the population. Within this legislation we are now also continuing to support small businesses. Making sure Canadians get rapid tests is a high priority for this government. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of the degree to which there is a high sense of participation and co-operation from the different levels of government, and from Canadians in general, on the importance of rapid tests?

Madam Speaker, I appreciated many of the comments the member put on the record this afternoon. I, for one, would love to see a reform of our Standing Orders. There are a number of things that we could be doing. It is not to give a strategic advantage to an opposition party or to a governing party. I think we need to modernize our rules. Many of the issues she has raised today, and I think other members have raised previously, would be well served by revisiting our Standing Orders. I hope to, at some time over the next couple of months, engage in doing that. In regard to the legislation itself, the member seems to see the value of it. She understands the shortness of the legislation. If the member could wave a wand, when would she like to see the legislation enacted?

Madam Speaker, when I was listening to the member, I was reminded of the issue regarding how Canada's population growth is taking place, in particular among our seniors. It was brought to my attention that in his previous life and during the election in particular, the member talked about the age one should be to collect OAS. I believe he advocated that we should be looking at age 67. I wonder if he could tell us why he thinks it should be 67 and the advantages of that, from his perspective.

Madam Speaker, in so many ways, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party is wrong. Let me talk about leadership. Leadership is when we take a look at Canada and the issue of vaccination. Canada leads the world in terms of vaccination. It is not division when 90% of a population is vaccinated. My question for my friend, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, is that the last prime minister that was—

Madam Speaker, this is what the last Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, had to say about vaccination. The former prime minister told CTV News Question Period on Sunday that the Conservative leader should go further and “show any...unvaccinated MPs the door,” removing them from his caucus. That is leadership. So said Brian Mulroney. The Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc have demonstrated leadership. Will the Conservatives today commit to—

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could respond to an article in today's Winnipeg Free Press. It is from the public health officer, and it states: Dr. Jazz Atwal, deputy chief provincial public health officer, said Wednesday restrictions will only be lifted in Manitoba when it is safe to do so. “A handful of individuals who protest have no bearing on what public health recommends,” Atwal said at the COVID-19 media briefing. “It is as simple as that.” I wonder if the minister could provide a comment on why it is so important that we listen to health care professionals.

Mr. Speaker, I was quite encouraged when the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that the blockades need to stop. The member herself has also talked about the end of the blockades. I see that as a positive step forward. I also think of the members of Parliament in her own caucus who actually encouraged the people in the blockade by using social media to pay tribute virtually to them. Would the member suggest to caucus colleagues that they should be promoting what the leader of their party said today through their social media and maybe even take down some of the pictures that have been posted?

Mr. Speaker, I will start off somewhat differently by referring to an email I received just moments ago. It is from Ambassador Romualdez, the Philippine ambassador to Canada. There is a promotion about Filipinos in the field of science. It is about the health care sector and, as the member referred to diversity, how people of Canadian Filipino heritage have contributed to the health care field during this pandemic and beyond. I want to express my appreciation. I thank that community as a whole and want to recognize that I received the letter. It is an excellent message that I hope to promote. Having said that, let me get to the debate at hand. It has been interesting thus far today listening to the comments. The leader of the official opposition started off by talking about the blockades and appealing to those participating in them by saying it is time to end them. I could spend a full 20 minutes talking about the protesters and the blockades. I have been a parliamentarian for many years and witnessed many forms of protest. What we are seeing today is not a protest that I believe Canadians support. There are many aspects of this protest, whether it is the preaching of hatred or the racism, and the extreme right that offend not only me, but Canadians as a whole. The blockade here is impacting Ottawa, and now we are seeing, ironically, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, truckers preventing truckers from doing what is so critically important to the Canadian economy, which is keeping the supply chain going. The Liberals understand what is important, and as a party, unlike the official opposition, we have consistently had a plan from the very beginning. We have said from the very beginning that we need to listen to science and health experts and act accordingly. The Conservative Party, depending on the day or the week, has been all over the bloody map. Sometimes the Conservatives say they support science, and some days I do not know where they get their numbers from. I will expand on that as I get further into my comments. I have been in Ottawa in the last few weeks, but I stay in touch with what is happening in Winnipeg North and my home province. I would like to read from the Winnipeg Free Press. Members and anyone following the debate can get a copy of it online. This is what the Winnipeg Free Press said: “The Manitoba government will stick to following COVID-19 indicators, not protesters’ demands or neighbouring premiers, in deciding when to lift vaccination and mask requirements.” Dr. Jazz Atwal is a health care expert who is there to ensure that Manitoba is healthy. I say that so hopefully the Conservative Party can appreciate the value of our health care experts. What is he saying? He is the deputy chief provincial public health officer. The Winnipeg Free Press article goes on: Dr. Jazz Atwal...said Wednesday restrictions will only be lifted in Manitoba when it is safe to do so. “A handful of individuals who protest have no bearing on what public health recommends,” Atwal said at a COVID-19 media briefing. “It’s as simple as that.” The province was able to safely begin lifting public health restrictions Tuesday—not because of noisy big-rigs causing a ruckus by the legislative grounds, but— I really want to emphasize this: —thanks to “the vast majority” of Manitobans who “have done what they’ve been asked to do.” I am going to pause there for a moment. When I talk about leadership and we look for leadership from within the House of Commons, there is only one party that has consistently failed to step up to the plate. We have seen leadership from the Bloc, the NDP, the Green Party and obviously from the Prime Minister. We have seen it from even previous Progressive Conservative members of Parliament. I will move to another quote, which deals with the issue of vaccination. We should be applauding not a divisive country but one that has come together, where 90% of people are fully vaccinated. That is not division. If only the Conservative Party could be 90% together. It think that would be a dream for any Conservative leader. At the end of the day, this is about vaccination. What does a former Progressive Conservative, Brian Mulroney, have to say? I say Progressive Conservative because I do not see Progressive Conservatives on the other side. What I see are Reformers. I see the far right wing in Canada when I look across the way. This is what Brian Mulroney said during CTV's Question Period when referencing the former leader of the Conservative Party: The former leader “should go farther and show any unvaccinated MPs the door, removing them from his caucus. ‘That's leadership.’” This is a direct quote from former prime minister Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative. He goes on to say, “Who am I to argue with tens of thousands of brilliant scientists and doctors who urge the population desperately to get vaccinated?” The point is that members of the Conservative Party do a disservice to Canadians when some days they feel one way and on other days they feel a completely different way. They do not base their policy decisions on sound science and public health recommendations. They seem to want to cater to those individuals who, for whatever reasons, want to take them off the course of the public good in general here in Canada. Health care professionals recognize the true value of vaccinations. I would like to think that the Prime Minister, the caucus and other members of the House have gone out of their way to encourage people to get vaccinated. I challenge members across the way to tell me another country, in particular in the G8 or the G20, that has had as much success as Canada in getting a population vaccinated to the degree we have in Canada. It is not the Government of Canada that has done it. It is the people of Canada who have responded to what health care experts are saying and what science is telling us, yet the official opposition wants to go in the wind. A week ago, members of the Conservative Party were going out on the protest lines, taking pictures and snapshots and encouraging protests. They had no problem with the blockades. At least that is what the wild Reformers from the Conservative Party who sit across from me today have said. They had no problem with them. In fact, they were putting this on Twitter. They were doing all sorts of activities on social media to continue encouraging them. Now, as some members in the chamber have talked about, we see the blockades have grown. Now we see border issues in Canada that are affecting trade, like at the Ambassador Bridge. About $400 million a day of economic trade occurs between Canada and the U.S. at that one bridge alone. That is hurting Canadians. It is hurting our jobs. It is hurting our coming back from this pandemic. That is why I suggest there is some reason to be optimistic: We finally have the interim Conservative leader saying it is time for the blockades to go. I am glad she says it here on the floor, but she should have the courage to go outside and tell the people she told to stay that it is time for them to go. Why will she not do that? It was the Conservative Reformers who were out there snapping pictures and talking up the convoy and the blockades—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to take time from my ability to contribute to this debate, but I have never heard in the past, whether in the Manitoba legislature or in the House of Commons, that the level at which I expressed myself is an issue. I do not believe it is an issue at this point in time, and I would ask that you retract the comment that was put on the record because I do not think it is appropriate. If I am wrong, I hope the interpreters will provide me with something. They know my email. I know other members who speak just as loud, if not louder.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is important. I have witnessed many speeches over the years, in the House of Commons on this floor, and often we will find members who will express themselves in the manner in which they have. I can appreciate that the Conservatives are very sensitive on this issue, but the bottom line is that members are afforded the opportunity to express themselves, whether it is in a higher tone or in a whisper, and I would expect the same courtesy that has been provided to parliamentarians over the last 20 years that I have actually witnessed, if not first-hand, then indirectly. There is a serious issue before us today. It is an issue of how we continue to build the consensus that is necessary. We should be recognizing the fine work that many jurisdictions have done. Prior to the interruption, I was using a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press that was printed today. I will continue on with that quote. It states: The province was able to safely begin lifting public health restrictions Tuesday — not because of noisy big-rigs causing a ruckus by the legislative grounds, but thanks to "the vast majority" of Manitobans who "have done what they’ve been asked to do." That is what we have been asking, and the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership by encouraging people to get vaccinated. That is the way out of the pandemic. It is not just the politicians who are saying it. We are also talking about the health care experts who are responsible for the general well-being of our population. The story goes on to say: “The vast majority of people have followed the orders. The vast majority of Manitobans have gotten the vaccine,” said Atwal. “That’s basically why we’re in the position now where we can loosen things.” Capacity limits at venues were relaxed, with 7,500 hockey fans allowed to see the Winnipeg Jets win a game at home on Tuesday instead of only 250, for example. The relaxation of many of the rules and the mandates taking place in our provinces today is because the vast majority of Canadians have recognized the value of getting vaccinated. That is what we continue to need to emphasize. That is the reason why, as members of Parliament, we have a role of leadership to play within our communities. That is why I asked a question earlier today in regard to the Conservative Party and its consistency. Why is it that the official opposition members cannot stand in their place today and say, as a caucus, “We are 100% fully vaccinated”? Looking at that, I do not believe it is much to ask for. In fact, if we look at other political entities inside the House, that is what we will see. That is the reason I highlighted what Brian Mulroney, the former Progressive Conservative party leader, had to say. The motion talks about a plan, as if the Conservative opposition has it within its ability to declare the coronavirus an absolute non-issue. No matter what the Conservative Party members might think and believe, I prefer to listen to what science and health care experts are saying, and will continue to do so. There has been a plan right from the beginning. We saw that plan put into place by the government and those working with the government. At times, even the Conservative Party, to its credit, supported a number of initiatives that we brought forward. It was a plan that was put into place to ensure that Canadians would be supported. Whether it was direct support like the CERB, or supports such as the wage subsidy, these types of programs played a critical role in Canada being in a better position to rebound out of the coronavirus. The economic indicators that really matter, such as employment, clearly show that the plan is working. We will continue to work with the many different stakeholders, provinces, territories, indigenous communities and leadership, non-profit organizations and others to ensure a higher percentage of vaccinations and to ensure the provinces are in a better position. We talk about rapid testing. The Government of Canada acquired millions of rapid tests. Members have asked where we are hiding them. There has been no hiding of the rapid tests. That is part of the Conservative spin we often hear about. In the months leading up to November, 2021, 85 million tests had been directly shipped to the provinces and territories. The population of Canada is 37 million, and we had 85 million tests by November, 2021. A very small percentage were actually utilized. Then omicron came and changed the page significantly. The Government of Canada ordered 140 million more rapid tests, which were brought in in January. We recognize the importance of governments working together to ensure that the population, as a whole, is best protected. Whether it was supporting our seniors, people with disabilities, people who became unemployed or businesses that would have gone bankrupt, the Government of Canada was there from the very beginning, as it is today. Therefore, if they to try to imply there is no plan, I can tell the members across the way that part of the plan is to be consistent in listening to the health care experts and the science. That is something we will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. Thank you. At the end of the day, I think we need to continue to promote, encourage and educate on the importance of vaccination. That is the best way out of this pandemic. A vast majority, 90%, of the population is onside and are double-vaxxed. That is why it is so upsetting when the opposition talks about the vision. That is why we have been able to relax some of the mandates.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many different ongoing discussions that take place between critics, shadow ministers, ministers, leaders, offices, house leadership teams and so forth. I would always encourage that. I was pleased with the member's idea of ending the blockades. I would think that the member would agree that many of those Conservatives who went out to promote the blockades should be returning to those same people in a public way on their social media to say that it is time to end the blockades. I look forward to seeing those tweets.

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in his overall assessment. That is one of the reasons I really believe it is one thing for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in the chamber today and say, “Okay, blockades are bad and it is time for people to go home.” I welcome that and thank her for those comments; however, I would like to see those Conservative reform members of Parliament who did the tweeting and all the social media posts, who went out to the protesters shaking hands, patting backs, posing for pictures and applauding the blockades, to now start reversing them. Maybe they could delete some of the tweets they put out. Maybe they could put, “Listen to what the new Leader of the Conservative Party is saying today,” on their social media. There is a lot they could do to put some action to the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the member said the Prime Minister needs to listen. However, just last week, I was on a Zoom conference with the Prime Minister and teachers in the province of Manitoba. I have had many opportunities to be present on virtual meetings where the Prime Minister is listening. I would like to assure those who follow the debate that not only do we have a Prime Minister who listens to Canadians on a daily basis but on a weekly basis and beyond. There are caucus members such as me who constantly share our concerns and thoughts with the Prime Minister, as does the cabinet and even members opposite. This is a government that listens to the population. However, what we should really be talking about is the wonderful work that Canadians have done to get us to the point we are today. They are the ones who should be applauded. Those are the types of things we should be recognizing.

Mr. Speaker, again, I will read specifically from today's Winnipeg Free Press. This comes from Dr. Jazz Atwal. It says: “A handful of individuals who protest have no bearing on what public health recommends,” Atwal said at a COVID-19 media briefing. “It's as simple as that.” The Prime Minister, members of our caucus as a whole and I suspect members of the Bloc, NDP and Green parties, and maybe even some Conservatives, recognize that we need to listen to our health professionals. That is all a part of the plan: science, health care professionals, the economy and people. I listen to my constituents. Every day I am reading emails, as I know my colleagues do. We all have that responsibility. I can assure the member that members of the Liberal caucus take that seriously, and every day of the week we work to reflect the interests of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader. Having said that, the leader of the official opposition stood up and said that the Conservatives want to see an end to the illegal blockades, which is a great thing to say, but actions do speak louder than words. During the previous couple of weeks, the Conservatives have been supporting it in many different ways, in particular through social media and many of the actions that were taken by Conservative members of Parliament. That is what has led, in good part, to the blockades that we are now seeing at our borders, which is causing horrific economic damage, job losses and so forth. Would my friend not agree that, if the Conservatives want to put some water on the fire, a part of it means for many of those same Conservative MPs to start putting it on their social media and start talking to some of their friends who are out there, saying it is time to end this illegal convoy, to go home and to let Ottawa get back to normalcy?

Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting. We just finished voting on Bill C-8. Bill C-8 would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the purchase of rapid tests. That is absolutely critical. The member can check with any province, territory and indigenous community to see that rapid testing is absolutely critical, yet the Conservative Party voted against those funds going there. The member talks about the issue of privacy. He has no confidence and faith in the Public Health Agency of Canada, which has a very positive record on privacy and is recognized around the world. He wants to deny this indefinitely so a committee can study it indefinitely, as opposed to getting information. Does he not see the flaw in the Conservative strategy?

Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects that I would challenge that the member attempts to state as fact. My biggest concern is when she talks about mandates. Let us talk about, for example, the mandates of having to wear masks, lockdowns or partial shutdowns that have really been the responsibility of provincial governments. Does she believe there is a lack of leadership in our provincial legislatures across the country or do those mandates not matter to her on the issue of freedom?

Madam Speaker, to imply that there is no plan is somewhat misleading. I believe there has been a plan right from the very beginning. Six weeks to two months ago, no one could have anticipated that the Province of Quebec would institute a curfew, for example, to deal with omicron. The issue is that the pandemic is far from being over. I wonder if the member, in principle, believes that the principles she is trying to apply to Ottawa should also apply to provincial jurisdictions. Does she believe that the provinces have plans? If not, should they all be providing a plan before the end of the month?

Mr. Speaker, it was only a couple years ago we heard the Conservatives stand up and give a lot of speeches about the carbon tax, saying it was bad. Then they minted a brand-new, shiny leader. It was not that long ago he was inside the chamber where the position they campaigned on was that they were in favour of a price on pollution. That is what they said. Somewhere they had a flip and they are now in favour of it. Based on the discussions and the debate so far on Bill C-8, they are like a fish out of water and they are flipping and flopping all over. Is it the member's opinion that the Conservatives are going back to their Reform ways and adopting a policy position against the environment in support of not having a price on pollution?

Madam Speaker, since the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo asked, in essence, a two-part question, let me offer this two-part response. First, on the matter of caseworkers, as my colleague puts it, I believe this refers to temporary employees who were hired by Veterans Affairs Canada to form what the department calls spike teams. These teams were created from the 350 additional full-time staff who were hired in 2020 for two years as part of VAC's strategy to address the long-standing issue of processing times for disability benefits decisions. Employees on the spike teams were hired and trained starting in June 2020, and since January of last year they have been making decisions on disability benefit applications, thereby accelerating the process for veterans. Coupled with other changes VAC made to its systems, these new teams helped the department reduce the number of pending applications to its lowest point since September 30, 2019, and reduce the number of applicants over the service standard to its lowest point since March 2019. I can confirm that the department has so far received approval to extend some 168 spike and surge resources beyond March 2022. It is also worth pointing out that, as of April 1, 2022, veterans residing in Canada who apply for disability benefits for a mental health condition as well as those who have already applied will automatically immediately qualify for mental health benefits coverage. VAC is also improving case management supports, which go a long way to helping veterans adjust to and cope with a disability as they transition into post-military life and enter the civilian workforce. Some steps the department has taken include using temporary funding for additional case managers; implementing guiding support that sees Veterans Affairs agents work with veterans who have moderate needs so that case managers can focus on veterans whose cases are more complex; bringing in screening tools to improve VAC's ability to identify veterans' levels of risk, needs and complexities to make sure they are provided supports that match their needs; and finally launching a new case management access tool, which reduces the administrative burden for case managers, allowing them more time to work directly with veterans and their families. Regarding my colleague's second question about the unspent funds, I am surprised to learn the member of Parliament is unfamiliar with demand-driven funding. VAC's benefits are demand-driven, so no matter how many veterans come forward they will receive the benefits. These are based on estimates, and the process guarantees that, whether a veteran comes to VAC this year, next year or beyond, the benefits will be available. Money returned remains accessible the next year to fund veterans programming, based on demand. I would like to also take this opportunity to emphasize, having served for a number of years on the opposition benches and seeing the treatment of veterans by the former Stephen Harper government, I have no problems doing a comparison of what this government has been able to accomplish and the number of resources we put into our veterans, compared to the previous administration. For many years we called for things such as reopening offices, including in my home province of Manitoba, where Brandon VAC offices were shut down.

Madam Speaker, the member does not understand that the purpose of the late show is to follow up on a question posed in question period. The minister's response, which I was more than happy to deliver, was to expand upon what the member had originally asked. Someone can come to the late show and say they have a number of questions to ask, but it would be nice to advance them prior to posing the questions. I have no problem providing answers from my perspective at any time. I do not require speaking notes. I can tell the member opposite, as I started to at the very beginning, that Conservatives often have a problem. They have this way of manipulating the numbers in an attempt to make the government look bad. In fact, I would suggest to the member that, if he actually did his homework, what he would find is that this government has invested billions, or hundreds of millions, of dollars in our veterans over the last number of years. We understand—