Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative caucus actually voted against supports going to small businesses, but the member says that we should be supporting them. I would suggest that the Conservative Party needs to be more supportive of small businesses during this difficult time. When we talk about leadership, we had the Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, talk about the importance of public health issues like masks and suggest that members of Parliament in his caucus would be given an option to leave or to get on board with the issue. Would the member contrast the leadership of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives to today's reformed, far-right Conservative element within the Conservative Party under the current leadership? Does she believe her leader would be better off following some of the instructions coming from former prime minister Brian Mulroney?

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit lengthy today, but I will get through it. The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3, 5 to 7, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 30, 33, 39, 41, 42, 57, 60 to 62, 64 to 67, 74, 77, 78, 82, 85, 88 to 90, 93, 94, 96, 102, 114, 116, 117, 119, 135, 138, 141, 150, 155, 157 to 159, 163, 166, 168, 171, 177 to 179, 183, 185, 194, 197, 210, 212, 214, 220, 225, 232, 239, 240, 250, 255, and 261 to 263.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary secretaries are appointed under the Parliament of Canada Act to assist ministers. The act sets out the duties of parliamentary secretaries. They receive a salary in addition to their regular sessional and expense allowances as a member of Parliament, which is part of the total authorities provided to the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons supports the minister in relation to delivering on the various mandate letter commitments mandate letter commitments outlined by the Prime Minister. This includes facilitating the relationship with the Senate and the government’s legislative priorities, and work to update the Parliament of Canada Act to reflect the Senate’s non-partisan role. The parliamentary secretary serves as liaison for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons with the government representative in the Senate, and does not receive support from the Senate. The work of the parliamentary secretary is supported by the office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, which in turn receives support from the Privy Council Office.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11 to 14, 16 to 18, 20 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 31, 32, 34 to 38, 40, 43 to 56, 58, 59, 63, 68 to 73, 75, 76, 79 to 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 92, 95, 97 to 101, 103 to 113, 115, 118, 120 to 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142 to 149, 151 to 154, 156, 160 to 162, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172 to 176, 180 to 182, 184, 186 to 193, 195, 196, 198 to 209, 211, 213, 215 to 219, 221 to 224, 226 to 231, 233 to 238, 241 to 249, 251 to 254, 256 to 260, and 264 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how Canadians step up when a crisis looms. He used the example of British Columbia, and it is an excellent example because Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognized the flooding and things that were taking place there. The contributions were quite immense, and they supported the people of B.C. in hard-hit areas. It is the same idea with regard to the coronavirus. We have seen different levels of government, non-profit organizations and private companies coming together. Could the member provide his thoughts on how we as a society benefit when we see that sort of cohesion in working and dealing with the things we need to overcome?

Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue in terms of both the environment and the masks. When I think of the environment, whether it is our farmers or consumers, Canadians as a whole have an interest and want to do something, and all contribute in some way or another to a healthier environment. We need to do what we can to encourage that. Quite often, it is the other way around, where we are encouraged, all parliamentarians at different levels of government, to do more for the environment, so I applaud those Canadians for reaching out. In regard to the masks, and this is what my question is based on, it is important to recognize that prepandemic, the number of masks that were being manufactured in Canada was negligible. Today, there is a healthy PPE industry that will survive, not only in the weeks ahead but in the months and years ahead, because of many initiatives that this government has brought forward. I wonder if the member can provide some comment on how important it is that we keep some of those industries.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of unity and working together. I applaud the appeal of her messaging in trying to get members to work together. If we take a look at the last couple of years, we will see that the Government of Canada has been working with provinces, municipalities, stakeholders, non-profit organizations, individuals and Canadians to try to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. This is at the same time, as the member was saying, that we have been building on a vision for Canada with a national housing strategy, a child care program and public transit strategies. Can the member provide her thoughts on a proactive government dealing with national strategies, such as the three examples I just gave?

Madam Speaker, the member highlights infrastructure and the importance of trade as what he believes to be really important to our agricultural community. There is no government in the history of Canada that has signed more trade agreements than this government. In the last six years we have signed more trade agreements than any other government prior. When we look at infrastructure dollars, we are talking about historic amounts of infrastructure dollars to be able to build the roads and do so much more for Canadians. If the member believes that infrastructure and trade are so important, why does he not acknowledge the Liberals' accomplishments that are historic in their very nature? They will no doubt help our farmers and agriculture, as well as urban communities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the statement that Canada does have a very special and unique relationship with Ukraine. When something is happening in Ukraine, it matters in Canada, not only to the 1.4 million people of Ukrainian-Canadian heritage but to Canadians as a whole. That is why we need to have the government engaged, and the $120-million loan is badly needed. It is warranted and it is supported by the government. We have seen a need over the years to train 30,000 military personnel in Ukraine, and to enter into agreements such as the free trade agreement to give more hope to the people of Ukraine and here in Canada. I am hoping we will hear more tonight about that special relationship, and through that special relationship we have an obligation. I believe the government needs to continue to move forward responsibly, as we have, thinking in terms of how we can support the people of Ukraine. Could my colleague provide her thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, first, I would recognize that the Bloc is supporting the passage of Bill C-2. It is important to recognize that because the bill would provide ongoing support. In particular, I always appreciate the focus that the Bloc puts on the arts and cultural communities, something I personally believe in very strongly. As has been pointed out, the bill would not resolve all the problems out there, but it is important that it ultimately pass because it supports many people and businesses today. Supporting Canadians in a broad sense means not only doing it through legislation, but through budgetary measures as well. To focus on this bill, it is a positive bill supporting certain aspects of our economy. Would the member agree with that?

Madam Speaker, where I agree fully with the member is in regard to the importance of seniors and the fact that we should work expeditiously to get the bill through, so it will be there before Christmas. I would like to remind my colleague is that virtually from day one, in 2015, we dramatically increased the amounts going to the poorest of all seniors in Canada by a substantial increase to the GIS. During the pandemic, we gave direct payments to GIS recipients and all OAS recipients. We have also proposed to increase payments substantially to seniors age 75 and over. We have also invested tens of millions of dollars into all sorts of organizations that provide services for seniors. The member made a statement saying to give $100 for every senior. Is that an add-on amount to what has already been committed? As this is the first time I have heard of this, what is the Bloc position on $100 for every senior?

Madam Speaker, in fact, the government and ministers have been very open to working with all members of the House in an apolitical fashion to try to improve legislation, period. There seems to be a difference when the NDP is in opposition, where it will promise and say absolutely anything, such as $100,000 for every breathing Canadian coast to coast every year coming from the government as a direct payment. Whatever it takes, the NDP will say that. In government, on the other hand, I will use the example the member just made reference to. In the legislation we talk about 10 paid sick days. In B.C., with an NDP premier, there are more workers and the province has passed five paid sick days. The NDP will praise the NDP government in B.C. The member and the party have chosen not to support this legislation. This legislation is solid, good legislation for businesses and people. It would provide additional disposable income and support businesses. How does the member justify explaining to his constituents that the NDP does not support Bill C-2?

Madam Speaker, the member did not specifically answer the question of why the NDP would not support Bill C-2. Bill C-2 would provide ongoing support to businesses and people in a very real and tangible way. I understand that it does not cover everything that the NDP would like it to cover, but it would support Canadians. Could the member explain to the people who might be following the debate, or his constituents, specifically why the New Democrats would be voting against legislation that supports people going through the ongoing pandemic?

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on her first speech in the House of Commons. I can still reflect on and remember mine a few years back. I want to pick up on the importance of the perceived and real fifth wave that is quickly approaching in terms of what the member would suggest to her constituents and colleagues in regard to the importance of the booster shot. We can appreciate that we want to be able to keep our families together and the economy open, but there are going to be some more difficult days ahead. Would she like to share her thoughts with her constituents and others with regard to the booster shot?

Madam Speaker, the member had some interesting comments. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of them. If I were to agree with them, it would likely imply that we would not have had programs such as CERB, the wage subsidy program and so forth because of fear or delay. What this is all about is Bill C-2, and Bill C-2 is all about supporting small businesses and supporting Canadians in real, tangible ways. Why would the member not recognize that Canadians have an expectation of the government to be there during difficult times, i.e., the pandemic, to provide the necessary supports? That is where the money is going, to support real people and real businesses. Why not support that?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the systemic racism that is out there. It is a little upsetting that the official opposition does not even want to recognize that. I would ask the member for his thoughts about the truth and reconciliation report, particularly call to action 32 which specifically asks for the type of legislation we have brought forward, in good part, to deal with the systemic racism that is there. Are the hundreds of individuals and Judge Sinclair wrong with that call to action? Is this a call to action that the Conservative Party does not support?

Madam Speaker, the heart of this bill recognizes that our judges, who are independent and have the legal background and understanding of the circumstances surrounding a crime, are in a far greater position to deal with the circumstances for a sentence. Does the Conservative Party not have the confidence in our judicial system, that the dispositions of judges would be fair without having mandatory minimum sentences, which can cause other issues, such as systemic racism?

Mr. Speaker, this government understands the need to support people. We have done that through the pandemic, where we saw programs that supported real people, such as CERB for over nine million Canadians, small business supports, the wage subsidy, loan supports and rent subsidies. However, today I rise to emphasize the importance of two programs that are dear to my constituents and that provide the type of support that is so essential. I am talking about the child care program of millions of dollars, along with the guaranteed income supplement, which takes people out of poverty and provides millions of dollars of support to Winnipeg North every month. Now the child care program, a true national care program, is going to help families. As a government, we understand the importance of supporting real people.

Mr. Speaker, when the worldwide pandemic hit Canada, the Prime Minister and this government stepped up and made it very clear that we were going to be there for Canadians. Over the days, weeks and months that followed, programs flowed to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Whether through wage subsidy programs, the CERB program, direct payments to seniors or direct payments to people with disabilities, we were there. The Conservatives, depending on which member is speaking, will talk about the deficit trying to imply that we spent too much. We were there to support Canadians. We now have Bill C-2 before us. It is a continuation of supporting Canadians. Will the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives ensure that the ongoing support for Canadian workers, businesses and Canadians in general, will be there by supporting Bill C-2 and ensuring it passes before Christmas?

Madam Speaker, the member referenced the fact that the government needs to have some sort of retrofit housing program, one that has energy efficiency, and he was disappointed we did not have that. Let me alleviate his disappointment. We have a program. There are 700,000 applicants expected for grants. It is all about making homes more energy efficient. It is good for the economy; it is good for the environment and it is good for our housing stock. It is helping many people who would not have the finances to buy a home. I wonder if the member would at the very least acknowledge that his dream of having something of this nature is actually a reality, that it is a good thing and that he will support it, much like he should be supporting Bill C-2, but that is another issue.

Madam Speaker, virtually all of us know that systemic racism is very real. If we take a look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, we see 94 calls to action. One of those calls is to take a look at the minimum sentences. It is believed and ultimately proven to be effective in dealing with things such as systemic barriers to have legislation of this nature. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts, as this is an important step towards truth and reconciliation and the calls to action.

Madam Speaker, before I provide my comments on Bill C-5, I want to take a moment to congratulate the Bombers on their performance yesterday in the Grey Cup. I, along with hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, take in the annual festivities of the Grey Cup, which is a great Canadian tradition, and we are very proud in Winnipeg of how the Bombers performed. The coaching staff, players and administration all did an outstanding job, winning the Grey Cup for the second consecutive year, although there was a one-year pause in the CFL. I am very proud of the team, and I know I speak on behalf of all residents of Manitoba and Bomber fans in all regions of our country. Having said that, I am often reminded there is a great divide between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to justice-related issues. I approach it with a bit of a different bias, having had an opportunity in different capacities to get a sense of young people's interactions with the law. I was the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years in my local community and was also a justice critic. I had the good fortune of being an MLA for a number of years and had the opportunity to be a justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I look at Bill C-5 as positive legislation that would make a difference. Back when I was the chair of the justice committee a gentleman by the name of Gary Kowalski, who was a colleague of mine and represented The Maples, opened my eyes to what justice committees were all about. There are youth in all our communities who at times do things maybe they should not. They will fall on the other side of the law. In many of these cases, especially in the early nineties, often 16-year-olds or 14-year-olds would go to local stores, pick up something and decide not to pay for it. They were often first-time offenders. As opposed to having local police enforcement, in particular the Winnipeg police department, lay charges against those youths, they were provided the alternative of going before a youth justice committee. If the youths agreed to participate and fulfill the disposition of whatever the youth justice committee came up with, they would not be registered as having committed that criminal offence. I was amazed when I found out about the group and wanted to know how we could get more people engaged and what sort of level of interest there would be. When I advertised it in the community of Inkster, which was the provincial area I represented at the time, no shortage of people were interested in being these quasi-judicial probation officers, because that is in fact what we were. We were honorary quasi-judicial probation officers. At the first meeting, we probably had 40-plus residents. The average justice committee was under 20 people, so we had to decide who would be the most interested in moving forward. Some of the personalities on the committee were fairly hard: There were harsh individuals there. When we started to see young people come before the committee, even the harshest of them all had a much better appreciation and understanding. We would see youths who stole something from a store, and as a direct result they would have to do X, Y and Z and go through the courts. One can talk about individual youths. One could also talk about the costs to society, such as court costs and so forth. I would argue that the cases we were receiving, at least in the first number of years, were best dealt with by our justice committee. The committee was dealing with youth who were committing offences in the community. I believe that really had an impact. I remember a librarian at one of our local schools who got to know some of the youth. The dispositions that were typically given were for community service. Whenever we met with a 14-year-old or someone under the age of 18, and that was all of the time, we also had a parent come forward. It was amazing when we saw that 14-year-old without peer pressure, without his or her friends around, sitting in a chair with a guardian who was usually a mom or a dad. That young person would kind of shrink into the chair, head down, often breaking into tears. We got that sense of remorse. There was an appreciation of the terms of the crime committed and the circumstances around it. We all knew what impact peer pressure can have on a young mind when going into a store with a friend. It does not make it right, but hopefully we could be a little more sympathetic as a community. I would argue that because we took that community approach, we said to our young people coming before us that we genuinely cared for them, and that they had fallen on the wrong side but we wanted to help them get on the right side. I know first-hand that some of the youth who went through our program ultimately ended up working in jobs and made reference to the positive impact of the dispositions given to them. There is an alternative. When the Minister of Justice was talking, he said that the bill was all about low-risk offenders. However, listening to some of the rhetoric coming from the Conservative benches one would think that a cold-blooded murderer was going to be let go. The Conservatives seem to have this tough-on-crime mentality, whether it is better or healthier for our communities or not. I saw that in opposition and I am seeing it again today. The Conservative Party needs to better understand that people who become incarcerated, generally speaking, are going to be released someday. It is important that our justice system is there to protect the public. The issues of public safety and rehabilitation need to be factored in. The closer we get to doing everything right, the safer our communities will be. For political purposes, for the three-inch headlines, Conservatives have a mentality that gives the impression that as a caucus they are tough on crime, that there is a consequence for crime, and that criminals are going to go to jail for a long time. That is the impression the Conservatives want to give. What is worse, they then try to give false impressions. Their first speaker, the critic, talked about how the Liberals were saying that if people committed certain crimes they would not have to go to jail: there would be no problem with it. The legislation would pass and people would not have to go to jail. One of the fundamental differences between Liberals and the Conservative Party is that we have more faith in our judicial system and the independence of our judges. When judges have been appointed at the federal and provincial levels, especially in the last six years, we have been very diligent in ensuring that judicial appointments were done in a way that Canadians could be very proud of. We are saying that when a judge is appointed, that judge is in a far better position than any one of us to give a disposition in the best interests of the communities we represent and of the individual who committed a crime. That is what this legislation is really about, from my perspective. Judges are well equipped to deal with low-risk offenders and the circumstances surrounding the offences, but if we listen to the Conservative rhetoric on the other side, one gets the impression that Liberals want these people to be set free: that we want to let them go. We are saying we have confidence in our judges. We are saying that we need to recognize that systemic racism is real, it is there and we need to do something. The Conservative Party talks about truth and reconciliation and how important it is to the party. As a government over the last number of years, we have passed laws whether on language, children, the statutory holiday or more, all dealing with the calls to action. I keep my little book with me in the chamber that talks about the importance of truth and reconciliation. In fact, it has the 94 calls to action in it. The member from the Green Party referred to call to action 32. I will read it. It states: We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences. The government has enacted a number of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We are acting upon somewhere around 75% to 80% of the ones we are responsible for or have shared responsibility for. It is in progress. It is not like we can click our heels and they are all done. We recognize that. That is the reason we feel it is important to get this bill passed. Many government members would love to see the bill passed sooner as opposed to later, and we understand the Conservatives will have some concerns with regard to the legislation. I would challenge members of the Conservative Party in particular, as an opposition party, to talk to me about truth and reconciliation and call to action 32, and to tell us how and why they believe this legislation goes against it. I suggest the bill supports call to action 32. That is one of the reasons it is getting the support it is receiving, at least from the government and members of the Liberal caucus. When we talk about truth and reconciliation and establishing that relationship, which I know is so important to the Prime Minister of Canada, this is the type of legislation that will make a difference. If members were listening to the Minister of Justice, he gave us some percentages, and so did the parliamentary secretary. I made a quick note. The parliamentary secretary said that the Black community makes up 3% of Canada's population, yet when we look at federal institutions, it makes up 7%. When we look at indigenous communities across Canada, which make up around 5% of the overall population of our country, they make up close to 30% of federal inmates. That is 30%, based on 5% of the population. How can we not look at this call for action and react to it? Some of my colleagues across the way said that some of these minimum sentences were put in during other administrations, the odd one even referencing Liberal administrations. It is important to recognize that we have been in government for just over six years. How time goes by.

Madam Speaker, I am inclined to say that it is hopefully for a lot longer yet. Let us take a look at some of the things we have been able to accomplish. On the special relationship with indigenous people, that is something I am very proud of. I know we can do a lot better. Driving around the north end of Winnipeg, the area I represent, people can see a lot of signs saying that every child matters. We see that. I saw that particularly when I was going door to door during the last election, but it does not even have to be during the election; we still see it. Inside this chamber, I have made reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and the hundreds who have gone missing. It is well over 1,000. There are women and girls who are still going missing today. I made reference to a red dress on Jarvis. Whenever I go downtown and take Jarvis, there is that reminder, and there are also the ribbons that are tied to the bridge. Our communities are aware that we need to take action. That is what this bill does. It provides hope for people who want to see the government deal with issues like systemic racism, move forward with reconciliation and call for action number 32, and make our communities safe, especially when it is the low-risk offenders we are talking about. Contrary to the impression the official opposition is trying to give, our judges would be empowered if we passed this legislation. If members believe in our judicial system, our judicial independence and the importance of keeping it independent, then let us understand that legislation of this nature is a win-win-win for all the stakeholders out there. If we cut back on the rhetoric, look at the facts and take a better appreciation of what has been taking place over the last number of years, members will find that this legislation would make a difference. I would ask my colleagues to rethink the judicial sentencing options that are there for our judges and our communities. I am all about making our communities safer, and if I did not believe this legislation would make them safer, I would not be standing here in support of it.

Madam Speaker, I believe that if a person commits a crime, there needs to be a consequence for that crime. However, the difference between the member and myself is that I have more faith in the judicial system than he does, and in having a judge with the discretionary authority to ensure that both the safety of the community and the individual who has committed the crime are taken into consideration. I have more faith in that judge than I do in mandatory minimum sentences for the simple reason that, quite often, it can also be used as a shortcut and prevent other sorts of potential plea bargaining. There are many reasons, but I did not have enough time to provide the type of detail I would have liked to on the many reasons it makes sense.

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to recognize when we think of judicial matters that Ottawa is working, in particular, with provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous leaders so that we can actually prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, and that means by investing. However, I do not think we should look at it in terms of saving money here and investing over there. Wherever we can come up with the investments that are necessary in order to prevent crimes from happening, we should encourage that investment, but it also means that we need to get all levels of government working together. If we are successful at doing that, I believe at the end of the day that we will have safer communities.

Madam Speaker, one of the positive things within the legislation is that, if passed, it would give our police forces yet another tool in their tool belt to deal with this issue. It might not necessarily cater to all the needs the NDP would like to see, but at this point I would encourage the member to at least sit down with the appropriate minister. The issues she has raised could also be dealt with through Public Safety and the Department of Health. There may be a more holistic approach with respect to what she is suggesting, but we are providing additional tools for our law enforcement officers, which is a strong and positive thing within this legislation.

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. One thing I have learned relatively quickly in the House is that the Conservatives grossly exaggerate on the rhetoric file at times, so if we want accurate information we should not necessarily buy into what they say or the propaganda emails they send out. This is good, solid legislation. Canadians should feel comfortable knowing that we want our communities to be safe and we recognize the importance of positive judicial reform and legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the bill and I listened to the opposition speak to the legislation, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on what side of the House one is on. I also listened to the minister who introduced the bill. I would hope the member who posed the question listened to what the minister had to say, because no doubt it would have alleviated a lot of the concerns being brought forward by the Conservative Party. Sometimes I find the Conservatives have scripted talking points and it does not really matter what the minister has to say, because the facts go out the window and they stick to the script.

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to get a really good understanding of what the legislation is proposing, he can familiarize himself with it, as I have done. He can also listen to what the Minister of Justice has said on the legislation, as I have done. He can even listen to the Conservative critic on the legislation, who no doubt has had some role in the creation of the speaking notes provided to the Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the throne speech, and to a lesser degree to the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, because if we read the amendment from the Conservative Party its members have really missed the boat. I want to start by responding to some of the questions from the opposition party. If we listen to what the government has said over the last number of months and within the throne speech, and the issues the Conservatives have raised, the government is in fact beyond concerned and is taking action. For example, the Conservative member made reference to child care. For the very first time in Canada, the government is moving forward to create tens of thousands of spaces in every region of our country. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister and a government that have recognized the importance of affordable child care. We are now entering into agreements with the provinces and territories to ensure $10-a-day child care. That is going to have a profoundly positive impact on our communities, both urban and rural, whether direct or indirect. All we need to do is look at what happened in the Province of Quebec when it instituted $10-a-day child care. Taking a good idea from one region of the country, and expanding it and implementing it nationally, is going to create opportunities for thousands of people who would have had to defer getting a job in the future or deal with the rising costs of child care. More people will be engaged in employment as a direct result, and children will have quality care. That is the bottom line. That is the answer to the Conservative question. Then we have our friends in the Bloc, who talked about seniors. I would challenge the members opposite to reflect on this. We came into government in 2015. Prior to that, what did the Conservative Party do for seniors while it was in government? Let us look at what we have done. From day one, we dramatically increased the guaranteed income supplement that lifted tens of thousands of seniors across Canada out of poverty, hundreds of whom are in Winnipeg North. We were there for them leading up to the pandemic, and when the pandemic hit we gave direct payments to not only our poorest seniors but to all seniors. We also made the commitment to increase old age security for seniors age 75 or older. Those benefits are direct cash in their pockets. I would also mention the indirect things we have done for seniors, such as the new horizons program and increased program funds to support seniors, as well as supporting non-profit organizations throughout the pandemic that were there for seniors all across our land. The opposition trying to give the impression that this government does not care about seniors, or is not doing enough for seniors, is misleading at best. At the end of the day, I do not have any problems comparing what we have done for our seniors. That is not to say that we are done. We have a minister responsible for seniors who is very much in the community consulting with seniors and stakeholders to figure out what else we can do to continue to support seniors going forward. The NDP ask about workers and the whole idea of transition and support programs. I would remind my NDP colleagues of the degree to which this government has stepped up to the plate. When the worldwide pandemic hit Canada, we had a government and a Prime Minister that were there every day, seven days a week and 24 hours a day, to ensure that we were developing the programs that were going to be there to support Canadians and businesses. We can talk about the CERB program that supported millions of Canadians in all regions of our country, or the wage subsidy program that supported tens of thousands of businesses, thereby also saving tens of thousands of jobs, or the rent subsidy program. These programs really mattered. They put disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. They provided a lifeline to businesses, whether in the arts, the private sector or the non-profit sector. The government was there in a very real way. As a government, we recognize that the impact has not ended. COVID-19 is still there today, and we recognize that. The battle is not over. That is why we continue to promote and encourage the idea of getting fully vaccinated. Over 86% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. We all have a role to play in the promotion of that. A week or so ago, the new premier of the province of Manitoba, Heather Stefanson, made it very clear in her caucus that if members were going to continue to sit in the house they had to be fully vaccinated. Former leader Brian Mulroney gave his opinion on the issue. If people want to be part of the Conservative caucus, they had better be fully vaccinated. For Canada to be able to continue to do well, especially in comparison to other countries, we need to recognize the millions of Canadians who stepped up and recognized how important it was to become fully vaccinated. It is making a very real difference today. More jobs have been put back in place today than we had pre-pandemic. We are doing exceptionally well on the job front. There are many jobs out there. We continue to work at expanding the economy the best that we can. We continue to work with provinces to ensure a sense of co-operation in identifying industries and jobs and using retraining programs. Literally hundreds of millions have been invested by this government to ensure that we can train people for the jobs that are going to be there for Canadians. We have a very proactive Minister of Immigration working with provinces to get ahead of industries where we can. We have to put it in the perspective of keeping Canadians safe, and we do that by having people who travel to Canada either be fully vaccinated or quarantined. These initiatives and policy decisions are based on the fact that we have to continue to be diligent. COVID-19 has not disappeared yet. The throne speech highlights the fact that the battle is not over yet. We should not let our guard down. That is why we passed Bill C-3. I was really encouraged to see all members of the House supporting Bill C-3 going to committee. That is what Canadians want. They want us to be working together. The mandate that was given was very clear: The Liberal plan was the best plan, and there is an obligation for all of us to work together. That is why there is a minority situation. I see that my time has expired, but hopefully I will get a question or two.

Madam Speaker, I would love to fully answer that question, but it would take me a good 20 minutes to do. The government under Paul Martin had a child care agreement, and a coalition of the Bloc and the NDP defeated that minority government and stopped that in its tracks. However, this Prime Minister, this government and the Liberal members of this caucus pushed and ultimately made it an election platform, and now we have materialized on that commitment. Today, we have a majority of provinces on board and signed up, and we are moving forward on a national child care program. Canadians also care about mental health and the importance of the national government having a leadership role in the area of health care. We are also prepared to deal with that leadership role.

Madam Speaker, the member reinforces the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada just does not get it. A vast majority of Canadians understand and want affordable child care, and that is what Canadians are getting because, as a government, we recognize the direct and indirect value for every rural and urban region. Canada will benefit because of this national child care program. We will have affordable child care and we will have more people in our workforce. The benefits far outweigh any sorts of negatives that the Conservatives continue to espouse. I wish they would get onside and support it. Fortunately for Canadians, we do not need the Conservative Party's support on the child care plan because most progressive politicians recognize the—

Madam Speaker, I would disagree. I was here last spring and June, virtually or in person, and that election was absolutely necessary. Canadians ultimately renewed this government's mandate. In fact, we picked up a couple of seats and, I believe, the New Democrats picked up one seat. At the end of the day, there is a new mandate. We are prepared to work with Canadians and others at fulfilling that mandate.

Madam Speaker, the Canada greener homes grant is all about our communities, our environment, our jobs and helping people make their homes more energy efficient. The Government of Canada will be issuing up to $700,000 worth of grants, up to $5,000 each, to encourage and help homeowners make their homes more energy efficient. Whether it is replacing windows, adding insulation and so much more, people can apply for these grants knowing that they too can play a role in fighting climate change, while at the same time creating jobs, improving our communities and making a difference. I would like to encourage the residents of Winnipeg North and others to apply for this grant. Collectively we can improve Canada's housing stock by making it more energy efficient, which means cheaper utility bills and fighting climate change at the same time.

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised, but I am a little disappointed. The Conservative opposition should have learned something over the last number of months, just by making some very basic observations, such as that COVID-19 is still an issue. There is still a need for the Canadian government to provide supports. Why does the Conservative Party continue to look at ways to frustrate and cause a slowdown in the passing of legislation that would enable businesses and Canadians to continue to receive the support they need?

Madam Speaker, first, I am not an economist, but I do have a basic understanding on how an economy works. I have always found it somewhat interesting when my colleague from Carleton goes into a diatribe about all the theories out there. He does tend to have that heavy right slant. When I go back to my days at university, I think of the economy when theorists would have the whole dog-eat-dog world type of thing. I guess I am closer to the Keynesian type of theorist in recognizing that there is time for a government to come forward and take tangible actions to support our communities. The member made reference to the fact that I should take notes. I did take a couple of notes as the member was speaking, because I wanted to make reference to a few of the thoughts he was espousing. He talks about the money. I will elaborate on that point, maybe not from an ivory tower perspective, but rather from the perspective of how I believe my constituents would like to hear it, and that is as plain as possible, my basic understanding of it. He talked about where the money came from. I hear those types of things from members opposite, and no one uses them more than the member for Carleton. It is important for the people, who might be following this debate, to understand that the member is the finance critic for the Conservative Party, meaning the Conservative Party takes its lead from its leader sometimes on finance issues and at other times from the member for Carleton. I do not say that to scare people. I say it because people should recognize why the member for Carleton says things. There was a time when the Conservative Party did not exist. There used to be a Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party. The member for Carleton would fit in quite well with the Reformers. It is interesting to see the contrast when the leader is trying to say the Conservatives are moderates or somewhat moderates. After all, that is why the Conservatives flip-flopped on the carbon tax issue, and that upset a lot of the old Reform members. That is why members of the Conservative Party, members of the caucus in particular, have a certain appreciation and respect for the member for Carleton, because his job is to keep that party to the right. He does a pretty darned good job of doing keeping them on the extreme right. Some of them applaud and I do not blame them for that, if that is their basic principle. The member for Carleton talks about government expenditures and how wasteful they are. I would argue that government expenditure is a good thing. That how we support real people and businesses. That is why governments brought in programs during a very difficult time, not just in Canada but around the world. It was a global pandemic. This government recognized that we did not need to take the approach to economics that the member for Carleton would take. We needed to think about government spending that would support Canadians, small businesses, to have the backs of Canadians. That has been a first priority of the Prime Minister, the cabinet and Liberal members of Parliament from day one. That was one of the reasons we went into an election, and were given a renewed, stronger mandate. The plan that we provided to the House of Commons is, in fact, supported by a vast majority of Canadians. Only a good portion of the Reform element of the Conservative Party calls into serious question why the government has made these expenditures. We should think of the consequences had we not provided the support, had we not listened to what Canadians wanted, had we not done the consultation that was so critical or had we not worked with the different levels of government, the non-profit organizations and many stakeholders, including health care workers and so many others. What would have been the alternative? What would have happened if we had focused our attention on the Conservative Party's ideas, in particular the finance critic's ideas? We would not have had programs like the CERB, which provided millions of Canadians financial support during the pandemic, financial support that put dollars in their pockets so they could pay their bills, whether it was their mortgage, rent, utility bills or to put the food on their tables. The Conservatives, led by the member for Carleton, repeatedly talk about the deficit, that right-wing element of the Conservative Party. Yes, the CERB program did cost a considerable amount of money, but had we not invested in that program, imagine the suicides, the family breakups, the costs resulting from mental health and the impact it would have had on our economy. Those are the reasons the Prime Minister acted quickly in making the statement that we would have the backs of Canadians and we would be there for them. Let us think of the business supports we provided over the last 18 months. In particular, let us focus on our arts community and small businesses. The wage subsidy program allowed employers the opportunity to keep employees working. It ensured that many thousands of jobs would still be there when we recovered. We have been proven to be correct with that program. We can think of the rent subsidy program. How many small businesses would not be here today had the government not provided support in the form of rent subsidy. The bills continue to come in, the suppliers still want to be paid and landlords still want to be paid. That program provided tangible support for workers and sick pay. These things made a difference and helped Canadians. When we went to the polls back in September, Canadians agreed with the Liberal plan. That is why we are on the government benches. They agreed with the progressive policies that we had put in place. That is why a majority of Canadians supported parties that understood how important it was for government to continue to play a role in supporting people, whether they were seniors, people with disabilities, other vulnerable Canadians, Canadians who were losing jobs or Canadians trying to keep their businesses afloat. These are the types of things that really matter, and progressive parties in the House did well as a result. What is Bill C-2? It is an extension of the programs I just finished talking about in one form or another. Around this time last year, I would have been standing in this place, saying that the Conservative Party was playing a destructive role in the chamber. I am not surprised that the member for Carleton and the Conservative Party has decided to bring forward this motion, which proposes to divide the Bill C-2. The bill went to committee on December 2. However, by literally dividing the bill into two bills, this is another way the Conservatives feel they can slow down legislation, possibly preventing it from being passed. What is next if this motion passes? Are they going to suggest that we need to strike up more committees to meet on these issues? Is this yet another indication from the official opposition that it wants to frustrate the legislation? Do the Conservatives not realize the cost of this legislation not passing? Back on October 21, the Prime Minister indicated that the government had targeted business support programs, that it wanted the Canada recovery hiring program; create the tourism and hospitality recovery program and hardest-hit business recovery program; and establish the Canada worker lockdown benefit. The Prime Minister wanted to see the House of Commons act on this quickly. That is why it was no coincidence that when we were back in the House, literally, Bill C-2 was the very first piece of legislation. A good way for the government to express its priority is by the first piece legislation it presents. When we first were elected in 2015, the first legislation created the framework for the tax break for Canada's middle class. It was also the legislation that established the need for an additional tax on the wealthiest 1% in our society. Interestingly enough, the Conservatives voted against that legislation. At the time, that was our priority; it was our piece of legislation. We can look at what is happening around our country today. If we go back to the press conference the Prime Minister held on October 21, what will we find? If members do want to believe me, they should consult their constituents. Every region of the country is concerned about COVID-19. Everyone in the country wants to see a higher sense of co-operation taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. How is dividing such a critical piece of legislation, which, in essence, encapsulates in good part what is on the minds of Canadians, going to help in getting it passed through the House? The bill went to committee back on December 2, and the committee already has had six meetings, and I think today is its seventh meeting. What is the real purpose of this Conservative Party motion today? We were supposed to be debating the throne speech, which deals with another aspect. It is the plan on how we continue to move forward. The content of the throne speech, which we are not debating now because of this silly motion, highlighted the fact that we are still dealing with COVID-19 and that we still need to do what we can to minimize its negative impacts. Canadians realize it and have stepped up to the plate. I believe 86% of Canadians over the age of 12 are now fully vaccinated. We recognize the strong leadership role that each of us has to play, but let us also recognize the important role that our communities have played. An 86% fully vaccinated community is a healthy community. We can still do better. We can still get more people fully vaccinated, but until we have achieved that optimum level we need to continue to be there in very real ways. Some of our communities could be significantly hit into the future because of coronavirus mutations. That is one of the reasons why there is an important lockdown measure. We want Canadians to know that in the House of Commons, at least among the New Democrats, Bloc, Greens and Liberals, people understand that we need to have progressive measures in place to support real people and ensure that our communities are healthy into the future. By investing and by supporting communities, we will all benefit collectively in the long run. Had the government of the day followed the Conservative Party, in particular the Conservative finance critic who is worshipped by many within the Conservative caucus, the programs that we have today would be in question. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would not have had the types of progressive programs that we have today. As a result of those programs, we are in a far better position to recover, and we see that in the numbers. We actually have more people back and employed than we had pre-pandemic: far more on a per capita basis than the United States and other countries. The reason for this is because the government supported Canadians and businesses. Businesses were able to survive and people were able to overcome the biggest issue of the pandemic, specifically vaccination. Canada has led the world because there has been a team Canada, except for the Conservative Party, here on the Hill that has consistently talked about the importance of being fully vaccinated. As much as possible we have provided programs that would make a difference and would provide the disposable income that would save jobs and save businesses. I would ask the Conservative Party to rethink its motion, and maybe put the member for Carleton's economic theories on hold for a while. Let us see if we can pass this legislation as it is out of committee.

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate some very basic things within economics, such as money supply. However, what we need to recognize is that if the government had not borrowed much of the money that was borrowed, we would have had Canadians borrowing more money to pay bills and buy groceries. There would have been far more bankruptcies. The people who would have benefited the most would have likely been institutions such as banks. What impact would that have had on things such as interest rates? I studied the economy, but I am not an economist. Having been a parliamentarian for 30 years and having listened to many budgets, I have a basic understanding of how an economy works. The government needed to get involved and we did that. Over my 30 years, I have seen even Progressive Conservative governments recognize that there are times when there is a need for the government to get involved.

Madam Speaker, I wish I could get another 20 minutes to properly answer that question. This is a tactical procedure that I believe the Conservative Party is using to stir the pot, cause some frustration and maybe try to embarrass the government. They are not only doing this to the government, but also to other opposition parties, I would suggest. If we recognize that the vast majority of Canadians support these progressive measures, we will see the value inside this legislation. I am not trying to say the government is perfect. There are all sorts of ways opposition members can critique the government. I do not want to take anything away from that. The measure that we are seeing with this particular motion is more to try to stir the pot and cause frustration. Hopefully, members on all sides of the House will see the game that is being played here. We got a mandate as a minority. Let us see if we can work together on some of these projects. It does not mean that they cannot criticize government.

Madam Speaker, as opposed to attempting to answer something I do not necessarily know offhand, I would like to point out that the member for Elmwood—Transcona is doing the responsible thing as a member of the opposition: He is recognizing the value of the legislation even though he is calling into question a number of its aspects. I respect that. I understand the New Democrats have concerns with respect to the legislation. I suspect if we were to go to the committee meetings, we would hear a number of concerns. I would probably disagree with a number of them, but they will no doubt raise them and continue to raise them inside the House. I respect that. What I disagree with is using a tactic of mere political and partisan gamesmanship. It is not in the best interests of legislation of this nature.