Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Chair, I know the minister and the Prime Minister have been very strong advocates for indigenous communities, and that building and establishing a more positive relationship has been a priority for this government since 2015. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report is very important, and we committed to all 94 of its recommendations. The minister made reference to the millions of dollars being spent to support things in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts on the importance of truth and reconciliation, or more importantly, her thoughts on the indigenous initiatives the government is taking.

Mr. Speaker, my friend the minister has been a very strong advocate for tourism since long before he was appointed Minister of Tourism. I In Winnipeg, we have this wonderful thing called Folklorama. It is a two-week extravaganza of Canada's diversity. We can visit the Philippines, the Punjab, India, Ukraine and all over the world during those two weeks. The cultural diversity is simply amazing. We can participate in things such as dance, food and phenomenal entertainment. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to meet with the Folk Arts Council. The Folk Arts Council said that the wage subsidy program enabled them to keep their doors open. This is not a new organization. It has been there for over 50 years. The point is that through programs, the government has been able to keep our arts and cultural communities, among others within our tourism industry, active and around to be able to survive the pandemic, in many ways. The NDP and Conservative coalition voted against Bill C-2. This was going to extend the benefits for many of those businesses, communities and arts and cultural organizations. I am wondering if the minister can express why he believes Bill C-2 is so important for businesses and Canadians as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Prime Minister, many ministers and our colleagues often talked about was building back better and what we have learned from the pandemic. One of those issues is the issue of mental health. This government has made great strides in recognizing the federal government does have a role to play in the mental health of Canadians. Could the minister responsible for health provide his thoughts on the importance of the issue of mental health today, especially when he reflects on what has taken place during the pandemic?

Madam Chair, previously I talked about the importance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the 94 calls to action. I remember when the minister was sitting right beside me, he was one of the first, if not the first, minister to speak Ojibway inside the House of Commons. I know the preservation of indigenous languages is important to him. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts with regard to indigenous languages and how important it is that the government supports them.

Madam Chair, we passed legislation to have a statutory holiday at the end of September, and I believe the Province of Manitoba is now looking at doing something of a similar nature, recognizing the same date. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts with regard to the important role Ottawa plays in providing leadership. Things like passing legislation to enact a statutory holiday are a positive step toward reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to our health care professionals. In fact, thousands of people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Winnipeg yesterday to witness the Western Semi-Final where the Bombers were very successful and prevailed in beating the Saskatchewan Roughriders. It is so encouraging to see my friend and colleague from across the way, the member for Regina—Lewvan, wearing a Bomber jersey, and if I could ask him a question I would. However, to my colleague across the way, would she not recognize that this wonderful game took place yesterday because, in good part, of the health care professionals and the fine work that they did, and the fact that Canada is doing so well on full vaccination? By the way, let us look forward to the Grey Cup next Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note the importance of the two issues with which we are dealing. The first is to recognize the important role our health care workers play. In addition, whether one is a patient or a health care worker, the underlying principle is that they should be able to go to a facility and feel safe and secure in doing so. All members of the House should be supporting that principle. Could the member provide her thoughts on why that is so important?

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about diversity. Do members know one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada today is the Filipino heritage community, at approximately one million strong and growing? Winnipeg, which I would suggest is the heart of the Filipino community, is after all where we got our very first Jollibee here in Canada. I have more good news when it comes to diversity and businesses. Winnipeg, not the first this time, as Edmonton beat us, now has Potato Corner, another successful franchise that comes from the Philippines. It speaks volumes that one of the things that gives Canada its greatest value is our diversity, so let us give a hand for Canada's diverse community and the Filipino heritage community.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to our health care workers. It goes without saying just how much we collectively appreciate how our health care workers have stepped up to the plate. Many years ago, I was the health care critic in the Province of Manitoba. We found that for many health care workers it was more than just the demand of getting more nurses into the profession. It was the way in which human resources often allocated staffing years and things of that nature at different institutions. I am wondering what the member thinks of the Standing Committee on Health looking at this as a possible study, going forward, on health care workers and how Canada can provide some national leadership on the whole health care resources file, with a special focus on nurses.

Madam Speaker, I will stay away from what the member might be trying to impute with his comments. Within the legislation, we have the 10 days of paid sick leave, and no doubt there are a number of questions regarding that. We are hopeful it will go to committee, where those questions will be posed and responded to. It is important that we recognize that Ottawa plays a strong national leadership role on this. In British Columbia, I understand the provincial NDP government is now proposing five days of paid leave. Does the member not recognize or see the value in Ottawa implementing legislation such as this, and the positive role and impact it could have on other jurisdictions?

Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to the bill. I agree with many of the words the member has said about health care workers, the whole idea of the protests, how our health care workers stepped up to the plate and the revolting treatment that some people feel they are entitled to give them. My question is with respect to the other aspect of the bill and that is with the paid sick days. The NDP have implied that they have some concerns in regard to it. Can the member give any indication, from his perspective, if there are some specific amendments that they already have in mind? What are the concerns that the member would have with regard to that aspect of the bill, assuming that the member does support the bill in principle?

Madam Speaker, as elected officials, whether members of Parliament, MLAs or local councillors, we have a significant role to play on this issue. We need to call it out for what it is. We have to be there for the constituents the member referenced, and they have to know that we are there for them. We have to let health care workers know that they have the unanimous support of parliamentarians no matter where they live or what political party they belong to.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that opposition members are coming forward and speaking positively of the legislation, indicating that they would be supporting it. I appreciate the value in that. This is something that was raised during the last federal election. The Prime Minister made a commitment to it, as the member referenced. Given the very nature of what we have witnessed over the last number of months, the legislation not only sends a positive message but really has some teeth and will make a difference, particularly by highlighting just how important our health care workers have been throughout this process. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why he believes it would be of value to see the legislation pass before the House rises?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can pick up on the point that when the national government brings forward good initiatives and ideas, it often has a positive impact in the different provincial and territorial jurisdictions. When we talk about the 10 days of paid sick leave, let there be no doubt that the bigger pool of workers is not under federal jurisdiction, so by taking up an initiative such as this, Ottawa is setting the stage for the provinces to start to follow suit. I would like to get his thoughts on that issue.

Madam Speaker, I will just continue with one of the most recent questions, as I thought it was of interest. The member just made reference to five days and 10 days. The idea of paid sick leave for workers is something that is important to all of us, and we recognize that. In fact, the member might make reference to the number of asks by the leader of the New Democrats, but he should remember that in 2019, the government actually instituted the three-day paid sick leave for workers. As it was pointed out, B.C. has seen to bring it up to five days. One of the things the Prime Minister has consistently talked about over the last number of months, and probably from the beginning, is that we can try to learn things through the pandemic. That is why we are seeing before us the legislation that we have today. I will get into that in more detail shortly. I wanted to start off by underlining what I think is a very important point. Everyone, whether they are a health care provider or a health care client, should feel safe when going into a health care facility. That is one of the two motivators for all of us to get behind this legislation and pass it through. I am quite encouraged. To say it up front, in the last few days we have seen a great deal of optimism on the floor of the House of Commons. The other day, we passed the conversion therapy bill unanimously through second reading, committee stage and third reading. That could not have been done without the support of every member inside the House of Commons. Yesterday, Bill C-2 got to the committee stage. Members recognized that it was important, because it continues to provide the supports Canadians need. This includes for small businesses, individuals and the communities we all serve. It was great to see the debate collapse and Bill C-2 go through. This morning we have another wonderful debate taking place. From what I have heard thus far, we have had Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats talk positively about the legislation, believing this is the type of legislation that it would appear everyone can get behind. I can appreciate there are members who have some ideas in terms of amendments, and we will wait and see what kinds of amendments surface. I suspect there might even be some amendments today. Members are waiting for the bill to get to committee, where they will propose the amendments. Having been a parliamentarian for a number of years, I have always thought that one of the best ways to get amendments dealt with is to share them as much in advance as one can, or do that consultation with parties on all sides of the House, making sure the department is aware of it. This is, as are the other two initiatives, a very important piece of legislation. I reflect on the last election, and having gone through a number of elections as a candidate, I can tell members that it is not that often that we get real anger at the door. On the issue of vaccinations, what surprised me was the degree to which so many people were very upset. We could see the divisions even within a household. I can recall at least two or three occasions when I was talking to a person at the door and the individual would be getting visibly upset. Someone else from the household would come and ultimately save the day, if I can put it that way, and lower the temperature. We have to try to get a better understanding of why that is taking place. During the election we really started to see the protests. When I was at the doors, I would often to say to people that, whether it is members of the Green Party, the Liberals, the Conservatives or the New Democrats, we are all saying that people need to get vaccinated. All political parties, with the exception of the People's Party, were encouraging that. People would ask about their individual freedoms, the Charter of Rights, and so forth. I suspect that, if the federal or provincial governments were denying people those basic human rights, opposition parties of at least one of the two levels would have stood on their feet to say we had gone too far. However, I am not familiar with any political party or individual member of Parliament sitting today who is saying that people should not be getting vaccinated. Yes, there are some concerns that some are not, but at the end of the day, to the best of my knowledge, I like to think that positive message is getting out. One has to ask why the anger is out there. We need to expand upon that. What brought us to the point we are at today where that aspect of this legislation is necessary? We can go back to March 2020, when very few people had an in-depth understanding of what the coronavirus was and its long-term impact, let alone its short-term impact. It was not that long ago when we were just told to wash our hands. Health care and science experts, at the beginning, were not saying that we had to wear masks. There was a learning curve, and it was very steep. As we proceeded through the pandemic, we learned a great deal. Today, as a result, we find that people will continue to wear masks. I envision it will continue even after a year. Someone was saying to me that, if they were to have a cold, they would be inclined to wear a mask, as a consideration. I believe that masks will continue to be worn well into the future for different circumstances. It is not just something that will be gone two years from now. I believe that people have a far greater understanding of why it is important to wash their hands. The 95% alcohol sanitizers are going to be selling well into the future because people will continue to use them. In the long term, this will actually save health care costs. I used to be a health care critic in Manitoba, as well as a critic for a number of other portfolios. I would take tours of facilities, and I do not recall seeing people using the type of PPE that we have today. I suspect some of the things we are seeing now will linger into the years ahead, as it should. We have learned many measures through this pandemic. If we look back to March of 2020, we were trying to get a better sense of the science. Health experts came together to make sure the advice they were giving to Canadians was right on the mark. That is why I consistently told people, virtually from day one, that I am not a health care expert, so the best thing they could do was follow what our health care experts were saying. What we provided, as a government and as members of the House of Commons, was a first-class, second-to-none website presence through Health Canada, which was constantly being updated to provide the necessary information, so people could have a sense of comfort in knowing that the professionals were out there and there is a science to this. By clicking in, or by phoning their member of Parliament, Canadians could get an understanding of what was taking place and be brought right up to date. Provincial and territorial entities across the country, in all regions, also did likewise. The problem was false news and people intentionally spreading misinformation. This is what fed into the whole anti-vax mentality. It somehow gave additional strength to anti-vaxxers. I was concerned when we started seeing rallies with people being bold enough not to wear masks in situations where there was a high concentration of people. People were coming together without masks to say that vaccinations were not the way to go. I would suggest that to think that did not have an impact would be wrong. That is why each and every one of us has a role to play. The outcome of that misinformation, which provided an empowerment of sorts to those anti-vaxxers, was that it enabled them to espouse garbage, which is the best word that comes to my mind. We started to see protests. Let us imagine, if we can, some of the most vulnerable in society, the sick in a hospital facility, or those wanting to visit them, as there were limitations, and there were people protesting, making it more difficult for them. Health care workers have really stepped up, working long hours and overtime, some of which was never ever claimed. Many health care workers got into that profession not because of the money, but because they truly care about the health and well-being of people. They want to contribute. Those health care workers, and I am using that in the broadest terms, as I am talking about the cooks in our hospitals and the workers who kept our hospitals and long-term care facilities open, as well as the registered nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses aides and lab technicians, saved thousands of lives. All those wonderful people ensured Canada's population was, as much as possible, being provided the services that were absolutely critical to getting through this crisis situation. They prevented thousands more from ever having to go into ICUs. They were there, providing advice so people could ensure they could minimize the chances of people getting the coronavirus in the first place, whether it was testing, bed care in an ICU or the care provided in a long-term care facility. These are the heroes who took us through the pandemic. I find it appalling that there are some in society who would actually protest people's entry into facilities, and the screaming and the yelling that was taking place. Whether they were protesting health care providers and workers, patients or visitors, they need to really reflect on that behaviour. We have to think about the roles we all play. During the election, there was no hesitation in my mind. When people would bring up the issue, I was right there, recognizing that people should not be protesting in the manner in which they were protesting. It was not right. Canadians recognized that, and this legislation deals with an important election promise. I see I only have two minutes to go, and I have not even talked about the 10 days' paid leave. I am going to hop right over to that and maybe address more on it during questions and comments. The federal government, a couple of years back, brought in three days of paid leave. In the last 18 months, the Prime Minister said to Canadians, and to Liberal members in Parliament on so many occasions, that we need to build back better, and this is a good example. Let us take a look at what Bill C-3 is doing. This is giving more social benefits to workers in Canada. This is something that is very strong and positive, and all of us should get behind it. People who are sick should not have to go to work. This extends what we previously did in 2019. It was nice to hear that B.C. is following suit. If Ottawa were to pass this legislation, I do believe it would send the positive message to our provinces and territories that we could have better labour laws. If the provinces and territories get onside and support this type of legislation, then all workers in Canada, not the minority but all workers, would be able to benefit.

Madam Speaker, due to the wonderful mood earlier in the chamber, I was not going to use this quote, but I would like to share it with the member based on his question and the heckling he gave earlier. On Wednesday, Premier Heather Stefanson, Manitoba's new Progressive Conservative premier stated: I've been very clear about where we're going with this, I have indicated that to cabinet and caucus,... It's up to them. The vaccination mandate will coincide with the day that everyone entering the Manitoba Legislature must be fully inoculated. To solve the problem with the ultimatum to all MLAs, they should either get vaccinated by December 15 or be removed from her caucus and cabinet. That is the type of leadership that I think is important for all elected people to take.

Madam Speaker, absolutely there will be opportunities for people to conduct peaceful protests. We do live in a democratic society and it is important. The member made reference to labour laws. Virtually from day one, this government has brought forward positive labour legislation. As a government, we support workers in Canada. I think that, not only from a legislative perspective but also from a budgetary perspective, ample examples can be found that show how the government supports labour in Canada.

Madam Speaker, given the general will and sense of co-operation in the House, I am very optimistic that the bill will pass and go to committee, where I am sure the critic for the NDP will no doubt be raising this issue in more detail. There will be a more detailed answer there. Suffice it to say that the government brought in paid sick days in 2019. The provincial NDP government in B.C. recently followed with five days, as opposed to the three days we suggested, which is fantastic. Now this government has made a commitment to bring it to 10 days. That is a good thing for workers, particularly in B.C. but also across Canada.

Madam Speaker, I suggest that my Conservative friends pay a bit more attention to the policies that the government puts forward and less attention on the personal attacks, as we have seen on the Prime Minister and other members. At the end of the day, no matter what the Conservative Party determines is its priorities, our priorities will continue to be Canadians from coast to coast to coast and delivering good, sound public policy that is going to make a real difference. I want to talk about some of the things from the last election, some of the commitments I made to being an advocate in the House of Commons, ensuring that the government continued to move forward on issues that really matter. I have talked about the Canada child care program in the past and the millions of dollars, close to $10 million or maybe even a bit more than that today, that go to support children in Winnipeg North every month, and how important it is that the government continue to support that program. From a historical perspective, no government in the history of Canada has supported children in the same way that this government has in the last six years. We have lifted thousands of children out of poverty, and that includes hundreds in Winnipeg North. The Conservatives will have their own agenda, but I and other Liberal members of Parliament will continue to advocate for the best interests of children. That is one of the reasons why we are very proud of the fact that we are moving forward on $10-a-day child care. Does the Conservative Party not realize that we all benefit by that program? It would enable more people to be engaged in the workforce. The more people who are engaged in the workforce, the better it is for our GDP. One only need look at the wonderful province of Quebec, and many of my Quebec colleagues talk about the child care program and the positive impact it has had in Quebec. I am sure Ontario will come onside at some point, but all of Canada will benefit from the $10-a-day child care program. That is caring and listening to our constituents. It is advocating for programs that are going to make a difference. Another program—

Madam Speaker, the problem is that I am very much limited on the time I can speak on all these wonderful initiatives, so I would appreciate it if the members on the other side would be more quiet. Another area in which this government has done exceptionally well is supporting our seniors. Again, from day one, we increased substantially the guaranteed income supplement. The GIS is there to support the poorest seniors in Canada. We gave substantial increases, approximately $900 annually, to the poorest seniors, again, lifting literally thousands of seniors out of poverty in all regions of our country. That happened even prepandemic. During the pandemic, we gave direct payments to seniors, with an additional payment for those on the lowest income. We made an election platform commitment to increase payments to those seniors age 75 and over because of the limitations in terms of abilities and additional costs that they had to incur. It was 10%, which was unheard of. These are the types of commitments this government has made to our seniors from day one and we still continue to make them today. Listening to our constituents and advocating for programs really make a difference. That is what Liberal members of Parliament are doing. I would encourage my Conservative friends to get on board with some of these programs as opposed to suggesting, as they did in the last election, that our proposed child care program was not a good thing, that they would take it away. Now we have the new horizons program. The government has enhanced the funding for this program and continues to promote it, because it is to the benefit of seniors throughout the country. I would suggest that all members of Parliament look at that program and promote it in their communities. The program has tangible results for seniors in all our constituencies. Much like our support programs for seniors, such as new horizons, we also have programs for young people. Let us look at the youth summer program. Over the last five or six years, we have more than doubled of the program. Thousands and thousands of youth are getting employment, often their first opportunity for employment, because of this program. It is making a real difference in all our communities. Much like the new horizons program, which as members of Parliament we all get to contribute to the success of that program in our constituencies, members need to look at this program and promote it among their constituents. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian in 1988, one of the primary issues was health care. Health care is not just provincial jurisdiction. I know this will upset the separatists from the Bloc, but Canadians love and cherish our health care system. During the pandemic, we learned a little more about areas that needed more attention. I am thinking about national long-term health care. We need to have better long-term care for our seniors. This government is committed to delivering that. Every Liberal member of Parliament understands it and advocates for that in his or her constituency, and nationwide. We understand the importance of medication. Since day one, we have invested literally hundreds of millions to keep prescribed medicine prices as low as possible for Canadians. In our throne speech in September 2019, we indicated that willing provinces should come and talk to us about the national pharmacare, because the only way we can have a national pharmacare program is if we have support from the provinces, and that is something we want to see. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister who understands the issue of mental health, and we have now incorporated that into national policy. That is something I believe all members of the House should get behind, because it is definitely something all Canadians want. They want government to play a stronger role on the issue of mental health, and we are seeing a commitment to that. I have to provide comment on reconciliation. This is something opposition members like to criticize. I can tell members that 80% of the 94 calls to action are being acted on in one way or another, with many of them having been passed. Whether it is regarding language, child care or a statutory holiday, this government takes the calls to action very seriously, and we are acting on them. I look forward to any questions that might come.

Madam Speaker, in terms of the manner in which I present myself, it is something I have developed in the last number of years of being an advocate, and the member can turn down the volume if she so chooses. At the end of the day I am very passionate about these issues, because I believe they are in the best interests of Canadians and the constituents I represent, and I believe a part of being an advocate is making sure I am being heard. I applaud the member for recognizing that the issues I have talked about are important. She is conceding that, and that is one of the reasons I would recommend that, as opposed to listening to nothing but the Conservative spin, she start looking at some of the things that are actually being done—

Madam Speaker, one of the greatest things we can do as a government, in terms of fighting inflation, is to create an environment that employs more people. The more people who are employed, the more contributions are going to be made to Canada's GDP, and that is one of the ways we can fight inflation. I would ask members to take into consideration that inflation, much like the pandemic, is not something that is unique to Canada. This is something that is taking place around the world, and because Canada took the initiatives it did, such as the wage subsidy program and the CERB program, supporting millions of Canadians and thousands of businesses, we are in a better position to ensure that Canada is in a great position to recover and get back. In fact, we have gotten back more jobs than we had prepandemic. That is the way we are going to be able to overcome, going forward.

Madam Speaker, I believe the possibility of national pharmacare is still there. We saw it in the previous throne speech, in which the federal government indicated it is looking for willing partners at the provincial level. The member knows well that the only way we can be successful at getting a first-class pharmacare system is by having the provinces onside. We will continue, I suspect, to look for willing provinces on that point.

Mr. Speaker, pre-election, I met with the Minister of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba. We talked about the floods, and both of us had the opportunity to visit a cattle farm. Post-election, the Minister of Agriculture was in Winnipeg again, and we were at Merit Foods, where we are expanding markets for a state-of-the-art company. The Minister of Agriculture continues work with the different provinces and other stakeholders to make sure we stay on top of that particular file. My question is more in regard to this member, and other members now, who have talked about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as they refer to it. I am having a hard time understanding and following where the Conservative Party is on this issue. It was not that long ago that they were actually quite honest and said they were against the carbon tax. Then, just prior to the last election, their newly minted leader said they supported a price on pollution or a carbon tax. I am hearing that the Conservatives now seem to be doing another flip-flop. Can they tell the House today what their position is on a carbon tax? Do they support it or do they not support it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is important that we recognize that you made a ruling. Your interpretation, after consulting with the Clerk, was that the member did in fact violate one of our Standing Orders, and it is fairly clear that what the member was reflecting on was the manner in which the Governor General delivered her speech. Thousands of Canadians would disagree with, and be offended by, the member's remarks. We ask her to withdraw those remarks without any qualifications whatsoever, to apologize and then continue on. That would be my recommendation: that she listen to what the Speaker ruled. She was out of order.

Mr. Speaker, depending on the Conservative member of Parliament who is standing, we often get a different approach on the CERB benefits. Sometimes Conservatives will be critical of the government because of the benefits. Then other Conservatives will talk about how important those CERB benefits were. What is the policy of the Conservative caucus with respect to Bill C-2, which continues to support workers and businesses in different situations? Does the member support the principle of Bill C-2? On that matter, would he also provide his thoughts on whether Revenue Canada should be collecting where mistakes are made?

Madam Speaker, where I could agree with the member is that there are a couple of issues, both health care and environment, which are very important issues to Canadians. Where I tend to disagree with the member is on the issue of a plan. Just because an opposition member says there is no plan, does not mean there is not a plan. Actually, it is quite the opposite. There is a detailed plan. All one needs to do is read it or listen to members from the Liberal caucus who are standing up and speaking. There is a plan and it is tangible. Even during the election, independent sources made it very clear that the Liberal Party had the best plan when it came to the environment. Would the member not agree that Canadians in all regions, including the province of Quebec, recognize that the national government needs to play a stronger role in long-term care facilities and mental health, both of which are very important issues for my constituents and, I would argue, for her constituents too? Does she not agree that the federal government does have a role to play, given that constituents of both our ridings want to see that?

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by echoing the statement the member just made. Let us shop local and encourage our constituents to recognize the difficult times that our businesses have had to endure over the last 18 months. One of the ways we can support them is to shop local. There is another thing we can do collectively here in the House. We understand now that Bill C-2 will be going to committee, and I am hopeful and optimistic that we will see it come out of committee and ultimately get the support that is necessary to see it pass, because it too would support small businesses. My question is more related to the issue of housing. We have seen over the years the amounts of money being invested in social housing, and they have been historic. There has been a housing strategy too, something that has never happened before in the history of Canada, at least for the last number of generations. I am wondering what specific initiative the member believes would make a difference, from his perspective, because there are a number of initiatives already in place that are having an impact.

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share something in common. Her father is an MLA and she is an MP. My daughter is an MLA in the Manitoba Legislature and I am an MP. As I am very proud of my daughter, I am sure the member's father is exceptionally proud of her. One of the things that we share in common, again, is that my daughter is a very powerful advocate for seniors, as I see the member opposite also wants to be. I have talked to my daughter about the need for different levels of government to work together. I am sure the member can appreciate the importance of different levels of government working together. Would the member not agree that on the issue of seniors it is important that we recognize what both levels of government could do? We can work together to make a positive difference and have a more positive impact for seniors no matter where they live in our great country.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to share some thoughts on a very important issue. It does not matter what side of the House one sits on; we all recognize that Canada leads the world in many different industries. One of those industries is our softwood lumber industry. We have, I believe, an incredible history of providing not only the United States but also other countries a first-class product. That is recognized. I give a great deal of thought, and express appreciation and thanks, to those who have been there over the years to protect and foster growth within that industry. It employs thousands of people. It contributes billions of dollars to our GDP. It is a major force in our economy. Whether it is its direct jobs or indirect jobs, it should matter to all of us. We as a government, and the Prime Minister himself, have expressed concern, whether it is to the President of the United States or to others. This is an industry that Canada, and in particular our government, will be there to protect. I believe an appropriate way to start my comments would be to read what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance stated the other day on this very important industry. The minister said: Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is a source of jobs and pride for Canadians across our country. We are extremely disappointed by the unfair and unwarranted decision of the United States to increase the duties it imposes on softwood lumber. This issue was raised, of course, by the Prime Minister at his meeting with President Biden. I have raised it with Secretary Yellen, as have all of our colleagues, and we have pointed out that these duties are adding to the inflation tax American consumers are paying. This is not a new issue. We can talk about what we would argue on this side of the House are unfair practices taking place in the United States at times, and they are targeted at one of Canada's most valuable industries. This is not the first time. We have seen it on several occasions in the past. As a government, it is important that we speak as one voice, that we do not capitulate and that we recognize our voice is stronger if we unite in saying what is happening is not right. In terms of free trade and the U.S., the relationship that Canada has with the U.S., the emphasis that we put on being a good neighbour and the economic ties between provinces and states, one needs to look at groups like our interparliamentary associations. We understand the dynamic. They have industry leaders within the United States, a significant, relatively wealthy group of people who are very effective at lobbying. Because that is the case, we once again have duties and the U.S. has taken action that not only hurts us here in Canada but hurts Americans too. The U.S., from what I understand, does not have the ability to meet the demands of its market when it comes to softwood production. Canada, over the decades, has supplemented that supply. As I indicated earlier, we have a first-grade product that is in high demand in the United States. However, the wealthy American mill owners and other stakeholders have been effectively lobbying to get these penalties put into place. As a government, we have approached the very top political level: the President. We will turn to the free trade agreement that we ratified not that long ago, which includes Mexico. We will take it to the World Trade Organization as a government. I know the minister is on top of this file and recognizes the importance of it. We will do whatever we can to protect that industry, which is well represented in a number of regions including British Columbia, which has been hit very hard recently with rains. The province of Quebec and my home province of Manitoba have important lumber industries also. Regarding jobs, indigenous communities often take the lead in providing the workforce. This industry supports so many communities in rural Canada. In many ways it is incredible. The government, the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible are very much aware of the issue. To individuals who are following the issue, in particular those who are working in the industry and the owners who are trying to ensure that we can maintain our market share, the Government of Canada has their backs. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and appeal to members on all sides of the House to add value to the debate we are having tonight. It should not necessarily be a finger-pointing exercise. It should be recognizing that this has gone on now for many years. It predates this government. That is why we have trade agreements. That is why we have the World Trade Organization. That is why we build the relationships that we have. There is no doubt in my mind that Canada will ultimately prevail, as we have prevailed in the past, because we are on the right side of this issue. We might not necessarily be able to prevent it from happening, although I sure wish that we could, but we can ensure at the end of the day that the industry not only survives but thrives into the future. We have seen growth in export markets, whether to China, Europe or others, because it is important. The minister will tell us that we look at ways in which we can expand our export markets. That is why we have progressive, aggressive trade going on with agreements. We have signed more trade agreements than any other government. We have, that is a fact. It speaks volumes in terms of how this government recognizes the value of our exports because we see that in the actions we take every day. In particular, workers can rest assured that we will be there to support them in the coming days, weeks or however long it takes to resolve this, and we will prevail on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a hard number, but I believe these are the types of discussions and dialogue that occur on an ongoing basis. Today, I would suggest that there is a larger interest in the subject matter because of actions that have taken place in the U.S., and there has been more engagement as a direct result. Let us not try to politicize the issue. This is an issue that was there in the past. It is not just one government that has had to deal with this. What is important is that whoever is in government at the time takes whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we are protecting the industry. As I said, I truly believe that the Government of Canada will resolve this positively. Unfortunately, it will take time.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, congratulations on your appointment as the assistant deputy speaker. I know that many of my colleagues enjoy seeing you in the chair. Time and time again I hear members of the Bloc talk about health care and the issue of jurisdiction. When we look at the throne speech and some of the actions of this government today and yesterday, we see there is a solid commitment to things such as long-term care, the cost of pharmaceuticals and mental health. They are important national issues, and there is a commitment from the federal government to work with other jurisdictions to ensure these very important issues are being dealt with. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is important for the national government to act on these important issues for her constituents and mine.

Madam Speaker, I will confess that the Government of Canada had to borrow money for a very good reason. With the worldwide pandemic, in order to support Canadians and businesses alike, there was a need to be there in a very real way. Had we not borrowed the money that the member opposite tries to portray as a bad thing, we would have seen far more bankruptcies. We would have seen many other societal issues, whether family breakups or suicides. The government made the decision to have the backs of Canadians. Is the member saying that we should not have provided those programs that were so critical to helping Canadians through the very difficult time of the pandemic?

Madam Speaker, I will be selective in my question. It is related to the motion we passed, because there was a good feeling inside the House of Commons when we recognized the importance of mental health and in particular suicide. The idea of having one line for Canada is something that is very well received in virtually all jurisdictions, but there is a considerable amount of background work that needs to take place, including working with some stakeholders, in particular the provinces, and other organizations that have these lines. I suspect that if we were to be a bit more patient, hopefully we would see that materialize. My question for the member is with respect to the commitment from the federal government to move more on providing resources and supports in mental health and what he might have to say about that and the need to build that consensus.

Madam Speaker, many believe that in order to achieve the type of pharmacare that Canadians want, we have to have the provinces on board with it. I am sure the member can appreciate why that is the case, given the jurisdiction and the importance of the issue. In the September 2020 throne speech, there was a commitment by the federal government to partner with willing provinces. The will is there to move forward. We saw the will to move forward with child care and the take-up. As a result, Canadians are benefiting. The national government provides the leadership and hopefully provinces will come onside to recognize that and work together. Could the member provide his thoughts on whether he believes it is important that we work with provincial jurisdictions to make some of these possibilities turn into realities?

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. Not only has the government been there to support the industry in times of need, but we have been there consistently since 2015. We have seen growth in exports beyond the United States over the last four or five years. We continue to look for other economic opportunities and other export opportunities, which is one of the reasons why we have had a very aggressive approach to getting trade agreements. We are not scared of standing up to the United States. I think what is important is that there is a process in place. That process will, as it has in the past, allow for Canada and our industry to not only survive but thrive. It does make it difficult, which is why the government needs to be there for the industry. We have been there, and we will continue to be.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to read too much into a coincidence. I believe the last time we had this issue before the House was in the late fall. There might be a timing issue. I am not as familiar with the issue in depth, in terms of why it has arisen over the past few weeks, but I do know that this issue periodically surfaces, unfortunately, and the driving force for it to surface is not necessarily a government. It is the lobbying that takes place among very wealthy lumber owners from the United States. That is my understanding of it, and we have a responsibility to use the tools we have as a government to protect our industry. That is exactly what we are going to do here in Canada. We will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. We need to be able to trade with the world. By expanding our export markets we are able to improve the lifestyles of all Canadians. Export markets create jobs for our middle class. They create and contribute to our GDP. As I say, the forest industry alone contributes billions of dollars to our GDP every year. When we can sign off on trade agreements that enable our producers and exporters to get more to markets around the world, we are better off as a nation. That is why we made it a priority. Today our emphasis has to be using the tools we have before us to protect an industry that is respected and worth the fight. This government is prepared to step up to the plate and ensure that we prevail and protect this industry.

Mr. Speaker, whether in the member's constituency or my constituency, depending on the industries that are there, we recognize the jobs of all Canadians in industries that continue to make our nation prosper. We continue to support them in the very best way that we can, and at times there is a need for us to come forward in a larger way by looking at what sorts of options we can use, such as I made reference to: trade agreements, and having discussions and more dialogue with local politicians. Remember, this policy coming from the States is also hurting American consumers. We know how important this issue is, and we will continue to have dialogue and push Canada's file and as we say, as governments from the past have done, we will prevail. It is just something that has taken place, and it is not just this government. That is why I say I do not think we do a just cause by trying to say it is all this government's fault, because that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I will make the suggestion that maybe prior to the defeat of Paul Martin and his government, there was a softening within the industry, which ultimately led to Harper getting his first agreement. Having said that, let us go back to 2015 when there was an election. If he was so great, why did Stephen Harper not have a new deal in place when the deal was just about to expire and there was a change in government? I do not quite understand that connection. Could the member expand on how many meetings Stephen Harper had in the months leading up to the 2015 election, when the agreement actually expired?

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the member's thoughts in regard to American consumers. I have heard the Canadian supply of softwood lumber, in terms of the American market, could be as high as 30%. Please do not quote me on that. I believe it is somewhere around that. That is a lot of softwood lumber. American consumers will have to pay more for their lumber. Would the member not agree that that would garner a great deal of attention through public awareness? It is an important point that does need to be emphasized that Americans also are disadvantaged by the recent actions of this trade bill.

Mr. Chair, I am interested in my colleague's thoughts on expanding export markets beyond the United States. We can talk about the diversification of the industry into secondary markets such as furniture or whatever else might be a wood product, but one of the biggest things the government can do is look at ways in which industry can increase the number of markets for the products we have, whether it is in Quebec, B.C. or my home province of Manitoba. Could the member provide his thoughts on whether there are countries the Bloc believes we should be pursuing to expand those markets? I would like to hear what he has to say on that issue.

Madam Chair, what is happening is not right and it is not fair. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is not the first time this has happened. It has happened on several occasions where the wealthy elite within the industry, stakeholders and lobbyists in the United States are successful. Canada has been successful in terms of getting the matter resolved and being there for our industry. Once again, unfortunately, the Canadian government does have to step in, get involved and break down the barriers to take it wherever it needs to be taken. I am hoping that the members on all sides of the House will concur that, at the end of the day, this House will unite and ensure that Canada prevails on this very important issue.