Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative right has spoken in the last couple of days. They are not going to support Bill C-8. They are going to say it is because government needs to cut back and stop expenditures. The member just referenced that. Bill C-8 provides over one billion dollars for purchasing rapid tests. Rapid tests are absolutely essential to continuing to support small businesses and Canadians. If Ottawa does not purchase rapid tests for distribution to the provinces and territories, who does the Conservative Party believe should be purchasing them? Should it be the provincial governments, individuals, or businesses?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member will help me out and provide some advice in terms of what she would do. A constituent of mine who was collecting GIS gave me a call indicating that her GIS was going to be cut back. When she explained the situation she said, “When I was collecting GIS, I was actually making some money on the side. I was collecting quite a bit in terms of babysitting.” As a result of collecting the babysitting money, it caused some issues in terms of her having not claimed it. In situations such as this, are there any circumstances at all from the NDP's perspective where someone who maybe should not have been collecting the CERB should be obligated, in any fashion, to pay it back?

Mr. Speaker, there are more businesses today than there were prepandemic. We have replenished the jobs or seen the jobs return that were there prepandemic also, in terms of those that were lost because of the pandemic. In good part, it meant that we had to borrow substantial amounts, billions of dollars, in order to provide such things as the wage subsidy program and supports for Canadians. By doing that, Canada has outperformed the United States, for example, on those two points. We are now in a much better position. Over a million jobs since the last election have come back. Those jobs create taxes. I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it is important for government to provide supports so that we can be in a position to create jobs, as we have clearly demonstrated over the last number of months.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to yet another positive piece of legislation that I would encourage all members of the House to support. It is going to be interesting. I am expecting that members from the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Green Party will support this piece of legislation. I hope I am not being too presumptuous in the hope that we will get that support. The interesting dynamic at play here is going to be how the Conservative Party will vote on this legislation. One member says “against”, and that is my fear because if they wanted to listen to what their constituents had to say, I believe they would be supportive of this legislation. I will not be surprised if they vote against it. After all, the very first piece of legislation that we introduced after the election was Bill C-2, which ensured that we could continue the ongoing supports for Canadians from every region of our country. Think of small businesses and the lockdowns, and the financial support that the Government of Canada continued to provide so that we would be in a better position to get out of the COVID-19 pandemic. I was surprised that the Conservative Party of Canada voted against that legislation. I do not understand it. On one hand they talk about the importance of small businesses, but when it came down to supporting small businesses, they voted against Bill C-2. Here is a bill in which they could redeem themselves, at least in part, by getting behind this legislation and supporting it. I listened to a couple of speeches this morning and they highlight some issues—

Madam Speaker, if the opposition would like, I would give leave so there could be unlimited questions and answers, as opposed to 10 minutes. The point is that the legislation before the House today is solid, good legislation that should be supported by all members. The Deputy Prime Minister, the cabinet and government members in particular have fed into this legislation some initiatives that each of us should be supporting. I would like to highlight a few of them. We often hear about taxation. There is an incorporation of some taxation policy within this legislation. The legislation also talks about ventilation expenses. Those that would qualify under a tax credit would improve the quality of the air we are breathing. There is a good clause that ensures that we deal with housing. We had a member this morning talk about the cost of housing. In this legislation, we are putting into place a 1% annual tax for those individuals who are buying up condos, apartments and houses with no intention of living in them. They have no intention of renting them out. The people who are non-resident, non-Canadians are now going to pay a 1% annual tax on these. When the Conservatives talk about doing something on housing, this is doing something on the housing issue.

Madam Speaker, millions of dollars in taxes is significant, I would suggest to the member. However, will Conservatives oppose that? We need to remember that this is the Conservative Party that opposed the 1% tax we put on Canada's wealthiest a few years back. What will Conservatives do with this tax? We have supported our schools. They want to improve their ventilation systems, so there is better air quality for school children in the different regions of our country. We have support for our provinces and territories in regard to proof of vaccination in this legislation. We have support for rapid testing. Canadians are interested in receiving rapid testing.

Madam Speaker, how quickly time flies. I can understand why the Conservative opposition is really concerned about the legislation. The Conservatives have this predetermined position that says, if the Liberals introduce legislation they have to vote against it. They are fairly good at filibustering and voting against government legislation. The problem is that this legislation is direct support for battling the coronavirus. Canadians need this type of legislation, just like they needed Bill C-2. There is this sense that the Conservatives should be voting for the legislation, so they are having a tough time with it. Getting back to the legislation itself, it provides $1.7 billion with respect to rapid testing. That was enough money to provide for the demand for testing in workplaces and other places for the last months of December, going into January and possibly into February. We have more legislation that is coming up. Members could get a little advance on it in Bill C-10, where there is an additional $2 billion that would be invested so that the federal government could continue to support provinces, territories and indigenous communities, making sure they have things such as rapid testing. As much as the Conservatives like to criticize the government, they find that when it comes to the issue of rapid testing it really is no issue for the federal government when it comes to criticism. We circulated all the rapid testing well in advance. The vast majority of the provinces had only used a small percentage before it became a much larger issue. When it became a larger issue, whether it was the Minister of Public Services and Procurement or the Minister of Health, supported by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal caucus, we ensured that the monies and resources would be there to support these ministers in acquiring the tests that were necessary. That is what Bill C-8 does. It is there to support initiatives that are really making a difference. Yesterday we heard a great deal about seniors and, in particular, I was listening to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. The NDP have a focus on trying to give a false impression about seniors and the government's approach to seniors. I thought I would make it very clear, in terms of what it is and how it is this government has been supporting seniors, not only during the pandemic but prepandemic. When I think of seniors and the six or seven years we have now been in government, one of the very first initiatives we did was that we rolled back the age for collecting OAS. The former prime minister set it at 67. We rolled it back to 65. That was one of the first initiatives. Another initiative was that we increased the guaranteed annual supplement. That had a really positive impact, not only in Winnipeg North where hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty by that one particular initiative, but thousands of seniors were lifted out of poverty because of a tangible increase back in the first couple of years of being in government through the guaranteed income supplement program. In the 2019 campaign, we talked about giving seniors aged 75 and over a 10% increase in the OAS. Even though some inside this chamber criticized us about giving that increase, I rooted it back to the fact that we made a campaign promise. It was a part of our platform in the 2019 election, and we began the process of putting it into place before the last election took place just a number of months ago. We are a government that has materialized that substantial increase supporting seniors collecting OAS at age 75 and over. We provided one-time payments to support our seniors during the pandemic, whether they were collecting OAS, GIS or both. We supported many organizations in our communities that focused attention on providing support services for our seniors. An example of that would be the New Horizons program. Members can canvass their own constituencies, and they will find that there were enhancements of services being provided through the non-profit organizations for our seniors in particular. I remember a phone call I had with the United Way in Winnipeg a while back, and they were talking about the importance of the 211 line and the importance it could play for our seniors. Through a federal grant, the support of the United Way and its incredible organizing and organization, we now have what many other jurisdictions have: an active 211 phone number. Seven days a week and 24 hours a day, someone can call 211 and they will have access to a person who can assist them and a whole myriad of government resources and programs, not only from the national level but from other levels, whether they are provincial, municipal or non-profits. This is a support program that will especially help our seniors. When I talk about the types of actions the government has taken during the pandemic, it is an excellent example when we hear of non-profit organizations, because we often hear about the direct payments, whether they are to seniors or people with disabilities through the CERB program or workers and employers. We often hear about that, but there are many other ways we indirectly supported seniors, and whether it is the New Horizons program or supporting organizations like United Way in Winnipeg, seniors were better served. It does not mean we cannot do better. Within our caucus we continue to advocate for our seniors every day. I hope I can say this: We even have a strong active seniors caucus that is there to ensure that the interests of seniors are constantly being looked at. When the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for example, made reference to the fact that we are not there for long-term care and other issues such as those I just finished highlighting, I suggest to the member that he only take a look at the province of Manitoba. I would compare our record at the national level with the main years I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature, where I saw the provincial NDP government reduce corporate income tax and do nothing, or very little, to support long-term care. Today we have a very progressive and aggressive agenda for being there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors. That is why members of the Liberal caucus advocate continuously for long-term care facilities and how we can look at some sort of a standardization of care, what those expectations are and what kind of role the federal government can play. We see many, including me, who continue to advocate for provinces and territories to take advantage of a federal government that has a very strong interest in a national pharmacare program. Close to two years ago, it was incorporated into a throne speech, looking for provinces and territories that would be interested. The point is that as a government we are very much interested and want to be there for our seniors. In terms of other initiatives that we have been able to accomplish since the last election, some of the things did not get the type of attention they should have. I would like to draw attention to them, because they are indirectly tied to the legislation. These are things like the $15 minimum wage for federally regulated occupations. Hopefully, the provinces will see the leadership we are providing. It would be nice to see provincial jurisdictions take up that particular initiative. The child care initiative shows the degree to which parliamentarians at the federal and provincial levels, working together, can produce tangible results. The pandemic demonstrated that, and so has the child care initiative. We are a government that has brought through a national child care program, albeit one province still needs to sign on. Those are the types of issues that we have been able to deal with during a pandemic, while supporting Canadians in every region of the country, working with Canadians in different levels of government and dealing with issues of reconciliation, environment, housing, all the important issues for our constituents. As I said in the past, and will say in future, my first priority is the constituents of Winnipeg North. Rest assured that the issues they raise in Winnipeg North are the issues I will be bringing to the floor of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's consistency. I too hope to be able to speak a bit more in the coming days, weeks and months. When I think of the amount of money that the government has had to spend over the last year and a half as a direct result of the coronavirus and the pandemic, I like to think that the people of Canada appreciate and understand that often we get legislation coming through, such as Bill C-8, which commits $1.7 billion toward things such as rapid testing so that we can get test widgets to our provinces and territories in order to meet the demand. As for the actual details of the processes of the Treasury Board, I will leave that for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Madam Speaker, there are some members, in particular in the opposition benches, who would portray that the sky is falling, that it is nothing but doom and gloom. There is a bias to make everything look terrible. From my point of view, I see the glass as half full. I see the things that this government has achieved. Being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, I appreciate and value what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short time span, especially if we factor in a pandemic. If anyone wants to debate the issue of seniors, given the background work that we have done on seniors and that we continue to do today, I would welcome opportunities to do so wherever possible on that issue. That is how confident I am in terms of the things that we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time.

Madam Speaker, the NDP has two approaches when it comes to seniors. I was sitting in the Manitoba legislature for many years when the NDP was in government, and that was a different approach. That is why I say I will compare our approach in dealing with seniors any day to the NDP approach for over a decade in Manitoba. We have accomplished a great deal; it does not mean that we cannot do more. We will continue to strive to do more. The 10% for those aged 75 and over was an election platform commitment. It was a promise. Is the NDP saying that we should not fulfill our promise? Is the NDP going to roll it back? Is that what the New Democrats are suggesting for those who are aged 75 and over? Shame on them.

Madam Speaker, my basic understanding is that non-residents or non-Canadians who are buying up condos and houses in Canada are part of the problem in driving up cost. Those individuals would have to pay a 1% annual tax. I see that as a positive contribution to dealing, at least in part, with a very serious issue for Canadians. The member and I have had discussions before on housing, and he and I are particularly in sync on housing co-ops and alternative types of housing. I am a big fan of housing co-ops. I would like to see more done on housing co-ops. I think there is more that we can do in working with other organizations that deliver housing, such as Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity in Winnipeg's north end has built more new houses in infill environments than any government has, whether provincial, federal or even municipal. They are an outstanding organization. Let us get behind some of those types of initiatives that I know my colleague and friend also supports.

Madam Speaker, as a local member of Parliament in Ottawa, the member has done exceptionally well in conveying a powerful message that it is time for the protesters, in essence, to leave with their semis and the other things they brought to Ottawa. Ottawa needs to get back to a more normal situation, as the government House leader talked about and as the member just said. The protests have been heard, and it is time to allow things to get back to normal here in Ottawa.

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I am hearing from Conservative members that they seem not to want to support Bill C-8. There are many benefits within the legislation, and one that I would like to highlight is something that is in high demand today. The federal government has been there in a very real way for rapid testing. We were able to meet the demands all the way up to the end of December, when most of the rapid tests were not even being utilized. Then, when they became in high demand, we were able to acquire another 140 million rapid tests. Legislation like this would support the financial means to get those rapid tests. Does the member not at least support that initiative?

Madam Speaker, the member is not being consistent. On the one hand he is saying to cut back and stop the spending. He opposes the legislation because it involves spending money. On the other hand, he is saying that we should spend more money on health care transfers, even though this government has sent record amounts in health care transfers. Not only that, but we are also dealing with mental health and many other issues in health care. In this bill, there is $1.72 billion being allocated to purchase rapid testing and equipment such as that. If we did not spend the money, those tests would not be there. Then it would have to be the provinces to come up with it. Does the member not support the financial expenditures that are targeted in Bill C-8?

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the price on pollution. There was a time when the Conservative Party in opposition opposed a price on pollution. The Conservatives would call it a tax. Then they had a flip-flop and changed their position on it. I was glad to see that. I think most Canadians saw the value of having a price on pollution. I wonder if this member is shying away from having a price on pollution once again. Can we anticipate another flip-flop on this issue?

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member makes reference to the issue of housing, because within Bill C-8 there is a measure that will make a difference. For the first time, we are seeing a tax on non-residents and non-Canadians purchasing and possessing unused properties, either directly or indirectly. That is going to be an annual tax. I am hopeful that this measure will have at least some impact in conjunction with other actions by the government through the national housing strategy and a number of projects that the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion has alluded to time and time again. I believe that the federal government is showing goodwill in moving forward on the issue of housing for Canadians. What are the member's thoughts on the specific initiative of the annual tax within Bill C-8?

Madam Speaker, in the speeches I have heard today from Conservatives, the right wing of the Conservative element, that Reform element is flying high. They have a number of ideas, I must say. On the one hand they are saying they do not want any more tax dollars being spent, and then on the other hand they are saying they still want some of the services. For the tax dollars, we often need to borrow money. For example, when we talk about the supports for businesses, the CERB and the increase to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, these all cost money. Where would the member suggest that we start cutting back dollars? He is giving us ideas on how to spend money. Could he be specific on where he believes we should be cutting dollars?

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if I were to go over the Public Accounts from the Stephen Harper era, I would find more than just one minister who spent $60 or $40 for a glass of orange juice. There are ample examples of Conservative waste during the Stephen Harper era. However, my question is in regard to Bill C-8. Bill C-8 would have over $1 billion being spent for rapid tests. Does the Conservative Party not support rapid tests? For months and months, they were like jumping beans in this place, jumping around saying that they want rapid tests. However, we have rapid tests in the bill. It is an investment in rapid tests. Canadians want rapid tests. It is also about putting cleaner air in our schools. There are hundreds of millions being spent to support that and continue to support people in Canada. Whether it is rapid tests or cleaner air, why would the Conservative Party oppose it?

Mr. Speaker, the member referred, if not directly then indirectly, to the importance of small businesses and how it is important that the government provide financial support. We have done that in many ways, whether through loans, wage subsidies or rent supports. It is important to recognize that the Bloc party supported Bill C-2, which supported small businesses. Now we have Bill C-8 before the House. It provides different types of support, at least in part, through rapid tests for small businesses, which many of them will require, but also for ventilation in schools. I would like to get a sense of the Bloc party's position with respect to Bill C-8. Does the member support this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share something in common that is not a good thing, and she made reference to it in her speech, and that is the bus shelters. Whether it is on Portage Avenue in her riding or on Selkirk Avenue in my riding, we see bus shelters being used as homes. One cannot help but be fearful and sympathetic when they see those visuals, especially when the weather is this cold. I can appreciate the member is in opposition and is critiquing the government, but would she not agree that the best way to deal with that kind of homelessness is to have different levels of government all at the table, and even factor in some of those wonderful non-profit organizations that are doing a lot of the ground work? It is time that we really all came together to deal with this very serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the speeches from the Conservative Party, there is no doubt its members are taking a hard right. It is almost as if we are going back to the days of Stephen Harper and possibly even the Reform Party. They are applauding from across the way, so I guess their intent is to go right. The member talks about inflation. Yes, we all have concerns with regard to inflation, but it has to be put into perspective with what is happening around the world, and Canada is doing well. When I responded to the budget, I made reference to the third quarter report on the GDP, which said Canada was at 5.4% growth. That is better than the U.S., Japan, the U.K. and Australia. It is not as bad as the Conservatives are saying. The sky is not falling. Canadians are coming together, and we will get through this. I am wondering if the member can indicate to us why it appears today that the Conservatives seem to be going quite far to the right.

Mr. Speaker, this is a federal government that has invested in public transit, which is somewhat new. The question I have for the member is on whether he could provide some clarity. Also, within the legislation we are saying that there is going to be a 1% annual tax for non-residents and non-Canadians for unoccupied dwellings. That is in its simplest form. Does the member support that, and is there any other initiative that he would like to encourage on that specific front?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent respecting the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. On Monday, the Prime Minister made a general statement of the government's intention to introduce a bill to purchase rapid tests. The Prime Minister did not divulge the details of the bill, namely the amount of money for the purpose, nor the mechanism for purchasing and distributing these tests across Canada. This is a very short bill with two clauses: the amount, which is about $2.5 billion, and the mechanism for distributing these tests. As a result, I submit that speaking in very general terms about the bill does not meet the bar for a question of privilege respecting the divulgation of the contents of the bill during the notice period. Furthermore, as part of the government's consultation process, a draft legislative proposal on the statutory spending authority for rapid test procurement was shared with parties of the House last week before the bill was placed on notice. On June 8, 2017, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege related to the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-49. He stated: The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. Speaker Parent explained on February 21, 2000, at page 3767 of Debates: Although the members of the House should always be the first ones to examine legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time, this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to consult both experts and the public when developing its legislative proposals. Speaking in very general terms of the bill without divulging the specific details of it does not meet the threshold of a question of privilege. Any risk was further mitigated by the government sharing a draft bill with opposition parties four days prior to its introduction. This clearly satisfies our long-standing imperative that members of the House should always be the first ones to examine the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion between members of Parliament and their constituents to try to get a better sense of the type of legislative support that Ottawa should be providing. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on some of the consultations he has done in Edmonton or in Alberta. What does he think about the federal government's participation in his home province of Alberta?

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment the member made when he talked about seniors. As a politician for over 30 years, I have witnessed many years of NDP governments at the provincial level in Manitoba and many years of Progressive Conservative governments, and I can tell the member that in the last five or six years, since the Prime Minister, his cabinet and my colleagues have been at work, we have done more to support seniors in real, tangible ways. The member talked about corporate tax breaks. I would like to remind him that there were maybe six corporate tax breaks from the NDP in the Province in Manitoba while there was a need for funding in long-term care, which was the total responsibility of the NDP provincial government. Does the member see any hypocrisy there? Would he not recognize that as a government we have been very progressive in providing for and being there for our seniors, because it is the right thing to do?

Madam Speaker, I hope this will not be taken from my time and we will reset the clock. It does not surprise me that my Conservative friends do not necessarily want to hear what I have to say, but I will tell members that they should listen closely, because if they listen closely, they might get a better sense of the type of direction they want to consider taking. The member for Sarnia—Lambton asked where we go next in a question she put earlier today. That is a very important question. From the beginning, through the throne speeches, remarks from the Prime Minister and budgetary and legislative initiatives, we have been very clear about what the Government of Canada's priority has been as of 19 or 20 months ago: dealing with the pandemic. We are at a point in time where we are hoping to see strong leadership from all sides of the House to get us through the pandemic. To indirectly answer the question the member from the Conservative Party asked, one of the best things we can do is encourage the public and our constituents to get fully vaccinated. Sitting on the government benches, I am observing how the Conservative members have been approaching this issue. There is an interesting story, and I would like to quote from it. It is significant because it is from the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, former prime minister Brian Mulroney, when he was interviewed on CTV. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney told CTV's Question Period a few Sundays back that the leader of the Conservative Party, at least for now, should go further and show any unvaccinated MPs the door, removing them from his caucus. He said, “That's leadership.” That is a direct quote from the former Progressive Conservative prime minister. 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?” He also said, “Look, you're not the leader to follow, you are the leader to lead, and if you think this is in the national interest, Canada's interest, you get your members of Parliament in line, and they have to support what you're doing.” If we listen to what the former prime minister said and we understand and appreciate, as he indicated, the science and the health experts, we have an appreciation of just how important it is for people to be fully vaccinated. A vast majority, 86% or more, are fully vaccinated, not to mention those over the age of 12 who have received one shot. However, we still have Conservatives within the official opposition questioning this and adding fuel to those who believe they do not have to get vaccinated, sending mixed messages to the public. I think that is at a great cost. On the one hand the Conservatives say that it is time we move on, yet if we follow them, whether their behaviour inside the House or the statements they make on Twitter, they send very confusing messages. From the beginning, we have been very consistent. Our number one issue 19 or 20 months ago was the pandemic and working with willing partners, including provincial governments, indigenous leaders, non-profit organizations, private companies and people in general from all regions of the country, to take a team approach and build a national consensus on the types of things that we needed to do as a government in order to take on the pandemic. Through that consultation and those efforts that engaged so many Canadians, we are where we are today. A great deal of thanks and appreciation can be expressed to all Canadians who understood their responsibilities through this very trying time. Whether they were health care workers, taxi drivers, people who work in manufacturing plants or long-haul truck drivers, people stepped up and did what was necessary, whether providing services or staying at home in isolation, but at all times listening to what public health officials were saying and understanding the science of what was taking place in our communities. As a direct result, Canada is in an excellent position. Looking at the third quarter reports, we see that our GDP grew by 5.4%. That is better than the United States, Japan, the U.K. and Australia. That is, in good part, because Canadians did what they needed to do in order to position Canada well when we had the opportunity to get out of the pandemic. We have now seen 108% of the jobs that were lost due to the pandemic return. I compare that to the United States, our dearest friend to the south, where it is approximately 84%. For years, when I was in opposition, I used to be critical of the then Harper government talking about trade deficits. We would get trade deficit after trade deficit, year on year. In fact, when Stephen Harper assumed office, there was a trade surplus. When he left office there was a trade deficit. I understand that today we have a trade surplus that is at a 13-year high. These things are happening because governments of all levels and Canadians understood what we needed to do by coming together to make a difference. Those jobs matter. They are very important. Just the other day, I had the opportunity to get a better overall understanding of the pork industry once again in the province of Manitoba. Maple Leaf Foods is an excellent example of doing what is necessary to ensure there is a high element of food security in our country. It contributed by continuing to operate, even during the pandemic, by taking the necessary measures to protect the industry. Maple Leaf today is actually growing in the province of Manitoba. The best bacon in the world can be found right in Manitoba, and we are selling it throughout the world, not only because of an outstanding company that has demonstrated its ability to meet and get to market, but also because of the workforce that it employs and their responsible attitude in ensuring that those jobs would continue and ultimately grow because of the quality of work that they provide. This year we are going to see an additional 350 jobs at that one company. That will bring up the total employment just in Winnipeg to 1,900 jobs. That is not to mention the around 1,500-plus jobs in the community of Brandon, Maple Leaf jobs. The hog industry is doing quite well in the province of Manitoba. If we go to Neepawa, HyLife is another shining example of a successful company that is exporting Manitoba world-class product. Those are direct jobs in those industries. It does not speak to the indirect jobs that are created by these companies. In the parking lots there are hundreds of vehicles and those vehicles have to be purchased from someplace. The employees live in houses, condos and apartments in communities that require furniture. They require food and restaurants, and that feeds the economy, not to mention our farming communities. Our agricultural community continues to grow and in many ways prosper. In good part, that is one of the reasons we are able to continue to grow our economy. Relatively speaking to the countries that I have already referenced, we are doing quite well, but there are areas that do need to get special attention, for example, the issue of health care. The greatest challenge in health care today, and yesterday when I used to be the health care critic, is not just money. It is how we manage the changes that are necessary to provide the quality health care services that Canadians expect, and they want the federal government to play a role in that. We in the Liberal Party understand, for example, long-term health care facilities. The opposition members say it is all provincial jurisdiction. They can make that statement, but there are Liberal members of Parliament who are responding to what Canadians want. They want to see some form of national health care standards for long-term care for our seniors. That is something we believe in. On this side of the House, Liberals also believe in the need to invest in mental health. Apparently, the Conservatives do not. There is an expectation that governments will work together. We saw that through the pandemic. When governments work together, we can accomplish so much more. This is a Prime Minister who has been committed to doing that, even though what one sees constantly coming from opposition benches on the floor of the House of Commons is character assassination, a focus from opposition to try to tear down the personalities of members who make up the caucus, as opposed to contributing to the overall positive debate. Constructive criticism, too, I must suggest, is a valid thing. I was in opposition. I like to think we contributed to that too. However, no matter how cynical and negative the Conservative Party has been, we have remained focused on ensuring we are developing and bringing forward the programs that are going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians through a very difficult time. As a result, we experienced some programs that have ultimately led to the survival of some of our industries. There are actually more businesses today than there were prepandemic. I like to think that has a lot to do with what the government came up with in terms of programs. During this difficult time, people needed a lifeline, and most often we will find that the lifeline came from the federal government, a government that believed in supporting businesses both small and big. We did that through programs such as the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the loan support programs, all catered to support our small businesses and workers in Canada. We brought that out early in the game when the pandemic hit, because we recognized how important it was, in many ways, to keep these businesses viable and to prevent them from going bankrupt. In the throne speech and back in October, the Prime Minister and the minister made reference to the need to carry on some of these programs, to have a lockdown program. That is why, shortly after the election, not only did we talk about it but we brought in legislation. In fact, that was the first piece of legislation we brought in, Bill C-2. That was to ensure the benefits for small businesses. On the one hand, we have those in the opposition who talk about the importance of small businesses, but when it came time to support small businesses, at least back in December, what did they do? They voted against Bill C-2. Not only did they vote against that legislation, but during part of the debate they brought in motions to try to filibuster the legislation to prevent it from passing, yet they like to say they are friends of small business. Think of the millions of dollars, hundreds of millions, that the Government of Canada has provided to small businesses over the last 19 months or a year and a half. That is one of the reasons we are in the position we are in today. Relatively speaking, compared to other countries, we are doing exceptionally well. That is because of the resilience of our small businesses, entrepreneurs and Canadians in general who have responded so well to the need to address the pandemic and to play the role we all needed to play, so that, at the end of the day, we were in a position to continue to grow the economy, support our middle class and allow things to get better quicker.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record with regard to the protest that we have been witnessing over the last number of days. No one questions the value in a democracy of having peaceful demonstrations, but I think this continuing demonstration is having a very strong negative impact on the community of Ottawa, particularly in the downtown area. Could the member provide his thoughts on how this demonstration has affected those who live downtown and call it home or have a small business there, as well as the importance of having streets clear for traffic?

Madam Speaker, I wish I had another 20 minutes to answer that question. It is truly amazing. We have to realize that is from a Conservative Party perspective, and we need to look at what we have done in the last five years. Historic amounts of transfers are going to the provinces for health care. We have identified areas and tagged money to support that. The recognition of immigrants' credentials is a very serious issue, and we constantly raise that with provincial stakeholders that are ultimately responsible, but maybe there are other things. We have a very progressive Minister of Immigration who is looking at ways to ensure that we can take advantage of getting more people who could contribute to our health care system. That is also an important aspect. The federal government, in the last number of years, has been very proactive on the health care file.

Madam Speaker, I would refer the member to the Canada Health Act in terms of the federal government's role and suggest that he listen to what residents in good part, including residents in his own riding, have to say regarding some of the valuable contributions the federal government can make with respect to health care. Further, he should recognize that historic amounts of money are flowing to the provinces from Ottawa to support health care. This government was also able to continue signing health care accords with individual provinces, which is something that Stephen Harper was not able to do. We were able to accomplish that. Manitoba and Quebec have a lot of things in common. I look at the aerospace industry and the issue of supply and demand. These are very important industries and communities that get a great deal of support from Ottawa, and I see that as a positive thing. However, they also have another thing in common, and that is the need for workers. As I said, we have a very proactive Minister of Immigration. I suspect we might now even have record numbers of international workers coming to Canada to fill those jobs. If we fail to meet the demand for those jobs, it takes away from our economy and that is one of the reasons—

Madam Speaker, one thing my prairie colleague and I share is a very strong passion for economic growth in our Prairies. We work quite closely together to ensure that takes place as much as possible. Housing is a very important initiative. This is a government that brought forward a national housing strategy a number of years ago. It was the first of its kind. We have seen a number of programs put into place to ensure that we can speed up some of that housing, especially during the pandemic. I am encouraged by some of the other things we are starting to see, whether it is the rapid housing initiative or the first-time homebuyer incentive. The Minister of Housing wants to work with Canadians to have a study done on how we can ensure there is more housing accessible to all Canadians, and I look forward to that particular report.

Madam Speaker, I know that Health Canada, and in particular the Minister of Health, are very keen on that idea, as the motion itself passed with unanimous support. I think all members of the House support the idea of a national suicide line, and I believe it is just a question of time. Whether it is with the CRTC, things have to be done to put something of that nature into place. It is ironic that both questions from the Conservative Party have been on health care, when that is the party that seems to want to say that Ottawa should have nothing to do with health care.

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the member's thoughts with respect to the greener homes program, an initiative allowing residents in her community, in mine and throughout Canada to apply for a grant of up to $5,000 to make their homes more energy efficient. One would argue it is good for the environment and good for job creation and improving our housing stock. I would ask her to share her thoughts on that specific program.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could further expand on this from the Bloc's perspective. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, even people in Quebec, understand and appreciate that the federal government can and should play a role in ensuring that the health care system supports things such as the Canada Health Act. Why is the Bloc going against what, I would suggest, many citizens of Quebec want to see?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That a take-note debate on the situation in Ukraine be held later today, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member made reference to the issue of health care. I truly believe that Canadians as a whole, no matter what region of the country they are from, appreciate and value our health care system. One of the things we have learned from the coronavirus is that there is a high level of interest in the federal government playing a role in looking at long-term health care standards. I wonder if the member would recognize that, no matter where in Canada, there seems to be a need for long-term health care standards for our seniors. I wonder if she would support that idea.

Mr. Speaker, one of the announcements that we have gone over with a number of provinces now is the child care plan. It is a true national child care plan that would help so many people from coast to coast to coast. It is somewhat modelled after the Quebec child care plan, and I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts in terms of the positive impact that $10 child care had in the province of Quebec and the potential benefits all Canadians are going to be able to see with programs such as the one that has been brought in by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member's comments, given programs such as the CPP, the health care accords and the more recent child care plan. This is not to mention the pandemic itself, during which we have seen Canadians of all political stripes from all regions of the country, stakeholders and non-profit groups working together as one team to take on the pandemic. In comparison with the rest of the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well. The division that the member makes reference to is a division within her Conservative caucus. Her speech might have been more appropriate at a Conservative caucus meeting, I would suggest. Does the member recognize that the greatest division within Canada regarding COVID, from a political point of view, is within her own caucus? Will she deliver her speech to her caucus colleagues?